SUPPORTING STATEMENT

	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)
(Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)
(Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1657.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0387

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Pulp and Paper Production were proposed on December 17, 1993, and
promulgated on April 15, 1998.  These regulations apply to facilities
that produce pulp, paper, or paperboard by employing kraft, soda,
sulfite, semi-chemical, or mechanical pulping processes using wood; or
any process using secondary or non-wood fiber and that emits 10 tons per
year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more
of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.  Affected sources are
all the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission points or the HAP
emission points in the pulping and bleaching system for mechanical
pulping processes using wood and any process using secondary or non-wood
fiber.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40
CFR part 63, subpart S.

In general, NESHAP require initial notifications, performance tests, and
periodic reports.  Owners or operators are also required to maintain
records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period
during which the monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications,
reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are
required of all sources subject to NESHAP.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file onsite for at
least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance
report, and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or
local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated
authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

Approximately 115 sources are currently subject to the standard which
includes: 111 chemical pulp mills, and 4 non-integrated paper mills that
bleach with chlorinated compounds.  It is further assumed that no
additional new sources will become subject to the regulation in the next
three years, though approximately 15 percent of the affected facilities
will rebuild one or more process units in a given year.

In the United States, there are approximately 115 pulp and paper
production facilities which are owned and operated by the pulp and paper
industry.  None of the 115 facilities in the United States are owned by
state, local, tribal or the Federal government.  They are owned and
operated by privately owned for-profit businesses.  You can find the
burden to the “Affected Public” listed below in Table 1: Annual
Respondent Burden and Cost - NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart S).  The Federal government burden does not include
work performed by Federal employees.  The burden refers only to work
performed by contractors, which could be found listed below in Table 2:
Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart S).

In the development of the ICR, we addressed the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) “Terms of Clearance (TOC)” on the active ICR.  The TOC
are as follows:

When this ICR is renewed, EPA should review the respondent burden,
universe, labor rates, and capital costs and ensure these estimates have
been updated.

EPA addressed each item of concern in the TOC.  The respondent burden,
universe, labor rates, and capital cost have been thoroughly checked and
all estimates updated.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and
shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition,
section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or
operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from pulp and paper
plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  These HAP emissions
are acetaldehyde, benzene carbon disulfide, chloroform, formaldehyde,
methanol, methyl- ethyl-ketone, toluene, and xylene emissions.
Therefore, the NESHAP for this source category was promulgated at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart S.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also
used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standard at all times.  During the performance tests, a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency
or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements
of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source
to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and
operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the
standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the agency to
ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the
control equipment in compliance with the regulation.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
63, subpart S.

3(a)  Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 26900) on May 9, 2011.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s
internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next
three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as
reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the standard, is the Online Tracking Information System
(OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.
 OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval
of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on
our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided
an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as
it was being developed.  In developing this ICR, we contacted the
American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
National Paper Trade Association (NPTA) at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received
since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the
First Federal Register Notice.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting
violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five
years allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any
pattern of non-compliance and to determine the appropriate level of
enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond the five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are pulp
and paper production facilities.  The United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents affected by the
standards, which corresponds to The North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes, are listed below for source
category description.

Standard (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Pulp Mills	2611	32211

Paper Mills	2621	32212

Paperboard Mills	2631	32213

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data recorded or reported is required by National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pulp and Paper
Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Notification of construction and reconstruction	63.5(d)

Construction or modification application	63.455(d)

Initial notification	63.9(b)(2)

Anticipated startup	63.9(b)

Actual startup	63.9(b)(4)(v)

Initial performance test results	63.10(d)(2)

Initial performance test	63.7(b), 63.9(e)

Rescheduled initial performance test	63.7(b)(2)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system	63.9(g)

Compliance status	63.9(h)

Physical or operational change	63.5 (b)(4)

Opacity or visible emissions	N/A

Periodic startup, shutdown, malfunction reports	63.10(d)(5)(I)

Reports

Source status report	63.10(e)(3)

Semiannual Control Strategy Update (thru 2006)	63.455(b)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Startup, shutdown, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring
system is inoperative	63.10(b)(2)

Emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions
63.454(a)

All reports and notifications	63.10(b)

Record of applicability	63.10(b)(3)

Records for sources with continuous monitoring systems	63.10(3)(c)

Records are required to be retained for five years.  Records must be
kept onsite for the first two years.  For the remaining three years,
records can be kept in a readily accessible off-site location.	63.454

Site specific inspection plans	63.454(b)

Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time,
it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring systems
(CMS) for each of the following affected units:

  1.1  Non-Sulfite pulping process choice of:

Provide documentation that vent streams are introduced to the flame zone
of a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace, or

Provide documentation that the control incinerator is operating at a
minimum level of 1600F and 0.75 second residence time, or

Performance test of control device using Method 308.

  1.2  Sulfite pulping process – performance test of control device
using test method 308.

  2.1  Bleaching process vent scrubber (MACT I Mills) choice of:

Provide documentation of scrubber operating parameters or previous
performance              test results, or

Performance test of scrubber or control device using test Method 26A.

  2.2  Bleaching process vent scrubber (MACT III Mills) choice of:

           a.   Provide documentation of scrubber operating parameters,
or previous performance

                test  results, or

           b.   Performance test of scrubber or control device using
test Method 26A.

  3.1  Non-Sulfite pulping wastewater treatment

          a.   Performance test of condensate segregation and control
device using method 305 or

          b.   Performance test of bio-treatment unit using test Method
304.

