[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30605-30608]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12858]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0756; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-103-AD;
Amendment 39-18167; AD 2015-11-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracked midspar fittings
on the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. This AD requires repetitive
inspections for cracking of the inboard and outboard midspar fittings
of the nacelle struts and of the torque bulkhead, midspar chords, drag
fitting, and front spar support, and doing applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; replacing the midspar fittings;
and doing other specified actions. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking in the midspar fittings of the inboard and outboard
nacelle struts, which could result in the loss of the structural
integrity of the midspar fitting. This condition could cause an unsafe
separation of the engine and consequent wing fire.

DATES: This AD is effective July 6, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 6,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0756.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0756; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5239; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2014 (79 FR 67379).
The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked midspar fittings on the
inboard and outboard nacelle struts. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitive inspections for cracking of the inboard and outboard midspar
fittings of the nacelle struts and of the torque bulkhead, midspar
chords, drag fitting, and front spar support, and doing applicable
related investigative and corrective actions; replacing the midspar
fittings; and doing other specified actions. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking in the midspar fittings of the inboard and
outboard nacelle struts, which could result in the loss of the
structural integrity of the midspar fitting. This condition could cause
an unsafe separation of the engine and consequent wing fire.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 67379, November 13, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) at Robins Air
Force Base, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln
Laboratory Flight Facility (LLFF), requested that the compliance time
proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) be extended.
AFLCMC asked that the grace period be extended from 18 months after the
effective date of the AD to 24 months after the effective date of the
AD. This commenter explained that its airplanes are scheduled for heavy
maintenance visits every 24 months, and the 18-month grace period for
the initial actions proposed in the NPRM would negatively impact
airplane availability.
    In addition, the AFLCMC stated that there is a low quantity of kits
available to replace the inboard and outboard midspar fittings with new
parts, as proposed in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM (79 FR 67379,
November 13, 2014). This commenter also noted that the kits are
expensive and have long lead times, which could impact operators'
schedules. We infer that the commenter is requesting that the
compliance time proposed in the NPRM be lengthened to accommodate parts
availability.
    LLFF's interpretation of the compliance time was that the
compliance time was related to the date of the service bulletin. LLFF
commented that operators would have a difficult time complying with the
requirements proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014).
    We do not agree with the commenters' requests to extend the
compliance time.

In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we
considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing
the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation for
an appropriate compliance time, the availability of required parts, and
the practical aspect of installing the required modification within an
interval of time that corresponds to the typical scheduled maintenance
for the majority of affected operators. The supplier of the parts kits
reports that the lead time for kit delivery is 12 months from the date
an operator places an order. This final rule provides operators with a
grace period of 18 months from the effective date of this AD, which we
deem adequate for acquiring the midspar fitting kits, performing the
inspection, accomplishing any necessary corrective actions, and
replacing the midspar fittings. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (k) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to
the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an
adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not
changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that the unsafe condition statement in the NPRM
(79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) be revised. The NPRM stated ``This
condition could cause an unsafe separation of the engine and consequent
wing fire.'' Boeing commented that the word ``consequent'' implied that
the end result would always be a wing fire. Boeing suggested that the
wording be changed to ``This condition could cause an unsafe separation
of the engine and potential fire.''
    We do not agree to revise the unsafe condition statement in this
final rule. Where the unsafe condition states ``could result'' it is
recognized that the loss of structural integrity, unsafe separation of
the engine, and wing fire are possible outcomes in a chain of events.
Furthermore, we frequently use ``consequent'' in unsafe condition
statements when we state the end-level effect of the unsafe condition
on an airplane. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise the Discussion Section of the NPRM (79 FR 67379,
November 13, 2014)

    Boeing requested that the term limit of validity (LOV) in the first
paragraph of the Discussion section of the preamble of the NPRM (79 FR
67379, November 13, 2014) be removed because it is misleading. Boeing
commented that the term LOV has implications associated with it which
may not be intended. Boeing suggested that the term ``service
objective'' be used instead of LOV.
    We agree that the unsafe condition addressed by this final rule is
not related to an airplane reaching its LOV. The actions in this final
rule are necessary to prevent loss of the structural integrity of the
midspar fitting as the result of stress corrosion and fatigue at the
lug and fatigue at the tangs. These actions do not directly support an
airplane reaching its LOV. The Discussion section from the preamble of
an NPRM is not repeated in a final rule so no change is necessary. We
have revised paragraph (e) of this AD by removing the statement ``This
AD was prompted by certain mandated programs intended to support the
airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data
that support the established structural maintenance program.'' We
replaced that statement with ``This AD was prompted by reports of
cracked midspar fittings on the inboard and outboard nacelle struts.''

