[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80228-80230]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32890]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0904; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-33-AD;
Amendment 39-16902; AD 2011-27-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Turbomeca Arriel 1B turboshaft engines. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as an increase in hot gas ingestion and an increase of
temperature in the gas generator (GG) turbine rotor, potentially
resulting in turbine damage and an uncommanded in-flight shutdown. We
are issuing this AD to prevent over-temperature damage of the GG
turbine, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight engine
shutdown, and a subsequent forced autorotation landing or accident.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2011 (76
FR 54143). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During quality inspections in repair centre some 2nd stage
Nozzle Guide Vanes (NGVs) to be installed on Pre TU 148 standard
Arriel 1B were found not conforming to the definition. The affected
parts had been repaired and were found drilled on the rear flange
instead of the front flange. This configuration corresponds to 2nd
stage Turbine NGVs to be installed on post-TU 148 standard Arriel 1B
engines. This non compliance may only be found on post-TU 76
standard 2nd stage Turbine NGVs (i.e. with flexible hub).
    This non compliance would increase hot gas ingestion and
generate an increase of temperature in the Gas Generator (GG)
turbine rotor, potentially resulting in turbine damage and an
uncommanded in-flight shutdown.

    The corrective action includes daily checks for evidence of turbine
damage, and removal of the engine from service before further flight if
turbine damage is found. The corrective action also includes inspecting
the configuration of the holes in the repaired 2nd stage turbine NGV.
If the holes are non-conforming, then before further flight replacement
of the 2nd stage turbine NGV, 1st stage turbine disc, and 2nd stage
turbine disc, with discs eligible for installation, is required. You
may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects
about 20 Turbomeca Arriel 1B turboshaft engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate that it will take about 40
work-hours per engine to inspect a repaired 2nd stage turbine NGV for
the non-conforming hole configuration. We also estimate that it will
take about 60 work-hours to replace the NGV, the 1st stage turbine
disc, and the 2nd stage turbine disc, and that one engine will require
these replacements. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Required parts cost about $19,889 per engine. Based on these figures,
we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $92,989. Our
cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-27-01 Turbomeca: Amendment 39-16902; Docket No. FAA-2010-0904;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-33-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 27,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 1B turboshaft engines with
M03 modules modified by TU 76 or TU 202, and not modified by TU 148,
and if fitted with a repaired 2nd stage turbine nozzle guide vane
(NGV). The M03 module contains the 2nd stage turbine NGV, 1st stage
turbine disc, and 2nd stage turbine disc. Guidance on determining if
an engine has an unrepaired 2nd stage turbine NGV installed can be
found in paragraph 1.C. of Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin
(MSB) No. A292 72 0829, Version B, dated December 13, 2010.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an increase in hot gas ingestion and an
increase of temperature in the gas generator (GG) turbine rotor,
potentially resulting in turbine damage and an uncommanded in-flight
shutdown. We are issuing this AD to prevent over-temperature damage
of the GG turbine, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight
engine shutdown, and a subsequent forced autorotation landing or
accident.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Daily Checks

    (1) Starting from the effective date of this AD, perform a daily
check (after last flight of the day) for:
    (i) Normal rundown time of the GG rotor; and
    (ii) The free rotation of the GG rotor; and
    (iii) No grinding noise during the rundown check, and during the
free rotation check of the GG rotor.
    (2) Guidance on performing the daily checks can be found in the
Maintenance Manual, task 71-02-09-760-801 and task 05-20-01-200-801.
    (3) If the engine fails any of these daily checks, remove the
engine from service before further flight.

(g) Inspection of Repaired 2nd Stage Turbine NGVs

    (1) Inspect the 2nd stage turbine NGV for a non-conforming hole
configuration, at the compliance times in Table 1 of this AD.
Guidance on 2nd stage turbine NGV non-conforming hole configuration
can be found in Turbomeca MSB No. A292 72 0829, Version B, dated
December 13, 2010.

                  Table 1--Inspection Compliance Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  If accumulated GG Cycles-in-Service
 (CIS) on the effective date of this AD           Then inspect:
                  are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Fewer than 1,200 CIS on both the     Before exceeding 1,500 GG CIS.
 1st and 2nd stage turbines.
(ii) 1,200 or more but fewer than 1,800  Before exceeding 300 GG CIS
 CIS on either the 1st or 2nd stage       after the effective date of
 turbines.                                this AD but not to exceed
                                          2,000 CIS on either the 1st or
                                          2nd stage turbines.
(iii) 1,800 or more but fewer than       Before exceeding 200 GG CIS
 2,400 CIS on either the 1st or 2nd       after the effective date of
 stage turbine.                           this AD but not to exceed
                                          2,500 CIS on either the 1st or
                                          2nd stage turbines.
(iv) Greater than 2,400 CIS on either    Before exceeding 100 GG CIS
 the 1st or 2nd stage turbine.            after the effective date of
                                          this AD but not to exceed
                                          3,000 CIS on either the 1st or
                                          2nd stage turbine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) If the configuration of the holes in the repaired 2nd stage
turbine NGV are conforming, then no further action is required.
    (3) If the configuration of the holes in the repaired 2nd stage
turbine NGV are non-conforming, then before further flight:
    (i) Replace the 2nd stage turbine NGV with a 2nd stage turbine
NGV eligible for installation; and
    (ii) Replace the 1st stage turbine disc and 2nd stage turbine
disc with discs eligible for installation.

