[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56264-56267]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0144; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-232-AD;
Amendment 39-17970; AD 2014-19-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of rudder bearings falling out of the fore rudder
hinge bracket during assembly. This AD requires a proof load test and
detailed inspections; and installation of a new bearing, reaming, or
repair of the bearing if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct improper bearing installation, which could result in
abnormal wear and potential increased freeplay in the rudder system,
and resultant airframe vibration, leading to compromise of the flutter
margins of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 24, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 24,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0144 or in person at the
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.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto,
Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 Bombardier Model
DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16245).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-34, dated November 1, 2013 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, -
401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was reported that rudder bearings were falling out of the
fore rudder hinge bracket during assembly. Investigation revealed
the root cause as improper application of the adhesive compound and
the lack of application of sealant during the installation of the
rudder bearings into the fore rudder hinge bracket. The improper
bearing installation, if not corrected, could result in abnormal
wear and could potentially increase the freeplay in the rudder
system. This may result in airframe vibration, eventually
compromising the flutter-margins of the aeroplane.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection, and rectification as
required, of the fore rudder bearings in the hinge bracket assembly.

Required actions include a proof load test for slippage and freeplay.
Related investigative actions include a detailed inspection of a
certain bearing for damage, corrosion, and dimension conformity; and a
detailed inspection of the fitting bore of the fore rudder hinge
bracket for wear, damage, corrosion, and dimension conformity.
Corrective actions include installation of a new bearing, reaming, or
repair of the bearing. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-
0144-0002.

Revised Service Information

    Since the NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25, 2014) was issued, Bombardier
has issued Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision `B', dated February 11,
2014. Among other things, Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44,
Revision `B', dated February 11, 2014, clarifies a note, and corrects a
task number for the operational check of the rudder control system.
    We have revised this AD to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
27-44, Revision `B', dated February 11, 2014, as an additional source
of appropriate service information. We also have revised paragraph (i)
of this AD to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision
`A,' dated June 10, 2009, as service information that can be used for
credit for previous accomplishment of certain actions required by this
AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 16245, March 25, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Change Airworthy Product Paragraph

    Horizon Air requested that we revise the Airworthy Product
paragraph, i.e., paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25,
2014), to either remove or change the sentence that states, in part,
that ``repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD.''
    Horizon Air reasoned that the sentence in question places an
unnecessary regulatory burden on operators with airplanes that are
built in Canada. Horizon Air explained that since TCCA is the State
holding Design Authority for Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes, any repairs created by Bombardier would have to be in
compliance with the TCCA AD, and the repair would specifically refer to
the TCCA AD.
    The commenter added that the bilateral agreement between Canada and
the United States accepts documents approved by TCCA as meeting the
requirements for FAA-approval. The commenter questioned whether the
U.S. AD number is necessary when the repair is approved by TCCA and the
repair specifically refers to the Canadian AD, and asked what value is
added by specifically referring to the U.S. AD if the repair meets the
approval requirements of the State holding the Design Authority.
Horizon Air noted that the language in paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM (79
FR 16245, March 25, 2014) would force operators that incorporated a
repair method prior to the effective date of the AD to go back to the
manufacturer and request a revision to the repair method to add the
U.S. AD number, even if the repair method referenced the TCCA AD.
    Horizon Air also explained that it discussed the statement
concerning repair approvals with Bombardier Aerospace, Toronto. The
Engineering Department management of Bombardier Aerospace, Toronto,
stated they are under the TCCA umbrella, and they can refer only to a
TCCA AD on their repair drawings. If this requirement is retained in
the U.S. AD as written, it would require an operator to somehow have a
repair drawing revised to include the U.S. AD number. This is a
difficult task, considering the manufacturer's stated position that
they currently do not include the U.S. AD number, and they have no
internal processes to add it. The statement in the U.S. AD should allow
the TCCA AD number as an equivalent to the U.S. AD number.
    Horizon Air also noted that an operator could pursue an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) but that would add additional time and cost
to compliance. The additional time required for an AMOC will most
likely delay returning the airplanes to service, and if the AMOC is
needed on a weekend or federal holiday, the return to service would
take even longer.
    We concur with the commenter's request to remove from this AD the
requirement that repair approvals must specifically refer to this AD.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service
information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact
the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the
Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective
actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-
approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved
by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are
considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25, 2014), we proposed to prevent
the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the
unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the
State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to
this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of
compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs
that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe
condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase ``its
delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State
of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable,
to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the
proposed AD.
    A related comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), which
applies to certain Airbus airplane models. The commenter stated the
following: ``The proposed wording, being specific to repairs,
eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for
approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during
accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the

requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a
method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design
Approval Organization (DAO).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-
approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), pointed out that in many cases
the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's
MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the
DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed
with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is
issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the
operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and
obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the
compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed from this AD the requirement
that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before
adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with
affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure
that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in
an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD
rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when
appropriate.
    We have also decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or the ``DAH with State of Design Authority
design organization approval,'' but instead we will provide the
specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority
for the DAH throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 16245, March 25, 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 16245, March 25, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 78 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 7 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $46,410, or $595 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $155, for a cost of
$835 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0144; 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 street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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):

2014-19-02 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-17970. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0144; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-232-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 24, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4166
through 4175, inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of rudder bearings falling out
of the fore rudder hinge bracket during assembly. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct improper bearing installation, which
could result in abnormal wear and potential increased freeplay in
the rudder system, and resultant airframe vibration, leading to
compromise of the flutter margins of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Proof Load Test

    Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a proof load test for
slippage and freeplay (relative movement between the bearing and
fitting), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision `B,' dated February
11, 2014. If no slippage or freeplay is detected during the proof
load test required by this paragraph, before further flight,
identify the area with a marker and apply sealant if missing, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision `B,' dated February 11, 2014;
and after identifying the area with a marker and applying sealant,
no further action is required by this AD.