Request To Clarify Replacement Requirements

    Rafael Veas stated that two midspar fittings had already been
replaced on an airplane at his facility. This commenter asked if all
four midspar fittings have to be replaced, or only the two remaining
midspar fittings that have not yet been replaced.
    We agree to clarify the replacement requirements of this final
rule. Paragraph (f) of this AD states ``Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already done.'' The two midspar
fittings that have already been replaced do not have to be replaced
again if they have been replaced in accordance with the procedures
mandated by this AD. For these two midspar fittings the repetitive
inspection and replacement intervals should be calculated from the most
recent midspar fitting replacement. We have not changed this final rule
regarding this issue.

Request To Revise the Cost Estimate

    The AFLCMC mentioned that the cost and labor estimates presented in
the preamble of the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) are
significantly lower than the actual costs. The commenter stated that
accomplishment of the actions proposed in the NPRM would require a set
of ready-for-installation engine pylons, removal of all four engines,
inspections, and reassembly, and the estimated cost would be over
$1,000,000 per airplane. We infer that the commenter requested that the
estimated costs be revised.
    After considering the data presented by the commenter, we agree
that the cost and labor estimates referenced in the NPRM (79 FR 67379,
November 13, 2014) are significantly lower than the actual costs. The
cost estimate in the NPRM was for replacement of the midspar fitting
for one engine, and the proposed requirement in the NPRM was for
replacement of the midspar fitting for all four engines. The estimated
cost information in this final rule has been revised to indicate this
higher amount. We disagree, however, with the commenter's estimate that
the cost will be over $1,000,000 per airplane. Our cost estimate
includes the work hours and parts cost for the required midspar fitting
replacements, but does not include costs associated with maintenance
scheduling or a set of ready-for-installation engine pylons.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 67379, November 13, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6,
dated February 7, 2014. The service information describes procedures
for repetitive inspections for cracking of the inboard and outboard
midspar fittings of the nacelle struts and of the torque bulkhead,
midspar chords, drag fitting, and front spar support, and related
investigative and corrective actions; replacing the midspar fittings;
and doing other specified actions. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost            Parts cost         Cost per product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections..................  214 work-hours x $85  $0..................  $72,760 (4 pylons     $873,120 per
                                per hour = $18,190                          per inspection        inspection
                                per pylon per                               cycle).               cycle.
                                inspection cycle.
Replacement of midspar         18 work-hours x $85   Up to $7,867........  Up to $37,588 (1      Up to $451,056.
 fitting.                       per hour = $1,530                           fitting per pylon,
                                per pylon.                                  4 pylons total).
Mid-interval inspections.....  107 work-hours x $85  $0..................  $36,380 (4 pylons     $436,560 per
                                per hour = $9,095                           per inspection        inspection
                                per pylon per                               cycle).               cycle.
                                inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any additional inspections
that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
inspections:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections..............................  Up to 21 work-hours x $85 per hour               $0           $1,785
                                            = $1,785.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions specified in
this AD.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-11-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18167; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0756; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-103-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 6, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 707-100 long
body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes;
Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model
720 and 720B series airplanes; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
Pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked midspar fittings on
the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking in the midspar fittings of the inboard
and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in the loss of the
structural integrity of the midspar fitting. This condition could
cause an unsafe separation of the engine and consequent wing fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections of Nacelle Struts and Surrounding Structure and
Replacement of Inboard and Outboard Midspar Fittings

    At the applicable time specified in table 2 or table 3 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin
A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, except as required by
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Do the inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with
part 2 or part 3, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated
February 7, 2014, except as required by

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Before further flight, do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, replace the
inboard and outboard midspar fittings with new parts, and do other
specified actions (including installing new bushings and oversize
fasteners), in accordance with part 2 or part 3, as applicable, of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin
A3183, Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD thereafter at the
applicable intervals specified in table 2 or table 3 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183,
Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD.
    (1) A detailed inspection and a high frequency eddy current
inspection (HFEC) for cracks in the inboard and outboard midspar
fittings of the nacelle struts.
    (2) Open hole HFEC inspections for cracks in the torque
bulkhead, midspar chords, drag fitting, and front spar support.
    (3) A surface HFEC inspection of the front spar support for
cracks.