(h) Terminating Action

    Complying with paragraph (g)(1) and either paragraph (g)(2) or
paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (g)(3)(ii) of this AD, or replacing the
M03 module with an M03 module that is eligible for installation, is
terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

(i) Installation Prohibition

    (1) Do not reinstall the 1st stage turbine disc and the 2nd
stage turbine disc removed in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this AD into
any engine.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an M03
module that has incorporated TU 202 but not incorporated TU 148,
unless the module is in compliance with the requirements of this AD.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an M03
module that has incorporated TU 76 but not incorporated TU 148,
unless the module is in compliance with the requirements of this AD.

(j) FAA AD Differences

    (1) This AD differs from the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) and/or service information as follows:
    (i) This AD does not require sending data to Turbomeca to
confirm whether Turbomeca MSB No. A292 72 0829, Version B, dated
December 13, 2010, is applicable to the operator's engine; the MCAI
does.
    (ii) This AD does not incorporate by reference (IBR) Turbomeca
MSB No. A292 72 0829, Version B, dated December 13, 2010; the MCAI
does.
    (iii) This AD requires replacing non-conforming 2nd stage
turbine NGVs and 1st stage and 2nd stage turbine discs that were
operated with non-conforming 2nd stage turbine NGVs but does not
require replacing affected M03 modules. The MCAI requires replacing
affected M03 modules with M03 modules eligible for installation.

(k) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a conforming repaired 2nd stage
turbine NGV is one with cooling holes in the forward inner flange,
and with no cooling holes in the rear flange.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2010-0273R1,
dated February 16, 2011, and Turbomeca MSB No. A292 72 0829, Version
B, dated December 13, 2010, for related information. Contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00; fax: 33
05 59 74 45 15; for a copy of this service information.
    (2) Contact Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(781) 238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for more information about
this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 16, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-32890 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7678-7679]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-13411]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
10 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective March 4, 2015. Comments must be
received on or before March 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2000-
7363; FMCSA-2002-13411], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved

absent such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption
(including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 10 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 10 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Kirk G. Braegger (UT)
Ambrosio Calles (NM)
Jose G. Cruz (TX)
Harry P. Henning (PA)
Christopher L. Humphries (TX)
Ralph J. Miles (OR)
Thomas C. Rylee (GA)
Stanley B. Salkowski, III (PA)
Michael G. Thomas (PA)
William H. Twardus (DE)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 10 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066; 67 FR 71610; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR
10298; 70 FR 7545; 72 FR 7812; 74 FR 6689; 76 FR 9859; 78 FR 8689).
Each of these 10 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and
has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and
that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each
record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies
over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the
vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis
for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-13411), indicate the specific
section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a
reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your
comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include
your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in
the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has
questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, got to http://www.regulations.gov
and put the docket number, ``FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-13411'' in the
``Keyword'' box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears,
click on ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the text
box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your
comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period and may change this
notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-13411'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button choose the
document listed to review. If you do not have access to the Internet,
you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued On: February 2, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02805 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 38577-38580]
[DOCID:fr13jy07-68]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0493; FRL-8138-4]

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program; Assay Peer Review Process

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the approach EPA
intends to take for conducting peer reviews of the Tier 1 screening
assays and Tier 2 testing assays that are being validated by the
Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), as well as EPA's
approach for conducting the peer review of the Tier 1 battery. EPA is
also announcing the availability of a listserver (Listserv) that will
allow interested parties to sign up to receive e-mail notifications of
EDSP peer review updates, including information on the availability of
peer review materials to be posted on the EDSP website. These materials
may include the documents to be peer reviewed, background documents,
the charge to the peer reviewers, and reports that summarize the
results of peer reviews.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Linda Phillips, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy (7203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-1264; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. You may be
potentially affected by this action if you produce, manufacture, use,
consume, work with, or import commercial or pesticide chemicals. To
determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action,
you should carefully examine section 408(p) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(p). Potentially affected entities, using the North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes to assist you and others
in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities, may
include, but are not limited to:
     Chemical Manufacturers, Importers and Processors (NAICS
code 325), e.g., entities who manufacture, import or process chemical
substances.
     Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturing (NAICS code 3253), e.g., entities who manufacture, import
or process pesticide, fertilizer and agricultural chemicals.
     Scientific Research and Development Services (NAICS code
5417), e.g., persons who conduct testing of chemical substances for
endocrine affects.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. Materials cited in this notice are available in docket
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0493. All documents in the docket are listed in
the regulations.gov index. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically athttp://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in

hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.
    2. Electronic access. You may access thisFederal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet

under the ``Federal Register'' listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Introduction

