[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23514-23516]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0492]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lower Niagara River at Niagara Falls, New York

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone within
the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo on the Lower Niagara River,
Niagara Falls, NY. This rule is intended to restrict vessels from a
portion of the Lower Niagara River considered not navigable as listed
in the United States Coast Pilot Book 6--Great Lakes: Lake Ontario,
Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior and St. Lawrence River and more
specifically as described below. The safety zone to be established by
this rule is necessary to protect the public and vessels from the
hazards associated with the heavy rapids in the narrow waterway of the
Lower Niagara River.

DATES: This rule is effective June 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0492 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On June 21, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zone; Lower Niagara River at Niagara
Falls, New York'' (81 FR 40226). There we issued the NPRM and invited
comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this permanent
safety zone. During the 90 day comment period that ended September 19,
2016, we received five comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Coast Guard has already established a permanent safety zone
in the Upper Niagara River per 33 CFR 165.902(a) in order to protect
the boating public from the dangers of the waters above and at the
Niagara Falls. These waters include the United States waters of the
Niagara River from the crest of the American and Horseshoe Falls, New
York to a line drawn across the Niagara River from the downstream side
of the mouth of Gill Creek to the upstream end of the breakwater at the
mouth of the Welland River.
    The heavy rapids in the section of the Lower Niagara River
downstream of Niagara Falls have not historically been regularly
navigated by vessels. In early 2014, the Captain of the Port Zone
Buffalo received reports of vessels transiting this section of the
Niagara River. These reports prompted further evaluation of the safety
of the entire waterway by federal, state, and local agencies. The
purpose of the evaluation was to determine what, if any, rescue
capability exists that would be able to respond to vessels and/or
passengers in distress in the heavy rapids of the river south of the
whirlpool rapids to the International Railroad Bridge.
    The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that no
feasible rescue capability exists for vessels in distress or persons in
the water in the heavy rapids south of the whirlpool rapids to the
International Railroad Bridge.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received five comments on our NPRM published
June 21, 2016. All five comments were generally supportive of the
proposed safety zone with no objections or recommendations. There are
no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the language
proposed in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a permanent safety zone to include the
following waters: All United States waters of the Lower Niagara River,
Niagara Falls, NY from a straight line drawn from position
43[deg]07'10.70'' N., 079[deg]04'02.32'' W. (NAD 83) and
43[deg]07'09.41'' N., 079[deg]4'05.41'' W. (NAD 83) just south of the
whirlpool rapids from the east side of the river to the international
border of the United States, to a straight line drawn from position
43[deg]06'34.01'' N., 079[deg]03'28.04'' W. (NAD 83) and
43[deg]06'33.52'' N., 079[deg]03'30.42'' W. (NAD 83) at the
International Railroad Bridge. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Zone Buffalo or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable
waters.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, most of which are
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
in the portion of American waters at the whirlpool rapids. This safety
zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the following reasons: There have not been
a substantial number of small entities attempting to transit this
section of the river.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism

principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves the establishment of a permanent safety zone in a small
section of the Lower Niagara River. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.902, revise the section heading and add paragraph (b)
to read as follows:

Sec.  165.902  Safety Zone; Lower Niagara River at Niagara Falls, New
York.

* * * * *
    (b) The following is a safety zone--The United States waters of the
Lower Niagara River, Niagara Falls, NY from a straight line drawn from
position 43[deg]07'10.70'' N., 079[deg]04'02.32'' W. (NAD 83) and
43[deg]07'09.41'' N., 079[deg]04'05.41'' W. (NAD 83) just south of the
whirlpool rapids from the east side of the river to the international
border of the United States, to a straight line drawn from position
43[deg]06'34.01'' N., 079[deg]03'28.04'' W. (NAD 83) and
43[deg]06'33.52'' N., 079[deg]03'30.42'' W. (NAD 83) at the
International Railroad Bridge.

    Dated: April 20, 2017.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-10469 Filed 5-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                    Supporting Statement for a Request for
                 OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

      Title:  Health and Safety Data Reporting, Submission of Lists and Copies of Health
                 and Safety Studies

            EPA ICR No.:   0575.15     OMB Control No.:   2070-0004

	1(b)	Short Characterization

	On September 2, 1982, EPA promulgated the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; see, http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html) Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule (40 C.F.R. Part 716; available on the Internet at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/40cfr716_03.html; see Attachment 2). The Model Rule was revised by amendments on September 15, 1986 (51 FR 32720) and April 1, 1998 (63 FR 15965). The Model Rule describes the requirements and procedures for submitting lists and copies of unpublished health and safety studies under section 8(d) of TSCA (40 CFR 716; see Attachment 1). It requires manufacturers and (if specified) processors to submit lists and copies of health and safety studies relating to the health and/or environmental effects of the chemical substances and mixtures listed in the TSCA section 8(d) rule. The listed chemical substances and mixtures include chemicals recommended for testing under section 4 by the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) and other chemical substances that EPA (particularly the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)), or other federal agencies, wish to assess for health or environmental effects. EPA amends the TSCA section 8(d) rule periodically to add chemical substances and mixtures.