(h) Rectification

    If any slippage or freeplay (relative movement between the
bearing and fitting) is detected during the test required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of bearing DSC8-6 for damage,
corrosion, and dimension conformity, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44,
Revision `B,' dated February 11, 2014. If damage, corrosion, or
dimension non-conformity is found, before further flight, install
new bearing DSC8-6, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision `B,'
dated February 11, 2014.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the fitting bore of the fore
rudder hinge bracket assembly for wear, damage, corrosion, and
dimension conformity, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision `B,'
dated February 11, 2014.
    (i) If damage, corrosion, or dimension non-conformity is found
during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD,
before further flight, ream the inside diameter, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
27-44, Revision `B,' dated February 11, 2014.
    (ii) If bore wear or damage beyond 0.8140-inch diameter is found
during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD,
before further flight, repair using a method approved by the
Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate,
FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier,
Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the
DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-27-44, dated April 13, 2009; or Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision `A,' dated June 10, 2009; which are not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, 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 New York ACO, send it to
ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York
ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone
516-228-7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or TCCA; or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-34, dated November
1, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0144-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-44, Revision `B,' dated
February 11, 2014. (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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 8, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-22153 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 RESOLVE EPA Record Keeping Rule 1/ 31/ 02, Irving, TX Tape 3 [ Side A]

Mel Swoboda [ continued from side B, tape two]:   now we're going back to slide rules.

Unidentified Female Speaker: I have a question. If 80 percent of the information that EPA is getting is coming from states, then are there not some states out there who are getting data electronically from their industries? And if that's the case, do we have some success stories? I think from the gentleman sitting there we did.

Bill Yancey: This is Bill Yancey with BP. Yes, we have been very successful with the states, specifically California and Washington, in which we submit electronic waste water reporting as well as several air reports, and we've had good luck, and of course that's one of the more expeditious forms of communicating the data and getting it into the system.

Unidentified Female Speaker: And what you have negotiated, it wouldn't meet these regulations?

Bill Yancey: No it would not. 2 Unidentified Female Speaker: That's why you're here, so did EPA talk to California or any of the other states?

Joe Retzer: We've talked to 35 or so. By the way, one of the recent, Florida is doing electronic DMRs. We've been talking with John Coates for a long time.

Unidentified Female Speaker: Right, and he and I are working on drinking water data from the labs, which is a little bit different, because it can come to us from a lab, and not from somebody we regulate directly.

Joe Retzer: And it doesn't require signatures, so it's a different kind of issue.

Unidentified Female Speaker: But it seems to me, when you did talk to the other states, did you just make a list of all the ways that they did them instead of picking the best parts,

or what?

Joe Retzer: We can respond to that. We've been working with states for two or three years on this, and we've had a dialogue with some areas where we agree and some areas where we don't agree so much. In fact, we work closely with this National Governors Association group and they published a book on issues to consider in developing electronic reporting systems. And if states basically address the issues in that 3 book, they're probably going to be very close to meeting the CROMERRR requirements.

I think we probably still have some areas in the recording criteria where there is some disagreement. It's my belief we're going to work those out. We're going to have another meeting with states coming up at the end of this month. I don't really think we're that far apart in the reporting areas.

If you look through the reporting system requirements for states, there are a few areas that are a little problematic in terms of the electronic. The signature scenario for electronic signatures [ is] where there's some disagreement about how that ought to work. But if you look at most of the criteria, I really don't think we're that far apart, especially if you look at the regulation itself as opposed to some of the issues that are discussed in the preamble.

For example, our feeling is that what you guys are doing   well, what John is doing, I don't know what you're doing   but what John is doing in Florida will meet the CROMERRR.

Unidentified Female Speaker: I guess I was just wondering less about the EPA state relationship and more about using the example of the industry to the state, that maybe California or Florida has to some degree. 4 Joe Retzer: Yeah, I think the main concerns that we really have on what state reporting systems are able to do is that we want to be able to make sure that an electronic signature sort of carries the same force as a paper signature.

So we want people to be able to certify, when they sign, that they understand fully the penalty for committing fraud with an electronic signature is the same as with a paper signature. We want them to see that on the screen somewhere.

We want   and I don't need to go through all this stuff now,

but those are the kinds of things that we have concerns about.

And it's different for signature related things than it is for non signature related things. We've been moving ahead of the regulation on drinking water, the unregulated contaminants program, where we have that sort of up and running. Now we're getting data from the labs using basically just a PIN and password approach, and we think that would work for lots of reports where you don't require signatures.

So I think it may not be as tough as some people think on the state recording system. I think the difficult thing is that the way we understand the rules now, is that because of the requirements related to individuals in electronic reporting   that is people have to register and so on   that it's going to require a change in the state program delegation or state 5 program approval. So that states that implement this for these programs are going to have to go through a mod[ ification] in the approval process.

And what we're proposing is, that instead of states having to come through and do that for each one of their many programs where they're doing electronic reporting, we do sort of one technical review for what approach they're using. And once they've done that, then they won't have to come back and do that. If we do the DMR program with John in Florida and you're following basically that same approach, then you won't have to come in for review, that's the idea.

Bill Yancey: Bill Yancey, BP. I just wanted to further elaborate on the state of Florida's experience of getting absolution on having to comply with CROMERRR. We depend a lot on downloaded forms, calculations, spreadsheets, and several other forms of data reporting from state websites as well as EPA's website, and I'll use the EPA website since that's more of a universally applicable reporting requirement that we would face, because we currently report our SARA 313 Toxic Release Inventories electronically.

But when we go to the website and try to get the most current, acceptable method for calculating, I'll use this example, a metals treatment emission calculation, which a few 6 years ago was inadvertently posted on the website. People didn't catch it until later. So what we do, we download these calculation bases, or the reason why we chose a calculation method to report as we did, and so that caused a problem, and we did get an extension of time to report.

But more recently we had the APRS software, which had failing capabilities to detect the submittal of no data. And again, the response was, we got an extension granted to correct the problem, but we'd incorporated that into a report, at least once, that was going to be submitted electronically.