  3.2  Sulfite pulping process

          a.   Performance test of control device using test Method 305.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 26A, 304, 305, and
308 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Conduct initial and annual inspection of enclosures, closed vent, and
wastewater conveyance systems using test Method 21.

Write the notification and reports for: initial notification; compliance
status; initial compliance strategy report; compliance strategy report
update; semiannual summary report; continuous monitoring/exceedance
reports; notifications of performance tests,
construction/reconstruction, and actual startup.

Enter information required to be recorded for continuous monitoring for
operating parameters, periodic inspections (monthly visual and annual
Method 21) startups, shutdowns and malfunctions, personnel training and
time for audits.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way e.g., continuous parameter monitoring
system.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the
data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the
burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Online Tracking Information
System (OTIS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.

Information contained in the reports is entered into OTIS which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is the
EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of
compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses OTIS for tracking air pollution
compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA
regional offices, and EPA headquarters.  EPA delegated Authorities can
edit, store, retrieve, and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or
operator for five years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

The majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  The Agency considers these to be the minimum
requirements needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce
them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses
can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden
will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost,
NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)
(Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Wherever appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 35,358
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$118.92 ($56.63 + 110%)

Technical	$97.78 ($46.56 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.76 ($23.22 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, December 2010, "Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group."  The rates are from column 1, "Total
Compensation."  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standard are both labor costs which are
addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous
monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a
facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and
maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Since this rule does not require any continuous emission monitoring or
electronic data submittal, total capital costs are zero.  Continuous
monitoring requirements are for parametric monitoring, and these systems
are already in place; therefore, no new equipment would be required by
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  It is assumed that all
mills will contract a testing company to provide sampling and analytical
services for air and water tests.

Based on EPA’s experience the testing methods required for this rule,
the purchase of service for each method is estimated as follows:

			Method 308 - $14,000

			Method 26A -$10,000

			Method 304 - $11,000

			Method 305 - $16,000

			Method 21   - $3,000

These estimates include labor, materials, and analytical costs.  For the
entire industry, the number of mills assumed to contract testing
companies annually for demonstrating compliance and the associated cost
are estimated as follows:

			Method 308 -  0      Tests x $14,000 = $0

		Method 26A - 0      Tests x $10,000 = $0

		Method 304 -  4.3   Tests x $11,000 = $  47,300

	Method 305 -  6.45 Tests x $16,000 = $103,200

		Method 21 - 74       Tests x $  3,000 = $222,000

        TOTAL                $372,500

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $372,500.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  The EPA compliance and enforcement program
includes activities such as: the examination of records maintained by
the respondents; periodic inspection of sources of emissions; and the
publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $43,014.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

		Technical	$46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

		Clerical	$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2011
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates
have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NESHAP for Pulp and
Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) (Renewal).

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately 115 respondents will be subject to the standard.
It is estimated that no additional new sources will become subject to
the rule.  The overall average number of respondents, as shown in the
table below is 115 per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	17	115	0	17	115

2	17	115	0	17	115

3	17	115	0	17	115

Average	17	115	0	17	115

1 New respondent include sources with constructed, reconstructed and
modified affected facilities.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 115.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Semiannual report	115	2	N/A	230

Exceedance report	17	2	N/A	34

Compliance strategy report update	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of performance test	19	1	N/A	19

Notification of construction/reconstruction	17	1	N/A	17

Notification of actual startup	17	1	N/A	17

	Total	317

The number of Total Annual Responses is 317.

The total annual labor costs are $3,339,077.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost -
NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)
(Renewal).

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

(i)  Respondent Tally

The total annual labor hours are 35,358.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)
(Renewal).

Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 111 hours per
response.

The total annual capital/startup and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs to the regulated entity are $372,500.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 954 labor hours at a cost of $43,014.  See Table 2.
Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart S) (Renewal).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is
due to a more accurate estimate of existing and anticipated new sources.
 After consulting with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) and trade associations, and based on a recently completed
research conducted by EPA, our data indicates that there are
approximately 115 sources subject to the rule, as compared with the
active ICR that shows 137 sources.  There are no new facilities expected
to be constructed over the next three years of this ICR.  The decline in
the number of sources is mainly due to plant closures.  The industry is
undergoing widespread consolidation and corporate restructuring.
However, there is an increase in cost per labor hours due to the updated
labor rates.

Because there are no new sources with reporting requirements, no
capital/startup costs are incurred.  The only cost that is incurred is
for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the monitoring equipment.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 111 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA(s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0208.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
http://www.regulations.gov/  which may be used to obtain a copy of the
draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the content of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When
in the system, select “search” than key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.  The documents are also available for
public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information
Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  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 Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0208 and OMB Control Number
2060-0387 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Pulp and
Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)

Burden item	(A)

Person hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year	(C)

Person hours per respondent per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents per year a	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person hours per year

(Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical person hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Total Cost

Per year b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting requirements

     A.  Read instructions

  MACT I Mills c, d, e	40	1	40	6	240	12	24	$26,064.48

  MACT III Mills c, d, e	20	1	20	0	0	0	0	$0

     B.  Required activities

Pulping processes (non-sulfite)

Provide documentation that the vent

streams are introduced to the flame

zone of a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery

furnace, or  f	24	1	24	5	120	6	12	$13,032.24

Provide documentation that the control incinerator is operating at a

minimum level of 1600F and 0.75 sec

residence time, or g	60	1	60	0	0	0	0	$0

Performance test of control device -

test Method 308 h	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

Pulping processes (sulfite)

