[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 9925]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03406]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0659]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Reduction of
Fuel Tank Flammability on Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on September 18, 2019. The FAA's Fuel Tank
Flammability Safety rule requires manufacturers to report to the FAA
every 6 months on the reliability of the fuel tank flammability
reduction systems of their fleet. The data is needed to assure system
performance meets that predicted at the time of certification.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael E. Dostert by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0710.
    Title: Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability on Transport Category
Airplanes.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on September 19, 2019 (84 FR 49174). There were no
comments. Design approval holders use flammability analysis
documentation to demonstrate to their FAA Oversight Office that they
are compliant with the Fuel Tank Flammability Safety rule (73 FR
42443). Semi-annual reports submitted by design approval holders
provide listings of component failures discovered during scheduled or
unscheduled maintenance so that the reliability of the flammability
reduction means can be verified by the FAA.
    Respondents: Approximately nine design approval holders.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,800 hours.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on February 14, 2020.
James E. Wilborn,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch.
[FR Doc. 2020-03406 Filed 2-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 32750-32751]
[DOCID:fr10jn08-86]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-17, OMB Control No. 3235-0469, SEC File No. 270-412.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.

 Rule 17Ad-17 Transfer Agents' Obligation To Search for Lost
Security holders

    Rule 17Ad-17 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-17) requires approximately 608
registered transfer agents to conduct searches using third party
database vendors to attempt to locate lost securityholders. These
recordkeeping requirements assist the Commission and other regulatory
agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring compliance with
the rule.
    The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary for
each transfer agent to comply with Rule 17Ad-17 is five hours annually.
The total burden is approximately 2,432 hours annually for all transfer
agents. The cost of compliance for each individual transfer agent
depends on the number of lost accounts for which it is responsible.
Based on information received from transfer agents, we estimate that
the annual cost industry wide is $3.3 million.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to: R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within
60 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 4, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12949 Filed 6-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2975]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1081]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings
related to the transmission planning activities of the Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. (SPP):
    SPP Strategic Planning Committee Task Force on Order No. 1000
Meeting, January 18, 2012, 3:30-6:30 p.m., Local Time.
    SPP Strategic Planning Committee Meeting, January 19, 2012, 8 a.m.-
3 p.m., Local Time.
    The above-referenced meetings will be held at:
    Intercontinental Stephen F. Austin, 701 Congress Avenue, Austin, TX
78701.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.spp.org.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER09-35-001, Tallgrass Transmission, LLC
Docket No. ER09-36-001, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC
Docket No. ER09-36-002, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC
Docket No. ER09-548-001, ITC Great Plains, LLC
Docket No. ER11-4105-000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL11-34-001, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.

    For more information, contact Luciano Lima, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1081 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38859-38861]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12671]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0310; FRL-11030-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA or the Act), the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is providing notice of a proposed
consent decree in East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice v.
EPA, No. 22-cv-0094 (D.D.C.). On January 13, 2022, Plaintiffs East Yard
Communities for Environmental Justice, Ironbound Community Corporation,
and Sierra Club (collectively Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that
the EPA failed to perform its non-discretionary duty under to review
and, if appropriate, revise new source performance standards and
emissions guidelines for large municipal solid waste incinerators
(LMWCs) at five-year intervals. In addition, Plaintiffs filed a
separate petition on December 21, 2021, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking a writ of mandamus
relating to a 2008 order of that court remanding to the EPA performance
standards for LMWCs. EPA is providing notice of this proposed consent
decree, which would resolve all claims in both cases by establishing
deadlines for EPA to issue proposed and final rulemakings to review
and, if necessary, revise emissions standards for LMWCs.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by July 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2023-0310, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew McNerney, Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0310) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    On January 13, 2022, Plaintiffs East Yard Communities for
Environmental Justice, Ironbound Community Corporation, and Sierra Club
(collectively Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the EPA
failed to perform its non-discretionary duty under CAA section
129(a)(5) to review and, if appropriate, revise emissions standards for
large municipal solid waste incinerators (LMWCs) at five-year
intervals. In addition, on December 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a
separate petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia seeking a writ of mandamus relating to a 2008
order of that court remanding to the EPA performance standards for
LMWCs (Petition Matter).
    The proposed consent decree, if finalized, would establish
deadlines for the EPA to take proposed and final actions under CAA
section 129(a)(5) to review, and if appropriate, revise new source
performance standards and emissions guidelines for LMWCs. Specifically,
the EPA would be required to sign the proposed action by December 31,
2023, and final action by November 30, 2024. Further, Plaintiffs agree
to withdraw the related Petition Matter shortly after the entry of this
Consent Decree.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-
0310, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your

comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-12671 Filed 6-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


August 17, 2010
MEMORANDUM
TO:		Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0448
FROM:  	Cheryl Caffrey, ASD, Mechanical Engineer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: 	RFA Summary of Engine Manual Recommendations on Use of Fuel with 10%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		Ethanol
   Nonroad engines designs had little changed for decades so it is unclear when they may have been modified to account for ethanol blends.  As nonroad engines began encountering ethanol in the marketplace in the early 1980's, predominantly in the Midwest region of the United States, manufacturers began to provide guidance to their consumers on the use of ethanol blends and/or began to make design changes to accommodate E10.  Owner's manuals and organization websites provide information to the user about fuel specifications for the engine.  The following tables list owner manual references from 1988 to present.   Table D.4-2 lists several owner manual references to the use of ethanol fuel between 1988 and 2000 and it illustrates the range of owner notifications on the use of ethanol from no comment to "up to 10%" to "Caution".
   Table 1:  Sample Fuel Specification Recommendations from Several Nonroad
                            Owner Manuals 1988-2000
                              ENGINE MANUFACTURE
                            DATE ON SERVICE MANUAL
FUEL SPECIFICATION RECOMMENDATION ON FUEL WITH ETHANOL
                            John Deere Front Mower
                 with Kawasaki Overhead Valve 4 stroke Engine
                                     1988
Gasohol is accepted if not more than 10% ethyl alcohol is in the blend
To help keep water out of fuel, fill tank at end of day's operation
                               Mercury Outboard
                                     1997
IMPORTANT:  Gasoline containing alcohol (ethanol or methanol) can cause a formation of acid during storage and can damage the fuel system.  If the gasoline being used contains alcohol, it is advisable to drain as much of the remaining gasoline as possible from the fuel tank, remote fuel line, and engine fuel system.

