http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=474575

The Honorable Kathleen A. McGinty

Secretary

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Testimony - Waste Coal Incentives

Before the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee

September 8, 2004

Chairman White and members of the Committee it is my privilege to be
here today to discuss the administration's efforts to reclaim land and
mitigate and eliminate the environmental impacts of waste coal piles
while making use of this potential energy resource. I would especially
like to thank Senator Stout for holding this timely hearing in his
district and calling specific attention to this very important matter
and opportunity.

Pennsylvania is a remarkable state with abundant natural riches,
including a tremendous heritage of coal production that fueled the
industrial revolution and provided hardworking residents with
opportunities for a better life. Unfortunately, that legacy also left
significant parts of our state scarred from past mining activities.

Travel the back roads of our Commonwealth and it's not uncommon to see
refuse piles of unused coal and rock. These waste coal mixtures,
commonly called gob or boney piles in the western half of Pennsylvania
and culm in the eastern coal fields, are a significant problem in
Pennsylvania, which has some 220,000 acres of abandoned mine lands and
more than 2,200 miles of streams impaired by polluted mine drainage.

Western Pennsylvania in particular has a significant and proud
coal-mining heritage, but as we will hear today from members of this
Committee, other speakers and our tour of the Champion waste coal site,
this part of Pennsylvania has been especially impacted by the legacy of
waste coal disposal. As I will discuss further below, we look at this
legacy not as a liability to be mitigated but as an opportunity to be
exploited and I will outline proposals that we are developing to take
advantage of this unique Pennsylvania resource.

While Pennsylvania's coal economy has indeed contributed greatly to the
economic expansion of this country and its success in two world wars, it
has left behind numerous scars across the landscape. According to DEP
estimates, as of Dec. 2003, there were an estimated 8,529 acres of
unreclaimed coal refuse piles throughout Pennsylvania. These piles
include at least 258 million tons of waste coal that cause polluted mine
drainage, scar the landscape and, in some cases, result in coal refuse
fires which contribute to air pollution. Coal refuse piles are also used
regularly as dumping piles for trash and other waste. Just one example
of the magnitude of these sites is the coal refuse pile that we are
going to tour, the Champion site, which, at 500 acres, is the biggest
coal refuse pile east of the Mississippi River.

As you know, the department has initiated numerous programs to address
the environmental impacts caused by waste coal. One of the most
successful programs is the remining program, where mining companies
re-mine, or remove the culm banks, screen the material, and transport
the suitable refuse material to fuel nearby power generation plants.
This removes much of the pyritic material left behind by past coal
mining activity that contributes to acid mine drainage, one of the
leading causes of stream degradation in the Commonwealth.

When the refuse is burned in the plant, alkaline material is commonly
added, and the resulting coal ash -- high in alkalinity -- is then
returned to the refuse sites to help reclaim those areas. This prevents
any leftover pyritic material from causing acid mine drainage. The
removal of the refuse piles can also result in cleaner air due to the
elimination of dust sources and, in some cases, uncontrolled burning of
the piles. Removing the piles also removes unregulated dumping areas,
because people often access these piles through construction access
roads in order to dump garbage and other waste.

The Commonwealth has analyzed coal ash and coal ash leachate (water
run-off from ash) from many different sources of ash, and has determined
that coal ash -- when used appropriately -- is safe to use in mine
reclamation projects. This is in part due to the fact that when coal ash
is placed at a mine site in an appropriate fashion, it is placed above
the ground water table to prevent direct contact with water. In
addition, coal ash is usually capped with topsoil -- in many cases up to
a four-foot layer -- and that topsoil is then re-vegetated and graded
with a three-percent slope. This ensures that rainwater will run off of
the site before it comes in direct contact with the placed coal ash.
Even if water permeated the topsoil, the compaction of the ash would
likely prevent the permeation of water through the ash. The capping with
topsoil, sloping of the ash and the compaction of the ash also prevents
the rainwater from contacting the pyritic material left behind from the
mining operation, so acid mine drainage is never formed.

In addition, leachate tests have shown that even when coal ash comes in
contact with water, the metals and other constituents found in coal ash
tend not to leach out. This is due to the fact that the chemical make-up
of the alkaline coal ash binds up the metals and other constituents in
the ash. In addition, the alkalinity of the coal ash prevents the
development of acid, which would promote leaching (the coal ash is
alkaline due to the addition of alkaline material during the combustion
process).

The re-use of this material is a prime example of one of the main
environmental themes of the Rendell Administration, namely viewing
environmentally harmful material as a potential resource that can be
re-used rather than remain as a liability. In 2003 alone, DEP issued
mining permits which resulted in the removal of nearly a half-million
tons of coal refuse in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Of course, government can't pursue the goal of industrial re-use alone.
These efforts are a result of the advent of new boiler technology used
by power generation plants called "Circulating Fluidized Beds." These
plants burn coal refuse and other fuels that have far less "heating
value" (BTU's, or British Thermal Units) than the types of boilers used
by the large utilities to burn regular coal.

CFB's are also inherently cleaner than pulverized coal-fired boilers.
For more than 30 years, the Department has collected company specific
information necessary to obtain estimates for all toxic pollutants. This
data demonstrates that dioxin levels were approximately four times lower
and most metals, with the exception of mercury, were ten times lower per
gigawatt hour than pulverized coal-fired generation. Further, CFBs could
achieve very high-levels of mercury control, up to 95%, for very low
relative costs should mercury standards be set at the federal level. By
comparison, mercury controls on pulverized units would achieve
lower-levels of control at higher costs.

Similarly, emissions of NOx and SO2 were also lower than pulverized
coal-fired boilers. It should be noted that newly built pulverized
coal-fired units would be able to achieve similar emissions levels for
S02 due to the installation of scrubbers under Best Available Control
Technology determinations. Therefore, newly constructed electric
generating combusters of either waste coal or coal would emit at
comparable levels because both would be employing very similar BACT for
all pollutants. We have attached a comparative analysis of waste coal
emissions developed by our Bureau of Air Quality, which provides more
details on this matter. MS Word    PDF

There are 15 plants burning coal mining refuse in CFB's located in
Pennsylvania. The first of these plants came on line in Pennsylvania in
1988. According to ARIPPA, a trade organization representing 13 of the
CFB plants in the Commonwealth, from 1988 through the end of 2003, coal
refuse plants in Pennsylvania consumed 88.5 million tons of coal refuse,
mostly from abandoned refuse piles. Approximately 19 million tons of
that were burned in coal refuse plants in the southwest region of the
Commonwealth. ARIPPA's records show that the plants in the Commonwealth
burn an average of about 7.5 million tons of coal refuse per year,
mostly from abandoned coal refuse piles.

The coal refuse that fuels these plants is removed -- or remined -- from
the refuse piles under the regulation of DEP. Thanks to DEP's remining
program, there have been numerous success stories in southwestern
Pennsylvania in the effort to reclaim coal refuse piles. One of these
examples is the scheduled removal of 60 million tons of coal refuse from
over 40 different coal refuse piles in seven counties, including
Allegheny, Westmoreland, Indiana, Cambria, Armstrong, Huntingdon and
Somerset. These piles are scheduled to be removed and burned in the
newly-constructed Reliant Energy plant, a 500-megawatt fluidized bed
coal refuse-burning power plant at Seward in East Wheatfield Township,
Indiana County. Reliant received $400 million in tax-exempt financing
(bonds) from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development for this project. It is estimated there is an additional
10-20 million tons to be found in piles that are still on a list to be
explored and evaluated for possible use by Reliant.