Performance test of control device -

test Method 308 h	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

          2.1) Bleaching process vent scrubber (MACT

                 I Mills) - choice of

Provide documentation of scrubber

operating parameters, or previous

performance test results, or k	60 	1	60	3	180	9	18	$19,548.36

Performance test of scrubber or control device - test Method 26A h, k	24
1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

         3.1) Pulping wastewater treatment

                (non-sulfite)

Performance test of condensate

segregation and control device (test

Method 305), or i, l	24	1	24	3	72	3.6	7.2	$7,819.34

Performance test of bio-treatment unit -

test Method 304 i, j, m	24	1	24	2	48	2.4	4.8	$5,212.90

      3.2) Pulping wastewater treatment (sulfite)

                   Performance test control device - test

                   Method 305 i, n	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

      Repeat of performance test

Test Method 308 – pulping h, o	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

Test Method 26A – bleaching h, o	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

Test Method 305 - kraft pulping

wastewater  i, o	24	1	24	3.45	82.8	4.14	8.28	$8,992.24

Test Method 304 - kraft pulping

wastewater  i, j, o	24	1	24	2.3	55.2	2.76	5.52	$5,994.83

Test Method 305 - sulfite pulping

wastewater. i, o	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

Initial/annual inspection (enclosures, closed vent,

wastewater conveyance system) – test Method 21p	8	1	8	74	592	29.6	59.2
$64,292.38

Monthly visual inspection of enclosures, closed

vent system, and wastewater conveyance system q	4	12	48	111	5,328	266.4
532.8	$578,631.46

     C.  Create information	See 3B

	     D.  Gather information	See 3B

	     E.  Report preparation

           Initial notification report	16	1	16	0	0	0	0	$0

           Notification of compliance status	16	1	16	0	0	0	0	$0

           Initial compliance strategy report r	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

           Compliance strategy report update r	16	1	16	0	0	0	0	$0

           Semiannual summary report s	16	2	32	115	3,680	184	368
$399,655.36

           Continuous monitoring/exceedance reports t	24	2	48	17	816
40.8	81.6	$88,619.24

           Notification of performance test u	4	1	4	19	76	3.8	7.6
$8,253.76

           Notification of construction/reconstruction v	4	1	4	17	68	3.4
6.8	$7,384.94

           Notification of actual startup v	4	1	4	17	68	3.4	6.8
$7,384.94

Subtotal  for Reporting Requirements

13,139.9

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

     A.  Read instructions 	See 3A

	     B.  Plan activities	See 3B

	     C.  Implement Activities 	See 3B

	     D.  Develop record system	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     E.  Record information

          Records of continuous monitoring for

          operating parameters w	2	52	104	115	11,960	598	1,196
$1,298,880.36

          Records of periodic inspections (monthly

          visual inspections and annual method 21)	See 3B

	          Record startup, shutdown, and malfunction x	4	12	48	115	5,520
276	552	$599,483.04

     F.  Time to train personnel 	N/A

	     G.  Time for audits y	8	2	16	115	1,840	92	184	$199,827.68

Subtotal  for Recordkeeping Requirements

22,218

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	30,746	1,537.3	3,074.6	$3,339,077.55

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

35,357.9

35,358

(rounded)

$3,339,077

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of existing sources subject
to the rule will be 115.  There will be no additional new sources per
year that will become subject

 to the rule over the three-year period of this ICR.

b This ICR uses the following labor rates:  $118.92 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $97.78 per hour for
Technical labor, and $48.76 per hour

for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2010, Table 2. Civilian
Workers, by Occupational

and Industry groups.  The rates are from column 1, Total Compensation.
The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit
packages

available to those employed by private industry.

c  We have assumed that MACT I mills include pulping systems at kraft,
sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical operations; and that MACT III mills
include mechanical, non-wood, and secondary fiber operations, along with
paper making at all types of mills that are major sources are subject to
subpart S.

d  We have assumed that this is a one-time-only activity.  After the
initial compliance date, 5 percent of mills will be affected as a result
of unexpected exceedances.

e  We have assumed that this is performed by all major source mills.
There are 111 major MACT I category mills, and 60 major stand-alone
(MACT III) category mills.  We

assume that all MACT I category mills will be affected by this rule, and
that the only MACT III category mills to be affected by this rule are
the stand-alone mills with chlorine bleaching compounds (4 mills).  The
total number of mills affected by this rule is 115 (111 + 4 = 115).

f  We have assumed that 5 percent of non-sulfite pulping mills
respondents will provide documentation.  It is estimated that 85 percent
of mills will use a recovery boiler, power boiler, or lime kiln for
control of pulping vents.  There are 106 non-sulfite pulping mills (85%
of 106 = 90 x 5% = 5).

g  We have estimated that 15 percent of mills will use incineration for
pulping lines [assuming half of these provide acceptable design specs
(8), and half conduct performance tests (8)].

h  We have assumed that it will take 24 hours once per year to complete
the performance test of a control device, which includes the test plan,
the test report, and the parametric monitoring setup.  Method 308 tests
for pulping lines and Method 26A tests for bleaching lines do not incur
compliance testing costs.

i  This estimate includes the test plan, the test report, and the
parametric monitoring setup.  Method 304 and 305 for pulping wastewater
streams incur compliance testing costs.

j  We assume that it will take each sulfite pulping mill respondent 24
hours once per year to conduct performance tests.

k  We have estimated that MACT I and MACT III category mills have
bleaching lines that use chlorinated compounds.  We assume that 90
percent provide acceptable performance specs or previous test results,
and 10 percent will conduct performance tests.