And we do continue to rely on the integrity of the reporting mechanisms that we use for reports like SARA 313s,

and I just wanted to make that comment, that it's not, that is,

if the regulatory community bears the total responsibility for making sure that data of high integrity is being submitted,

you've got to share the blame, in some cases. Thanks.

Robin Roberts: There's one more last comment here, and then I want to take a quick break, we'll come back, we'll recap, follow up on any other concerns that you may have briefly about other subparts of the rule and then I'll see where we stand.

Unidentified Male Speaker: I just wanted a clarification from you, possibly. The states or local agencies don't have to 7 comply with any aspects of CROMERRR or just the reporting aspects? Because our agency has a lab where we do lab analysis using the same kind of equipment that's been talked about here.

We have air monitoring equipment to measure pollutant concentrations in the ambient air that need to be reported into EPA's air emitter programs, etc., etc. Is all that record keeping that we do outside of CROMERRR as well?

Joe Retzer: If you're doing it as part of a regulatory requirement, then that record keeping stuff would come in. I'm not sure about the reporting part. If you're doing it as an air emitter, then if you're, I mean if you're .

Unidentified Male Speaker: No, but I mean we have a lot of responsibilities to report our ambient air data into our compliance activities and putting activities into the EPA's ERRORS [ phonetic] database. And there's that reporting into ERRORS, but we also have to keep a lot of that data as part of our record keeping.

Joe Retzer: You know, I'd really have to check on that,

but my sense is that you're doing that, not under a regulatory requirement, but as part of some other relationship, either a delegation or something of that sort.

Robin Roberts: Other questions that you have about how the program will operate vis à vis states, or subpart D, for 8 instance, of the rule, or subpart D, or even the general provisions, we'll take after we come back form the break. I want to just break out for fifteen minutes and let's reconvene here at five to three.

I'd first like to go to the four o'clock piece here on the agenda, which is about new products or technologies that will help companies satisfy the CROMERRR requirements, and you might even want to think about what are new technologies that will help you satisfy your own internal archiving problems that you may have.

How do you go about deciding which piece of data out of these huge data streams that many of you are involved in compiling, and archive it and preserve some kind of record internally?

And then we'll move on to any comments that you might have about the other parts of the rule. So what we can do now is turn to this new technology discussion, the new process discussion and just ask, have you run across any new products or technologies that help you do what you do now but also archive it and slice and dice the data, freeze it? Any new,

exciting technologies in the field? We need a vendor in here to tell us there's something that you've all got to have and he's got a show for it. I knew there was a part missing. 9 Well, then, this is the point, then, where we'll briefly throw the floor open to other concerns, other comments you may have about other subparts of the rule.

Jim McFarland: Jim McFarland with IR4. This may not be under the subparts, it probably isn't, it's just for the rule in general. One of the things that was mentioned early on was a desire to have the rule be compatible with what [ the Food and Drug Administration] did for their Part 11.

You may not know the answer to this question, but based on what I see here and the bit that I know about Part 11, they're very similar, and that was probably your intent. How much are you constrained by that desire for compatibility to making changes to what's been proposed?

Evi Huffer: I don't think we're constrained.

Joe Retzer: I'd say part of the reason that it's there is that companies we were originally talking to about this said,

whatever you do in record keeping, don't go off in your own direction and do something entirely different. Try and be consistent with what's already on the books. And probably the companies we were talking to were [ Good Laboratory Practices]

type companies who, so what they pointed to as what's on the books was the [ the Food and Drug Administration] rule. 10 But obviously, as we've heard from you today and from other folks, there's a lot of other record keeping we need to worry about other than [ Good Laboratory Practices] type stuff,

where that approach probably isn't that appropriate.

Evi Huffer: And I think to the extent it's feasible, the desire is to be compatible, not just with other federal agency standards, but also international standards that could affect our industry and this country as well. It's been mentioned at other meetings that we need to make sure that our standards are consistent with the European standards, with the OECD standards, but I don't think that that will constrain our decision to make changes to this rule.

Jim McFarland: In the idea here of products and technologies, if CROMERRR were to go into effect as it stands right now, the discussions within IR4 about something as simple as the temperature devices or data scribes or whatever data pod type device we're using, because we feel that would throw us directly into CROMERRR with all its associated requirements, we would probably decide to go back to min/ max meters. And that's not, I believe, your intent for this regulation.

Paul Barnes: My name is Paul Barnes, I'm with the Pilot Group here in Dallas, and I've worked with some of the bigger 11 corporations in this room, but we also work with smaller businesses.

Some of the smaller businesses have record keeping requirements that are tied to their material purchases or their inventory group. The way I read this rule, a small business would be required to revamp their accounting system, in order to demonstrate compliance with an air permit, for example. I think that might be remedied fairly easily, I don't think it was the intention of the rule writers, but I just wanted to point out that this is so general that one could interpret the rule that way and it could have far reaching consequences.

Mark Carl: My name is Mark Carl, I'm with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and we work with approximately 30 different states across the country.

And in my discussions with several people in different state regions, EPA regions, I have found out that a lot of the people within EPA that they do the reporting to, don't even know what CROMERRR is. I see this as a real potential problem in the future, because your telling us one thing right now,

that whenever this rule is implemented, these people in these regional offices who receive this data aren't here to understand how you interpret these things. 12 Now there's a potential that they're going to interpret it totally differently and put some different requirements on it.

So I feel like there ought to be some interaction between these regional offices and this rule. I was really surprised at the number of different people who had never heard of CROMERRR.

Evi Huffer: That is an internal problem that we're trying to deal with within the Agency. The work group that was created for this role does include regional representatives;

unfortunately we do not have all of the regions represented,

and I think we're going to have to be insistent on that, but then it's also going to, we're going to have to come up with some plan to go out and let them know what's going on. And we've been batting ideas around internally about how to do that, but we do realize it's a problem, that the regions aren't in the loop and they need to be.