	To comply with the reporting requirements of the rule, the respondents (manufacturers and processors) must search their files to identify any health and safety studies in their possession, copy and process the relevant studies, make lists of studies that are currently in progress, and review the studies for confidential business information.

	All studies submitted to EPA will be verified and the contents of the submissions recorded and inspected for the inclusion of confidential business information. Copies of the documents will then be prepared and distributed, based on the associated chemical identity, to program offices at EPA and/or to other federal agencies for scientific analysis. A coding form will be completed to capture certain descriptive information such as identity, document control number, confidentiality indicator, document title, document date, receipt date and chemical identity. The document will be stored electronically for archival purposes.

	EPA will use the studies to support its investigation of the risks posed by listed chemicals and, in particular, to support its decisions on whether to require industry to test chemicals under section 4 of TSCA.
      The total economic burden imposed by TSCA section 8(d) on the regulated community is estimated at 1,605 hours with an associated cost of $116,551 (119 respondents). The total estimated respondent burden is based on a rate of chemical additions of 70 chemicals per year.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	TSCA section 8(d), 15 U.S.C. 2607(d), requires EPA to promulgate rules requiring persons who manufacture, process or distribute, or propose to manufacture, process or distribute chemical substances and mixtures, to submit to EPA lists and copies of health and safety studies in their possession. OPPT reviews these studies to determine the kinds of testing needed to fill the information gaps in known effects of the listed chemicals, to make decisions during the risk assessment process, and for considering control actions. Other federal agencies use the studies when they are assessing a listed chemical substance for health or environmental effects.

	2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

	Studies submitted pursuant to TSCA section 8(d) rules will be evaluated in conjunction with other available data. EPA and other federal agencies will use the data to construct a complete picture of the known effects of the chemical substance. From this picture, OPPT will be able to determine what kinds of testing, if any, are needed. The TSCA section 8(d) studies will ensure that OPPT bases its testing decisions on the most complete information available and does not require testing that may have already been done.

	In addition, EPA will require that copies of health and safety studies be submitted on other chemicals that are under investigation either in the early stages of risk assessment or when action to control exposure is being considered by EPA or another federal agency. These chemicals may be ones for which persons have submitted substantial risk notification under TSCA section 8(e), or other chemicals for which data are needed to support a control measure under sections 5 and 6 of TSCA or under other EPA-administered statutes. If this information collection did not exist, EPA would not be able to obtain the necessary information for evaluating the need for testing under section 4 of TSCA or controlling chemical substances under TSCA sections 5 and 6.

	 In the past, the studies submitted have also been utilized by the following offices: the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) for developing Tier II analyses; the Office of Research and Development (ORD) for developing extended risk assessments; the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for assessing the hazards of known consumer exposure; the American Council for Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for developing recommended occupational exposure levels.
3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER COLLECTION
      CRITERIA

	3(a)	Non-Duplication

	In drafting a TSCA section 8(d) rule, EPA considers all available information, i.e., published and unpublished literature, databases, and all data available from EPA programs and offices and other federal entities. If existing data are sufficient for assessment or control purposes, EPA will not require TSCA section 8(d) reporting. However, if that information is not sufficient, or is obtained in a way that makes EPA doubt its validity, then the Agency must require the submission of non-published health and safety studies.

	The health and safety studies to be submitted under the TSCA section 8(d) rule are not available from any other source. The TSCA section 8(d) rule requires the listing and submission of studies that are conducted in-house by industry or by industry contractors and not published in the scientific literature. Under the revisions to the Model Rule promulgated in September 1986, respondents do not have to list or submit any studies that have been published in the scientific literature, or submitted previously to OPPT on a non-confidential basis. Studies that respondents previously have submitted on a non-confidential basis to other EPA offices or programs need only be listed.

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

	 Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made available to the public for comment through a Federal Register notice. The public will have 60 days to provide comments. Any comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.

	3(c)	Consultations

	Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1) OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an original or renewal ICR to OMB for review and approval. In accordance with this regulation, EPA will pursue additional consultations with interested parties during the development of the renewal of this collection.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	In most instances, respondents will be required to make only initial submissions under the TSCA section 8(d) rule. However, after the initial submission of lists and studies, respondents are required to notify EPA when certain health and safety studies are initiated by submitting a list of newly initiated studies. Because the reporting frequency for the TSCA section 8(d) rule is generally once, the reporting frequency cannot be reduced without suspending the information requirement. If this were to happen, EPA would not be able to obtain the necessary information for evaluating the need for testing under section 4 of TSCA or controlling chemical substances under sections 5 and 6 of TSCA.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	This information collection activity is necessary to implement the statutory requirements of section 8(d) of TSCA and is consistent with the requirements of the PRA, OMB implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.6), and OMB Guidance.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	Under the TSCA section 8(d) rule, a person submitting a health and safety study may claim certain parts of the study confidential. EPA has implemented procedures to protect confidential, trade secret and proprietary information from disclosure. These procedures comply with EPA's confidentiality regulation, 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	This section is not applicable. The information requested is not sensitive in nature.