l  We assume that each kraft mill has one pulping wastewater control
device, with 60 percent of mills using stream strippers (60% x 97 = 58)
and (5% x 58 = 3).  See footnote “c.”  Facilities with steam
strippers are assumed to perform initial condensate segregation and
performance tests.

m  We have assumed that 40 percent of kraft mills use biotreatment (40 %
x 97 = 39) and (5% x 39 = 2).  Facilities with biotreatment control will
perform initial performance tests.

n  We have assumed that sulfite mills will monitor gas scrubber
parameters and use Water-9 Model for emission estimates.

o  We have assumed that 15 percent of performance test would have to be
repeated because of failure.

p  We have assumed that 2/3 of all MACT I mills that have positive
pressure points in their vent systems will have to test using Method 21
(2/3 x 111 = 74).  Method 21 for the wastewater conveyance system incurs
compliance testing costs.

q  We have assumed that each respondent will take 4 hours once per month
to complete the monthly visual inspection.  This monthly inspection of
enclosures will be performed by MACT I category mills which will be
affected by this rule.

r  We have assumed that the requirements for either the initial or the
updated compliance strategy report are now considered obsolete.  These
were required before 2006 only.

s  We have assumed that each respondent will each take 16 hours twice
per year to prepare the semiannual summary report.

t  We have assumed that 15 percent of all affected mills during any one
quarter will be required to submit an exceedance report in addition to
the summary report

(15% x 115 = 17).

u  We have assumed affected respondents must notify EPA of all tests
including repeat performance tests (111 x 0.05 = 5.6) and (5.6 x 1.15 x
3 = 19).

v  We have assumed that 15 percent of mills will conduct reconstruction
per year (15% of 115 = 17).

w  We have assumed that each respondent will take 2 hours 52 times per
year to record continuous monitoring for operating parameters.

x  We have assumed that each respondent will take 4 hours once per
monthly to record startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.

y  We have assumed that each respondent will take 8 hours twice per year
to train personnel.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Pulp and Paper
Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S)

Burden item	(A)

Person hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year	(C)

Person hours per respondent per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents per year  a	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person hours per year

(Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical person hours per year

  (Ex0.1)	(H)

Total Cost

Per year b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting requirements

     A.  Read instructions c	6	1	6	6	36	1.8	3.6	$1,865.69

     B.  Required activities

      Initial performance tests : c

      1.1) Pulping processes (non-sulfite) – choice of:

Review documentation that vent streams are

introduced to the flame zone of a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery
furnace, or d	8 	1	8	5	40	2	4	$2,072.98

Review documentation that the control

incinerator is operating at a level of at least

1600 F and 0.75 sec residence time, or e	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

 Review performance test of control

device e	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

     1.2) Pulping processes (sulfite) c

               -  Review performance test of control

              device f
              	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

     2.1) Bleaching process vent scrubber (MACT I

             Mills) – choice of: c

Review documentation of scrubber operating parameters, or g	8	1	8	3	24
1.2	2.4	$1,243.78

Review performance test of control device h	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

    3.1) Pulping wastewater treatment system (non-

           sulfite) – choice of: c

Review performance test of condensate

segregation and control device, or g	8	1	8	3	24	1.2	2.4	$1,243.78

Review performance test of bio-treatment

unit g	8	1	8	2	16	0.8	1.6	$829.20

    3.2) Pulping wastewater treatment (sulfite) c

Review performance test of control

   device g, i 	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

   Review repeat performance tests c, j

 Test Method 308 – pulping	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

 Test Method 26A – bleaching	4	1	4	3	12	0.6	1.2	$621.89

 Test Method 305 – kraft pulping wastewater	4	1	4	3	12	0.6	1.2	$621.89

 Test Method 304 – kraft pulping wastewater	4	1	4	2	8	0.4	0.8	$414.60

 Test Method 305 – sulfite pulping wastewater	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4
$207.29

       Initial/annual inspection (enclosures, closed vent

       wastewater conveyance system) – Test Method

       21 k        	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

       Monthly visual inspection of enclosures, closed

       vent system, and wastewater conveyance

       system l	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

    C.  Create information	N/A

	    D.  Gather information	N/A

	    E.  Report preparation

            Review initial notification report c, l	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

            Review notification of compliance status c, l	4	1	4	0	0	0	0
$0

            Review initial compliance strategy report c, m	4	1	4	0	0	0	0
$0

            Review compliance strategy report update c, m	4	1	4	0	0	0	0
$0

            Review semiannual summary report n	1	2	2	115	230	11.5	23
$11,919.63

            Review continuous monitoring/exceedance

            reports o	8	1	8	17	136	6.8	13.6	$7,048.14

            Review notification of performance test c, p	8	1	8	19	152
7.6	15.2	$7,877.32

            Review notification of construction/

            reconstruction c, q	4	1	4	17	68	3.4	6.8	$3,524.07

            Review notification of actual startup c, r	4	1	4	17	68	3.4
6.8	$3,524.07

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

Read  instructions	N/A

	Plan activities	N/A

	Implement activities	N/A

	Develop record system	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

Record information

              Records of monitoring parameters	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

              Records of periodic inspection (monthly

              visual inspections and annual Method 21)         	4	1	4	0
0	0	0	$0

              Record startups, shutdowns, and

              malfunctions	4	1	4	0	0	0	 0	$0

 Personnel training	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

 Time for audits	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

Subtotals  Labor Burden and Cost

	830	41.5	83	$43,014.33

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

954.5

954

(rounded)

$43,014

Assumptions:

a   We have assumed that the average number of existing sources subject
to the rule will be 115.  There will be no additional new sources per
year that will become subject

 to the rule over the three-year period of this ICR.