While the project will result in the elimination of harmful coal refuse
piles, it is also contributing to the creation of over 300 much-needed
jobs throughout southwestern Pennsylvania. This underlies another major
tenet of the Rendell Administration: spurring job creation and economic
growth. The ability to create jobs while simultaneously cleaning up
environmental scars from the past is a double-win for the Commonwealth.
It's also important to note that without industry involvement, this type
of success in all probability would not be happening: it's unlikely
government would have the resources available to reclaim many of these
coal refuse piles.

DEP also issues reclamation contracts to mine operators to reclaim
refuse piles, such as the nearly 19-acre Crucible Pile in Greene County
that is currently being reclaimed, and has granted funds through the
Growing Greener program to various organizations to reclaim waste coal
piles. For example, DEP awarded two Growing Greener grants for a total
of approximately $4.6 million to the Greene County Industrial
Development Authority to reclaim the Mather coal refuse pile in Greene
County. That project is still under way and includes the removal of
material and the capping of the area with on-site material such as top
soil. That project should be completed within a year.

In addition to the environmental and economic benefits derived from the
re-use of waste coal, the Commonwealth's 15 waste coal power plants
generate enough electricity to power approximately 1 million homes
annually. They do this with relatively low air emissions, adding to the
environmental success of cleaning up waste coal piles that cause water
and air pollution.

According to ARIPPA, since 1988 Pennsylvania's waste coal industry has
reclaimed approximately 3,429 acres of abandoned mine lands. The
Department estimates the cost of government-sponsored reclamation to be
between $20,000 to $40,000 per acre. Consequently, these efforts have
saved the taxpayers of this Commonwealth between $68 million and $137
million since1988, an amount equal to approximately three to six years
of federal abandoned mine land appropriations to our state.

Even the residual ash from electric generation at these facilities
provides a benefit for Pennsylvania as it is used to fill strip mine
pits with dangerous highwalls. Similarly, because the ash is mixed with
limestone, the alkaline mixture makes it effective for use to remediate
the acidic drainage that pollutes streams and threatens drinking water
supplies.

Using waste coal to produce energy is an innovative process that will
attract new investment and help to create the jobs we critically need
while ensuring the highest standards of environmental protection and
public health. Pennsylvania exports more than $20 billion a year to
import energy fuels--that's nearly as much as our entire state budget.
Yet, indigenous energy development has a multiplier effect in the
economy that may generate as much as 1.6 times more revenue than from
imports. Keeping energy dollars in state clearly is an important step in
retaining and generating more jobs in Pennsylvania.

The Rendell administration has recently initiated two actions to help
support and promote Pennsylvania's waste coal industry. During his
January budget address Governor Rendell announced that the Commonwealth
would purchase ten percent of its electricity from clean, advanced
energy sources, including waste coal. I am pleased to note that we
recently completed this purchase, which includes 10,000 megawatt hours
of waste coal -- out of a total of 100,000 megawatt hours of clean,
advanced electricity.

In April Governor Rendell reestablished the dormant Pennsylvania Energy
Development Authority, PEDA. As many of the members of this Committee
know, PEDA was first established to encourage the development of
Pennsylvania's energy resources. PEDA possesses $300 million in
tax-exempt bonding authority and in the past this capability has been
used to finance waste-coal power plants, notably the Ebensburg, Cambria
facility. PEDA will work in concert with the Pennsylvania Economic
Development Financing Authority, thereby expanding the financing
capabilities of the Commonwealth. As you know, PEDFA financing was
instrumental in enabling the re-powering of the Seward, Reliant power
plant to utilize waste coal.

We are currently in discussions with developers seeking to deploy
state-of-the-art advanced coal gasification technology, which in some
cases will be able to utilize waste coal as a fuel.

Projects utilizing waste coal are also a focus of the Pennsylvania
Energy Harvest Grant Program. This $5 million annual grant program
provides funding to projects that improve the environment through
advanced energy solutions. Last year, Energy Harvest funded two waste
coal projects. The first is a joint project with the U.S. Department of
Energy and CO Inc. to demonstrate the utilization of coal fines. The
process, termed "Granu Flow," adds asphalt emulsion, or a similar,
binder to agglomerate the coal fines. Once these fines are bound
together they will be able to be utilized as fuel in waste coal power
plants. Energy Harvest also provided funds to the River Hill Power
Company Project in Clearfield County for preliminary environmental and
fuel quality analysis for their proposed waste coal power plant.
Together, Energy Harvest provided nearly $400,000 for these two
projects.

In addition to the tools provided by the Commonwealth's electricity
purchase PEDA, and Energy Harvest the Governor has also advocated for an
Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard that would include waste coal as an
eligible resource. I know this Committee has already held several
hearings on this subject so I will refrain from covering the basics of
portfolio standards and the Governor's proposal in general and, instead,
will focus my remarks specifically on the role waste coal can play as an
eligible resource.

As you know, many portfolio standards limit eligibility to renewable
resources. We do not feel that this is the best approach for
Pennsylvania. As I discussed earlier in my testimony, Pennsylvania's
unique history and geology mean that we should take a broader view to
include other resources, such as fugitive coal-mine methane and waste
coal, that while not considered "traditional" renewables, still provide
a net environmental benefit to the Commonwealth.

Therefore, the Governor has proposed a two-tiered portfolio standard, an
Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard, which includes waste coal as an
eligible resource in the second tier. The first tier would be made-up of
traditional renewables, energy efficiency, energy conservation,
efficiency upgrades at existing power plants, recycled energy and
electricity generated from fugitive coal-mine methane. The second tier
would include emissions offsets and electricity generated from fuel
cells powered by non-renewable fuel, and waste coal.

Because participation in an Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard will
provide economic benefits to qualifying facilities, by making power
purchase contracts with those facilities more attractive to electric
distribution companies and electric generation suppliers and through the
sale of advanced energy credits, we believe that the qualifying
facilities should be attaining the highest possible environmental
standards. As such, we are proposing that qualifying facilities should
meet the highest attainable emissions standards for nitrogen oxide,
sulfur dioxide, particulates, and volatile organic compounds. By
including an emissions standard we will ensure that our unique
Pennsylvania energy resources are utilized in a way that protects the
health and environmental quality of all the Commonwealth's citizens.

To clarify, this standard would not replace any facilities existing air
quality permits. Facilities would still be in compliance so long as they
are meeting the standards set in their current operating permits. These
standards would be the requirement, essentially a higher bar, which
facilities would need to meet in order to qualify for eligibility as
part of the Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard.

In order for waste coal to be a meaningful part of the Advanced Energy
Portfolio Standard we believe the portfolio standard targets set for the
second tier should be sufficient to include both the existing power
plants and to provide incentives for some new plants to be built. As was
demonstrated in my testimony earlier, Pennsylvania's existing waste coal
industry has and continues to provide tremendous environmental and
economic benefits to the Commonwealth's citizens. However, because many
of the smaller merchant facilities have power purchase agreements that
will expire, in many cases, by 2013 we believe there is a need to
continue to incentivize their existence and the reclamation work they
are doing.