Joe Retzer: There's a big regional meeting in March, EPA regional and [ EPA] Office of [ Environmental] Information people and this will also be discussed there.

Robin Roberts: I heard some discussion about other subparts.

Greg Nutt: The TNRCC has already submitted our comments on the rule and we did a chapter and verse, issues, and 13 suggested corrections, but I just wanted to reiterate a few broad points today. Greg Nutt, from TNRCC for the record.

First, as I discussed before, the rule isn't voluntary:

record keeping systems already exist; electronic reporting is a long established way of doing business and people aren't going to turn back; and in some cases it's mandated. It's mandated in Texas.

The other major point is that TNRCC's belief is that the EPA is overly concerned about fraudulent submissions and fraudulent record keeping and you need to strike a balance between the benefits of electronic reporting and the potential risks for fraud, and I think that EPA has been a little too conservative. This excessive concern has led to overly broad requirements, as with the overly scoped record keeping requirements, and some things that just aren't possible, like data systems that can't be changed without modification.

We think that the EPA should work with the Department of Justice and state [ Attorneys General] and state EPAs to come up with some compromises to address this, I know that ECOS [ the Environmental Council of the States] is working on putting together a meeting to address that in February, and I hope that we can get some [ U. S. Department of Justice] participation in that, because I don't think we're going to make a whole lot of 14 progress unless we have [ Department of Justice] participation and some movement on behalf of [ Department of Justice] on some of the issues.

TNRCC thinks this rule can be fixed. We would like to see an EPA electronic reporting rule, but some major changes need to be made. The rule requirements with electronic record keeping need to be narrowed significantly. Perhaps one thing we could do, for the purpose of CROMERRR, anyway, narrow the record keeping issues to only record keeping associated with electronic submittal systems themselves. And keep the broader record keeping issues for another rule making activity after EPA's had some time to go out to companies and talk about how their distributed control systems feed into their environmental reporting and figure out where we need to draw the line on what constitutes records that need to be stored in a semi perfect system and records which do not.

The electronic reporting requirements need to be based on existing standard practices in the electronic commerce industry. And EPA is exceeding those in a few areas in the proposed rules right now, and they need to be backed off,

because the states really aren't in the position to go out and create new technology. 15 If the technology isn't typically used in e commerce right now, it's not going to be economically feasible for the states to implement that technology.

And the other thing we have a very big concern about is the requirement to modify delegation agreements, state implementation plans, and other state EPA agreements. The approach that the state would like to see, and what was suggested at the meeting in October, is one where, if you meet the requirements of CROMERRR, and you don't have anything in your existing agreements that preclude electronic reporting,

then there should be no need to go back and change those existing agreements.

If that's not the case, then we need to have an extremely expedited procedure to change these things where the only thing that can be addressed in the modification of a delegation agreement, modification of the SIP, is the addition of electronic reporting.

And other than that, I just want to thank the EPA for providing a forum, and I think this has been a useful discussion. My experience in working with EPA on this for the past year and a half is that the folks at EPA are genuinely interested in making this work and I think we can work out a reasonable compromise. 16 Chris Marlia: Chris Marlia from the South Coast [ Air Quality Management District]. We've submitted our comments as well, and they're pretty much on the record reporting and not the record keeping, but I would like to echo the same concerns that Texas has for the record. And we've provided a strikeout underlined version of things that we think would make the records receiving system more flexible for us and easier to implement without having to spend lots of money on developing software, which we don't think is needed. We think the infrastructure is widely in place, associated with e commerce that is available for use.

Other than that, I would like to say also   and this is more about the process rather than the rule itself   California has an economy, which is probably within the top 20 of the world and we think that you should have some public workshops on the West Coast. This is the furthest west that you've had a meeting, and there are lots of facilities in California that would like to participate if you would have a workshop out there. Thank you.

Joe Retzer: There California goes again.

Evi Huffer: They're a hard sell.

Unidentified Female Speaker: Could you comment about the development of [ the Central Data Exchange] at this point? 17 Joe Retzer: You're asking us where it stands? [ The Central Data Exchange] is working, basically, on two fronts:

one is on direct reporting from companies, the other is on the network relationships with the states.

Central Data Exchange is EPA's web portal for collecting data. The goal or the idea behind this rule is that basically,

all electronic reporting to EPA and electronic sharing of data with states will be coming through one web portal. So if you register to send in a [ Toxic Release Inventory] report through that portal, but you also have other direct EPA reports, you'll be registered. If you register once for any reports you have,

you'll be interfacing with the same place.

On the terms of the state flows with the network, the air,

it's no longer the air emissions inventory, but basically the air emissions report from states to EPA came through Central Data Exchange this year, we're working on a number of other network flows right now, [ the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act], STORET [ EPA's STOrage and RETrieval database],

we're talking with the drinking water people above moving through [ the Central Data Exchange] on that one.

In terms of direct reports, we had many people send their [ Toxic Release Inventory] reports this year through Central Data Exchange. For next year's reporting, if you use the Try 18 Me software, Central Data Exchange electronic reporting is going to be integrated into that software now, so when you finish filling the stuff out and you're ready to send it in,

you can either mail in your diskette like you've done before,

or you can, say send it in electronically and send it through Central Data Exchange.

We also, for the Unregulated Contaminants [ Monitoring]

drinking water program, where laboratories are sending that data directly to Central Data Exchange now and states and the local communities are able to access that data through Central Data Exchange and approve it before it actually goes into the database.

We're about ready to go for a couple of [ Toxic Substances Control Act] reports, health and safety. There's a couple of [ Toxic Substances Control Act] reports that we've done the tests, and as soon as they put out their Federal Register notices, those will be ready to go.

We're working toward a lot of different areas over the next couple of years. Also we've been running sort of an interim Central Data Exchange; we went out today, I believe,

with our request for proposals for a contract to build the whole Central Data Exchange. That will be ready, starting,

like in the fall. So we're ramping that up rather quickly. 19 Now one of the reasons that we were trying to move ahead with the electronic reporting and record keeping rule is that we need that rule, basically, to enable us to get paperless electronic reports. What we've done, for example, with the [ Toxic Release Inventory] report, at this point, is to say you can send it in electronically but you need to send a paper certification along with it. We'll be able to get rid of the paper certifications when we get the rule in.