b  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a
1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses: $62.27 Managerial rate (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 x 1.6), $46.21
Technical rate (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 x 1.6), and $25.01 Clerical rate
(GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) 2011 General Schedule which excludes locality
rates of pay.

c  We have assumed that this is a one-time only activity.  After the
initial compliance date, 5 percent of mills will be affected as a result
of unexpected exceedances.

d  We have assumed that 5 percent of non-sulfite pulping mills
respondents will provide documentation   It is estimated that 85 percent
of mills will use a recovery boiler, power boiler, or lime kiln for
control of pulping vents.  There are 106 non-sulfite pulping mills (85 %
of 106 = 90 x 5% = 5).

e  We assumed that 15 percent of mills use incineration for pulping
lines (assuming half of these provide acceptable design specs (8), and
half conduct performance tests (8).

f  We have assumed that all of the 8 sulfite pulping mills will conduct
performance tests.

g  We have assumed that each kraft mill has one pulping wastewater
control device, with 60 percent of mills using stream strippers (60% of
97 = 58).  Facilities installing new biotreatment control will perform
initial performance tests.

h  We have assumed that 69 MACT I and 4 MACT III category mills have
bleaching lines that use chlorinated compounds.  We assume 90 percent
provide acceptable performance specs or previous test results, and 10
percent conduct performance test for a total of 7 (0.9 x 69 + 4 = 66 x
10% = 7).

i  We have assumed that 40 percent of kraft mills use biotreatment (40 %
of  97 = 39).

j  We have assumed that 15 percent of performance tests would have to be
repeated because of failure.

k  We have assumed that 2/3 of all MACT I mills have positive pressure
points in their vent systems.  All affected mills are required to
perform initial and annual activity.  EPA is notified of testing each
year.

l  We have assumed that this task will be performed by all affected
mills.

m  We have assumed that the requirements for either initial or updated
compliance strategy reports are now considered obsolete.  These were
required before 2006 only.

n  We have assumed that each respondent will take 1hour to review the
semiannual summary report.

o We have assumed that 15 percent of all mills during any one quarter
will be required to submit an exceedance report in addition to the
summary report ( 15% of 115 = 17).

p  We have assumed affected respondents must notify EPA of all tests
including repeat performance tests (111 x 0.05 = 5.6) and (5.6 x 1.15 x
3 = 19).

q  We have assumed that 15 percent of mills will conduct construction or
reconstruction per year (15% of 115 = 17).

r  We have assumed that affected respondent will take 4 hours to review
notification of actual startup report.

 PAGE

 PAGE   21

 PAGE


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 57796]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2011-0052]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a
document dated August 25, 2011, Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) has
submitted information to amend and clarify the scope of a June 14,
2011, petition to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a
waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236. FRA had assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2011-0052 as published in Federal Register
(Ref. Volume 76, No. 135, Thursday, July 14, 2011, Page 41556).
    NS seeks a waiver of compliance from the cab signal system
requirements found in 49 CFR 236.566, Locomotive of each train
operating in train stop, train control, or cab signal territory;
equipped. Specifically, NS seeks relief to operate nonequipped engines
used in switching and transfer service, with or without cars such as
work trains, wreck trains, ballast cleaners to and from work, and
engines and rail diesel cars moving to and from shops, in the following
locations with all movements at restricted speeds not exceeding 15 mph.
    1. Operations on the Pittsburgh Line, Harrisburg Division, from CP
Cannon at MP-PT 118.9 near Duncannon, PA, to CP Harrisburg at MP-PT
105.1 near Harrisburg, PA.
    2. Operations on the Pittsburgh Line, Pittsburgh Division, from CP
Cannon at MP-PT 118.9 near Duncannon, PA, to CP Solomon at MP-PT 352.5
near Pittsburgh, PA, with an absolute block to be established in
advance of each movement of foreign trains and engines between CP Bloom
at MP-PT 351.6 near Pittsburgh, PA, and CP Solomon.
    3. Operations on the Fort Wayne Line, Pittsburgh Division, from CP
Rochester at MP-PC 29.5, near East Rochester, PA, to CP Alliance at MP-
PC 83.2., with an absolute block to be established in advance of each
nonequipped movement.
    4. Operations on the Conemaugh Line, Pittsburgh Division, from CP
Conpit at MP-LC 0.0, near Bolivar, PA, to CP Kiski at MP-LC 47.8, near
Freeport, PA, with an absolute block to be established in advance of
each nonequipped movement.
    NS argues that relief is in the public interest. The waiver of 49
CFR 236.566 requirements in these areas is important to maintaining
efficient rail operations in the region. Exemptions have been
previously granted for the operation of nonequipped locomotives in cab
signal system territory at nearby locations and the relief requested in
this application is a consistent extension of those currently granted
exceptions.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at http://www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 31, 2011, will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 13, 2011.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-23840 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32064-32069]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0492; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-126-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes.
The existing AD currently requires repetitive visual inspections around
the bushings of the wing landing gear (WLG) beam outboard end fittings
for corrosion, and rework if necessary; and ultrasonic inspections for
cracks of the outboard end fittings of the WLG support beams, and
rework if necessary. Since we issued that AD, there have been new
reports of corrosion damage to the end fittings of the WLG support
beams, and one report of subsequent cracking in the end fittings. This
proposed AD would add airplanes and repetitive inspections of the
outboard end fitting of the left and right WLG support beams for cracks
and corrosion, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct corrosion and subsequent cracking in the
outboard end fittings, which could result in separation of the fitting
and damage to adjacent flight control cables and hydraulic systems and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6432; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0492;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-126-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On July 7, 1989, we issued AD 89-15-07, amendment 39-6267 (54 FR
30009, July 18, 1989), for certain Model 747 airplanes. That AD
requires visual inspections around the bushings of the wing landing
gear for corrosion, and repair if necessary, and ultrasonic inspections
for cracks of the outboard end fittings of the WLG support beams, and
overhaul if necessary. That AD resulted from a report of a fracture of
the outboard end fitting of a left WLG beam. We issued that AD to
prevent failure of the outboard end fitting of a WLG beam with possible
damage to control cables or hydraulic lines in the area of the landing
gear beam.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 89-15-07, amendment 39-6267 (54 FR 30009, July
18, 1989), we have received new reports of corrosion damage to the end
fittings of the WLG support beams, and one report of subsequent
cracking in the end fittings. The end fittings are installed on the
outboard ends of the WLG support beams, and they attach to gate
fittings installed on the rear wing spars. There are two types of end
fittings used--one is a two-piece end fitting installed in a ``back to
back'' configuration; the other is a one-piece end fitting.
    Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57-2244, Revision 1, dated July 28,
1988, was referred to in the existing AD for accomplishing the required
actions on Model 747 airplanes having line numbers 1 through 695. The
terminating action specified in that service bulletin involves
replacing each of the end fitting lug bore and bolt hole bushings with
new standard or oversize bushings which are installed with sealant to
provide better corrosion prevention. That terminating action was
incorporated into the design of replacement fittings used on production
airplanes having line numbers 696 and subsequent.
    Although the terminating action seemed to work well on airplanes
having line numbers 1 through 695, recent reports from operators of
airplanes having line numbers 696 and subsequent revealed that the
problem occurred again. Further investigation revealed that the
corrosion started at the lug bore and bushing interface because
moisture continued to develop in that area due to exposure of the end
fittings to environmental conditions. Subsequently, cracks have
occurred at the corroded areas of the end fittings; therefore, the
terminating action in that service bulletin is no longer valid because
the unsafe condition specified in the existing AD has not been
corrected.