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is announcing its approach for conducting peer reviews of Tier
1 screening assays and Tier 2 testing assays that are being validated
by the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), as well
as its approach for conducting the peer review of the Tier 1 battery.
EPA is also announcing the availability of a listserver (Listserv). To
subscribe to the EDSP Listserv send a blank e-mail message to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>from the location at which you normally send or

receive mail. For more information on the listserv, go tohttp://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo.
 Using the Listserv, interested parties

may sign up to receive e-mail notifications of EDSP peer review
updates, including information on the availability of peer review
materials to be posted at the EDSP website. These materials may include
the documents to be peer reviewed, background documents, the charge to
the peer reviewers, and reports that summarize the results of peer
reviews. EPA is not at this time soliciting public comment on the
individual Tier 1 assays. Rather, EPA will solicit comments on the Tier
1 battery once the individual peer reviews have been completed as
discussed in Unit IV.D.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 408(p) of FFDCA requires EPA ``to develop a screening
program, using appropriate validated test systems and other
scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain
substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect
produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine
effect as [EPA] may designate.'' (FFDCA 21 U.S.C. 346a(p)). These test
systems are being validated under EPA's EDSP. EPA's validation process
includes peer review as its final step.

III. Background

    EPA initially set forth the EDSP in the August 11, 1998, Federal
Register notice (63 FR 42852) (FRL-6021-3) and solicited public comment
on the program in the December 28, 1998, Federal Register notice (63 FR
71541) (FRL-6052-9). The program set forth in these notices was based
on the recommendations of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), which was chartered under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 9(c). The
EDSTAC was comprised of members representing the commercial chemical
and pesticides industries, Federal and State agencies, worker
protection and labor organizations, environmental and public health
groups, and research scientists.
    EDSTAC recommended that EPA's program address both potential human
and ecological effects; examine effects on estrogen, androgen, and
thyroid hormone-related processes; and include non-pesticide chemicals,
contaminants, and mixtures in addition to pesticides (Ref. 1). Based on
these recommendations, EPA developed a two tiered approach, referred to
as the EDSP. The purpose of Tier 1 is to identify substances that have
the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid
hormone systems using a battery of relatively short-term screening
assays. The purpose of Tier 2 is to identify and establish a dose-
response relationship for any adverse effects that might result from
the interactions identified through the Tier 1 assays. The Tier 2 tests
are multi-generational assays that will provide the Agency with more
definitive testing data. EDSTAC also recommended that EPA establish a
priority-setting approach for choosing chemicals to undergo Tier 1
screening.
    EPA currently is implementing its EDSP in three major parts that
are being developed in parallel and with substantial work on each well
underway. This document deals only with the peer review component of
the validation process (item 3 in the following discussion). EPA is
addressing the other aspects of the EDSP in separate documents
published in the Federal Register. The three parts are briefly
summarized as follows:
    1. Priority setting. EPA is prioritizing chemicals to undergo
screening in the battery of Tier 1 assays. EPA described its priority
setting approach for the first 50-100 chemicals to be tested in the
Federal Register of September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56449) (FRL-7716-9). The
draft initial list of chemicals to undergo Tier 1 screening was
published in the Federal Register for public review on June 18, 2007
(72 FR 33486) (FRL-8129-3). The Agency expects to finalize this initial
list of chemicals before screening is implemented in 2008. More
information on EPA's priority setting approach for the EDSP is
available at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/prioritysetting.