Kenna Study: This is Kenna from Florida again. I have a question on 3.3000, it says how our states are authorized to allow electronic record keeping? And then in part B it refers back to part 3.100, which is the list of nine?

Joe Retzer: Right.

Kenna Study: So do I understand that correctly, the record keeping requirements would apply?

Joe Retzer: The record keeping requirements would apply.

Evi Huffer: For the delegated. For the record keeping that is being done by industry under the delegated programs.

Joe Retzer: Right.

Kenna Study: I'm sorry, what was that?

Unidentified Male Speaker: Not only that, but you'd have to build an electronic receiving system that would meet EPA's 20 requirements, so basically duplicate [ the Central Data Exchange].

Joe Retzer: But that's under the electronic reporting requirement, not record keeping. Although I would say you keep saying, " duplicate [ Central Data Exchange]." It doesn't have to duplicate [ the Central Data Exchange], because what the reporting criteria are is a set of performance requirements.

Okay, what's described in the preamble is the current or it's not really current now, it's last year's description of the Central Data Exchange design for how we would meet those reporting criteria. There are other ways to do it.

Unidentified Male Speaker: But there's quite a bit of that, as we commented in our comments to you, there's quite a bit of that functionality that is explicit in the rule.

Joe Retzer: Right, and hopefully you will comment on those things that you find impractical or difficult.

Unidentified Male Speaker: And that's what our comments address.

Joe Retzer: Great, good.

Richard Wiard: Richard Wiard, Process Data Control. I'd like to express an interest in going to your California meeting. Where is it you're going to schedule it? Sure,

that'd be fun. 21 I'd just like to back up. Let me put forth something that everybody takes for granted, but I don't know if it should be taken for granted, is the absolute requirement for electronic signatures. I just want to toss this out for a moment.

Again, what are we trying to prevent, and I'll give you an example. For fourteen years, Texas has received encrypted . zip files that the sender of those electronic files communicates to files in one communication and then communicates with the state his password, two separate transactions. This has gone on with hundreds of companies for fourteen years.

I'm not aware of any great, significant problem as a result of that. And sometimes when I watch the stringent ideas coming forth on electronic signature, I would like to think that we're going to ask ourselves, which of these do we have to do and what's the risk? What's the problem if we did it another way and not so detailed in the electronic signature?

And I don't know the answer to that question, but I would think a high level ought to be addressed to say, in what circumstances is this appropriate, and in what other circumstances is it not, maybe required?

I'd like to make one other point about a report here in Texas called STEERS [ phonetic], which is annual waste summary 22 report that's been electronic for, Greg, how many years? Eight years.

The very good thing about that report is that it can be performed with software provided via the State of Texas. But it can also be submitted in a format which is generated by data systems owned by the companies which means that somebody, a small operator, could type in his data of the annual answers and submit it. Or, a client could take all of his RECRA waste shipment, [ hazardous] waste forms, and crank those numbers out,

place it onto a file, and submit it to Texas.

And I think those two alternatives need to be considered when talking about electronic forms. We've worked with EPA interfaces where our only option was to generate our outputs onto a paper copy and the type those numbers into your submittal. Now that's easy with a one page, couple of items report, but if it's really intensive, we would want to feed it from the database. So some of those issues and concerns, some are high level, some are mid level, but I'd hope that they would get reviewed and thought through.

Joe Retzer: Can I respond to that? I think those are both excellent points. The key, on the first one, on the signature issue, what we're really driven by, again, is the requirement in the underlying regulation. So if the underlying 23 regulation requires you to sign a DMR but not sign a drinking water lab report, then we treat those things very differently in our system.

If you don't require electronic signature, just register and get a password and send stuff, real simple. If it requires a signature, then it typically raises those fraudulent kind of issues and we need to address it. But it may be that we need to go back and look, or someone needs to go back and look at those underlying regulations to see if a signature is really necessary in all of those cases.

And the other point I thought was also good, and that's something that we're building into the Central Data Exchange.

For any of the direct reports we're doing, like the drinking water laboratory reports, for example, we're trying to provide people the option of filling in a web form, signing that, and sending it in, or sending us a file that includes   right, right.

So, and we've found that the labs, most of them are sending us huge batches of files rather than individual things, but there is an option there for them to fill out a web form.

Robin Roberts: Other concerns about parts of the rule that we didn't have a chance to really focus in on because we were concentrating on Subpart C today? 24 With that I'll just note, some of the things that I have,

recapping: a lot of concerns here about contractor liability;

issues with data migration and loss across various generations of the software and hardware that you use; the notion of the difference between data that's recorded versus data that is stored; and this whole notion that we're really talking about electronic record keeping archiving, not information technology and record management and that's a whole different discipline there.

There are also some [ confidential business information]

concerns, out of this massive data stream that you've got,

you're being asked to report on specific data points, and if,

under the conservative interpretation that some are likely to have of this rule, you have to reveal or record entire data streams, [ confidential business information] issues come in to play there.

Someone suggested, the gentleman from Texas suggested that maybe one way to do this is to certify which data points should be subject to the regulation. Make it explicit, that not the entire data stream is something that we're looking for everyone to record.

Under general criteria, there were concerns about a lack of a risk analysis. Some thought that the burden that some 25 records would have to meet under this rule weren't commensurate with their weight, either in terms of protection they afford to the environment, or rather if they really had to have something like an electronic signature attached to them, maybe a PINbased type of certification would be more workable.

There was also a mention about how is raw data and original data defined. How do you make the cut or distinction there? And then long term archiving issues, we had this issue of the conservative interpretation of records by the predicate regulations, meaning that under this rule, you'd have to think that all of the rules would be subject to electronic records,

all of the records would be subject to this record keeping rule, and that could be burdensome.