Relevant Service Information

    Since the issuance of AD 89-15-07, amendment 39-6267 (54 FR 30009,
July 18, 1989), Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331,
dated November 12, 2009. This new service information is applicable to
Model 747 airplanes having line numbers 1 through 1419 inclusive, which
includes airplanes on which the terminating action in AD 89-15-07 was
done.
    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009. This service bulletin describes procedures for
repetitive detailed and ultrasonic inspections, as applicable, for
cracks and corrosion of the end fittings of the left and right WLG
support beams; and repetitive detailed inspections of the fillet seal
for damage, as applicable. The service information describes necessary
actions and options after accomplishing the inspections, depending on
the findings and configurations. Those actions and options (including
Options 1A and 1B) include the following:
     Repairing or changing each end fitting (by installing
higher interference fit bushings on the end fitting), which is
identified as ``Part 7'' of this service bulletin, may be done in lieu
of the inspections described previously, but is necessary for findings
of cracks or corrosion.
     Repetitively inspecting, as described previously, along
with an additional inspection of the fillet seal for damage; and
applying corrosion inhibiting compound or doing ``Part 7'' of this
service bulletin, if necessary.
     Doing ``Post-Part 7 inspections,'' which involves actions
similar to the inspections for cracks, corrosion, and damage described
previously.
    The recommended compliance times follow:
     Detailed and ultrasonic inspections: The initial
compliance time for these inspections depends on configuration, and is
either (1) 8 years on the end fitting and 18 months after the date on
this service bulletin (whichever is later); or (2) 10 years on the end
fitting and 24 months after the date on this service bulletin
(whichever is later). The repetitive interval also depends on
configurations and findings, and ranges between 12 and 24 months.
     ``Part 7'' of this service bulletin: The initial
compliance time is the later of 20,000 total flight cycles on an end
fitting, and either 18 or 24 months (depending on configuration). The
repetitive interval is either 13,000 or 16,000 flight cycles on an end
fitting; depending on configuration.
     ``Post-Part 7'' inspections: The compliance time is 12
years after the repair or change. The subsequent repetitive intervals
range between 12 months and 36 months, depending on findings and
configurations.
    For airplanes on which any crack, corrosion, or damage is found,
the compliance time for ``Part 7'' or application of corrosion
inhibitor is before further flight.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of the existing
AD. This proposed AD would also add airplanes and require accomplishing
the actions specified in the service information described previously.

Changes to Existing AD

    We have changed the applicability of AD 89-15-07, amendment 39-6267
(54 FR 30009, July 18, 1989), in this proposed AD to identify model
designations as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected models. We have also changed the legal name of
the manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.
    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 89-15-07,
amendment 39-6267 (54 FR 30009, July 18, 1989). Since AD 89-15-07 was
issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have
been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers
have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Requirement in AD 89-15-07,
  Amendment 39-6267 (54 FR 30009,     Corresponding  requirement in this
           July 18, 1989)                        proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            paragraph A                        paragraph (g)
            paragraph B                     paragraph (g)(1)
             paragraph C                    paragraph (g)(2)
            paragraph D                     paragraph (g)(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD
(which was designated as paragraph D. in the existing AD) to require
that if any corrosion is found after the effective date of this
proposed AD, rework is required before further flight. We have reduced
the compliance time to do the rework from ``within 12 months'' to
``before further flight'' because extensive service history has shown
that the deferral of known airplane damage such as cracks and corrosion
has not provided an acceptable level of safety. Service history has
shown that the extent of damage from unrepaired corrosion can not
reliably be determined by inspection techniques. The damaged corroded
material must first be removed and only then can the remaining material
dimensions be accurately compared to the allowable damage limits. The
extent of unrepaired corrosion damage can not be accurately

determined by current inspection methods. Further, the reliance for
operation with known damage is predicated on the adjacent and
associated structure being free from other damage during this time
period, which has not been demonstrated by older airplanes.
    Depending on airplane configuration, the new proposed inspections
would take between 1 and 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the new inspections specified in this proposed AD for U.S. operators
is between $14,705 and $58,820, or between $85 and $340 per airplane,
per inspection cycle.

Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Operators should note that Conditions 6, 13, and 16 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331,
dated November 12, 2009, specify a detailed inspection. However, the
corresponding conditions in the Accomplishment Instructions of this
service bulletin specify both detailed and high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspections. We have confirmed with Boeing that its intent is
that this service bulletin specify only a detailed inspection for those
conditions.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 173 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Cost per
            Action                Labor cost      Parts cost      product           Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections [retained actions  10 work-hours x            $0  $850 per         $147,050 per inspection cycle.
 from existing AD 89-15-07,     $85 per hour =                 inspection
 amendment 39-6267 (54 FR       $850 per                       cycle.
 30009, July 18, 1989)].        inspection
                                cycle.
Inspections [new proposed      Up to 67 work-              0  Up to $5,695     Up to $985,235 per inspection
 action].                       hours x $85 per                per inspection   cycle, depending on
                                hour = $5,695                  cycle,           configuration.
                                per inspection                 depending on
                                cycle,                         configuration.
                                depending on
                                configuration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs/
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                     Labor cost            Parts cost               Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair or replacement..........  Up to 71 work-hours x    Up to $26,436,     Up to $32,471, depending on
                                  $85 per hour = $6,035,   depending on       configuration.
                                  depending on             configuration.
                                  configuration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 89-15-07, Amendment 39-6267 (54 FR 30009, July 18, 1989), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0492; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-126-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 16,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 89-15-07, Amendment 39-6267 (54 FR 30009,
July 18, 1989).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated in
any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by new reports of corrosion damage to the
end fittings of the wing landing gear (WLG) support beams, and one
report of subsequent cracking in the end fittings. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct corrosion and subsequent cracking in
the outboard end fittings, which could result in separation of the
fitting and damage to adjacent flight control cables and hydraulic
systems and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections With Revised Compliance Times

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs A., B.,
C., and D., of AD 89-15-07, Amendment 39-6267 (54 FR 30009, July 18,
1989): For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57-
2244, Revision 1, dated July 28, 1988: Prior to the accumulation of
30,000 flight hours or 8 years in service, whichever occurs first;
or within the next 14 months after August 22, 1989 (the effective
date of AD 89-15-07); whichever occurs later; visually inspect
around the fitting lug bushings at the wing landing gear (WLG) beam
outboard end fittings for corrosion, and ultrasonically inspect the
WLG beam outboard end fittings for cracks, in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-57-2244, Revision 1, dated July 28, 1988.
Accomplishing the initial inspections required by paragraph (j) of
this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
    (1) If no cracking or corrosion is found, repeat the inspections
at intervals not to exceed 18 months until paragraph (j) of this AD
has been accomplished.
    (2) If cracking is found, prior to further flight, remove the
WLG beam outboard fitting, and rework, in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-57-2244, Revision 1, dated July 28, 1988.
    (3) If only corrosion is found, within the next 12 months,
rework in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57-2244,
Revision 1, dated July 28, 1988. The ultrasonic inspections for
cracks required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be accomplished at
intervals not to exceed 6 months until the rework is accomplished.
For any corrosion that is found after the effective date of this AD,
the rework must be done before further flight.

(h) Retained Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph E., of AD
89-15-07, Amendment 39-6267 (54 FR 30009, July 18, 1989):
Terminating action for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of
this AD consists of rework of the WLG beam outboard fittings, in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57-2244, Revision 1,
dated July 28, 1988.

(i) New Compliance Times for This AD

    For all the actions identified in paragraphs (j) through (t) of
this AD, do the actions at the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009. Where paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance'' of this service bulletin specifies a compliance time
relative to the original issue date of the service bulletin, this AD
requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the
effective date of this AD.

(j) New Repetitive Inspections for Groups 1 Through 5 Airplanes

    For Groups 1 through 3 airplanes, Configurations 1 and 2; and
Groups 4 and 5 airplanes: Do detailed and ultrasonic inspections of
the end fittings for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 1
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.

(k) New Inspections for No Crack or Corrosion Findings for Groups 1
Through 5 Airplanes

    If no crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required
by paragraph (j) of this AD, do either of the actions required by
paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Repeat the detailed and ultrasonic inspections of the end
fittings for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the end fittings for fillet seal
damage and for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (i) If no fillet seal damage, crack, or corrosion is found:
Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
    (ii) If any fillet seal damage is found, but no crack or
corrosion is found: Remove the fillet seal, and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (A) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (B) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound on each end fitting, in accordance with Part 2
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009; and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (1) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound on each end fitting, in accordance with Part 3
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009, and thereafter repeat the
inspections required by paragraph (k)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (2) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD.