    2. Procedures. EPA intends to commence Tier 1 screening of the
first group of pesticide chemicals by issuing test orders under FFDCA
section 408(p) to chemical companies identified as the manufacturer or
processor of the identified chemicals, including the pesticide
registrant. EPA is developing a draft implementation policy that will
describe the procedures that EPA will use to issue orders, the
procedures that order recipients would use to respond to the order, how
data protection and compensation will be addressed in the test orders,
and other related procedures or policies. In addition, EPA is
developing a draft template for the test order and a draft information
collection request (ICR) to obtain the necessary clearances under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Agency expects to seek public
comment on the draft implementation policy and related documents in
late summer 2007, and after considering those comments, EPA expects to
finalize the policy by the end of 2007.
    3. Assay validation. EPA is validating assays that are candidates
for inclusion in the Tier 1 screening battery, selecting the
appropriate screening assays for the screening battery based on the
validation data, and developing and validating Tier 2 tests. Validation
is defined as the process by which the reliability and relevance of
test methods are evaluated for a specific use (Ref. 2). EPA has
implemented the validation process in several phases (Ref. 3),
including the following:
     Preparation of detailed review papers (DRPs) that involve
a search of the relevant scientific literature and development of a
document that discusses the scientific basis of each assay and
critically evaluates candidate protocols.
     Conduct of pre-validation studies that demonstrate and
optimize the assay, with the end result being a standardized protocol
for use in the multi-laboratory validation phase.
     Conduct of validation studies in multiple laboratories.
The purpose of this phase is to demonstrate the transferability of the
protocol, measure lab-to-lab variability, and help establish final
performance characteristics for the assay.
     Peer review of the data to determine strengths and
weaknesses of the assays. Peer review is the critical evaluation of
scientific and technical work products by independent experts. Its
purpose is to improve the quality, credibility, and acceptability of
regulatory decisions. According to EPA's Peer Review Handbook (Ref. 4),
peer review is an important component of the scientific process. It
provides a focused, objective evaluation of a research proposal,
publication, risk assessment, health advisory, guidance

or other document submitted for review. The criticisms, suggestions and
new ideas provided by the peer reviewers ensure objectivity, stimulate
creative thought, strengthen the reviewed document and confer
scientific credibility on the product. Comprehensive, objective peer
review leads to good science and product acceptance within the
scientific community.
    EPA plans to peer review the following EDSP work products:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Tier 1 Assay
          Tier 1 Assays                 Battery          Tier 2 Assays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adult Male                        Battery To be       Amphibian Growth
Androgen Receptor Binding.......   Determined          and Reproduction
Aromatase.......................                      Two-generation
Estrogen Receptor Binding.......                       Avian
Female Pubertal.................                      Two-generation
Fish Screen.....................                       Fish
Frog Metamorphosis..............                      Two-generation
Hershberger\1\..................                       Mysid
Male Pubertal...................
Steroidogenesis H295R...........
Uterotrophic\2\.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Hershberger assay has been peer reviewed by the Organization for
  Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). EPA will not conduct a
  separate peer review of this assay.
\2\The Uterotrophic assay has been peer reviewed by OECD. EPA will not
  conduct a separate peer review of this assay.

    The primary product to be peer reviewed for each assay will be an
Integrated Summary Report (ISR) that summarizes and synthesizes the
information compiled from the validation process (i.e., DRPs, pre-
validation studies, and inter-lab validation studies, with a major
focus on inter-laboratory validation results).

IV. Peer Review Process

     The approaches that EPA intends to use for conducting peer reviews
of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 assays, and the Tier 1 battery are described
in the following sections.

A. Tier 1 Assays

    The mechanism that will be used to peer review Tier 1 Assays will
be an external letter review organized under an EPA peer review
contract. The procedures used for peer review of the Tier 1 assays will
be in accordance with EPA's Peer Review Handbook (Ref. 4). For each
assay, the contractor will compile a list of qualified peer review
candidates who are independent of those who performed the work or who
have been involved in the development or refinement of the protocol,
including those who have provided EPA with expert advice throughout the
validation process. The potential peer reviewers will be identified
from among academia, government, and the private sector, based on their
subject matter expertise, availability, and lack of conflict of
interest or past involvement in the project. From this pool of
candidate reviewers, the contractor will establish a balanced peer
review panel consisting of 3 to 10 peer reviewers. EPA will be notified
of the identity of the peer reviewers, but will not have contact with
them before or during the peer review process to ensure that an
independent review is performed. The contractor will provide the
reviewers with the ISR for the assay to be reviewed and any supporting
documentation that is needed for the peer review, along with a list of
charge questions that will be developed by EPA. The ISR will summarize
and synthesize the information compiled from the validation process
(i.e., DRPs, pre-validation studies, and inter-lab validation studies),
with a major focus on inter-laboratory validation results. The charge
to the reviewers will be designed to address the following types of
issues:
    1. Clarity of the stated purpose of the assay.
    2. Clarity, comprehensiveness, and consistency of the data
interpretation with the stated purpose of the assay.
    3. Biological and toxicological relevance of the assay as related
to its stated purpose.
    4. Clarity and conciseness of the protocol in describing the
methodology of the assay such that the laboratory can:
    a. Comprehend the objective;
    b. Conduct the assay;
    c. Observe and measure prescribed endpoints;
    d. Compile and prepare data for statistical analyses; and
    e. Report the results.
    5. Strengths and/or limitations of the assay.
    6. Impacts of the choice of:
    a. Test substances,
    b. Analytical methods, and
    c. Statistical methods in terms of demonstrating the performance of
the assay.
    7. Repeatability and reproducibility of the results obtained with
the assay, considering the variability inherent in biological and
chemical test methods.
     The panel will review and comment on the assay, and the contractor
will compile the peer review record. The peer review record will
include the peer review document and all supporting materials given to
the peer reviewers; the instructions/charge to the peer reviewers; all
comments, information, and materials received from the peer reviewers;
and names, affiliations, qualifications of the peer review panel
members. EPA will use the peer review record to make a final
determination as to a Tier 1 assay's suitability for use in the
screening program, and finalize the assay for consideration for
inclusion in the Tier 1 battery. EPA plans to begin peer reviewing Tier
1 assays by mid-2007. This schedule is dependent upon the successful
completion of studies that are currently underway.