4.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
	METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	4(a)	Agency Activities

	The activities routinely conducted by EPA related to the rule development, processing, analysis and storage of the information collected under this rule include the following:

      1. Review and select chemicals;
      2. Develop and issue an amendment to the TSCA section 8(d) rule to add the substances or mixtures;
      3. Answer respondents' questions;
      4. Process and analyze rule submissions, including requests for confidentiality; and
      5. Maintain and distribute the data.

	4(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	EPA's current collection methodology and information management system is based on the current requirements in 40 CFR 716.30 and 716.35 for the submission of electronic copies, which was implemented by a rule published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2013 (78 FR 72818).

	To aid persons subject to this information collection, OPPT has set up a TSCA Hotline that provides information regarding TSCA section 8(d) reporting as well as other regulatory information. When Hotline staff are unable to answer questions regarding TSCA section 8(d), the questions are referred to OPPT staff for appropriate resolution.

	All Non-Confidential Business Information submitted under TSCA section 8(d) is placed in the OPPT public docket, indexed and available for public inspection. A vast majority of TSCA section 8(d) submissions to date are reflected in the TSCA Test Submissions (TSCATS) database, a publicly available and searchable database.

	4(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	The TSCA section 8(d) rule applies to all manufacturers and processors of chemicals and others in possession of studies, regardless of size. However, EPA does not anticipate that many small businesses possess health and safety studies because they are unlikely to have the financial resources to perform the studies on chemicals subject to the rule. Therefore, the burden on such companies should be minimal.

	4(d)	Collection Schedule

	The collection scheduled under this ICR is chemical-specific in nature and occurs once in an established time frame between 60 days and 2 years. Reporting of information is only required when the subject matter information (i.e., the lists of studies and final study reports) is available. Availability of study reports on the list may occur after the established reporting period for the list, and must still be submitted when they become available. In any case, submission of the list or any study report for a listed study occurs once for each chemical covered by a TSCA section 8(d) rule. Studies previously submitted to OPPT are exempt.

	Amendments adding substances are made to the Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule subsequent to the ITC's semiannual addition of substances and categories of substances to the TSCA section 4(e) Priority List. Other substances are added when there is a demonstrated need for the information.

5.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	5(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

	Respondents affected by this collection activity are identified mainly by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 325 (chemical manufacturing and allied products) and 32411 (petroleum refiners).

      5(b)	Information Requested

	(i)	Data Items

	Persons who manufacture (including import) chemical substances and mixtures, or propose to do so, and processors of such substances and mixtures (if specifically identified in a particular rule) must submit copies of the unpublished health and safety studies in their possession for the listed substances or mixtures. They must also submit lists of reportable studies that they initiate or, about which they know, for each of the listed substances or listed mixtures.

	All submitted studies must be accompanied by a cover letter that contains the following data (40 CFR 716.30):
 Name;
 Job title;
 Address and telephone numbers of the submitting official;
 Name and address of the manufacturing or processing establishment on whose behalf the submission was made;
 Identify any impurity or additive known to have been present in the substance or listed mixtures as studied, unless so noted in the study;
 Identify that the study is being submitted under Part 716.
	Respondents may voluntarily choose to develop and submit robust summaries of the full toxicological study reports in conjunction with the submitted full study reports. The robust summaries should contain technical information to adequately describe the study and results, and should be written such that the information provided is sufficient to allow a technically qualified person to evaluate study results without needing to review an entire study report. Typically, a robust summary would include a description of the test substance, methods, results, conclusions, data quality description, and references associated with the full study.

	List of studies shall include (40 CFR 716.35): (1) ongoing health and safety studies conducted by or initiated by them; (2) studies they know about but do not have copies of; and, (3) studies that have been sent to another federal agency with no claims of confidentiality.

      For ongoing health and safety studies conducted by or initiated for the respondent, the list should include the following data:

 Beginning date of the study;
 Purpose of the study;
 Types of data to be collected;
 Anticipated date of completion;
 Name and address of the laboratory conducting the study.
      For studies known to the respondent but for which they do not possess copies, the list should include the following data:

 Name and address of a person known to them that possess a copy of the study
      For studies previously sent to a federal agency with no claims of confidentiality, the list should include the following data:

 Title of the study;
 Name and address of the person to whom the study was sent;
 Month and year in which the study was submitted.

	(ii)	Respondent Activities

      A representative respondent would engage in the following activities in order to produce the lists of studies and required data listed in section 5(b)(i) of this supporting statement:

 Determine whether the firm may be required to report. If so, review the rule in more detail;
 Conduct a corporate review to identify which firm sites must be searched to locate the appropriate health and safety studies;
 Search the files at appropriate sites to locate relevant studies;
 Compile lists of studies being submitted, ongoing studies, newly initiated studies, studies known to exist but not known to be in the respondent's possession, and studies previously submitted to other Federal agencies without confidentiality claims;
 Voluntarily prepare robust summaries of the studies;
 Review the responses for possible confidential business information; and
 After initial study submissions, notify EPA when other studies are initiated; submit studies completed after the reporting period.