                              Polaris Snowmobile
                                     1997
Your Polaris vehicle is calibrated to use non-oxygenated fuel with a minimum pump octane of 91 or higher (R+M)/2 method.....
Oxygenated fuel containing a mixture of up to 10% ethanol can be used in your Polaris vehicle if these guidelines are followed:
   1.  When using lower than 91 octane oxygenated fuel, you will need to have your dealer make adjustments to your engine and/or fuel system
      -Depending on your state and local regulations, your fuel supplier may or may not be required to display the type of fuel they are selling. In this case you should assume that you are using oxygenated fuels and purchase 91 octane or higher (R+M)/2 or have your dealer make the necessary adjustments
2.    If using oxygenated fuel containing ethanol, additional alcohol deicers or water absorbing additives are not required and should not be used.
                              Bombadier Jet Boat
                              DI 2 stroke engine
                                     2000
CAUTION:  The use of a fuel other than regular unleaded fuel can result in craft performance deterioration and damage to fuel system and engine components.  Never experiment with other fuels or fuel ratios.  Never use fuel containing alcohol, methanol or similar products including naphtha.

      Ethanol began increasing in distribution in 2002/2003.   Herman and Associates performed a survey of nonroad engine owner's manuals for the Renewable Fuels Association in 2003 and summarized manufacturer recommendations on the use of ethanol at that time.  The results differ slightly between and within the recreational vehicle, small engine, marine and motorcycle industries.  Examples of engine manufacturer fuel recommendations are listed in Table III.D.4-3  Note that these contain more detail than those references in Table III.D.4-2.  This may be due to several factors including the fact that more information was known about ethanol use in nonroad engines and the fact that ethanol use was beginning to increase.

                Table 2:  Examples from 2003 Summary Tables of
               Nonroad Engine Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations

Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations
Range of Comments on Using Fuel with Ethanol
Comments (Example)
Recreational
Up to 5%,
Up to10%
When using oxygenates, carburetor main jet must be one size larger than for regular unleaded gas.
Power
Approved,
Up to 10%,
N/A
Never use gasoline containing methanol, gasohol containing more than 10% ethanol, gasoline additives, premium gasoline, or white gas. Refer to engine manual for gasoline recommendations. Uses Briggs & Stratton, Honda or Kohler Engines.

Engine is certified to operate on unleaded gasoline intended for automotive use.

Alcohol-blended fuels (called gasohol, ethanol or methanol) can attract moisture which leads to separation and formation of acids during storage.  To avoid engine problems, fuel system should be emptied before storage for 30 days or longer.  Use fresh fuel next season.
Marine
Sport boats:
Do Not Use

Outboards:
Up to 10%,
Do not Use,
Gasoline containing alcohol, methanol (methyl), or ethanol (ethyl), may cause wear and damage to bearings, cams, piston(s), piston rings, corrosion of metal parts, deterioration of rubber and plastic parts, starting, idling, and other engine performance problems.

Gasoline containing alcohol may cause the following problems to your outboard and fuel system: corrosion of metal parts, deterioration of elastomers and plastic parts, wear and damage of internal engine parts, starting and operating difficulties, vapor lock or fuel starvation.
Adverse effects of alcohol are more severe with methanol and are worse with increasing content of alcohol.

The use of a fuel other than regular unleaded fuel can result in craft performance deterioration and damage to fuel system and engine components.
Never use fuel containing alcohol, methanol or similar products including naptha.
Motorcycle
Up to 10%,
N/A
Use only premium unleaded gasoline with a minimum pump octane rating of 90 ((R+M)/2 method).
If not satisfied with driveability or fuel economy when using an oxygenated fuel, switch back to regular unleaded gasoline or to a different brand.

Use only unleaded gasoline, 92 pump octane minimum.
Source: Herman & Associates, Washington, DC:  Excerpts from Report on Fuel Recommendations for 2003 Model Year, Prepared for RFA

   In April , 2009, TCPalm posted the following on the internet regarding use of E10 in boat engines:

WHAT TO DO
1
- Avoid mixing regular fuel with E-10 fuel
2
- Frequently change fuel/water separating filters in fuel system. If none is installed, install one
3
- If it's an older boat, have a marina or service department arrange to clean the fuel tank
4
- If boat will not be used for some time, fill tank to about 95 percent capacity to leave for expansion but reduce the chance for condensation.
5
- Never put E-85 in a fuel tank of a boat.

      The article also stated that it's the older boats that are affected most by ethanol.   Since ethanol is a solvent, it dissolves years of buildup off the inside of fuel tanks and fuel lines, in turn clogging up the fuel filters.
      In 2010, E10 is approximately 80% of the fuel distributed in the country.    Owner manual samples were received from various industry stakeholders and are summarized in Table 3.  They now indicate a general acceptance of E10 use, but no higher ethanol use, and marine manufacturers still caution against its use.

       Table 3:  Owner Manual Recommendations from 2010, Small SI Engines Only
Engine Manufacturer
Engine Range
Owner Manual Fuel Specifications
Kohler
Nonhandheld Small SI Engines
Gasoline/Alcohol blends
Gasohol (up to 10% ethyl alcohol, 90% unleaded gasoline by volume) is approved as a fuel for Kohler engines. Other gasoline/alcohol blends including E20 and E85 are not to be used and not approved. Any failures resulting from use of these fuels will not be warranted.
Gasoline/Ether blends
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) and unleaded gasoline blends (up to a maximum of 15% MTBE by volume) are approved as a fuel for Kohler engines. Other gasoline/ether blends are not approved.