(h) Mid-Interval Inspections and Replacement of Nacelle Strut Midspar
Fittings

    At the applicable time specified in table 4 or 5 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183,
Revision 6, dated February 7, 2014: Do the inspections required by
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, in accordance with
part 4 or part 5, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated
February 7, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
Do all applicable related investigative, corrective, and other
specified actions (including installing new bushings and oversize
fasteners) before further flight. Repeat the inspections required by
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD thereafter at the
applicable intervals specified in table 4 or 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision
6, dated February 7, 2014. The threshold for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of
this AD is 1,500 flight cycles or 48 months, whichever occurs first,
since the most recent midspar fitting replacement.
    (1) A detailed inspection and a surface HFEC inspection for
cracks in the inboard and outboard midspar fittings of the nacelle
struts.
    (2) An open hole HFEC inspection for cracks in the drag fitting
and front spar support.
    (3) A surface HFEC inspection for cracks in the front spar
support.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6,
dated February 7, 2014, specifies a compliance time ``after the
Revision 6 date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6,
dated February 7, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Do corrective actions before further flight using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k) of this AD.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 paragraph (l) 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, Los Angeles 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.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5239; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3183, Revision 6, dated
February 7, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20, 2015.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-12858 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69082-69083]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27426]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0152; FRL-9902-86-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Compliance Assurance Monitoring Program
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Compliance Assurance Monitoring
Program (Renewal) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the information collection request,
which is currently approved through December 31, 2013. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 35631) on
June 13, 2013 during a 60-day public comment period. This notice allows
for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of
the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 18,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0152 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 and (2) OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hackel, Office of Air Quality
and Planning Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this information collection request. The
docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
(202) 566-1744. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA ICR Number: 1663.08.
    OMB Control Number: 2060-0376.
    Abstract: The Clean Air Act (the CAA) contains several provisions
directing EPA to require source owners to conduct monitoring to support
certification as to their status of compliance with applicable
requirements. These provisions are set forth in Section 504 (operating
permits provisions) and Section 114 (enforcement provisions) of the
CAA. Section 504(b) directs EPA to implement monitoring and
certification requirements through the operating permits program. This
section allows EPA to prescribe by rule, methods and procedures for
determining compliance recognizing that continuous emissions monitoring
systems need not be required if other procedures or methods provide
sufficiently reliable and timely information for determining
compliance. Under section 504(c), each operating permit must ``set
forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance, certification, and
reporting requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and
conditions.'' Section 114(a)(3) requires EPA to promulgate rules for
enhanced monitoring and compliance certifications. Section 114(a)(1) of
the provides additional authority concerning monitoring, reporting, and
record keeping requirements. This section provides the Administrator
with the authority to require any owner or operator of a source to
install and operate monitoring systems and to record the resulting
monitoring data. EPA promulgated the Compliance Assurance Monitoring
(CAM) rule, 40 CFR part 64, on October 22, 1997 (62 FR 54900) to
implement these authorities.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: All facilities required to have an
operating permit under Title V of the CAA and the state, local and
tribal permitting authorities that implement the CAM program.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under Title V of the
CAA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 23,235
    Frequency of response: At least every 6 months per Title V and the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B).
    Total estimated burden: 50,473 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,031,643 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is decrease of 7,403,108 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is a result of the fact that most
facilities are now using electronic monitoring systems that
automatically record the output of the monitor, thus, resulting in a
decrease in the number of labor hours needed to

record the monitoring results. Additionally, all affected facilities
with existing Title V permits have now submitted their CAM monitoring
approach in their permit renewal applications, therefore, significantly
reducing the costs for new monitoring development. Also, we reviewed
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Title V permit
program vis-[agrave]-vis those required under the CAM program. We found
that, with the exception of sources required to develop a quality
improvement plan, sources were meeting the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for CAM by complying with the requirements of the Title V
program. We revised some of our assumptions to account for the
additional requirements set forth under the CAM rule that are not
outlined in the Title V program, while at the same time ensuring that
requirements met under the Title V program were not being re-counted in
this assessment. Furthermore, in order to reflect projected trends for
the next 3 years, we updated some of the formulas used to calculate
burden.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-27426 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P