6	ESTIMATING THE COST AND BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION

      The methodology used for estimating the burden and costs to industry resulting from the addition of chemicals to the TSCA section 8(d) rule over the next three years is derived from the previous information collection request (ICR). EPA has added chemicals to the TSCA section 8(d) list on an episodic basis. As shown in Table 1, chemicals have been added to the list three times since 1996, yielding an average of 15 chemicals per year for the years between 1996 and the present. EPA uses a basis of 70 chemicals per year for the 2015-2018 ICR period, using information from the 2006 rulemaking, which added 208 new chemicals (averaging 69 chemicals per year during the 2006-2009 ICR Period).

Table 1. Number of Chemicals Added to the TSCA Section 8(d) Reporting List
                                     Year
                                     1996
                                   1997-2003
                                     2004
                                     2005
                                     2006*
                                   2007-2014
                                 Average/Year
                             Number of Chemicals
                                      47
                                       0
                                      15
                                       0
                                      208
                                       0
                                      15
* EPA issued a TSCA section 8(d) rule (71 FR 47130) on August 16, 2006 for 243 HPV chemicals that were not sponsored in the voluntary portion of the HPV Challenge Program. EPA later withdrew 33 of these chemicals in a final rule issued on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57439). In a subsequent direct final rule issued on April 30, 2007, EPA removed two additional chemicals (72 FR 21119), resulting in a total of 208 chemicals subject to section 8(d) reporting.

      Moreover, to characterize the reporting implications per chemical addition associated with section 8(d) reporting (including data from the ten-year period prior to the 2006 TSCA section 8(d) rule), this analysis uses TSCA IUR data from the 1998, 2002, and 2006 reporting cycles. Table 2 summarizes the models and bases as applied to the 2015-2018 ICR renewal.
Table 2: Reporting Implications per Chemical Added

                                Generic  Model
ICR                                      2009-12                               Model Sources*
ICR                                                2009-2012                                        Detailed Model
                    ICR 2012-15               Model Sources
                      BASIS               ICR 2015-2018
No. of firms potentially impacted per chemical
TSCA IUR data, all manufacturers 1998, 2002, 2006: 344 firms associated with 208 chemicals

                                     same
                                      1.7
Sites per firm
TSCA IUR data, all manufacturers 1998, 2002, 2006: 344 firms associated with 208 chemicals; Sites per firm

                                     same
                                      1.5
Fraction of firms potentially affected who submit reports of studies
TSCA IUR data, all manufacturers 1998, 2002, 2006: 59 firms submitted 527 studies associated with 208 chemicals

                                     same
                                     0.17
No. of studies per firm
TSCA IUR data, all manufacturers 1998, 2002, 2006: 59 firms submitted 527 studies associated with 208 chemicals

                                     same
                                       9
Average length of study, pages
TSCA IUR data, all manufacturers 1998, 2002, 2006: 59 firms submitted 527 studies associated with 208 chemicals
                                      20
                                     same
                                      20
Percent studies with robust summaries;                     # Firms Affected
10% of total studies
                                10% of reports
                                     same
                           1 Robust Summary per Firm
Percent of affected firms submitting second responses
5% of affected firms
                                      5%
                                     same
                                      5%

      6(a) 	Estimating Respondent Burden

      Firms will undertake a number of actions in response to a TSCA section 8(d) listing and the unit burden associated with each of these tasks is discussed in detail below.

      Review the Rule. Firms in the relevant industries that may have unpublished health and safety studies will have to determine whether they manufacture a listed chemical and may thus be required to report. If so, they will have to review the rule in detail to understand its requirements, such as the types of health and safety studies EPA is asking for, the grade or purity of the test material, and the timeframe of the reporting period.

      Note that, unless EPA specifies otherwise, the coverage of 8(d) rules is limited to chemical manufacturers and petroleum refineries. Most firms in these industries will not manufacture a listed chemical, and many will spend a de minimis amount of time making that determination. Those firms that manufacture a listed chemical must review the rule to understand its specific requirements. This is estimated to take an average of 2 hours of managerial time for each firm manufacturing a listed chemical.

      Conduct Corporate Review for Site Identification. Firms that manufacture a listed chemical will need to conduct a corporate review to identify which of the firm's sites must be searched for appropriate health and safety studies. This corporate review is estimated to require an average of 3 managerial hours per firm.

      Conduct Site File Search. Firms that manufacture a listed chemical must search the files at appropriate sites to look for studies that are responsive to the TSCA section 8(d) rule. It is estimated that the search will take an average of 3 hours of technical time per site. EPA estimates that each firm will have an average of 1.5 sites manufacturing a listed chemical. This yields an average burden of 4.5 technical hours per firm for site file searching (3 hours per site * 1.5 sites per firm).

      Provide Study Title Lists. Respondents are required to submit lists containing the titles of any studies being submitted, titles of studies that are initiated or ongoing during the reporting period but that have not yet been completed, titles of any unpublished studies that the respondent knows to exist but does not have in its possession, and titles of studies previously submitted to other Federal agencies without confidentiality claims. Prior to electronic reporting, an average of 1 hour of clerical time per firm was estimated to be dedicated to transcribing the list of study titles. EPA expects that the major burden of compiling this list was incurred during the file search and would already be available in electronic format; therefore, there is no additional burden associated with this activity.