Honda
Class I and Class II Small SI Engines
Refueling...
You may use regular unleaded gasoline containing no more than 10% ethanol (E10) or 5% methanol by volume.  In addition, methanol must contain cosolvents and corrosion inhibitors.  Use of fuels with content of ethanol or methanol greater than shown above may cause starting and/or performance problems.  It may also damage metal, rubber and plastic parts of the fuel system.  Engine damage or performance problems that result from using a fuel with percentages of ethanol or methanol greater than shown above are not covered by warranty.
If your equipment will be used on an infrequent or intermittent basis please refer to the fuel section of the STORAGE chapter (page 11) for additional information regarding fuel deterioration.
ONAN
Manufacturer of Generators using Small SI engines
FUEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Gasoline Generators  --  Treat the engine of your Onan(R) or Camp Power(TM)generator to a good grade of regular unleaded gasoline and it'll purr in response.  Gasohol (gasoline blended with alcohol) can be used if it contains the correct additive mixture percentages:
:: Ethanol Blend  --  Not more than 10% ethanol.
:: Methanol Blend  --  Not more than 5% methanol and must also contain solvents
and corrosion inhibitors.
Briggs and Stratton
Class I and Class II Small SI Engines
Fuel Recommendations:
Fuel must meet these requirements:
 Clean fresh unleaded gasoline
 A minimum of 87 octane/87AKI (90 acron)
 Gasoline with up to 10% ethanol (gasohol) or up to 15% MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is acceptable.
CAUTION: Do not use unapproved gasoline, such as E85. Do not mix oil in gasoline or mofidy the engine to run on alternative fuels.  This will damage the engine components and void the engine warranty.
Echo
Handheld engines (Small SI)
Alternative fuels, such as E-15 (15% ethanol) or any fuels not meeting ECHO requirements are NOT approved for use in ECHO 2-stroke gasoline engines.  Use of alternative fuels may cause performance problems, loss of power, overheating, fuel vapor lock, and unintended machine operation, including, but not limited to, improper clutch engagement.  Alternative fuels may also cause premature deterioration of fuel lines, gaskets, carburetors and other engine components.

Fuel Requirements:
Gasoline  -  Use 89 Octane (R+M/2) (mid grade or higher) gasoline known to be good quality.  Gasoline may contain up to 10% ethanol (grain alcohol) or 15% MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether).  Gasoline containing methanol (wood alcohol) is NOT approved.
       References provided by members of the Engine Manufacturers Association 2010


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29371-29375]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13409]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8185; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-050-AD;
Amendment 39-18940; AD 2017-13-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-18-06,
which applied to certain Airbus Model A319-131 and -132 airplanes;
Model A320-231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-131 and -231
airplanes. AD 2003-18-06 required installing new anti-swivel plates and
weights on the engine fan cowl door (FCD) latches and a new cowl door
hold-open device. This AD retains the previous actions and requires
modifying the engine FCDs, installing placards, and re-identifying the
FCDs. This AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD was
prompted by reports of additional engine FCD in-flight losses, and a
new FCD front latch and keeper assembly that has been developed to
address this unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 3, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 3,
2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
October 16, 2003 (68 FR 53501, September 11, 2003).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8185.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8185; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2003-18-06, Amendment 39-13297 (68 FR 53501,
September 11, 2003) (``AD 2003-18-06''). AD 2003-18-06 applied to
certain Airbus Model A319-131 and -132 airplanes; Model A320-231, -232,
and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-131 and -231 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51813). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of additional engine FCD in-flight losses,
and a new FCD front latch and keeper assembly that has been developed
to address this unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to continue to
require installing new anti-swivel plates and weights on the engine FCD
latches and a new cowl door hold-open device. The NPRM also proposed to
require modifying the engine FCDs, installing placards, and re-
identifying the FCDs with new part numbers. Additionally, the NPRM
proposed to revise the applicability to include all Model

A319-131 and -132 airplanes; Model A320-231, -232, and -233 airplanes;
and Model A321-131 and -231 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to
prevent in-flight loss of an engine FCD and possible consequent damage
to the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0053, dated March 14, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A319-131 and -132 airplanes; Model A320-231, -232, and -233 airplanes;
and Model A321-131 and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses during take-off were reported on
aeroplanes equipped with IAE V2500 engines. Prompted by these
occurences, [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile]
DGAC France issued AD 2000-444-156(B), mandating FCD latch
improvements. This [DGAC] AD was later superseded by [DGAC] AD 2001-
381(B) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-18-06], requiring
installation of additional fan cowl latch improvement by installing
a hold open device.
    Since that [DGAC] AD was issued, further FCD in flight losses
were experienced in service. Investigations confirmed that in all
cases, the fan cowls were opened prior to the flight and were not
correctly re-secured. During the pre-flight inspection, it was then
not detected that the FCD were not properly latched.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to in-flight loss
of a FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or
injury to persons on the ground.
    Prompted by these recent events, new FCD front latch and keeper
assembly were developed, having a specific key necessary to un-latch
the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless the FCD front latch is
safely closed. The key, after removal, must be stowed in the flight
deck at a specific location, as instructed in the applicable
Aircraft Maintenance Manual. Applicable Flight Crew Operating Manual
has been amended accordingly. After modification, the FCD is
identified with a different Part Number (P/N).
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of DGAC AD 2001-381(B), which is superseded, and
requires modification and re-identification of FCD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8185.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    United Airlines (UAL) stated that it strongly disagrees with making
the new latch keys installation mandatory. UAL stated that each one of
the fan cowl door losses during takeoff can be attributed solely to
human error. UAL explained that the mechanics are not correctly
latching the fan cowl after maintenance and the flight crews are not
checking that the latches are secured before departure. UAL asserted
that it did not believe that introduction of the new latch design would
resolve human error problems. Historically, UAL noted, visual cues have
proven ineffective, but other changes, especially dual inspection
signoff, have proven much more effective. Therefore, instead of
mandating the modification, UAL stated that more emphasis should be
placed on addressing the root cause--not the design, but human error.
    Further, UAL explained that the fan cowls are routinely accessed
for engine and thrust reverser maintenance, and adding another loose
piece of equipment to be maintained and stored on the airplane would
lead to operational complications. UAL also noted that additional time
would be added to accomplishing routine tasks after incorporation of
the modification. In a case where the maintenance personnel are
required to open the fan cowls, UAL contended that additional time
would be required to access the cockpit, retrieve the key, and open the
fan cowls, which would expose personnel and the airplane to further
damage or harm. Mandating the modification, UAL argued, would impose an
unnecessary financial and maintenance burden on operators that have
proactively implemented alternate procedures.
    UAL further stated that some airplanes in their Model A319 and
Model A320 fleet are installed with monolithic FCDs which have some
design advantages to mitigate the risks addressed in this AD. This AD
does not include any modification instructions for these FCDs.
    From these statements, we infer that UAL was requesting that we
withdraw the NPRM. We do not agree with UAL's request. The EASA, as the
State of Design Authority for Airbus products, has determined an unsafe
condition exists after conducting a risk analysis taking into
consideration the in-service events in the worldwide fleet. We agree
with EASA's decision to mitigate the risk by mandating a new design
that makes it apparent to the flight crew on a pre-flight walk-around
that an FCD is not latched. Regarding the concern about operational
complications, we have determined that the safety benefits of the new
design outweigh any potential complications. UAL has not provided any
substantiating information to support withdrawing the NPRM. If an
operator believes that there are certain FCDs that cannot be modified
in accordance with the AD requirements, then they may apply for an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures specified
in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this
regard.