And then migration came up again as an issue, and some of you decided, or thought, that one solution could be that you want to look at where is this data really needed, what are these record retention periods all about? Maybe it's time to reassess some of those kinds of criteria.

And then this last piece here, talk about more coordination with the regional offices that don't seem to be as apprised of this situation as maybe they should. And then underscoring the notion of many of you, that this doesn't appear to be as voluntary as it may seem to be, that electronic 26 record keeping and reporting is business already, it's already mandated in some states. And that there should again be an attempt to balance the risk of fraud versus the weight of the record keeping requirements.

I would just like to turn it over to Joe, and David, are you there David?

David: Yeah, I'm still here.

Robin Roberts: I just thought that I would turn it over to Evi, Joe, and David to wrap it up for us and they'll tell you what they heard today.

Joe Retzer: David, do you have any comments that you want to make after a day of remote listening?

David Schwarz: Well, just to thank people for their interesting and thoughtful comments. In some cases, things faded in and out, and of course I'll look forward to reading the transcript, and although I didn't have anything to say, I did find it very useful hearing people's comments as with the previous meetings.

And I would like to say, we'd love to come to California.

We'll have to figure out how to do that, but it will probably not be before the end of the comment period, but maybe after.

Evi Huffer: Thank you all for coming. I think it was a very useful discussion that we had here today, so thank you. 27 Joe Retzer: And I also have learned a lot, we'll go back,

and we're having a meeting with the states later in February,

near the end of the month, to address some of the reporting and state approval issues, primarily. We'll also be going back and taking the information we have from you, and from the meeting we had a while ago, and going back and talking to our enforcement folks and our program people who serve on our broader work group, and sharing with them your concerns. And then we have some decisions to make about the record keeping part of this.

One option that we're going to seriously be looking at,

and we invite comment on, is basically de coupling that part of the rule from the reporting part and trying to address that on sort of a longer term basis, going back and taking a look, kind of a deeper look at some of these issues, seeing if maybe we can distinguish between types of records. We've heard the idea that we ought to do some kind of a risk analysis on different kinds of records and see if maybe different provisions should apply for different kinds of records that we need to address.

Looking at the scope issue, seeing if there's a need to sort of exclude some kinds of records from these provisions, which ones should be in, which ones should not be in. 28 So we've heard a number of different ideas about kinds of things that we maybe need to go back and think about, and if we were to substantially change this, then we would probably need to re propose. So that's an option that we're also looking at doing on the record keeping piece.

There's another option that we haven't really talked about   it didn't really come out of this group, but it did come up in the Washington meeting   which was whether it would be useful or not to do something in the record keeping area that would be relatively brief and straightforward, like saying, " We believe that the E SIGN criteria, which applies to commercial records, should also, at a minimum, apply to these kinds of records that are considered regulatory required records."

And that's through basically a couple of criteria, the records have to be accurate, and they have to be accessible.

There's not a lot of detail on that, and we might discuss sort of what we thought that meant in the preamble. So that's another kind of option that, a couple of them have come in on the comments to us and was raised in the Washington meeting,

and that some of the enforcement folks have done some thinking about.

The question probably there is, does it really take it much beyond where you are now, it does at least say that it's 29 our intention that those kinds of things that are covered under commercial documents, at a minimum, ought to be covered here as well.

So we're going to look at all those kinds of options.

Please get your comments in. We'll read them all. Thank you.

Evi Huffer: Thank you.

Sue Chi Shin: Very quick question. Again, this is Sue

Chi Shen, Gustafson. I know what my boss is going to ask me when he sees me tomorrow morning. He's going to say, " What did you learn?" And the second thing is, " When is EPA thinking about putting in this rule? When will the final rule be in place? What is the proposed timeline?"

Joe Retzer: That might depend on what we would do. If we do not re propose, or if we separate out the record keeping and just go ahead in the reporting, probably it would be around the end of this year, the winter of 2002.

If, in fact, we re propose or address the record keeping on a separate track, then we're talking a much longer period of time. We would have to come out with another proposal, and even that proposal would be another year away or so. So the rule would probably be, for the record keeping part, probably would be a couple of years away. 30 These decisions are made, the decisions are made by folks a couple of levels up beyond us, but we would hope that before too long after the comment period, within a month or so, we would know which way we're going to go, so I would say by the end of March, April, somewhere in there, I'd say by April some time.

Robin Roberts: Thank you all for coming.

[ end of side A, nothing recorded on side B, end of transcript.]


When the Commission has determined that the original license
application is complete insofar as it meets the Commission's
requirements as

specified in 18 CFR parts 4, 5, and this part; any deficiencies have
been cured; and no other additional information is needed, the Director
will make a decision on the request to use the expedited licensing
process under this part no later than 180 days after receipt of a
request for authorization to use the expedited process. If the
Commission cannot deem the application complete within 180 days of
application filing, the Director will deny the request to use the
expedited licensing process. If the Director denies the request to use
the expedited licensing process, the original license application will
be processed pursuant to a standard processing schedule under 18 CFR
parts 4 and 5, as applicable.

Sec.  7.6  Notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis.

    If the Director deems the application complete and approves the
request to use the expedited licensing process under Sec.  7.5, the
Commission will issue a public notice as required in the Federal Power
Act, no later than 180 days after application filing, that:
    (a) Accepts the application for filing and specifies the date upon
which the application was accepted for filing;
    (b) Finds the application ready for environmental analysis;
    (c) Requests comments, protests, and interventions;
    (d) Requests recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and
preliminary fishway prescriptions, including all supporting
documentation; and
    (e) Establishes an expedited licensing process schedule, including
estimated dates for:
    (1) Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions,
and fishway prescriptions;
    (2) Issuance of a draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
document, or an environmental assessment not preceded by a draft;
    (3) Filing of a response, as applicable, to Commission staff's
request for ESA concurrence or request for formal consultation under
the ESA, or responding to other Commission staff requests to federal
and state agencies, or Indian Tribes pursuant to Federal law, including
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the
National Historic Preservation Act;
    (4) Filing of comments on the draft NEPA document, as applicable;
    (5) Filing of modified recommendations, mandatory terms and
conditions, and fishway prescriptions in response to a draft NEPA
document or environmental assessment, if no draft NEPA document is
issued; and
    (6) Issuance of a final NEPA document, if any.