      Prepare Robust Summaries. Respondents may choose to develop and submit robust summaries of the full toxicological study reports. The robust summaries should contain technical information to adequately describe the study and results, and should be written in such a way that the information provided is sufficient to allow a technically qualified person to evaluate study results without needing to review an entire study report. Typically, a robust summary would include a description of the test substance, methods, results, conclusions, data quality description, and references associated with the full study. It is estimated that 8 to 16 hours of technical time are needed to develop and review a robust summary, depending on the type of study conducted. This ICR assumes an average of 12 hours of technical time to prepare a robust summary. Because submission of robust summaries is voluntary, EPA does not expect that many companies will undertake this activity. EPA estimates that each firm will submit an average of 9 studies, with 10% of those studies including a robust summary; therefore, EPA expects to receive an average of 0.9 robust summaries per firm submitting studies, which we round up to 1 robust summary per firm submitting studies. The estimated average burden per robust summary is 12 hours of technical time.

      Review Responses for Confidential Business Information (CBI). Firms will need to review responses for possible CBI and delete any material that is considered by the firm to be CBI from one copy of the study. A separate copy of the study must be submitted without deletions of CBI. CBI review is estimated to take an average of 1 hour of managerial time for each study. Since each of the 20 firms is submitting an average of 9 studies, CBI review results in an estimated average of 9 hours of managerial time per firm.

      Post-Reporting Period:  Submit Ongoing or Newly-Initiated Studies. Firms that have an ongoing or newly-initiated study during the reporting period are required to provide EPA with a copy of the study once it is completed. CBI review and submission of ongoing or newly initiated studies are estimated to require an average of 1 hour of managerial time.

Table 3. Unit Burden for TSCA Section 8(d) Reporting

                              Collection Activity
                        Affected Respondents (Weight)*
                        Average Burden per Firm (Hours)
                                Labor Category
1. Review of Rule
                                     1.000
                                       2
                                  Managerial
2. Site Identification
                                     1.000
                                       3
                                  Managerial
3. Site File Search**
                                     1.000
                                      4.5
                                   Technical
4. Robust Summaries
                                     0.008
                                      12
                                   Technical
5. CBI Review
                                     0.168
                                       9
                                  Managerial
6. Post-Reporting Period Submission
                                     0.008
                                       1
                                  Managerial
*Not all respondents perform all activities. This weight reflects that for every firm that has to check for reports:  17% will submit reports, of which 1 firm (about 5%) will provide robust summaries and 5% (about 1 firm) will provide a second response.
** Basis of 1.5 sites per firm

      These unit burden estimates are average values. Large multi-divisional, multi-departmental firms may require more than the average time to comply. However, there are smaller firms that are less complicated, and these firms may have a simpler process that requires less time.

      6(b) 	Estimating the Respondent Universe

      The number of chemicals added to the section 8(d) list has varied significantly from year to year and has been zero in many years. EPA has added a total of 270 chemicals to the list since 1996 (47 in 1996, 15 in 2004, and 208 in 2006), which is an overall program historical average of approximately 15 chemicals per year. For estimates in this ICR, EPA assumes that an average of 70 chemicals per year will be added to the section 8(d) list from 2015 to 2018, for a total of 210 chemicals over the three-year ICR period. Assuming that each chemical that is added to the list impacts 1.7 firms, then EPA expects 119 chemical manufacturing firms to be affected per year by this ICR.

      Based on the reporting bases stated on Table 2, EPA assumes that 17% percent of the potentially affected manufacturers will submit studies each year, yielding 20 firms submitting studies (0.17 * 119 manufacturers). Each submitting firm is expected to submit a total of 9 studies, yielding an estimated total of 180 studies annually (20 firms * 9 studies per firm). A total of 10% of the studies are expected to contain robust summaries, yielding a total of 1 robust summary per firm (9 studies * 0.10, and rounding up to 1); and 1 firm (5% of 20 firms) is estimated to submit a second response (for a newly initiated or ongoing study) after the reporting period ends.

      The number of firms estimated to engage in the various reporting activities is summarized in Table 4. Note that not all respondents incur every aspect of reporting burden. For this analysis, the conditions of the 2006 rule and its reporting implications, along with the condition of 70 chemical additions per year, are assumed.

Table 4: Number of Firms Affected per Year, by Activity              (70 Chemicals Added Per Year)
                              Collection Activity
                                 No. of Firms
Review of Rule
                                      119
Site Identification
                                      119
Site File Search
                                      119
Robust Summaries
                                      20
CBI Review
                                      20
Post-Reporting Period Submission
                                       1

      The number of firms or studies described above is combined with the estimated average unit burden hours and wages from Tables 3 and 5 to estimate the total burden hours and cost per year based on three types of response activities: searching files, submitting studies during the reporting period, and submitting studies after the reporting period. The results are shown in Table 6.

      6(c) 	Estimating Respondent Cost

Unit labor costs are calculated by adding fringe benefits and overhead to the wage or salary to derive a fully loaded labor cost. Costs are calculated for managerial, professional/ technical, and clerical workers. Wages and fringe benefits for managerial, professional/ technical, and clerical labor are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) manufacturing industry data from 2013. The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance are taken from the same ECEC series for each labor category. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separately for each labor category. Table 5 presents these results with fully loaded rates for managerial labor at $77.77/hour; for technical labor at $67.59/hour; and for clerical labor at $30.35/hour.