B. Tier 1 Battery

    As recommended by the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA's EDSP testing strategy will consist
of a battery of Tier I assays. The battery is expected to be comprised
of screening assays that, when used in combination, will identify
substances that have the potential to interact with the estrogen,
androgen, and thyroid hormone systems.
    Prior to initiating testing, EPA intends to propose a battery of
Tier 1 screening assays. The battery will be peer reviewed by the
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) established under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The FIFRA SAP is structured to provide
scientific advice, information and recommendations to EPA on pesticides
and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on
health and the environment. The FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory
committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance
with requirements of the FACA. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent
panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA
Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation. In addition, FIFRA, as
amended by the FQPA of 1996, established a Science Review Board
consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the FIFRA SAP
on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the Panel. As a
peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and
recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses
made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who
have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and
experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.
More information about the FIFRA SAP is available at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap
.

    The proposed battery along with the materials supporting its
composition will be provided to a panel of approximately 15 to 20 SAP
reviewers. Some of the panel members may be individuals who
participated in review of one or more Tier 1 assays, and some
individuals will be new to the EDSP peer review process. Use of some of
the same reviewers for both the Tier 1 assays and the Tier 1 battery is
intended to ensure that individuals familiar with the individual assays
are represented when the battery is discussed. This should not present
a conflict of interest because the context of the review and the
questions being asked of the battery reviewers will differ from what is
asked of the reviewers for the individual Tier 1 assays (e.g.,
questions posed to the SAP reviewers would pertain to whether the
proposed battery adequately covers the endpoints of interest for
estrogen, androgen, and thyroid while questions posed to the Tier 1
assay reviewers would focus on the strengths and weaknesses of
individual assays.

C. Tier 2 Assays

    The peer review strategy for the Tier 2 assays will follow a
pattern similar to that used for Tier 1 battery. These assays will be
peer reviewed by the FIFRA SAP.

D. Public Comment

    The formal peer review process described above is intended to
ensure a systematic and unbiased review of the scientific basis for
including an assay in the EDSP. Although the Agency recognizes that
other qualified scientists may also wish to offer opinions to the
Agency on the merits of the assays, EPA is not soliciting public
comments during the period in which the individual Tier 1 assays are
being peer reviewed. Instead, the Agency will accept comments on the
overall Tier 1 battery from the public when the composition of the Tier
1 battery is being peer reviewed by the SAP. A separateFederal Register
notice will announce the SAP review of the Tier 1 battery and provide
information on opportunities for public comment.

V. Listserv

    The EDSP has created a listserver (Listserv) or ``mailing group.''
A Listserv is an electronic mailing list that makes it possible to
reach all individuals in a mailing group with a single e-mail message
sent over the Internet. By adding your name to the EDSP Listserv, you
will periodically receive an e-mail announcing the availability of
materials on the EDSP website and other timely information. To
subscribe to the EDSP Listserv send a blank e-mail message to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>from the location at which you normally send or

receive mail.

VI. References

    The following is a list of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. These references are available in the
docket as identified under ADDRESSES.
    1. U.S. EPA. Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory
Committee Final Report. August 1998. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/edspoverview/finalrpt.htm
.

    2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).
Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Test Methods, A
Report of the ad hoc Interagency Coordinating Committee on the
Validation of Alternative Methods. Research Triangle Park, NC. NIH
Report 97-3981. March 1997.
    3. U.S. EPA. Validation of Screening and Testing Assays Proposed
for the EDSP, Draft Version 5.3. October 23, 2006. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2007/february/edsp-validation-paper.pdf
.

    4. U.S. EPA. Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review, 3rd
Edition. Office of Science Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/100/B-06/002. Available at: http://www.nheerl.epa.gov/nheerl_science/peer/about_peer/files/3rd_Edition_PR_Handbook.pdf
.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Endocrine disruptors,
Pesticides.

    Dated: July 2, 2007.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. E7-13672 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 154 (Thursday, August 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49645-49646]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[FAA Docket Number: FAA-2022-1094]

NextGen Advisory Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

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

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the NextGen Advisory
Committee (NAC).