Requests To Allow Continued Operation With a Lost or Damaged Key/Lock

    UAL and American Airlines (AAL) requested that we add a provision
in the proposed AD to allow continued operation with a damaged or
missing key or damaged lock. UAL also stated that it disagrees with
mandating the exact stowage location of the key and that it should be
left to the operator's discretion where to store the key on the
airplane. UAL pointed out that the key could become lost or damaged,
and that it's possible the lock could become damaged, requiring the
airplane to be taken out of service.
    We disagree with the commenters. EASA has determined that proper
stowage for retrieval of the key and a fully functional lock are
necessary to mitigate the risk of losing an FCD in flight, and we agree
with EASA's assessment. If relief is approved in the future, such as
Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) relief, that allows continued
operation with a damaged or missing key or damaged lock, we will
consider additional rulemaking. An operator may also apply for an AMOC
using the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, provided
they submit sufficient data to substantiate that the AMOC provides an
acceptable level of safety. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

Requests To Remove Placard Installation Requirement

    AAL requested that we revise the proposed AD to allow continued
operation with a damaged or missing placard provided the placard is
replaced within a specific time. AAL pointed out that a missing or
damaged placard does not reduce flight safety. UAL also requested that
the installation and location of the placard not be mandated. UAL
explained that the placard itself does not prevent a fan cowl door loss
event, nor does it raise awareness about the issue.

    We disagree with the commenters. Installation of the placard is
designed to ensure that the key is stowed in a particular location on
board the airplane and can be consistently retrieved from that location
when needed. However, an operator may apply for an AMOC using the
procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, provided they can
show they have an alternative means to ensure the key is stowed on
board the airplane in a constantly retrievable and accessible location.
We have not revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    AAL requested that we review the proposed cost estimate for
significant economic impact as related to the actual costs of
compliance. AAL asserted that the proposed cost estimate is
underestimated and that the actual cost is nearly double the specified
amount. AAL stated that two kits are required per airplane instead of
the one kit estimated in the NPRM, and that the placard cost from
Airbus is $50. AAL explained that the NPRM does not account for the
cost of maintenance activities such as re-rigging all cowl latches
during embodiment, or other recording, tracking, and supply chain
costs. Additionally, AAL mentioned that U.S. operators are competing
with operators worldwide for these parts, which could impact the
availability of necessary parts.
    We partially agree with AAL's request. We recognize that, in
accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators might incur
``incidental'' costs in addition to the ``direct'' costs that are
reflected in the cost analysis presented in the AD preamble. However,
the cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include
incidental costs. However, we have confirmed the need for two kits and
the cost of the placards; therefore, we have revised this final rule to
reflect the cost for two kits and placards.
    Regarding the reference to a ``significant economic impact,''
according to Executive Order 12866, we are not required to do a full
cost-benefit analysis for an AD unless it is considered a significant
regulatory action. This AD is not a significant regulatory action
because it does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million dollars or more; it does not create inconsistency with an
action planned by another agency; it does not impact entitlements,
grants, user fees or loan programs; and it does not raise novel legal
or policy issues. However, the FAA does comply with Executive Order
12866 by assessing the costs and determining that correcting the unsafe
condition justifies them. As a matter of law, in order to be airworthy,
an aircraft must conform to its type design and be in a condition for
safe operation. The type design is approved only after we determine
that it complies with all applicable airworthiness requirements. In
adopting and maintaining those requirements, we have already determined
that they establish a level of safety that is cost beneficial. When we
later make a finding of an unsafe condition in an aircraft and issue an
AD, it means that the original cost-beneficial level of safety is no
longer being achieved and that the required actions are necessary to
restore that level of safety. Because this level of safety has already
been determined to be cost beneficial, and because the AD does not add
any additional regulatory requirement that increases the level of
safety beyond what has been established by the type design, a full
cost-benefit analysis would be redundant and unnecessary. We have not
revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Exempt Certain Airplanes

    Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM to exclude airplanes on
which the following Airbus modifications were installed in production
from the requirements of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.
     Modifications 21948/P6222 and 30869.
     Modifications 24259/P6222 and 30869.
     Modifications 24259/P6222 and 24259/P6473.
    We agree with excluding airplanes with these Airbus modifications
that were installed during production. These modifications address the
identified unsafe condition. These exempt airplanes were inadvertently
omitted from paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. We have revised
paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    AAL requested that, due to the elapsed time needed to complete each
airplane modification and the potential unavailability of modification
kits to match the operator's modification schedule, we extend the
compliance time for the new modification from 36 months to 48 months.
    We do not agree with AAL's request to extend the compliance time.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we
considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition,
the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of
accomplishing the required modification within a period of time that
corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected
operators. According to the manufacturer, adequate parts will be
available to modify the U.S. fleet within the required compliance time.
However, under the provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, we will
consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time
if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new
compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have
not changed this AD in his regard.

Request To Use Later Revisions of the Service Information

    AAL requested that we allow later revisions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1069, dated December 18, 2015, to be used as a method
of compliance for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD.
    We may not refer to any document that does not yet exist in an AD.
In general terms, we are required by the Office of the Federal
Register's (OFR) regulations to either publish the service document
contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service
document to the OFR for approval as ``referenced'' material, in which
case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD
may refer to the service document only if the OFR approved it for
``incorporation by reference.'' See 1 CFR part 51.
    To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced
document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise
the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request
approval to use later revisions as an AMOC with this AD under the
provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
    However, since we issued the NPRM, we have received Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1069, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April
28, 2016. This revision clarifies a storage location for Groups 7 and 8
but specifies no additional work requirements from the previous issue
(Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, dated December 18, 2015).
Therefore, we have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to specify Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, Revision 01, including Appendix 01,
dated April 28, 2016, as an appropriate source of service information
for accomplishing the required actions. We have also added paragraph
(l) to this AD to provide credit for actions required by paragraph (h)
of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date
of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, dated December
18,