Sec.  7.7   Amendment of application.

    (a) Any proposed amendments to the pending license application
after issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental
analysis under this section must include:
    (1) An amended or new section 401 of the Clean Water Act water
quality certification if the amendment would have a material adverse
impact on the water quality in the discharge from the proposed project;
and
    (2) Updates to all other material submitted under Sec.  7.2(b).
    (b) If based on the information provided under paragraph (a) of
this section, the proposed project under the amended license
application no longer meets the requirements for expedited processing
under Sec.  7.2 of this part or if the proposed amendment significantly
amends the license application, the Director will notify the applicant
that the application will no longer be processed under the expedited
licensing process under this part and that further processing of the
application will proceed under parts 4 and 5 of this chapter, as
applicable.
    (c) If the Director approves the continued processing of the
amended application under this part and the amendment to the
application would materially change the project's proposed plans of
development, as provided in Sec.  4.35 of this chapter, an agency,
Indian Tribe, or member of the public may modify the recommendations or
terms and conditions or prescriptions it previously submitted to the
Commission pursuant to Sec.  7.6. Such modified recommendations, terms
and conditions, or prescriptions must be filed no later than the due
date specified by the Commission for comments on the amendment.
    (d) Date of acceptance. The date of acceptance of an amendment of
application for an original license filed under this part is governed
by the provisions of Sec.  4.35 of this chapter.

Sec.  7.8  Other provisions.

    (a) Except for provisions required by statute, the Director may
waive or modify any of the provisions of this part for good cause.
    (b) Late-filed recommendations by fish and wildlife agencies
pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and section 10(j) of
the Federal Power Act for the protection, mitigation of damages to, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife affected by the development,
operation, and management of the proposed project and late-filed terms
and conditions or prescriptions filed pursuant to sections 4(e) and 18
of the Federal Power Act, respectively, may be considered by the
Commission as cause to remove the application from the expedited
licensing process. If the Director determines that late-filed
recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions are likely to
prevent the Commission from issuing a final licensing decision within
two years from application receipt, the Director will notify the
applicant that the application will no longer be processed under the
expedited licensing process under this part and that further processing
of the application will proceed under 18 CFR parts 4 and 5, as
applicable.
    (c) License conditions and required findings. (1) All licenses
shall be issued on the conditions specified in section 10 of the
Federal Power Act and such other conditions as the Commission
determines are lawful and in the public interest.
    (2) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, fish and wildlife
conditions shall be based on recommendations timely received from the
fish and wildlife agencies pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
    (3) The Commission will consider the timely recommendations of
resource agencies, other governmental units, and members of the public,
and the timely recommendations (including fish and wildlife
recommendations) of Indian Tribes affected by the project.
    (4) Licenses for a project located within any Federal reservation
shall be issued only after the findings required by, and subject to,
any conditions that may be filed pursuant to section 4(e) of the
Federal Power Act.
    (5) The Commission will require the construction, maintenance, and
operation of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of
Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, pursuant to
section 18 of the Federal Power Act.

Sec.  7.9  Transition provision.

    This part shall only apply to original license applications filed
on or after July 23, 2019.

[FR Doc. 2019-08239 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


          FHR and Molex Response to 5/13/22 Conference Call with EPA

 Bump Tests  -  FHR/Molex reviewed the bump test results from the Mid-crude and m-Xylene pilot studies to determine how many times the responsivity tests passed using the 50% response threshold but would have failed if the threshold had been set at higher levels.

   The bump test results are included in the attached Excel file, Bump Test Data from 2019 Pilot and a summary of the data review is shown in the table below.

Response Threshold
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
Pass Rate
97.3%
91.7%
83.8%
75.2%
63.7%

   As should be expected, the pass rate decreases with increasing P/F threshold values. If the P/F threshold value were increased from 50% to 55%, an additional 5.6% of the bump tests conducted during the pilot run would have failed. If the P/F threshold value were increased to 60%, an additional 13.5% of the bump tests would have failed. Each additional failure triggers the need to replace the sensor with a pre-calibrated one.

   It is important to note that all the research projects and pilots conducted with EPA ORD utilized a 50% minimum response threshold based on which  equivalency was demonstrated to the EPA M21 CWP. Increasing the minimum threshold for bump tests would directly result in an increase in the number of sensors used, the number of back-up spares required to be kept on-site, and correspondingly an increase in the ongoing cost to operate the system.

 Detection Floor  -  Provide data showing minimum detection floor calculation results for Mid-crude and m-Xylene during the pilots using 2 minute, 5 minute, and 10 minute averages.

   The detection floor calculation results are included in the attached Excel file, Detection Floor Data from 2019 Pilot.

   When a sensor displays continuous peak detections of gas, a clean baseline is not available for the calculation of the sensor detection floor per EPA's detection floor definition. FHR and Molex have proposed the sensor detection floor values to be reviewed at the same time each day to confirm each sensor detection floor remains below established threshold of 10 ppbe on a rolling 2-minute average during at least one 2-minute period in the past 72 hours. If a sensor does not pass the detection floor review, then a sensor fault notification shall be issued, and the sensor issue shall be corrected through recalibration, repair, replacement, or another appropriate measure, unless FHR can demonstrate the sensor was continuously experiencing positive detections during this time.