Table 5: Loaded Industry Wage Rates (December 2013)
                              EPAB Labor Category
                               Data Sources [d]
                                     Date
                                     Wage
                                Fringe Benefit
                               Fringes as % wage
                              Overhead % wage [b]
                         Fringe + overhead factor [c]
                               Loaded Wages [a]

                                      (A)
                                      (B)
                                  (C)=(B)/(A)
                                      (D)
                                (E) = (C)+(D)+1
                                 (F) = (A)*(E)
                                  Managerial
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing Industries, "Mgt, Business and Financial"
                                   Dec `13
                                    $46.21
                                    $23.70
                                    51.29%
                                      17%
                                     1.68
                                    $77.77
                            Professional/ Technical
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing Industries, "Professional and Related"
                                   Dec `13
                                    $39.70
                                    $21.14
                                    53.25%
                                      17%
                                     1.70
                                    $67.59
                                   Clerical
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing Industries, "Office and Administrative Support"
                                   Dec `13
                                    $18.05
                                     $9.23
                                    51.14%
                                      17%
                                     1.68
                                    $30.35
Notes:
[a] Wage data were rounded to the closest cent in this table; however, in calculations using these numbers for this report, unrounded values were used.
[b] An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002) and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPAB, 2002).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[c] An inflation rate of "1" means wage data were not escalated to reflect inflation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[d] Source: Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2006-March 2014. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 10, 2014 (pp. 31, 33, 37) (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/ecsuphst.pdf, accessed October 23, 2014).

      6(d) 	Estimating Reporting Burden and Costs

Table 6. Annual Respondent Cost and Burden Hour Estimates
                            Information Collections
                              Response Activities
                              Burden per Response
                                   ( Hours)
                                Labor Category
                               Cost per Response
                              Number of Responses
                             Total Burden (Hours)
                                  Total Cost

Compliance determination and data search
Rule review, site identifica-tion and site file search
                                      9.5
                                  Managerial/
                                   Technical
                                     $693
                                      119
                                     1,131
                                    $82,468
Submission of health and safety studies during the reporting period
Robust summaries and CBI review
                                      21
                                  Managerial/
                                   Technical
                                    $1,511
                                      20
                                      420
                                    $30,220
Notification and submission of health and safety studies initiated and/or completed after the reporting period
Post-reporting period submission
                                       1
                                  Managerial
                                      $78
                                       1
                                       1
                                      $78
Total
                                      140
                                     1,552
                                   $112,766
      A typical firm submitting a response is conservatively estimated to engage in review of the rule, site identification, site file search, preparing study title lists, CBI review, and possibly submit a robust summary and/or a post-reporting period submission. Assuming that 70 chemicals per year are added to the TSCA section 8(d) list and that reporting is similar to the 2006 experience, the average annual burden and cost per response is 31.5 hours and $2,282, respectively.

      6(e) 	CDX Registration Activities to Enable Electronic Reporting

      EPA estimates that respondents will incur a small amount of additional burden and costs in carrying out the additional paperwork activities that were imposed by the Electronic Reporting under the Substances Control Act (TSCA) Final Rule. This includes the burden associated with activities that facilitate submission of an electronic report: CDX registration and CDX electronic signature. These activities occur only once for each submitter. Some submitters may already have registered to use the e-TSCA web reporting tool in CDX (and obtained an accompanying electronic signature) in order to comply with the mandatory electronic reporting requirements of EPA's e-PMN rule and/or IUR/CDR rule. Those submitters will not need to repeat the CDX registration and e-signature process in order to file their health and safety studies. While there may be some overlap in the specific individuals that have already completed CDX activities, EPA is using a conservative assumption that all submitters who will file electronically will need to register with CDX and, thus, incur associated burdens. This assumption may overestimate the burdens and costs actually experienced by respondents.

The one-time CDX burden includes the following:

      CDX Registration  -  Based on the CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis, EPA assumed that companies would spend 11 minutes per employee to register with CDX (EPA, 2004). Furthermore, EPA assumed that an average of four technical staff members and one manager would need to register for each company, resulting in 55 minutes of burden per firm.

      CDX electronic signature (labor burden)  -  Based on the CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis, EPA assumed that firms would spend 15 minutes preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee (EPA, 2004). One manager and four technical staff members per firm would incur this burden, totaling 75 minutes of burden per company. In addition, EPA estimates that a manager would spend an additional 30 minutes accessing, preparing, and submitting verification forms (Verification of Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA. The total burden incurred by firms submitting and then verifying electronic signature agreements would be 105 minutes. It should be noted that the burden associated with CDX Electronic Signatures does not include costs associated with contacting EPA's CDX help desk to notify a change of submitter status, should one occur.