2015. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, Revision 01,
including Appendix 01, dated April 28, 2016. The service information
describes procedures for modifying the engine FCDs, installing
placards, and re-identifying the FCDs with new part numbers. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 558 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2003-18-06, and retained in this AD,
take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85
per work-hour. Required parts cost about $1,500 per product. Based on
these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by
AD 2003-18-06 is $2,180 per product.
    We also estimate that it takes about 6 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $9,676 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $5,683,788, or $10,186 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2003-18-06, Amendment 39-13297 (68 FR 53501, September 11, 2003), and
adding the following new AD:

2017-13-10 Airbus: Amendment 39-18940; Docket No. FAA-2016-8185;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-050-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 3, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2003-18-06, Amendment 39-13297 (68 FR 53501,
September 11, 2003), (``AD 2003-18-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-131 and -132 airplanes;
Model A320-231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-131 and -
231 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of engine fan cowl door (FCD)
in-flight losses, and a new FCD front latch and keeper assembly that
has been developed to address this unsafe condition. We are issuing
this AD to prevent in-flight loss of an engine FCD and possible
consequent damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Modification and/or Installation, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
2003-18-06, with no changes. For airplanes identified in paragraph
(c) of this AD, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modifications
21948/P6222 and 30869, Modifications 24259/P6222 and 30869, or
Modifications 24259/P6222 and 24259/P6473 have been installed in
production: Within 18 months after October 16, 2003 (the effective
date of AD 2003-18-06), do the action(s) specified in paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Configuration 01 airplanes identified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1028, dated March 23, 2001: Modify the door latches
of the fan cowl of both engines (i.e., installation of new anti-
swivel plates and weights), and install a new hold-open device, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1028, dated March 23, 2001.
    (2) For Configuration 02 airplanes identified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1028, dated March 23, 2001: Install a new hold-open
device, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-71-1028, dated March 23, 2001.

(h) New Modifications

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this
AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, Revision 01, including Appendix 01,
dated April 28, 2016.
    (1) Modify the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2.
    (2) Install a placard on the box located at the bottom of the
120 VU panel or at the bottom of the coat stowage, as applicable.

    (3) Re-identify both engine FCDs with the new part numbers (P/
Ns), as specified in table 1 and table 2 to paragraph (h) of this
AD, as applicable.

           Table 1 to Paragraph (h) of This AD--Left-Side Door
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Old part No.                         New part No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
740-4000-501...........................  740-4000-9501
740-4000-503...........................  740-4000-9503
745-4000-501...........................  745-4000-513
745-4000-503...........................  745-4000-515
745-4000-505...........................  745-4000-517
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Table 2 to Paragraph (h) of This AD--Right-Side Door
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Old part No.                         New part No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
740-4000-502...........................  740-4000-9502
740-4000-504...........................  740-4000-9504
740-4000-506...........................  740-4000-9506
740-4000-508...........................  740-4000-9508
745-4000-502...........................  745-4000-9502
745-4000-504...........................  745-4000-9504
745-4000-506...........................  745-4000-9506
745-4000-508...........................  745-4000-514
745-4000-510...........................  745-4000-516
745-4000-512...........................  745-4000-518
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) New Method of Compliance: Replacement

    (1) Replacing an engine FCD having a part number listed as ``Old
Part Number'' in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD or table 2 to
paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable, with an FCD having the
corresponding part number listed as ``New Part Number'' in table 1
to paragraph (h) of this AD or table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD,
as applicable, is an acceptable method of compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3) of this AD for that
engine FCD only.
    (2) An airplane on which Airbus Modification 157516 has been
embodied in production is compliant with the requirements of
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3) of this AD, provided no engine FCD,
having a part number identified as ``Old Part Number'' in table 1 to
paragraph (h) of this AD or table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, as
applicable, is installed on that airplane.
    (3) An airplane on which Airbus Modification 157718 has been
embodied in production is compliant with the requirements of
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

(j) New Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) For an airplane with an engine FCD installed having a part
number identified as ``Old Part Number'' in table 1 to paragraph (h)
of this AD or table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable:
After modification of that airplane as required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, do not install an engine FCD, having a part number
identified as ``Old Part Number'' in table 1 to paragraph (h) of
this AD or table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable.
    (2) For an airplane that does not have an engine FCD installed
having a part number identified as ``Old Part Number'' in table 1 to
paragraph (h) of this AD or table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, as
applicable: On or after the effective date of this AD, do not
install an engine FCD, having a part number identified as ``Old Part
Number'' in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD or table 2 to
paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable.

(k) New Method of Compliance: Installation

    Installation on an engine of a right-hand and left-hand engine
FCD having a part number approved after the effective date of this
AD is a method of compliance with the requirements of paragraphs
(g), (h)(1), and (h)(3) of this AD for that engine only, provided
the part number is approved, and the installation is accomplished,
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(2) of
this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, dated
December 18, 2015.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (k) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0053, dated March 14, 2016,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8185.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 3, 2017.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, Revision 01, including
Appendix 01, dated April 28, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 16, 2003 (68 FR 53501, September 11, 2003).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1028, dated March 23, 2001.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 17, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-13409 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53702-53707]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21408]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150; FRL-9916-36-OW]

Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Small Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of Vessels Less Than 79 Feet

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final permit issuance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are finalizing the NPDES Small Vessel General Permit
(sVGP) to authorize discharges incidental to the normal operation of
non-military and non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length.
EPA is finalizing the sVGP, which has an effective date of

December 19, 2014, to authorize discharges from vessels less than 79
feet in length, because the law imposing a moratorium against NPDES
permitting of these discharges expires on December 18, 2014. That law
generally provides that no NPDES permits shall be required for
discharges (except discharges of ballast water) incidental to the
normal operation of vessels less than 79 feet and all commercial
fishing vessels.
    EPA provided notice of the availability of the draft permit and
accompanying fact sheet for public comment in the Federal Register on
December 8, 2011.