DATES: The meeting will be held, on August 30, 2022, from 9:00 a.m.-
4:00 p.m. ET. Requests to attend the meeting in-person or virtually
must be received by August 22, 2022. Request for accommodations for a
disability must be received by August 22, 2022. If you wish to make a
public statement during the meeting, you must submit a written copy of
your remarks by August 22, 2022. Written materials requested to be
reviewed by NAC Members before the meeting must be received no later
than August 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in-person at The MITRE Corporation,
MITRE 1 Building Conference Center, 7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA
22102 with a virtual option. Virtual meeting information will be
provided upon request at the time of registration. Information on the
NAC, including copies of previous meeting minutes, is available on the
NAC internet website at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/nac/. Members of the public interested in
attending must send the required information listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Noonan, NAC Coordinator, U.S.
Department of Transportation, at [email protected] or 202-267-
3760. Any requests or questions not regarding attendance registration
should be sent to the person listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Secretary of Transportation established the NAC under agency
authority in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2,
to provide independent advice and recommendations to the FAA and to
respond to specific taskings received directly from the FAA. The NAC
recommends consensus-driven advice for FAA consideration relating to
Air Traffic Management System modernization.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:

 NAC Chairman's Report
 FAA Report
 NAC Subcommittee Chairman's Report
    [cir] Risk and Mitigations update for the following focus areas:
Multiple Runway Operations, Data Communications, Performance Based
Navigation, Surface and Data Sharing, and Northeast Corridor
 NAC Chairman Closing Comments

The detailed agenda will be posted on the NAC internet website at least
one week in advance of the meeting.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public who wish
to attend are asked to register via email by submitting their full
legal name, country

of citizenship, contact information (telephone number and email
address), and name of your industry association, or applicable
affiliation, and if they would like to attend the meeting in-person or
virtually. Please email this information to the email address listed in
the ADDRESSES section. For foreign national in-person attendees, please
also provide your company/organization country. When registration is
confirmed, registrants who requested to attend virtually will be
provided the virtual meeting information/teleconference call-in number
and passcode. Callers are responsible for paying associated long-
distance charges (if any).
    Note: Only NAC Members, members of the public who have registered
to make a public statement, and NAC working groups and FAA staff who
are providing briefings will have the ability to speak. All other
attendees will be able to listen-only.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Five minutes will be allotted for oral comments from members of the
public joining the meeting. This time may be extended if there is a
significant number of members of the public wishing to provide an oral
comment. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for each
commenter may be limited. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time
during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration,
as well as the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the
proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make
statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
meeting, the FAA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Speakers are required to submit a copy of their prepared remarks for
inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to NAC members to
the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
All prepared remarks submitted on time will be accepted and considered
as part of the meeting's record.
    Members of the public may submit written statements for inclusion
in the meeting records and circulation to the NAC members. Written
statements need to be submitted to the person listed under the heading
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Comments received after the due date
listed in the DATES section will be distributed to the members but may
not be reviewed prior to the meeting. Any member of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Signed in Washington, DC
Kimberly Noonan,
Manager, Stakeholder and Collaboration Division (A), NextGen Office of
Collaboration and Messaging, ANG-M, Office of the Assistant
Administrator for NextGen, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-17205 Filed 8-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP - Reporting and Recordkeeping for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP - Reporting and Recordkeeping for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal), EPA ICR Number
2025.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0481

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Friction Materials Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ),
were proposed on October 4, 2001, (66 FR 50768) and promulgated on
October 18, 2002 (67 FR 64506).  Respondents are owners or operators of
each new, reconstructed, or existing affected source.  Friction
materials manufacturing facilities manufacture friction material using a
solvent-based process.  Friction material is subsequently used to
manufacture friction products that include, but are not limited to, disc
brake pucks, disc brake pads, brake linings, brake shoes, brake
segments, brake blocks, brake discs, clutch facings, and clutches.  The
NESHAP contains an emission limitation for solvent mixers at friction
materials manufacturing facilities.  Solvent mixers are the affected
source.

A friction materials manufacturing facility is only subject to the
regulation if it is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions and emits, or has the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.  Consistent
with the General Provisions for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), respondents do not include the owner or operator of any
facility that is not a major source of HAP emissions or any facility
that does not operate affected solvent mixers, even if the facility is a
major source.