Table 7. Estimated Burden Associated with New CDX Registration Activities
                            Information Collection
                    Estimated Number of  Annual Respondents
                             Number of Responses/
                                  Respondent
                 Estimated Burden Hours and Cost per Response
                         Estimated Burden Hours /Year
                          Estimated Labor Cost /Year

                                  Managerial
                                   Technical

                                     Hours
                                   Wage Rate
                                     Hours
                                   Wage Rate

CDX Registration and
E-signature
                                      20
                                       1
                                     0.93
                                    $77.77
                                     1.73
                                    $67.59
                                     53.2
                                    $3,785

      Non-labor costs include a $0.44 stamp and a $0.02 standard business envelope for each of five required electronic signature agreements. The total non-labor cost for electronic signature agreements equals $2.30. This amounts to $46 in non-labor costs per year.

      Conservatively assuming that all firms submitting studies will need to register with CDX, the average burden and cost per CDX registration is 2.66 hours and $191.56, respectively.

      6(f) 	Estimating Agency Cost

      The activities routinely conducted by EPA related to processing and storage of the information collected under this rule include processing and analyzing the materials submitted under the rule, including requests for confidentiality; and maintaining and distributing data.

      The activities associated with Agency responses to TSCA section 8(d) listings are assumed to be accomplished by a GS 13, Step 5 federal employee. The 2014 hourly wage rate for this level of employee in the Washington, D.C. locality is $48.83 per hour. Adding 60% for benefits and overhead yields a loaded annual wage rate of $78.13 per hour.

      As a result of the Electronic Reporting under the Substances Control Act (TSCA) Final Rule, EPA expects that the Agency will have a burden savings due to the elimination of the need to process paper forms, and reduced quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and O&M costs for the existing system. Potential Agency burden savings associated with electronic reporting of TSCA section 8(d) health and safety studies were characterized based on information in the CDX Business Case Analysis regarding the estimated monetary benefit from using CDX. Of the six Program Data Flows studied in the CDX Business Case Analysis, monetary benefits from using CDX as compared to a paper submission baseline were quantified for two flows: TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) and e-NOI (electronic Notice of Intent under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System). Benefits ranged from eleven percent savings (e-NOI) to 22 percent savings (TRI) compared to the cost of the baseline process. For this ICR, EPA assumed an average annual burden savings of 16.5 percent. This percentage savings results in a total annual burden of 3,542 hours for electronic submissions.

      The estimated annual cost to the Federal government for TSCA section 8(d) data collection totals $4,566.70, for 58.45 hours, as presented in Table 10.

Table 8. Agency Annual Cost Estimates
                              Collection Activity
                                     FTEs
                                    Hours
                                  Annual Cost
Data processing and system support
                                     0.025
                                     41.75
                                  $3,261.93
Storage and distribution
                                     0.010
                                     16.70
                                  $1,304.77
                                    TOTALS
                                     0.035
                                     58.45
                                   $4,566.70
Source: OPM 2014 hourly rate table for the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area, with 60% for benefits and overhead added.

      6(g) 	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

      As shown in Table 6, if EPA adds 70 chemicals per year to the TSCA section 8(d) list during the time period covered by this ICR, burden associated with 8(d) review and reporting will be incurred by 119 firms. Note that not all firms incur every aspect of reporting burden; for example, some firms that undertake the burden of searching their files do not have any studies that must be reported under the TSCA section 8(d) rule. Those firms that do ultimately submit studies incur a small amount of additional burden and cost associated with registering with CDX in order to comply with new electronic reporting requirements. The burden activities associated with CDX registration occur only once; during the first year of the ICR period.

      The average annual reporting burden and cost per response is estimated at 31.5 hours and $2,282, respectively. Conservatively assuming that all firms submitting studies will need to complete a one-time CDX registration, the average annual burden and cost per CDX registration is 2.66 hours and $191.56, respectively. This yields an estimated annual average burden and cost per response of 34.16 hours and $2,473.56.

      As noted earlier, basing the future burden estimates on the reporting from the 2006 rule may overestimate reporting burden and cost if number and characteristics of the chemicals that are added to the TSCA section 8(d) list during the next three years are less burdensome than the 208 HPV chemicals that were added in 2006. Moreover, this ICR conservatively estimates that all submitters are new CDX registrants and will, therefore, need to incur the additional burden associated with registering with CDX and submitting an electronic signature agreement. EPA recognizes that some respondents may have already registered for CDX in order to comply with the mandatory electronic reporting requirements of other TSCA collection activities; those respondents would not need to register again and would avoid the associated burden and cost altogether.

      The total burden and cost for respondents (the totals of Tables 6 and 7) is 1,605 burden hours and $116,551.

	6(h)	Reasons for Changes in Burden

	There is an increase of 242 hours (from 1,363 to 1,605) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that currently in the OMB inventory. This increase in burden is due to the following:

::	The previous ICR incorrectly used a total of 1 robust summary per year as the total number of annual robust summary responses, yielding a total of 12 hours of annual burden. This ICR corrects this burden estimate by using a total of 20 robust summary responses per year, yielding a total annual reporting burden of 240 hours  -  an increase of 228 hours per year.