DATES: This permit is effective on December 19, 2014.
    In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this permit shall be considered
issued for the purpose of judicial review on the day 2 weeks after
Federal Register publication. Under section 509(b) of the Clean Water
Act, judicial review of this general permit can be had by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120
days after the permit is considered issued for purposes of judicial
review. Under section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the
requirements in this permit may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings to enforce these requirements. In addition, this
permit may not be challenged in other agency proceedings. This permit
also provides additional dates for compliance with the terms of the
permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the sVGP,
contact Jack Faulk at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ryan Albert at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater
Management, Mail Code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington DC
20460; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?
    C. Public Outreach: Public Hearings and Public Meetings, Web
Casts
    D. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this permit?
II. Statutory and Regulatory History
III. Scope and Applicability of the 2014 sVGP
    A. CWA Section 401 Certification and Coastal Zone Management Act
    B. Geographic Coverage of sVGP
    C. Categories of Vessels Covered Under the sVGP
    D. Summary of the sVGP
    E. Summary of Significant Changes from the Proposed sVGP
IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts of sVGP
    A. Costs of the sVGP
    B. Benefits of the sVGP
V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to vessels less than 79 feet in length
operating in a capacity as a means of transportation that have
discharges incidental to their normal operation into waters subject to
this permit, except recreational vessels as defined in Clean Water Act
(CWA) section 502(25) and vessels of the Armed Forces as defined in CWA
section 312(a)(14). Affected vessels are henceforth referred to as non-
military, non-recreational vessels. Unless otherwise excluded from
coverage by Part 5 of the sVGP, the waters subject to this permit are
waters of the U.S. as defined in 40 CFR 122.2. That provision defines
``waters of the U.S.'' as certain inland waters and the territorial
sea, which extends three miles from the baseline. More specifically,
CWA section 502(8) defines ``territorial seas'' as ``the belt of the
seas measured from the line of the ordinary low water along that
portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and
the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending
seaward a distance of three miles.'' Note that the Clean Water Act does
not require NPDES permits for vessels or other floating craft operating
as a means of transportation beyond the territorial seas, i.e., in the
contiguous zone or ocean as defined by the CWA sections 502(9), (10).
See CWA section 502(12) and 40 CFR 122.2 (definition of ``discharge of
a pollutant''). This permit, therefore, does not apply in such waters.
    Non-military, non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in
length operating in a capacity as a means of transportation that need
NPDES coverage for their incidental discharges will generally be
covered under the VGP (78 FR 21938, April 12, 2013). Similarly situated
vessels less than 79 feet in length may be covered under the VGP, or
may instead opt for coverage under the sVGP. Commercial fishing vessels
greater than 79 feet in length are not eligible for coverage under the
sVGP but can be covered under the VGP should they need to do so (e.g.,
after expiration of the moratorium from permit requirements for these
vessels).

B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150. The official public docket
is the collection of materials, including the administrative record
required by 40 CFR 124.18, for the final permit. It is available for
public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC)
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Although all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically at http://www.federalregister.gov.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) found at http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the FDMS to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once at the Web site, enter the appropriate Docket ID
No. in the ``Search'' box to view the docket.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified in this section.

C. Public Outreach: Public Hearings and Public Meetings, Web Casts

    Because EPA anticipated a significant degree of public interest in
the draft sVGP and the draft VGP, EPA held a public hearing on
Wednesday January 11, 2012, to receive public comment and answer
questions concerning the draft permits. The hearing was held at EPA

East Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460. In
addition, EPA held a public meeting on Monday January 23, 2012, at the
Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Building, Room 331, 77 West Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604. The purpose of those meetings was to present the
proposed requirements of these two draft general permits and the basis
for those requirements, as well as to answer questions concerning the
draft permits. The public meetings and public hearing were attended by
a wide variety of stakeholders including representatives from industry,
government agencies, and environmental organizations. In addition, EPA
held a webcast on January 19, 2012, and two online Question and Answer
sessions on January 31 and February 7, 2012, to provide information on
the proposed permits and to answer questions from interested parties
that were unable to attend the public meetings or hearing.

D. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this permit?

    For EPA Region 1, contact John Nagle at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA, Region 1, New England/Office
of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code:
OEP 06-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    For EPA Region 2 in New York and New Jersey, contact Patricia
Pechko at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
at US EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866
or for EPA Region 2 in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, contact
Sergio Bosques at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA Region 2, Caribbean Environmental
Protection Division, City View Plaza II--Suite 7000, 48 Rd. 165 Km 1.2,
Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968-8069.
    For EPA Region 3, contact Mark Smith at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA, Region 3, 1650 Arch St.,
Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
    For EPA Region 4, contact Karrie-Jo Robinson at tel.: (404) 562-
9308; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Kip Tyler at 404-562-
9294 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA, Region 4/Water
Permits Division, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St. SW., Atlanta,
GA 30303-3104.
    For EPA Region 5, contact Sean Ramach at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or US EPA, Region 5, 77 W Jackson Blvd.,
Mail Code: WN16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
    For EPA Region 6, contact Jenelle Hill at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave.,
Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
    For EPA Region 7, contact Alex Owutaka at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA, Region 7, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    For EPA Region 8, contact Lisa Luebke at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Mail Code: 8P-W-WW, Denver, CO 80202.
    For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    For EPA Region 10, contact Cindi Godsey at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at US EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.

II. Statutory and Regulatory History

    The Clean Water Act (CWA) section 301(a) provides that ``the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the
discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33
U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA defines ``discharge of a pollutant'' as ``(A)
any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the
contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel
or other floating craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A ``point source'' is a
``discernible, confined and discrete conveyance'' and includes a
``vessel or other floating craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(14).
    The term ``pollutant'' includes, among other things, ``garbage . .
. chemical wastes . . . and industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged into water.'' The Act's definition of ``pollutant''
specifically excludes ``sewage from vessels or a discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces'' within the
meaning of CWA section 312. 33 U.S.C. 1362(6).
    One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the
CWA section 301 prohibition is by obtaining authorization to discharge
(referred to herein as ``coverage'') under a CWA section 402 National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C.
section 1342). Under CWA section 402(a), EPA may ``issue a permit for
the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants,
notwithstanding section 1311(a)'' upon certain conditions required by
the Act.
    Historically, EPA had not required NPDES permits for discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel; however, on July 23,
2008, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower
court decision that the Agency's approach to exclude these discharges
from permitting exceeded the Agency's authority to do so under the
Clean Water Act. Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States
EPA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D. Cal. 2006). This decision
prompted EPA and Congress to take several actions. For larger vessels
(i.e., greater than 79 feet in length), EPA issued the Vessel General
Permit (VGP) in late 2008 to provide a mechanism for these vessels to
comply with CWA permitting obligations. For smaller vessels and
commercial fishing vessels, Congress enacted Public Law (Pub. L.) 110-
299 to provide a two-year permitting moratorium to allow time for EPA
to study discharges from these vessels and provide a Report to Congress
(``Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial
Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less Than 79 Feet,''
August 2010). Congress has subsequently extended the permitting
moratorium for smaller vessels and commercial fishing vessels through
December 18, 2014. (Pub. L. 111-215 and Pub. L. 112-213).
    The Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP), as finalized, is a
mechanism for EPA to provide coverage for discharges incidental to the
normal operation of non-military and non-recreational vessels less than
79 feet in length once the discharge moratorium ends on December 18,
2014. All discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
less than 79 feet, when that vessel is operating in capacity as a means
of transportation, are eligible for coverage under this permit.
    EPA is issuing this permit in advance of the date permit coverage
is required to give small vessel owners and operators time to read and
prepare for these new permit requirements.