(l) New Repair for Crack or Corrosion Findings for Groups 1 Through 5
Airplanes

    If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD: Repair or change the
end fitting, in accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009. After accomplishing the repair or change in
accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009, do the
applicable actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

(m) New Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions for Group 6
Airplanes

    For Group 6 airplanes: Do a detailed inspection of the end
fittings for fillet seal damage and for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (1) If no fillet seal damage, crack, or corrosion is found: Do
the detailed inspection of the end fittings for fillet seal damage
and for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (i) If no fillet seal damage, crack, or corrosion is found:
Repeat the detailed inspection required by paragraph (m)(1) of this
AD.
    (ii) If any fillet seal damage is found, but no crack or
corrosion is found: Remove the fillet seal, and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (A) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (B) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound on each end fitting, in accordance with Part 2
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009; and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part

3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (1) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (2) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009, and thereafter repeat the inspections required by
paragraph (m)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (2) If any fillet seal damage is found, but no crack or
corrosion is found: Remove the fillet seal, and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (i) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (ii) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound on each end fitting, in accordance with Part 1
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009; and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (A) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (B) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009, and thereafter repeat the inspections required by
paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(n) New Repair for Group 6 Airplanes

    If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (m) of this AD: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009. After accomplishing the repair or change in
accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009, do the
applicable actions required by paragraph (m) of this AD.

(o) New Optional Terminating Action for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
Inspections

    In lieu of doing Part 1, Part 2, or Part 3 inspections required
by this AD: Repair or change the end fitting, in accordance with
Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009. After accomplishing
the repair or change in accordance with Part 7 of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009, do the
applicable actions required by paragraphs (p) and (r) of this AD.
Doing the repair or change terminates the Part 1, 2, or 3
inspections for that part only of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.

(p) New Follow-On End Fitting Inspection for Groups 1 Through 5
Airplanes

    For Groups 1 through 5 airplanes on which the repair or change
specified in Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009, has
been done: Do detailed and ultrasonic inspections of the end
fittings for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009. If no crack or corrosion is found,
do the actions required by either paragraph (p)(1) or (p)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Repeat the detailed and ultrasonic inspections of the end
fittings for cracks and corrosion required by paragraph (p) of this
AD.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of each end fitting for fillet seal
damage, cracks, and corrosion, in accordance with Part 5 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (i) If no fillet seal damage, crack, or corrosion is found:
Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (p)(2) of this AD.
    (ii) If any fillet seal damage is found, but no crack or
corrosion is found: Remove the fillet seal, and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (A) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, as required by paragraph (q) of this AD.
    (B) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound on each end fitting, in accordance with Part 5
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009; and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (1) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, as required by paragraph (q) of this AD.
    (2) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound, in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009; and repeat the detailed and HFEC inspections of
each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 6
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.

(q) New Repair for Groups 1 Through 5 Airplanes

    If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (p) of this AD: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009. After accomplishing the repair or change in
accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009, do the
applicable actions required by paragraphs (p) of this AD.

(r) New Follow-On End Fitting Inspection for Group 6 Airplanes

    For Group 6 airplanes on which the repair or change specified in
Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009, has been done: Do a
detailed inspection of the end fittings for fillet seal damage,
cracks, and corrosion, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (1) If no fillet seal damage, crack, or corrosion is found: Do a
detailed inspection of each end fitting for fillet seal damage,
cracks, and corrosion, in accordance with Part 5 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (i) If no fillet seal damage, crack, or corrosion is found:
Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (r)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) If any fillet seal damage is found, but no crack or
corrosion is found: Do detailed and HFEC inspections of each end
fitting for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 5 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (A) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting as required by paragraph (s) of this AD.
    (B) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound on each end fitting, in accordance with Part 5
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009; and repeat the detailed and
HFEC inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (1) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009.
    (2) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound, in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009; and repeat the detailed and HFEC inspections of
each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 6
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (2) If any fillet seal damage is found, but no crack or
corrosion is found: Do detailed and HFEC inspections of each end
fitting for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.

    (i) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, as required by paragraph (s) of this AD.
    (ii) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound on each end fitting, in accordance with Part 4
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009, and do detailed and HFEC
inspections of each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in
accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.
    (A) If any crack or corrosion is found: Repair or change the end
fitting, as required by paragraph (s) of this AD.
    (B) If no crack or corrosion is found: Apply corrosion
inhibiting compound, in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009; and repeat the detailed and HFEC inspections of
each end fitting for cracks and corrosion, in accordance with Part 6
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009.

(s) New Repair for Group 6 Airplanes

    If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (r) of this AD: Repair or change the end
fitting, in accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009.

(t) New Optional Action for Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6 Inspections

    In lieu of doing Part 4, Part 5, or Part 6 inspections required
by this AD: Repair or change the end fitting, in accordance with
Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated November 12, 2009. After accomplishing
the repair or change in accordance with Part 7 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2331, dated
November 12, 2009, do the applicable actions required by paragraphs
(p) and (r) of this AD.

(u) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 89-15-07, Amendment 39-6267 (54 FR
30009, July 18, 1989), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
requirements of this AD.

(v) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-13187 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21727-21728]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1674-001.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Service Agreements--Compliance to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1152-001.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Implement RP10-21 Rate Settlement to be effective
4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110329-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1880-001.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): EnCana Amendment Filing to be effective 3/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110329-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-257-001.
    Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.
    Description: Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.'s Annual Actual Fuel
Use Report.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110401-5174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1398-002.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: System-Wide Rate Case Motion Filing to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110401-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: CP11-5-001.
    Applicants: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC's application
request for certificate of public convenience and necessity.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5295.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: CP11-6-001.
    Applicants: Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC.
    Description: Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC's application request
for certificate of public convenience and necessity.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5301.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 4, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9310 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P