Still, as we will see later today when we visit the Champion refuse
pile, there are still many areas of the state that would greatly benefit
from reclamation resulting from waste coal utilization that currently
have no outlet for existing abandoned waste coal piles. As such, we
believe that a portfolio standard that includes waste coal should
consider a target that will also incentivize new projects. We can
discuss what such a target should be as we move forward in developing
legislative drafts, however, for starters we believe that a second tier
target of ten percent in ten years makes sense. Pennsylvania's existing
and projected waste coal power plants will likely generate enough
electricity to meet as much as 8% of the Commonwealth's projected
electricity demand ten years from now. Thus, a ten percent overall goal
would be keeping in line with the Governor's original proposal for a
three percent second tier to incentivize new projects.

We believe in the view that the waste coal many individuals may see as
liabilities can truly be an asset if we use our imagination for
innovative solutions. The incentives that we are proposing above will
provide both the policy framework and the financial tools to turn these
opportunities and solutions into a reality. Again, I thank the Committee
for the opportunity to present to you today. I would be happy to answer
any questions that you have at this time.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23581]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3407-000]

Howard Wind LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Howard Wind LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 11, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 21, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10156 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Lauren Steele/AA/USEPA/US wrote on 07/01/2009 01:06:03 PM:

>

> Announcement: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Category 3 Marine Engines

>

> 07/01/2009 01:06 PM

>

> From:

>

> Lauren Steele/AA/USEPA/US

>

> To:

>

> Cc:

>

> Jean-Marie Revelt/AA/USEPA/US

>

> Bcc:

>

> Sally Allen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tim Columbus<EMAIL_ADDRESS> > John Eichberger<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Andrea Grant

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Al Mannato<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter

> Lidiak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tim Hogan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mark Morgan

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tom Guzikowski

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jan Byers/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mike Leister

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond Paul<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

> Brian Vahey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter Weaver

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Steven Levy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>emd-

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> ><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peggy Taricco<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> > barbara.ca.us<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> ><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> ><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> ><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>smorgan-

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> ><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter.Skjoldager/

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>psingh@prime-

> midas.com<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Schlemmer-

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US, Chet France/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

>

> To Interested Stakeholders:

>

> We are pleased to share with you a press announcement that was just

> released today regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for

> Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at

> or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (the Category 3 Marine Diesel

> Engines Rule).  In addition, EPA's ocean vessels web site

> (www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm) has been updated with a Fact

> Sheet and other related documents that can be used to help you

> communicate this regulatory announcement with your members and other

> stakeholders.

>

> EPA Proposes Stringent Standards for Large Ships

> Release date: 07/01/2009

> Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn (News Media Only)

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 564-7849<PHONE_NUMBER>

>

> WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency today announced the

> next steps in a coordinated strategy to slash harmful emissions from

> ocean-going vessels. EPA is proposing a rule under the Clean Air Act

> that sets tough engine and fuel standards for U.S. flagged ships

> that would harmonize with international standards and lead to

> significant air quality improvements throughout the country.

>

> "These emissions are contributing to health, environmental and

> economic challenges for port communities and others that are miles

> inland. Building on our work to form an international agreement

> earlier this year, we’re taking the next steps to reduce significant

> amounts of harmful pollution from getting into the air we breathe,"

> said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "Lowering emissions from

> American ships will help safeguard our port communities, and

> demonstrate American leadership in protecting our health and the

> environment around the globe."

>

> The rule comes on the heels of a key part of EPA's strategy, a

> proposal last March by the United States and Canada to designate

> thousands of miles of the two countries' coasts as an Emission

> Control Area (ECA). The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a

> United Nations agency, begins consideration of the ECA plan this

> month, which would result in stringent standards for large ships

> operating within 200 nautical miles of the coasts of Canada and the

> United States.

>

> Air pollution from large ships, such as oil tankers and cargo ships,

> is expected to grow rapidly in line with port traffic increases. By

> 2030, the domestic and international strategy is expected to reduce

> annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from large marine diesel

> engines by about 1.2 million tons and particulate matter (PM)

> emissions by about 143,000 tons. When fully implemented, the

> coordinated effort would reduce NOx emissions by 80 percent and PM

> emissions by 85 percent compared to current emissions.

>

> The emission reductions from the proposed strategy would yield

> significant health and welfare benefits that would span beyond U.S.

> ports and coastlines, reaching inland areas. EPA estimates that in

> 2030, this effort would prevent between 13,000 and 33,000 premature

> deaths, 1.5 million work days lost, and 10 million minor restricted-

> activity days. The estimated annual health benefits in 2030 as a

> result of reduced air pollution are valued between $110 and $280

> billion at an annual projected cost of approximately $3.1 billion -

> as high as a 90-to-1 benefit-to-cost ratio.

>

> The proposed rulemaking is designed to reflect the IMO's stringent

> ECA standards and broader worldwide program. The rule adds two new tiers of NO

> X standards and strengthens EPA's existing diesel fuel program for

> these ships. It represents another milestone in EPA's decade-long

> effort to reduce pollution from both new and existing diesel engines

> under the National Clean Diesel Campaign.

>

> Information on the components of the coordinated strategy, including

> the proposed Clean Air Act standards and the ECA designation:

> http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm

>

> **********************************************************

> Byron Bunker

> Center Director - Heavy-Duty Onroad Center

> Assessment and Standards Division

> Office of Transportation and Air Quality

> US Environmental Protection Agency

> 2000 Traverwood Drive

> Ann Arbor, MI 48105

><PHONE_NUMBER>

><PHONE_NUMBER> (fax)

><PHONE_NUMBER> (cell)

> e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS> > **********************************************************


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78559]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the docket number in a Federal Register
notice published on Tuesday, November 25, 2014, that announced a
request for public comment on proposed collection of information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy Reid, U.S. Department of
Transportation, NHTSA, Room W48-311, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Reid's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and
his email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 25, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-2127-
0008, on page 70275, column 1 needs to be read:
    U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0124.

 Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 25, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-2127-
0008, on page 70275, column 2 before the Title: Consumer Complaint
Information, needs to read:
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0008

    Issued on: November 25, 2014.
Randy Reid,
Chief, Correspondence Research Division, Office of Defects
Investigation.
[FR Doc. 2014-30310 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2010-0761

Hyatt Regency Crystal City at Reagan National Airport

Tidewater Room

2799 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA  22202, USA

Scientific Issues Related to Pesticide Exposure Models and Climate
Change

(Please note that all times are approximate. See note at the end of the
Agenda)

8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

	Fred Jenkins, M.S., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:35 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

	Kenneth Portier, Ph.D. Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

8:40 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks

Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
EPA

8:45 A.M.	 Introduction to Consultation

		Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division OPP, EPA

8:50 A.M.	Background of Ongoing Federal Activities Related to Climate
Change (US EPA, USDA, and CDC)

Mainstreaming Climate Adaption at EPA - Joel Scheraga, Ph.D., Senior
Advisor for Climate Adaptation, Office of Policy, EPA

Discussion of Climate Change impacts on Agriculture - Margaret Walsh,
Ph. D., Ecologist, Climate Change Program Office, USDA

Discussion of Trend in Vector Borne Disease - C. Ben Beard, Ph.D.,
Associate Director for Climate Change National Center for Emerging and
Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC

 9:35 A.M.	OPP’s Review of Climate Change and Pesticide Risk
Assessment

		OPP’s Model Review - Richard P. Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division

		OPP, EPA

Dietary Exposure Assessment - Christine Olinger, Health Effects
Division, OPP, EPA

Occupational & Residential Exposure Assessment - Kelly O’Rourke,
Health Effects Division OPP, EPA

Ecological Exposure Assessment - Faruque Khan, Ph. D., Environmental
Fate and Effects Division OPP, EPA

		Summary - Richard P. Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division

		OPP, EPA

10:40 A.M.	BREAK

10:50 A.M.	Public Comments

11:30 A.M.	Charge Questions Part I: OPP’s Approach

Charge Question 1

OPP is seeking guidance on its approach to climate change to date and
suggestions on how to approach future work.