III. Scope and Applicability of the 2014 sVGP

A. CWA Section 401 Certification and Coastal Zone Management Act

    EPA may not issue a permit authorizing discharges into the waters
of a state until that state has granted certification under CWA section
401 or has waived its right to certify (or been deemed to have waived).
33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1); 40 CFR 124.53(a). EPA gave each state, tribe, and
territory as applicable over nine months to certify, well over the 60
day regulatory norm for NPDES permits. EPA found that this 401
certification had unusual circumstances

which warranted additional time (e.g., the permits regulate discharges
of mobile point sources; they have broad applicability to the waters of
every state and tribe in the country). If a state believed that any
permit condition(s) more stringent than those contained in the draft
permit were necessary to meet the applicable requirements of either the
CWA or state law, the state had an opportunity to include those
condition(s) in its certification. 40 CFR 124.53(e)(1). Twenty-three
states and one Indian tribe provided such conditions in their
certifications, and EPA has added them to the sVGP pursuant to CWA
section 401(d). 33 U.S.C. 1341(d).
    Similarly, EPA may not authorize discharges under a general permit
into waters of a State if the State objects with EPA's National
Consistency Determination, pursuant to the regulations implementing of
the Coastal Zone Management Act (``CZMA''), specifically the
regulations at 15 CFR 930.31(d) and 930.36(e). If the State coastal
zone management agency objects to the general permit, then the general
permit is not available for use by potential general permit users in
that State unless the applicant who wants to use the general permit
provides the State agency with the applicant's consistency
determination and the State agency concurs. 15 CFR 930.31(d). The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has explained
that ``a State objection to a consistency determination for the
issuance of a general permit would alter the form of CZMA compliance
required, transforming the general permit into a series of case by case
CZMA decisions and requiring an individual who wants to use the general
permit to submit an individual consistency certification to the State
agency in compliance with 15 CFR part 930.'' 71 FR 788, 793. No state
objected to EPA's national consistency determination.

B. Geographic Coverage of sVGP

    The sVGP is applicable to discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel (identified in Part 1.4 of the sVGP and section
3.6 of the sVGP fact sheet) into waters subject to these permits, which
means ``waters of the U.S.'' as defined in 40 CFR 122.2, except as
otherwise excluded by Part 5 of the permit. This includes the
territorial seas, defined in section 502(8) of the CWA, extending to
three miles from the baseline. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Costle, 586
F.2d 650, 655-656 (9th Cir. 1978); Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 863 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9th Cir. 1988).
    The general permit will cover vessel discharges into the waters of
the U.S. in all states and territories, regardless of whether a state
is authorized to implement other aspects of the NPDES permit program
within its jurisdiction, except as otherwise excluded by Part 5 of the
sVGP. While, pursuant to CWA section 402(c), EPA typically is required
to suspend permit issuance in authorized states, EPA may issue NPDES
permits in authorized states for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel because 402(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act
prohibits EPA from issuing permits in authorized states only for
``those discharges subject to [the state's authorized] program.''
Discharges formerly excluded under 40 CFR 122.3 are not ``subject to''
authorized state programs. The vessel discharges that will be covered
by the permit are discharges formerly excluded from NPDES permitting
programs under 40 CFR 122.3. (See discussion of the vacatur of this
exclusion above.) Therefore the discharges at issue are not considered
a part of any currently authorized state NPDES program. See 40 CFR
123.1(i)(2) (where state programs have a greater scope of coverage than
``required'' under the federal program, that additional coverage is not
part of the authorized program) and 40 CFR 123.1(g)(1) (authorized
state programs are not required to prohibit point source discharges
exempted under 40 CFR122.3).

C. Categories of Vessels Covered Under the sVGP

    The sVGP applies to discharges incidental to the normal operation
of non-military, non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet (unless a
vessel elects for coverage under the VGP instead). The discharges
eligible for coverage under this permit are those covered by the former
exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) prior to its vacatur.

D. Summary of the sVGP

    EPA is today finalizing the sVGP for vessels less than 79 feet. EPA
is finalizing the sVGP to provide coverage for vessels less than 79
feet in length because the Public Law (Pub. L.) 110-299 NPDES
permitting moratorium (subsequently extended by Pub. L. 111- 215 and
Pub. L. 112-213) expires on December 18, 2014. EPA recognizes that
small commercial vessels are different in operation than larger
commercial vessels, generally have fewer discharge types, and that
owner/operators of smaller vessels have particularized expertise and
different resources available to manage their vessels than owner/
operators of larger vessels. Hence, the sVGP is structured differently
for this class of permittees. The sVGP will not require the vessel
owner or operator to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to receive permit
coverage. However, as with vessels not required to submit an NOI under
the 2013 VGP, sVGP permittees are required to complete and keep a
Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) form onboard their
vessel at all times (either in paper form or electronically). EPA also
notes that vessel owner/operators of vessels less than 79 feet may
choose whether they wish to seek coverage under the sVGP or the VGP.
The PARI form, different forms for the sVGP and VGP, will document
under which permit the owner/operator has sought coverage. The
discharges covered in the sVGP are categorized into several broad
categories listed in the permit and include: common-sense requirements
for general discharges, fuel management, engine and oil control, solid
and liquid waste management, deck washdown and runoff and above water
line hull cleaning, vessel hull maintenance, graywater, fish hold
effluent, ballast water, and overboard cooling water discharges. The
sVGP includes non-numeric effluent limits in the form of Best
Management Practices (BMPs), which were developed for these discharges
because EPA has determined that it is infeasible to calculate numeric
effluent limits at this time. The BMPs are designed to minimize the
amount of any discharge produced as well as reduce the likelihood the
discharge would enter a waterbody. EPA determined that for most small
vessel discharges, minimization of pollutants in discharges can be
achieved without using highly engineered, complex treatment systems.
The sVGP also requires the owner/operator to inspect the vessel
quarterly and take any corrective action, as necessary, and certify to
such on the PARI form each year.