The friction materials manufacturing NESHAP require respondents to
reduce the total organic HAP emissions from their solvent mixers by
preventing emission of no more than 15 percent (based on a 7-day block
average) of the HAP solvent that is loaded into the solvent mixer.
Respondents will likely use a solvent recovery system to reduce the
amount of HAP solvent that is emitted.  To show compliance with the HAP
solvent emission limitation, respondents are required to use a weight
measurement system (e.g., floor scale system for measuring weight of
liquid contained in a small tank) to measure and record the weight of
HAP solvent loaded into the solvent mixer and the weight of HAP solvent
recovered for each mix batch.  No performance testing is required.
However, respondents are required to conduct an initial compliance
demonstration, which consists of measuring and recording the weight of
HAP solvent loaded into each solvent mixer, and the weight of HAP
solvent recovered for each mix batch over the first seven consecutive
days after the compliance date.  Respondents also must maintain records
of specific information needed to determine that the standards are being
achieved and maintained.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities.  They 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
affected facilities subject to NESHAP.  Semiannual reports for periods
of operation during which the emission limitation is exceeded (or
reports certifying that no exceedances have occurred) also are required.

Approximately four respondents are currently subject to the regulation,
and it is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become
subject to the regulation in the next three years.

There are approximately four friction materials manufacturing facilities
in the United States, which are owned and operated by the friction
material manufacturing industry.  None of the four 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 Industry Burden and Cost – NESHAP –
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal).  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 –
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active
Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of
Clearance.”

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 affected solvent
mixers cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP
was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ.

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.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

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

3(a)  Non-duplication

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 (72 FR 10736) on March 9, 2007.
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.
Approximately four respondents will be subject to the standard over the
three-year period covered by this ICR.

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, and the standard has been previously reviewed to
determine the minimum information needed for compliance purposes.

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
friction materials manufacturing 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 QQQQQ)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing	3714	336340

All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing	3299
327999

Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing	3568	333613

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 – Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Initial notifications (including construction/reconstruction)
63.9535(a)(b)(c)(d), 63.05, and 63.09(b)

Notification of compliance status	63.9535(e) and 63.09(h)

Performance of sludge test and determine mercury emissions.	61.54(a),
(c), (d), (e)

Reports

Semiannual compliance report on startup, shutdown, and malfunction
63.9540(b)(4) and (d), 63.10(d)(5)

Semiannual compliance report on no deviations	63.9540(b)(5) and (6)

Annual report on deviations	63.9540(c)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Maintain records of all reports and notifications	63.9550 and
63.10(b)(1)

Maintain records for initial notification and notification of compliance
status	63.9545(a)(1) and 63.10(b)(xiv)

Maintain records related to startup, shutdown or malfunction
63.9545(1)(2)

Monitor records showing solvent mixers meeting the emission limitation
63.9530, 63.9545(b) and 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x) and (xi)

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 solvent mixers at fiction
material manufacturing facility.

Write the notification and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
and 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 either 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 EPA 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 Industry Burden for NESHAP –
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal), below.

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 1,296
(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

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial 	$96.41   ($45.91 + 110%)

Technical	$82.74   ($39.40 + 110%)

Clerical	$42.25   ($20.12 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, September 2004, “Table 10: Private industry, 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 monitors and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

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

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

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M, (E X F)

Monitoring Control Device	$2,139	0	$0	$272	4	$1,088

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $0.  This is the total
of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs consists of
photocopying, and postage are $1,088.  This is the total of column G.

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 $1,088.

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 $2,387.

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

Managerial	$56.02   (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 + 60%)

Technical	$41.57   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 + 60%)

Clerical	$22.50   (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2004
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 – Reporting
and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal), below.

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 four respondents will be subject to the standard.
It is estimated that no additional sources per year will become subject
in the next three years.  The overall average number of respondents, as
shown in the table below is four 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	0	4	0	0	4

2	0	4	0	0	4

3	0	4	0	0	4

Average	0	4	0	0	4

1 New respondent include sources with constructed, reconstructed and
modified affected facilities.  In this standard existing respondents
submit initial notifications.

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 four.

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

Notification of applicability	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of construction/reconstruction	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of anticipated startup	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of actual startup	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of compliance status	0	1	N/A	0

Annual report of deviation	0.6	1	N/A	0.6

Semiannual report with no deviation	3.4	2	N/A	6.8

Unplanned startup, shutdown, malfunction report	0.4	2	N/A	0.8

	Total (rounded)	8

The number of Total Annual Responses is eight.

The total annual labor costs are $103,424.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost:
NESHAP – Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal),
below.

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 costs are $103,424.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NESHAP – Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal),
below.  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 162
hours per response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $1,088.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 59 labor hours at a cost of $2,387.  See Table 2: Annual
Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP – Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal), below.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours or cost in the ICR compared to the
previous ICR, except for the correction of a small mathematical error in
the previous ICR.  This situation is due to two considerations: 1) the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and 2) the growth rate
for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no
significant change in the overall burden.

Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is
no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the
previous ICR are used in this ICR, and there is no change in burden to
industry.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 162 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-2007-0061.  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, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, 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, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0061 and OMB Control Number
2060-0481 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 – Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal).