Comment on the approach that OPP used to evaluate the models in light of
the expected likely effects and impacts of climate change to determine
whether climate change would influence the inputs and parameters.

Of the areas identified as likely to be affected or the effects are
uncertain, please offer suggestions as to the likely importance of these
factors on risk assessment.  Comment on potential approaches to address
the uncertainty.

12:30 P.M.	LUNCH

1:15 P.M.	Charge Questions Part II: Temporal and Spatial Considerations

Charge Question 2

OPP reviews chemicals and assesses risks as needed at least every 15
years.  Over a 15 year time period, pesticide use and crop residues from
monitoring data could change as a result of climate change.

Based on current projections, will the pace of climate change
significantly increase the uncertainty in our exposure assessments?

If yes, which inputs are likely to change in such a manner that the
uncertainty in the exposure assessment would significantly increase?
Comment on how OPP might explore this issue.

2:05 P.M. 	Charge Question 3

Over time, the environment will change due to climate change and these
changes will be manifested differently in different regions of the
country.  Irrespective of climate change, there already exists a wide
variety of climatic conditions across the country.  Because climatic
conditions vary greatly across the country, often data collected for
exposure assessments are from studies performed at multiple locations
chosen to be geographically representative of the entire country.

Please comment on the geographic changes anticipated due to climate
change relative to the existing climate diversity within the U.S.  Over
what time period might climate change significantly affect the range of
diversity in weather conditions in the U.S in such a way as to
significantly increase our uncertainty in pesticide exposure
assessments?

2: 55 P.M. BREAK

3:10 P.M.	Charge Question 4

All exposure assessments rely in some degree on historical data –
weather, residues on food, cultural practices, pesticide use practices,
etc.  In many situations data that are directly used as inputs into an
exposure assessment can readily be updated with each successive
assessment.  For example, a dietary exposure assessment today would rely
on recent monitoring data, while an assessment in 5, 10 or 15 years from
now would rely on more up-to-date monitoring data than an assessment
conducted today.  In other situations, data are used to develop a
parameter in a model, such as the runoff curve discussed in section
III.B.1.e. of the background paper.  Please comment on the significance
of climate change on the reliability of embedded model parameters.  How
might OPP systematically approach an evaluation of the significance of
such model parameters?

4:10 P.M.	Charge Question 5

Currently, OPP uses weather data from 1960-90 in its ecological
assessments, giving equal weight to every year.  OPP intends to acquire
more recent data.  Please comment on the effects of using these data in
light of climate change.  If this is viewed as an important factor, will
aggregating the data from 1960-2010 be appropriate in light of climate
change?  For example, would the use of data from the last 10 years be a
more appropriate indicator of future weather patterns or should OPP
consider adding a predictive component to weather data?  If the use of
predictive models is appropriate, provide any sources of ongoing
research or relevant models that might be explored.

5:00 P.M.	Charge Questions Part III: Priority Setting

Charge Question 6

Please consider a systematic approach for OPP to prioritize future work
on climate change.  Identify priority areas to help guide OPP in
determining inputs/models that would be most important to help assure
that our assessments do not underestimate exposure and risks (include
magnitude and uncertainty).

5:45 P.M. ADJOURN

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Fred Jenkins, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
`

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


40 $ 130 325 1,660 572 ________

$ 2,687 None Copying $ 218 Mailing 75 _____________

$ 293 See: Table 1 See: Table 1 $ 2,687 293 __________

$ 2,980 Supplemental Information 1. Prepare and submit supplemental information 0 $ 000 .5 $ 33 4 $ 260 .5 $ 14 5 $ 312 None Included in Cases 1 and 2,

above See: Table 1 See: Table 1 $ 312 45 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Prepare A/ V information and submit 1 $ 230 2 $ 152 15 $ 975 2 $ 54 20 ______

20 $ 1,411 ________

$ 1,411 None Copying $ 13 Mailing 15 ____________

$ 28 See: Table 1 See: Table 1 $ 1,411 28 _________

$ 1,439 Assumptions:

1. IEEs would need to comply with the Proposed Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents, generally, and Section 8.7, initial environmental evaluation.

2. A " Core" IEE and associated supplemental information comprises the IEE package for the initial preparation of an IEE by an operator.

3. A " Revised" IEE and associated supplemental information comprises the IEE package for a current year's submittal developed through revision of a previous year's submittal.

4. A " Multi Year" IEE consists of a " Revised" IEE and the associated supplemental information in the initial year and, for each of the subsequent four years, an annual submission of the advance notice and confirmation that the information provided in the Multi Year IEE is unchanged.

5. Supplemental information for purposes of the costs estimated in Exhibit 1B and Table 1 refers to supplemental information submitted regarding the specifics of the tours/ expedition ( e. g., dates, number of tours, etc.) rather than supplemental information of a more technical nature that is incorporated into the " Core" or " Revised" IEE by reference.

6. The cost estimates are based on consideration of assumed comparable estimated costs for EPA personnel, except for the Attorney rate which is an estimate of the commercial rate. The EPA estimated rates used in the calculations are fully loaded, that is, they incorporate overhead and fringe benefits. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 1. IEEs  TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN AND COST FOR THE THREE IEE MODELS, 3.5% ESCALATION RATE " Core" IEE for One Operator and One IEE " Multi Year" IEE for 13 Operators and 4 IEEs  COST INITIAL YEAR:

Core IEE $ 11,654/ IEE x 1 IEE = $ 11,654 Revised IEE $ 2,980/ IEE x 4 IEEs = $ 11,920 Supp. Info. 312/ operator x 1 op = 312 Supp. Info. 312/ operator x 13 ops = 4,056 A/ V Info. 1,439/ operator x 1 op = 1,439 A/ V Info. 1,439/ operator x 13 ops = 18,707 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE: $ 13,405 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE for 13 operators = $ 34,683 =

$ 2,668/ operator YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on $ 13,405) = $ 13,874 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% of $ 4,056 + 18,707 = $ 22,763) = $ 23,560 = $ 1,812/ operator YEAR THREE ( 3.5% on $ 13,874) = $ 14,360 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% of $ 23,560) = $ 24,385 = $ 1,876/ operator TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YRS = $ 41,639 TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YEARS = $ 82,628 AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OP = $ 13,880 AVERAGE MAX. OVER 3 YEARS PER OP = $ 6,356 AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OPERATOR = $ 2,119 = $ 2,119/ operator " Revised" IEE for One Operator and One IEE " Multi Year" IEE for 13 Operators and 4 IEEs  BURDEN Revised IEE $ 2,980/ IEE x 1 IEE = $ 2,980 INITIAL YEAR:

Supp. Info. 312/ operator x 1 op = 312 Revised IEE 40 hrs/ IEE x 4 IEEs = 160 hours 46 A/ V Info. 1,439/ operator x 1 op = 1,439 Supp. Info. 5 hrs/ operator x 13 ops = 65 hours YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE: $ 4,731 A/ V Info. 20 hrs/ operator x 13 ops = 260 hours YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE for 13 operators = 485 hours = 37 hours/ operator YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on $ 4,731) = $ 4,896 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% on $ 4,896) = $ 5,067 YEAR TWO ( 65 hrs + 260 hrs) = 325 hours = 25 hours/ operator YEAR THREE ( 65 hrs + 260 hrs) = 325 hours = 25 hours/ operator TOTAL MAX. OVER THREE YEARS = $ 14,694 AVERAGE MAX. PER YR PER OP = $ 4,898 TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YEARS = 1,135 hours AVERAGE MAX. OVER 3 YEARS PER OP = 87 hours AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OPERATOR = 29 hours = 29 hours/ operator ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 47 Exhibit 1C: CEEs  ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Legal Manager Technical Clerical Respondent Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: CEEs $ 230/ hr $ 76/ hr $ 65/ hr $ 27/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Environmental Documentation 1. Study the regulations 2. Search reference sources for existing information and compile information from company records 3. Prepare CEE and submit 4. Revise in response to EPA's comments and submit 3 $ 690 1 230 3 690 2 460 3 $ 228 2 152 5 380 5 380 3 $ 195 25 1,625 127 8,255 46 2,990 0 $ 000 0 000 10 270 5 135 9 28 145 58 _____

240 $ 1,113 2,007 9,595 3,965 _________

$ 16,680 None Copying $ 300 Mailing 60 ___________

$ 360 1 240 $ 16,680 360 __________

$ 17,040 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Prepare A/ V information and submit 2 $ 460 5 $ 380 50 $ 3,250 3 $ 81 60 ______

60 $ 4,171 ________

$ 4,171 None Copying $ 25 Mailing 15 _____________

$ 40 1 60 $ 4,171 40 __________

$ 4,211 TOTALS 300 $ 21,251 YEAR ONE 300 $ 21,251 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 21,251) 300 21,995 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 21,995) 300 22,765 TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN and COST: 900 $ 66,011 AVERAGE EST. BURDEN and COST PER YEAR PER OPERATOR: 300 $ 22,004 Assumptions:

1. Exhibit 1C represents the estimated burden and cost for CEEs. In fact, no CEEs were submitted during the four austral summer seasons the Interim Final Rule has been in effect. For purposes of estimating the potential maximum burden and cost estimate associated with CEEs over the three year life of the ICR, the three year projection assumes submittal of one CEE per year for each of the next three years. Although one respondent per year is estimated for purposes of the cost calculations, EPA anticipates that the actual number of nongovernmental expeditions with activities that will likely proceed with less than minor or transitory impacts may well be reduced to less than one respondent per year.

2. Estimates for preparation of a CEE are based on estimated time that would be needed to comply with the Proposed Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents, generally, and Section 8.8, comprehensive environmental evaluation.

3. The cost estimates are based on consideration of assumed comparable estimated costs for EPA personnel, except for the Attorney rate which is an estimate of the commercial rate. The EPA estimated rates used in the calculations are fully loaded, that is, they incorporate overhead and fringe benefits. 48 1D. REPORTING FOR EMERGENCIES  ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Legal Manager Technical Clerical Respondent Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: Emergency Reports $ 230/ hr $ 76/ hr $ 65/ hr $ 27/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Reporting for Cases of Emergency 1. Initial Report 2. Full Report 5 $ 1,150 5 1,150 5 $ 380 25 1,900 20 $ 1,300 175 11,375 2 $ 54 3 81 32 208 _______

240 $ 2,884 14,506 ________

$ 17,390 None Copying $ 150 Mailing 30 _____________

$ 180 1 240 $ 17,390 180 _________

$ 17,570 Post Emergency Assessment & Verification 1. Prepare A/ V information and submit 2 460 5 380 50 3,250 3 81 60 ______

60 $ 3,791 ________

$ 3,791 None Copying $ 25 Mailing 15 _____________

$ 40 1 60 $ 3,791 40 __________

$ 3,831 TOTAL 300 $ 21,401 There were no emergencies that required reporting during the four austral summer seasons the Interim Final Rule has been in effect. An incident requiring emergency reporting could occur in the subsequent years. The following cost estimates are not additive, however, since only one such emergency in 10 years is estimated.

YEAR ONE 1 $ 21,401 YEAR TWO ( 3% estimated CPI escalation rate of $ 21,401) 1 22,150 YEAR THREE ( 3% estimated CPI escalation rate for $ 22,150) 1 22,925 Assumptions:

1. Reporting for Cases of Emergency is based on the Proposed Rule at Section 8.10, Cases of emergency, which requires notice and reporting for activities taken in cases of emergency which would have otherwise required the preparation of a CEE. The estimate is based on reporting requirements only, not the actual cost of the emergency response action. The burden and cost estimate assumes one such emergency per 10 years.

2. Only one incident requiring emergency reporting is estimated to occur over a 10 year period. In fact, there was no emergency reporting during the four austral summer seasons the Interim Final Rule has been in effect.

3. The cost estimates are based on consideration of assumed comparable estimated costs for EPA personnel, except for the Attorney rate which is an estimate of the commercial rate. The EPA estimated rates used in the calculations are fully loaded, that is, they incorporate overhead and fringe benefits. 49 Exhibit 2A: PERMs  ESTIMATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: PERM $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr PERMs from U. S.

Based Operators:

1. Post PERM receipt on WWW, provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Review PERM and any public comments, provide comments to and consult with operator 3. Provide copies of revised/ final PERM to interested Federal agencies,

review, and notify operator, if necessary 4. Maintain file 1 $ 44 4 252 2 126 1 44 0 $ 0 2 126 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 1 63 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 1 63 0 0 0 0 1 8 2 1 _______

12 $ 44 504 126 44 ________

$ 718 None Copying $ 30 FR Pub. 0 Store Files 10 _____________

$ 40 1 12 $ 718 40 ________

$ 758 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Review A/ V information

NOT REQUIRED FOR PERMs 0 $ 000 0 $ 000 0 $ 000 0 $ 000 0 _______

0/ yr $ 000 _______

$ 000/ yr None None 0 0 $ 000 TOTAL 12 $ 758 YEAR ONE 12 $ 758 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 758) 12 784 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 784) 12 811 TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN and COST: 36 $ 2,353 AVERAGE EST. BURDEN and COST PER YEAR PER OPERATOR: 12 $ 784 Assumptions:

1. Exhibit 2A represents the estimated burden and cost for PERMs. In fact, no PERMs were submitted during the four austral summer seasons the Interim Final Rule has been in effect. For purposes of estimating the potential maximum burden and cost estimate associated with PERMs over the three year life of the ICR, the three year projection assumes submittal of one PERM per year for each of the next three years. Although one respondent per year is estimated for purposes of the cost calculations, EPA anticipates that the actual number of nongovernmental expeditions with activities that will likely proceed with less than minor or transitory impacts may well be reduced to less than one respondent per year.

2. Estimates for review of a PERM is estimated as 25% of the respondent's time, or 10 hours, to prepare a PERM that would be in compliance with the Proposed Rule at Section 8.4, preparation 50 of environmental documents, generally, and Section 8.6, preliminary environmental review, and two hours for administrative activities.