E. Summary of Significant Changes From the Proposed sVGP

    EPA received comments from more than 70 commenters and based on
those comments, the Agency made a number of revisions to the proposed
permit as reflected in today's action. Significant changes from the
proposed permit are summarized below and discussed in more detail in
the permit fact sheet and in the response to comments document
available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0150 accessible
at http://www.regulations.gov):
    1. Removed the requirement that only vessels with less than 8 cubic
meters of

ballast water are eligible for sVGP coverage.
    2. Added a provision that, when feasible and safe, operators must
use ballast water pumps instead of gravity draining to empty these
tanks.
    3. Defined what it means for an environmentally acceptable
lubricant (EAL) to be ``technically infeasible'' for a vessel to use as
the term is used in the permit describing when EALs may not be required
and added the Swedish Standard SS 155434, Convention for the Protection
of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR)
requirements, and EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) to the list of
acceptable labeling programs for EALs.
    4. Clarified the prohibition against discharging unused bait
overboard is specific to unused ``live'' bait from a different water
body.
    5. Added a condition that accumulated bilgewater must be removed,
to the extent practicable, prior to transporting a vessel from one
waterbody to another over land.
    6. Added a prohibition against using any other organotin compound
(beyond an absolute prohibition of tributyl tin) as a hull coating
except in certain instances.
    7. Clarified vessel hull cleaning should not be done within 90 days
of painting, unless the vessel's hull is ``substantially fouled'' and
that cleaning of hulls does not necessarily have to done using ``only
soft sponges.''
    8. Clarified that discharges from continuous ``once-through''
ambient water used for keeping the catch alive during transit is not
subject to the permit requirements for discharging to shore-based
facilities.
    9. Clarified that ``periodic'' inspections of the engine and of the
hull are to be done at least quarterly.
    10. Clarified that any problems identified during the quarterly
visual inspection or when inspecting fuel and hydraulic systems for
damage or leaks must be corrected as soon as possible.
    11. Added a condition that a quarterly inspection is not required
on vessels that are not in the water for that quarter but this must be
documented on the PARI form for that quarter.
    12. Added definitions for several terms used in the permit,
including ``ballast tank,'' ``ballast water,'' ``ballast water
capacity,'' ``fish hold,'' ``minimally-toxic,'' ``minimally-toxic
soaps, cleaners, and detergents,'' ``minimize,'' ``not
bioaccumulative,'' ``seafood processing,'' and ``sewage from vessels.''
    13. Added State and Tribal-specific requirements for 21 states and
one tribe, pursuant to CWA Sec.  401, to the permit.

IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts of sVGP

A. Costs of the sVGP

    EPA estimates that between 115,000 and 138,000 vessels are
potentially affected by the sVGP requirements. The establishments that
own and operate vessels that will be subject to the sVGP are primarily
associated with the fishing and water transportation industries, and
with the oil and gas sector within the mining industry. To estimate the
effect of sVGP requirements on an industry as a whole, EPA's analysis
takes into account previous conditions and determines how the industry
would act in the future in the absence of permit requirements. The
baseline for this analysis is full industry compliance with existing
federal and state regulations and with current industry practices or
standards that exceed current regulations to the extent that they can
be empirically observed. EPA estimated potential compliance costs to
vessels associated with each of the practices and discharge categories
identified in the sVGP, and with the inspection and recordkeeping
requirements. Overall, EPA finds that sVGP requirements could result in
total annual incremental costs for domestic vessels ranging between
$7.1 million and $16.9 million (2010$) in the aggregate. This includes
the paperwork burden costs and the incremental costs of all practices
for applicable discharge categories. Per vessel incremental compliance
costs average between $17 and $133 per year, depending on the number of
applicable discharge categories and baseline practices.
    To evaluate economic impacts of sVGP requirements on the affected
industries, EPA performed a firm-level analysis. The firm-level
analysis examines the impact of incremental costs per vessel to comply
with the sVGP requirements on model firms that represent the financial
conditions of ``typical'' businesses in each of the examined industry
sectors. Since nearly all firms in the affected industries are small,
the firm-level analysis focuses on assessment of impacts on small
businesses. Further, given the distribution of revenue among firms in
the affected industry sectors, which suggests a relatively greater
potential for impacts to small firms in the commercial fishing
industry, EPA looked more specifically at this industry when assessing
the significance of impacts. To evaluate the potential impact of the
sVGP on small entities, EPA used a cost-to-revenue test to evaluate the
potential severity of economic impact on vessels and facilities owned
by small entities. The test calculates annualized pre-tax compliance
cost as a percentage of total revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and 3
percent to identify facilities that would be significantly impacted as
a result of this permit. Because the impact of sVGP compliance is
likely to be most significant for firms at the lower end of the firm
size spectrum, the analysis focused on firms in the smallest revenue
category in each industry. The results of this test provide estimated
compliance cost thresholds that range between $331 and $680 per year
(1%) and between $994 and $2,040 per year (3%), depending on the
industry. The estimated sVGP compliance costs ($17 to $133 per year)
are well below these thresholds. Based on this firm-level analysis
using the average characteristics of firms in the lowest revenue
category, EPA concludes that the sVGP will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities based on
information showing that firms would have lower compliance costs than
would exceed the 1 percent cost-to-revenue threshold under high-end
cost assumptions.

B. Benefits of the sVGP

    Although EPA was unable to evaluate the expected benefits of the
permit in dollar terms due to data limitations, the Agency collected
and considered relevant information to enable qualitative consideration
of ecological benefits and to assess the importance of the ecological
gains from the revisions. EPA expects that reductions in vessel
discharges will benefit society in two broad categories: (1) Enhanced
water quality from reduced pollutant discharges and (2) reduced risk of
invasive species introduction.
    Because many of the nation's busiest ports are considered to be
impaired by a variety of pollutants found in vessel discharges,
reducing pollutant loadings from these discharges is expected to have
benefits associated with the reduction of concentrations of nutrients,
metals, oil, grease, and toxics in waters with high levels of vessel
traffic.

V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821) and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Joan Leary Matthews,
Director, Clean Water Division, EPA Region 2.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Jose C. Font,
Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA Region 2.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Gail D. Mitchell,
Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 4.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Timothy C. Henry,
Deputy Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
James R. Brown,
Acting Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region
6.

    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Karen Flournoy,
Director, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Darcy O'Connor,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance, EPA Region 8.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Nancy Woo,
Associate Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Daniel Opalski,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-21408 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P