::	This ICR renewal incorporates changes made to Health and Safety Data reporting under TSCA section 8(d) that mandate the use of electronic reporting in lieu of traditional paper-based reporting. The new electronic reporting requirements eliminated the clerical burden associated with transcribing study title lists and photocopying studies for paper-based submissions. This change resulted in a decrease of 40 hours to the average annual reporting burden. While electronic reporting serves to streamline and reduce the administrative/clerical costs and burdens associated with submitting paper-based health and safety studies, the burden savings were not sufficient to offset the new burden associated with CDX registration activities. However, it should be notes that these activities occur only once for each submitter and, since some respondents while most likely have already registered with CDX, this analysis conservatively overestimates the burden and costs actually experienced by respondents.

::	The new electronic reporting mandate requires that submitters of health and safety data under TSCA section 8(d) register with CDX in order to submit studies electronically. The new annual burden associated with CDX registration activities is 53 hours.

      6(i)	Burden Statement

	The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0004, is estimated to average about 10.0 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection appears above. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

	The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0734, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in-person viewing at the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC).  The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC.  The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

      You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OPPT-2014-0734 and OMB Control No. 2070-0004, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503.

                    ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

	Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0734.  These attachments are available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov or otherwise accessed as described in section 6(f) of the supporting statement.

Attachment 1:	15 U.S.C. 2607(d) - Toxic Substances Control Act section 8(d). Also
			available online at the U.S. House of Representatives' U.S. Code website

Attachment 2:	40 CFR part 716 - Health and Safety Data Reporting. Also available online at the National Archives and Records Administration's Electronic CFR website


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72348-72350]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1176; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-35-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D, -7R4D1, -7R4E, -7R4E1, -7R4G2, -7R4H1, and -
7R4E4 turbofan engines. This proposed AD would establish a new lower
life limit for high-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st stage air seals, part
number (P/N) 735907, and would require removing them from service using
a drawdown schedule. This proposed AD was prompted by the determination
that a new lower life limit for the HPT 1st stage air seals, P/N
735907, is necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent critical
life-limited rotating engine part failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1176;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-35-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received two reports of HPT 1st stage air seals, P/N 735907,
found cracked by fluorescent penetrant inspection during engine
overhaul. The cracks were located on the flat section of the seal,
between the bolted flange and the knife edge seals. One of the air
seals had accumulated 11,150 cycles-since-new (CSN), and the other air
seal had accumulated 13,340 CSN. The current published life limit for
these seals is 15,000 CSN. Pratt & Whitney has informed us that they
are preparing to issue service information which will require reducing
the published life limit from 15,000 CSN to 9,000 CSN. This condition,
if not corrected, could result in critical life-limited rotating engine
part failure and damage to the airplane.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require establishing a new lower life limit
for HPT 1st stage air seals, P/N 735907, from 15,000 CSN, to 9,000 CSN,
and would require removing them from service using a drawdown schedule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 257 Pratt & Whitney
JT9D-7R4D, -7R4D1, -7R4E, -7R4E1, -7R4G2, -7R4H1, and -7R4E4 turbofan
engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 28.8 work-hours per engine to perform the actions
required by this AD, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Required parts will cost about $37,200 per engine. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be
$10,189,536.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. FAA-2011-1176; Directorate Identifier
2011-NE-35-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 23, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D, -7R4D1, -7R4E, -
7R4E1, -7R4G2, -7R4H1, and -7R4E4 turbofan engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the determination that a new lower life
limit of 9,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) for high-pressure turbine
(HPT) 1st stage air seals, part number (P/N) 735907, is necessary.
We are issuing this AD to prevent critical life-limited rotating
engine part failure, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Removal of HPT 1st Stage Air Seals, P/N 735907

    Remove HPT 1st stage air seals, P/N 735907, from service as
follows:
    (1) For air seals that have fewer than 6,500 CSN on the
effective date of this AD, remove from service before exceeding
9,000 CSN.
    (2) For air seals that have 6,500 CSN or more on the effective
date of this AD, do the following:
    (i) If the engine has a shop visit before the air seal exceeds
9,000 CSN, remove the air seal from service before exceeding 9,000
CSN.
    (ii) If the engine does not have a shop visit before the air
seal exceeds 9,000 CSN, remove the air seal from service at the next
shop visit, not to exceed 2,500 cycles from the effective date of
this AD or 15,000 CSN, whichever occurs first.
    (3) Remove from service any HPT 1st stage air seal, P/N 735907,
that is installed or re-installed after the effective date of this
AD, before the air seal exceeds the new life limit of 9,000 CSN.

(g) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install or reinstall
into any engine any HPT 1st stage air seal, P/N 735907, that exceeds
the new life limit of 9,000 CSN.

(h) Engine Shop Visit Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, an engine shop visit is the
induction of an engine into the shop after the effective date of
this AD, where the separation of a major engine flange occurs,
except that the following maintenance actions, or any combination,
are not considered engine shop visits:
    (1) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for removal of
the compressor top or bottom case for airfoil maintenance or
variable stator vane bushing replacement.
    (2) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for removal or
replacement of the stage 1 fan disk.
    (3) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for replacement
of the turbine rear frame.

    (4) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for replacement
of the accessory gearbox or transfer gearbox, or both.
    (5) Introduction of an engine into a shop solely for replacement
of the fan forward case.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Stephen Sheely,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 15, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-30137 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 15163]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06012]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
20, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 13, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06012 Filed 3-14-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P