3. Cost and burden associated with preparation of higher level EIA documentation, if necessary, is addressed in Exhibits 2B ( IEEs) and 2C ( CEEs). 51 Exhibit 2B: IEEs  ESTIMATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: IEE $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Environmental Documentation MODEL 1: " Core" IEE 1. Post IEE receipt on WWW,

provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Review IEE and any public comments, provide comments to and consult with operator 3. Provide copies of revised/ final IEE to interested Federal agencies, review , and notify operator, if necessary 4. Maintain file .5 $ 22 25 1,575 10 630 1.5 66 0 $ 0 29 1,807 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 12 756 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 4 252 0 0 0 0 .5 70 10 1.5 _______

82 $ 22 7,812 630 66 ________

$ 8,530 None Copying $ 261 File Storage 10* _____________

$ 271 * Includes A/ V Information See: Table 2 See: Table 2 $ 8,530 271 __________

$ 8,801 Environmental Documentation MODEL 2: " Revised" IEE 1. Post IEE receipt on WWW,

provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Review IEE and any public comments, provide comments to and consult with operator 3. Provide copies of revised/ final IEE to interested Federal agencies, review, and notify operator, if necessary 4. Maintain file .5 $ 22 17 1,071 2 126 1.5 66 0 $ 0 15 945 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 6 378 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5 38 2 1.5 _____

42 $ 22 2,394 126 66 ________

$ 2,608 None Copying $ 261 Store Files 10*

___________

$ 271 * Includes A/ V Information See: Table 2 See: Table 2 $ 2,608 271 __________

$ 2,879 Supplemental Information 1. Review supplemental information 1 $ 63 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1 $ 63 None Included in Cases 1 and 2,

above See: Table 2 See: Table 2 $ 63 52 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Review A/ V information 7 $ 441 5 $ 315 2 $ 126 1 $ 63 15 $ 945 None Copying $ 15 File Storage * ____________

$ 15 * Included in Cases 1 & 2 above See: Table 2 See: Table 2 $ 945 15 _________

$ 960 Assumptions:

1. IEEs would need to comply with the Proposed Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents, generally, and Section 8.7, initial environmental evaluation.

2. A " Core" IEE and associated supplemental information comprises the IEE package for the initial submittal of an IEE by an operator.

3. A " Revised" IEE and associated supplemental information comprises the IEE package for a current year's submittal developed through revision of a previous year's submittal.

4. A " Multi Year" IEE consists of a " Revised" IEE and the associated supplemental information in the initial year and, for each of the subsequent four years, an annual submission of the advance notice and confirmation that the information provided in the Multi Year IEE is unchanged.

5. Supplemental information for purposes of the costs estimated in Exhibit 2B and Table 2 refers to supplemental information submitted regarding the specifics of the tours/ expedition ( e. g., dates, number of tours, etc.) rather than supplemental information of a more technical nature that is incorporated into the " Core" or " Revised" IEE by reference. The one hour for review of the supplemental information is assigned to EPA to simplify the model and calculations. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 2. IEEs  TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN AND COST FOR THE THREE IEE MODELS, 3.5% ESCALATION RATE " Core" IEE for One Operator and One IEE " Multi Year" IEE for 13 Operators and 4 IEEs  COST INITIAL YEAR:

Core IEE $ 8,530/ IEE x 1 IEE = $ 8,801 Revised IEE $ 2,879/ IEE x 4 IEEs = $ 11,516 Supp. Info. 63/ operator x 1 op = 63 Supp. Info. 63/ operator x 13 ops = 819 A/ V Info. 960/ operator x 1 op = 960 A/ V Info. 960/ operator x 13 ops = 12,480 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE: $ 9,824 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE for 13 operators = $ 24,815 =

$ 1,909/ operator YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on $ 9,824) = $ 10,168 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% of $ 819 + 12,480 = $ 13,299) = $ 13,764 = $ 1,059/ operator YEAR THREE ( 3.5% on $ 10,168) = $ 10,524 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% of $ 13,764) = $ 14,246 = $ 1,096/ operator TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YRS = $ 30,516 TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YEARS = $ 52,825 AVERAGE MAX PER YEAR PER OP = $ 10,172 AVERAGE MAX. OVER 3 YEARS PER OP = $ 4,063 AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OPERATOR = $ 1,355 = $ 1,355/ operator " Revised" IEE for One Operator and One IEE Revised IEE $ 2,879/ IEE x 1 IEE = $ 2,879 " Multi Year" IEE for 13 Operators and 4 IEEs  BURDEN Supp. Info. 63/ operator x 1 op = 63 INITIAL YEAR:

A/ V Info. 960/ operator x 1 op = 960 Revised IEE 42 hrs/ IEE x 4 IEEs = 168 hours YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE: $ 3,902 Supp. Info. 1 hrs/ operator x 13 ops = 13 hours A/ V Info. 15 hrs/ operator x 13 ops = 195 hours 53 YEAR ONE TOTAL ESTIMATE for 13 operators = 376 hours = 29 hours/ operator YEAR TWO ( 3.5% on $ 3,902) = $ 4,038 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% on $ 4,038) = $ 4,179 YEAR TWO ( 13 hrs + 195 hrs) = 208 hours = 16 hours/ operator YEAR THREE ( 13 hrs + 195 hrs) = 208 hours = 16 hours/ operator TOTAL MAX OVER THREE YEARS = $ 12,119 AVERAGE MAX PER YR PER OP = $ 4,040 TOTAL MAXIMUM OVER THREE YEARS = 792 hours AVERAGE MAX. OVER 3 YEARS PER OP = 61 hours AVERAGE MAX. PER YEAR PER OPERATOR = 20 hours = 20 hours/ operator ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 54 Exhibit 2C: CEEs  ESTIMATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: CEE $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr CEEs from U. S. Based Operators:

1. Post CEE receipt on WWW,

provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Prepare/ publish FR notices for receipt of draft CEE and NOA for final CEE; copy and transmit final CEE to Parties 3. Review draft CEE and any public comments, provide comments to and consult with operator 4. Provide copies of revised/ final CEE to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested, and to Parties,

review, and notify operator, if necessary 5. Maintain file 2 $ 88 1 44 40 2,520 5 315 2 88 2 88 0 $ 0 0 0 36 2,268 5 315 0 0 0 $ 0 5 22 0 14 882 3 189 3 132 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 16 1,108 1 63 0 0 2 6 106 14 5 2 _______

135 $ 88 264 6,678 882 220 88 ________

8,220 None Copying $ 2160 FR Pub. 290 Store Files 10* _____________

$ 2460*

* Includes CEE and A/ V Information 1 135 $ 8,220 2,460 ________

$ 10,680 Post Expedition Assessment &

Verification 1. Review A/ V information 14 $ 882 9 $ 567 4 $ 252 3 $ 189 3 0 _______

3 0/ yr $ 1,890 _________

$ 1,890/ yr None Copying $ 30 FR Pub. 0 Store Files * _____________

$ 30 * Included above 1 30 $ 1,890 30 ________

$ 1,920 TOTALS 165 $ 12,600 YEAR ONE 165 $ 12,600 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 12,600) 165 $ 13,041 YEAR THREE ( 35% estimated CPI escalation rate on $ 13,041) 165 $ 13,497 TOTAL ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BURDEN and COST: 495 $ 39,138 AVERAGE EST. BURDEN and COST PER YEAR PER OPERATOR: 165 $ 13,046 Assumptions:

1. Exhibit 2C represents the estimated burden and cost for CEEs. In fact, no CEEs were submitted during the four austral summer seasons the Interim Final Rule has been in effect. For purposes of estimating the potential maximum burden and cost estimate associated with CEEs over the three year life of the ICR, the three year projection assumes submittal of one CEE per year for each of the next three years. Although one respondent per year is estimated for purposes of the cost calculations, EPA anticipates that the actual number of nongovernmental expeditions with activities that will likely proceed with less than minor or transitory impacts may well be 55 reduced to less than one respondent per year.