   Using the method described above, each sensor's minimum detection floor values using different time segments (2 min, 5 min, and 10 min) were calculated and are shown in the attached Excel file. Based on the number of sensors and the duration of the pilot tests, 8736 daily checks of the minimum detection floor values in past 72 hour have been conducted. Out of those 8736 checks, the results for the 10-minute averages indicate that 143 checks would not pass the 10ppbe threshold because of a lack of data for the detection floor calculation. That number is 141 and 143 for 5-minute and 2-minute averages respectively. This lack of data is most often due to a sensor being inoperative (e.g. not transmitting data) at the specific time where data is needed for the calculation. Note that those periods will already be included in the required sensor downtime calculations and records. No significant difference was found between the 72-hour look back data when calculating  the detection floor using either the rolling 2 minute data, 5 minute data, or the 10 minute data. Based on this analysis, FHR and Molex propose maintaining the 10 minute data segment specification from the proposed AMEL to allow more data to be included in the detection floor calculation. A larger time segment is not recommended because of potential errors introduced in the calculation from the baseline drift.

   Alternatively, we compared the daily look back at 72-hours of data to a daily look-back of 24-hours of data using the rolling 10 minute data. In this comparison, the number of detection floor check failures increased from 143 to 277, of which the number of failures due to continuous gas exposures increased dramatically from 1 in the 72-hour lookback to 28 in the 24-hour lookback. This data suggests that continuous gas exposure over 24 hours is not uncommon, and that reviewing the detection floor values each day at 0:00UTC and having at least one detection floor value under the 10ppbe for the past 72 hours instead of the past 24 hours is more reasonable and representative.

   FHR therefore agrees with EPA's previous proposal to use 10-minute averages in Sections IV. A (a)(2) and IV. A (e)(3). Proposed verbiage:

Section IV. A (a)(2):
            The sensor must be capable of maintaining a detection floor of less than 10 ppbe on a rolling 10-minute average, when adjusted for the system response to the most recent successful bump test conducted in accordance with IV.A(e)(2). The detection floor is determined at three times the standard deviation of the previous 10 minutes of data excluding excursions related to emissions peaks.

Section IV. A (e)(2)(ii):
            (ii) The bump test is successful if the response of the sensor exceeds 50 percent of the nominal value of the standard and the adjusted detection floor does not exceed 10 ppbe. The bump test may be repeated up to two additional times if the first bump test is unsuccessful.

Section IV. A (e)(2)(iv):
            (iv) FHR must maintain records of the bump test in accordance with IV.C(f) and records of the detection floor must be maintained in accordance with IV.C(g).

Section IV. A (e)(3):
            IV.A.(e)(3): The health of each sensor must be confirmed for power and data transmission at least once every 15 minutes. Data transmission, which includes data recorded by the sensor every second as noted in IV.A(a)(3), must occur at least once every 15 minutes. Appropriate corrective actions must be taken for any sensors that fail to collect data in accordance with IV.A(a)(2) and (3) and transmit data in accordance with this paragraph to ensure any errors or malfunctions are corrected in a timely manner. Such periods are considered downtime until corrected. If a sensor reset or repair is necessary, FHR must test the responsivity and wireless communication of the sensor through a bump test according to the procedure specified in IV.A(e)(2). FHR must maintain records of sensor health in accordance with IV.C(f).
            The sensor detection floor shall be reviewed at 00:00 UTC each day to confirm each sensor detection floor remains below established threshold of 10 ppbe on a rolling 10-minute average during at least one 10-minute period in the past 72 hour period. If a sensor does not pass the detection floor review, then a sensor fault notification shall be issued, and the sensor issue shall be corrected through recalibration, repair, replacement, or another appropriate measure, unless FHR can demonstrate the sensor was continuously experiencing positive detections during this time.
Recordkeeping Section IV. C (g):
            (g) Raw sensor readings. Additionally, for each sensor, the percent of time positive detections were registered during the 72-hour lookback must be recorded each day and the minimum, average, and maximum together with the minimum detection floor.

 Threshold for Entire LDSN to be Non-Compliant with AMEL  -  EPA's published proposed AMEL indicated if one or more leaks >18,000 ppm were detected during the Annual Compliance Verification the entire LDSN system was out of compliance. FHR previously proposed that while any identified gaps would be reported and corrected, only if the number of leaks >18,000 was 10% or more of the valves monitored during the Annual Compliance Verification would the entire system be considered non-compliant. EPA communicated their concern with that threshold. Therefore, FHR is proposing a reasonable compromise at 3% of the valves monitored during the Annual Compliance Verification as an indication that the entire LDSN system in that process unit be considered to be out-of-compliance with the AMEL.  The facility should be required to conduct M21 monitoring consistent with the underlying LDAR regulations on the associated AMEL covered components until the LDSN system is redesigned, approved, implemented and tested, per the current proposal. Reverting to conducting M21 monitoring consistent with the underlying regulations and meeting other compliance requirements of such regulations would resolve any non-compliance with the LDAR regulations.  In this type of instance, if reverted to conducting M21 monitoring, other inspection and work practice requirements in the AMEL (e.g., "Non-LDAR components") would not be required during the period considered to be out-of-compliance with the AMEL.

 Non-LDAR Components  -  During the call on 5/13/22, EPA expressed concerns about not expanding the scope of the AMEL beyond LDAR regulations to include non-LDAR leaks that had been discovered via LDSN/DRF because the non-LDAR leaks would be "hanging around" and negatively impacting the ability of the system to detect other leaks. FHR and Molex consider such an expansion of the scope of the AMEL beyond the scope of any LDAR regulations as overreach and unnecessary but does believe that EPA understands the basis for that viewpoint. However, in the interest of all parties to move the approval process of this important alternative forward for this AMEL request, FHR would agree to a 30-day repair requirement for non-LDAR leaks if appropriate caveats were specified. Those include:
 an inspection and work practice repair requirement to these non-LDAR leaks, and
 a Delay Of Repair (DOR) provision for non-LDAR component repairs requiring a process unit shutdown, and
 if repair requirements for a non-LDAR component are already applicable in another regulation (e.g. BWON, MACT CC cooling water systems, etc.), the AMEL repair requirements will not supersede those requirements, and
 it does not include leak sources in an area outside the AMEL covered area