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  	(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)

Cost, $  a

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Acquisition, installation and utilization of

     technology and systems	54	1	51	0	0	0	0	$0

  4.  Reporting requirements

    A.  Read instructions	0.5	1	0.5	0	0	0	0	$0

      B.  Required activities

            Startup, shutdown, malfunction plan	32	1	32	0	0	0	0	$0

    C.  Create information	 See 4B

	    D.  Gather existing information	 See 4E

	    E.  Write Report

          Notification of applicability	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

          Notification of construction/

          Reconstruction  	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

          Notification of anticipated startup 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

          Notification of actual startup 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

          Notification of compliance status	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

          Annual report of deviation c	8	1	8	0.6	4.8	0.24	0.48	$440.57

          Semiannual report of no deviation d	8	2	16	3.4	54.4	2.72	5.44
$4,993.14

          Startup, shutdown, malfunction report e	8	2	16	0.4	6.4	0.32
0.64	$587.43

5.  Recordkeeping requirements

    A.  Read instructions 	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

    B.  Plan activities	See 5E

	    C.  Implement activities	See 5E

	    D.  Develop record system	See 5E

	    E.  Time to enter information

          Records of solvent weight

          Measurements f	0.033	2,600 	85.8	4	343.2	17.16	34.32
$31,500.79

          Records of block average solvent

          weight g	2	52	104	4	416	20.8	41.6	$38,182.77

          Records of startup, shutdown,

          malfunction g	1	52	52	4	208	10.4	20.8	$19,091.38

          Copies of notifications/reports h	0.25	7	1.75	4	7	0.35	0.7
$642.50

    F.  Time to train personnel i	20	2	20	4	80	4	8	$7,342.84

    G.  Time to transmit or disclose

          information h	0.25	7	1.75	4	7	0.35	0.7	$642.50

    H.  Time to audit	N/A

	Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	1,126.8	56.34	112.68	$103,423.92

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	1,295.82

1,296 (rounded)	$103,424

Assumptions:

a  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $96.41 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $82.74 per hour for
Technical labor, and $42.25 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates
are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, December, 2004, (Table 10. Private industry, by occupational
and industry group.(

b  We have assumed that there are 4 existing sources, and that no
additional new or reconstructed sources will become subject to the rule
over the next three years.  Within those four existing sources, there is
a total of seven existing solvent mixers for an average of (7/4=1.75)
1.75 mixers per source, with no additional new or reconstructed solvent
mixers expected to be constructed over the three-years of the ICR.

c  We have assumed that 15 percent of respondents will report deviation.

d  We have assumed that 85 percent of respondents will report no
deviation.

e  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will have a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction occur that is not managed according to the
regulation.

f  We have assumed that solvent weights are recorded once per hour (2
minutes [0.033 hr] per record) for 2,600 hours per year.  This is the
industry average solvent mixer annual operating hours.

g  It is assumed that information would be entered once per week for 52
weeks per year.

h  We have assumed that  a typical plant transmits one-time notification
of applicability and compliance status; startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan semiannually; deviation report once a year; and no
deviation report semiannually for a total of seven times per year.

i  We have assumed that it will take 20 hours per plant once a year to
train personnel.

	Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP – Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal).

Activity	(A)

EPA person- hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per plant per year	(C)

EPA person- hours per plant per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Plants per year b	(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)

Cost, $ a

1.  Excess emissions enforcement activities c	48	1	48	0.2	9.6	0.48	0.96
$447.56

2.  Report review

     Notification of applicability	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of construction/reconstruction	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of anticipated startup	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of compliance status	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     Annual report of deviation d	20	1	20	0.6	12	0.6	1.2	$559.45

     Semiannual report of no deviation e	2	2	4	3.4	13.6	0.68	1.36
$634.04

     Startup, shutdown, malfunction report f	20	2	40	0.4	16	0.8	1.6
$745.94

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	51.2	2.56	5.12	$2,386.99

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	58.88

59 (rounded)	$2,387

 	Assumptions:

a  This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6
benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses: $56.02 for Managerial (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6), $41.57
for Technical (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6) and $22.50 Clerical (GS-6,
Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) (2004 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates
of pay.

       b  We have assumed that there are 4 existing sources, and that no
additional new or reconstructed sources will become subject to the rule
over the next three years.

      Within those four existing sources, there is a total of seven
existing solvent mixers for an average of (7/4=1.75) 1.75 mixers per
source, with no additional new or

      reconstructed solvent mixers expected to be constructed over the
three-years of the ICR.

c  We have assumed that 5 percent of plants will be involved in excess
emission enforcement activities.

d  We have assumed that 15 percent of respondents will report deviation.

e  We have assumed that 85 percent of respondents will report no
deviation.

f  It is assumed that 10 percent of respondents will have a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction occur that is not managed according to the
regulation.

 PAGE

 PAGE   15

 PAGE