2. Estimates for review of a CEE is estimated as 50% of the respondent's time, or 120 hours, to prepare a CEE that would be in compliance with the Proposed Rule at Section 8.4, preparation of environmental documents,

generally, and Section 8.8, comprehensive environmental evaluation, with an additional 15 hours for administrative activities, and 50% of respondent's time for assessment and verification procedures for review of the information.

3. EPA would publish Federal Register notices for domestic CEEs, and the Department of State would publish the Federal Register notice and circulate copies of CEEs to all Parties and others that may request copies. 56 Exhibit 2D: Reporting for Emergencies  Estimated Federal Government Burden and Cost EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: CEE $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Reporting for Cases of Emergency 1. Notify Parties 2. Provide initial and full report to interested Federal agencies and review 3. Provide full report to Parties 4. Review A/ V information 5. Maintain files 0 $ 0 25 1,575 0 0 10 630 1 44 0 $ 0 25 1,575 0 0 10 630 0 0 25 $ 1,575 14 882 15 945 4 252 4 176 0 $ 0 26 1,638 0 0 6 378 0 0 25 90 15 30 5 _______

165 $ 1,575 5,670 945 1,550 220 ________

$ 9,960 None Copying $ 2160 FR Pub. 0 Store Files 10 _____________

$ 2170 1 165 $ 9,960 2,160 ________

$ 12,120 TOTAL 165 $ 12,120 YEAR ONE 165 $ 12,120 YEAR TWO ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate of $ 12,120) 165 12,544 YEAR THREE ( 3.5% estimated CPI escalation rate for $ 12,544) 165 12,983 Assumptions:

1. Reporting for Cases of Emergency is based on the Proposed Rule at Section 8.10, Cases of emergency, which would require notice and reporting for activities taken in cases of emergency which would have otherwise required the preparation of a CEE. The estimate is based on reporting requirements only, not the actual cost of the emergency response action. The burden and cost estimate assumes one such emergency per 10 years.

2. Only one incident requiring emergency reporting is estimated to occur over a 10 year period. In fact, there was no emergency reporting during the four austral summer seasons the Interim Final Rule has been in effect. An incident requiring emergency reporting could occur in the subsequent years. The cost estimates for reporting for cases of emergency are not additive because only one such emergency in 10 years is estimated.

3. Estimates for review of an Emergency Report is estimated as 50% of the respondent's time to prepare the Emergency Report that would be in compliance with the Proposed Rule at Section 8.10, or 120 hours, and 50% of respondent's time for assessment and verification procedures for review of the information, or 30 hours, with an additional 15 hours for administrative activities.

3. The Department of State is responsible for notification of Parties and follow up coordination with the Parties; hours have been allocated to the DOS accordingly. 57 Exhibit 2E: Coordinating Review of Information Received from Other Parties  Estimated Federal Government Burden and Cost EPA NSF DOS Other Govt. Government Labor Capitol/ O & M No. of Total Total ICR Activity: Other Party Docs. $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr $ 63 or 44/ hr Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Startup Cost Cost Respondents Hrs/ Yr Cost/ Yr Coordinate Review of Information Received from Other Parties 1. Prepare and publish FR notice of receipt of draft CEE,

provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 2. Review draft CEE and provide inter agency response to Party 3. Provide copies of other documents ( including final CEEs, annual list of IEEs,

national procedures,

significant monitoring information) to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 4. Post receipt of significant monitoring information on WWW and provide copies to interested Federal agencies and public, if requested 5. Maintain files 0 $ 0 25 1,575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 25 1,575 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 378 26 1,638 5 315 6 378 3 132 0 $ 0 14 882 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 90 5 6 3 ______

110 $ 378 5,670 315 378 132 _________

$ 6,873 None Copying $ *

FR Pub 290 Store Files 10 ____________

$ 300 * Copying per document:

Draft CEE $ 360 Final CEE 180 Other doc. 50 IEE list 10 See: Assum. 2,

below See: Assum. 2,

below See: Assum.

2, below Assumptions:

1. The Department of State would be responsible for compliance with the Proposed Rule at Section 8.12, Coordination of reviews from other Parties.

2. The calculations in Exhibit 2E are based on receipt of a CEE from another Party. One Draft CEE was received from other Parties during the four austral summer seasons the Interim Final Rule has been in effect other than the annual list of IEEs. There is no way to anticipate receipt of environmental documents from the Parties, other than the annual list of IEEs, on an annual basis. There is no burden or cost to the respondents associated with receipt of documents from the Parties, therefore, the costs are not further defined. 58 Exhibit 3: SUMMARY  ESTIMATED RESPONDENT/ FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST CHART 1: Summary for Respondents and Federal Government  Estimated Total and Annual Average hourly burden and cost for each type of environmental documentation that could be submitted by a Respondent under the Proposed Rule PERM Core IEE Revised IEE Multi Year IEE CEE Emergency Reporting Respondent Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Annual Average 40 $ 3,617 40 $ 3,744 40 $ 3,875 120 $ 11,236 40 $ 3,745 185 $ 13,405 185 $ 13,874 185 $ 14,360 555 $ 41,639 185 $ 13,880 65 $ 4,731 65 $ 4,896 65 $ 5,067 195 $ 14,694 65 $ 4,898 37 $ 2,668 25 1,812 25 1,876 87 $ 6,356 29 $ 2,119 300 $ 21,251 300 $ 21,995 300 $ 22,765 900 $ 66,011 300 $ 22,004 300 $ 21,401 300 $ 22,150 300 $ 22,925 Federal Government Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Annual Average 12 $ 758 12 $ 784 12 $ 811 36 $ 2,353 12 $ 784 98 $ 9,824 98 $ 10,168 98 $ 10,524 294 $ 30,516 98 $ 10,172 58 $ 3,902 58 $ 4,038 58 $ 4,179 174 $ 12,119 58 $ 4,040 29 $ 1,909 16 $ 1,059 16 $ 1,096 61 $ 4,063 20 $ 1,355 165 $ 12,600 165 $ 13,041 165 $ 13,497 495 $ 39,138 165 $ 13,046 165 $ 12,120 165 $ 12,544 165 $ 12,983 TOTAL Annual Average 156 $ 13,589 52 $ 4,529 849 $ 72,155 283 $ 24,052 369 $ 26,813 123 $ 8,938 148 $ 10,419 49 $ 3,474 1395 $ 105,149 465 $ 35,050 CHART 2: Summary for Respondents and Federal Government  Estimated Total and Annual Average hourly burden and costs based on the anticipated level and type of environmental documentation most respondents would likely submit under the Proposed Rule Multi Year IEE Total Hourly Burden 3 Year Total Annual Average Total Cost 3 Year Total Annual Average Respondent ( 13 of 14 operators) 1,135 hours 29 hrs per op per year $ 82,628 $ 2,119 per op per year Federal Government 792 hours 20 hrs per op per year $ 52,825 $ 1,355 per op per year TOTALS 1,927 hours 49 hrs per op per year $ 135,453 $ 3,474 per op per year NOTES: 1. Average Annual is the average per year per respondent 2. Chart presents the maximum burden and cost for a respondent. Chart 2 presents the maximum burden and cost based on 59 the anticipated level and type of environmental documentation a respondent would likely submit under the Proposed Rule. 3. The burden and cost estimates for Emergency Reporting assume one such emergency per 10 years.

PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT STATISTICAL SURVEY This collection of information does not use or is otherwise based on a statistical survey. PART C OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ICR LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: 40 CFR Part 8, Environmental Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica; Interim Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 83, Wednesday, April 30, 1997, 23538 23549.

Attachment 2: 16 U. S. C. 2403a.

Attachment 3: Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Final Rule for Environmental Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica; Notices, Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 90, Friday, May 9, 1997, 21611 25613.

Attachment 4: International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators ( IAATO), Membership Directory at: http:// www. iaato. org/ members_ list. html.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50936]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0029]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that on October 9, 2017, Norfolk Southern
Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 231, Railroad
Safety Appliance Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number
FRA-2008-0029.
    Specifically, NS is seeking a renewal of its waiver of compliance
from 49 CFR 231.1(k) which are the requirements for uncoupling levers
for box and other house cars built or placed in service before October
1, 1966. NS seeks this waiver for its Rail Train service, which is non-
revenue service operated by NS to deliver sections of continuously
welded rail to rail gangs replacing rail throughout the NS system. This
equipment has the sole purpose of hauling welded rail sections spanning
from car to car throughout the train. Sections of welded rail span
several cars at once and the cars serve as a continuous support for the
sections of rail while in transit and at the work site.
    NS requests approval to operate all Rail Trains with uncoupling
levers removed from both ends of the rail cars that are coupled to one
another in this train service. These trains operate only on NS property
in Maintenance of Way service and are not operated in revenue service,
nor are they offered to other carriers in interchange. NS states that
its process of uncoupling cars allows for safe uncoupling through
utilization of Mechanical Department personnel under Blue Flag
Protection. Additionally, NS states that there are safety benefits to
be gained in granting relief from 49 CFR 231.1(k). Namely, the waiver
will help prevent unintentional train uncoupling during these
operations and the resulting potential employee injuries and damage to
rail structure and road bed.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by December 18, 2017 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. 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 https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John K. Alexy,
Director, Office of Safety Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-23840 Filed 11-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59643-59645]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0290; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-210-AD;
Amendment 39-17981; AD 2014-20-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model
L-1011 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracked rib
cap castellations. This AD requires repetitive inspections for
castellation and skin clips cracked or damaged between stringers and
cracked stringer clips of the wing box pylon back-up structure, and
front spar to rear spar; repetitive inspections for cracking, damage,
or failure of the pylon back-up torque box structure; repetitive
inspections for cracking or damage of the wing box external areas at
the drag brace aft wing fitting; repetitive inspections of the outer
surface of the wing upper and lower skins for cracks or damage along
the rib attachment at the fastener holes and between the two rows of
attachment; and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct cracked or damaged rib cap castellations, which
could degrade the structural capabilities of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 7,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, L1011
Technical Support Center, Dept. 6A4M, Zone 0579, 86 South Cobb Drive,
Marietta, GA 30063-0579; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. 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>.

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-
0290; 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: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-
5554; 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 certain Lockheed Martin
Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model L-1011 series
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2014
(79 FR 30748). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked rib cap
castellations. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for
castellation and skin clips cracked or damaged between stringers and
cracked stringer clips of the wing box pylon back-up structure, and
front spar to rear spar; repetitive inspections for cracking, damage,
or failure of the pylon back-up torque box structure; repetitive
inspections for cracking or damage of the wing box external areas at
the drag brace aft wing fitting; repetitive inspections of the outer
surface of the wing upper and lower skins for cracks or damage along
the rib attachment at the fastener holes and between the two rows of
attachment; and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct cracked or damaged rib cap castellations, which
could degrade the structural capabilities of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 30748, May 29,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 30748, May 29, 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 30748, May 29, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 26 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...............  41 work-hours x $85                $0   $3,485 per inspection  $90,610 per
                             per hour = $3,485                       cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                             per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs 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
repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost               Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification (up to 12 rib caps per    96 work-hours x $85 per  $15,000 per rib cap....  $23,160 per rib cap.
 airplane).                             hour = $8,160 per rib
                                        cap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other than the modification stated above, we have received no
definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the
crack repair actions specified in this AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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):

2014-20-08 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company: Amendment 39-17981; Docket No. FAA-2014-0290; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-210-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 7, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Model L-1011-385-1, L-1011-385-1-14, L-1011-385-
1-15, and L-1011-385-3 airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision
5, dated November 14, 2008.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked rib cap
castellations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked
or damaged rib cap castellations, which could degrade the structural
capabilities of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Wing Inspections

    For Model L-1011-385-1, L-1011-385-1-14, L-1011-385-1-15, and L-
1011-385-3 airplanes, serial numbers 1189 and subsequent: At the
applicable compliance time specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2),
and (h)(3) of this AD, do the inspections specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight cycles or 7,200 flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for castellation and skin clips
cracked or damaged (including cracks, loose or missing fasteners,
oversized and missed drilled fastener holes, corrosion, dents,
scratches and other signs of distress) between stringers and cracked
stringer clips of the wing box pylon back-up structure, and front
spar to rear spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-57-207,
Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008.
    (2) Do a general visual inspection for cracking or damage
(including cracks, loose or missing fasteners, oversized and missed
drilled fastener holes, corrosion, dents, scratches and other signs
of distress) of the pylon back-up torque box structure, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin
Service Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008.
    (3) Do a general visual inspection for cracking, damage
(including cracks, loose or missing fasteners, oversized and missed
drilled fastener holes, corrosion, dents, scratches and other signs
of distress), or failure of the wing box external areas at the

drag brace aft wing fitting, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-57-207,
Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008.
    (4) Do a general visual inspection for cracking or damage
(including cracks, loose or missing fasteners, oversized and missed
drilled fastener holes, corrosion, dents, scratches and other signs
of distress) of the outer surface of the wing upper and lower skins
for cracks along the rib attachment at the fastener holes and
between the two rows of attachments, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-
57-207, Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008.

(h) Compliance Times for the Actions Specified in Paragraph (g) of This
AD

    (1) For airplanes that have not accomplished the inspections
described in Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-57-207 prior to
the effective date of this AD: At the later of the compliance times
specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles or
27,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,800 flight cycles or 3,600 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have accomplished the inspections
described in Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-57-207 prior to
the effective date of this AD: Within 3,600 flight cycles or 7,200
flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the completion of the
most recent inspections, except as specified in paragraph (h)(3) of
this AD.
    (3) For rib caps that have been modified as described in
Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-57-207: Before the accumulation
of 15,000 total flight cycles or 27,000 total flight hours,
whichever occurs first, for that rib cap only.

(i) Corrective Actions

    If any cracking, damage, or failure is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further
flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-
57-207, Revision 5, dated November 14, 2008, except where this
service bulletin specifies that all other damaged structural items
should be repaired using the best shop practices, following
procedures in Structural Repair Manual 57-12-00, this AD requires
repairing the damage before further flight, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the
Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's
approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Reporting

    Submit a report of positive findings of the inspection for
cracking, damage, or failure required by this AD to the Manager,
Atlanta ACO, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or
(j)(2) of this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a
description of the discrepancies found, the airplane serial number,
and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(k) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Lockheed Martin Service
Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision 3, dated November 22, 1991.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta 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
(n)(1) of this AD.
    (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.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Carl Gray,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA
30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Lockheed Martin Service Bulletin 093-57-207, Revision 5,
dated November 14, 2008.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Lockheed service information identified in this AD,
contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company, L1011 Technical Support Center, Dept. 6A4M, Zone 0579, 86
South Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063-0579; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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 September 23, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23378 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P