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

1	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      1(a)	Title of the Information Collection:

      EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Partner of the Year Awards Program

      ICR Numbers:   EPA ICR No. 2450.01	OMB Control No.:   2070-NEW

      1(b)	Short Characterization / Abstract

      This new information collection request (ICR) addresses the submission of applications to EPA for recognition under the Partner of the Year (PY) Awards Program.

      EPA developed The Partner of the Year Awards to recognize DfE stakeholders who have furthered DfE's safer chemistry goals through their active and exemplary participation in and promotion of the Program.  Making DfE's mission known to the widest possible audience, through its safer product label and in other forms of communication, is critical to fully realizing the program's goals of protecting human health and the environment, promoting a sustainable economy, and creating green jobs, especially in the small business sector.

      The Partner of the Year Awards will be an annual event, with recognition for DfE stakeholder organizations from five broad categories:  (1) Formulators/Product Manufacturers (of both consumer and Institutional/Industrial (I/I) products), (2) Purchasers and Distributors, (3) Retailers, (4) Supporters (e.g., non-governmental organizations, including environmental and health advocates, trade associations, academia, sports teams, and others), and (5) Innovators (e.g., chemical manufacturers, technology developers, and others).  Within these categories and based on the criteria, DfE may elect to give an additional award in the subcategories of "small business" and "sustained excellence."

      Candidates will complete an application that describes the actions taken to qualify for recognition and have it signed by a company or organization authority (e.g., Chief Executive Officer, or vice president with responsibility for product formulation).

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

      Authority for PY derives from section 6604 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13103; see Attachment A).  Section 6604(b)(5) of the PPA directs EPA to facilitate the adoption of source-reduction techniques by businesses.  Also, section 6604(b)(13) directs EPA to establish an annual awards program to recognize a company or companies that operate outstanding or innovative source reduction programs.  EPA developed PY in recognition of these directives and through consultation with a broad range of stakeholders.

      The information collection activities for PY will assist the Agency in meeting the goals of the PPA by providing recognition for organizations committed to promoting and using safer chemicals.  In turn, PY will help organizations meet their sustainability goals by providing the means to, and an objective measure of, environmental stewardship. Investment analysts and advisers often seek these types of measures in evaluating a corporation's sustainability profile and investment worthiness.  PY is also an incentive for promoting the greater use of safer chemicals by organizations EPA has carefully tailored its request for information, especially the PY Application Form, to ensure that it only asks for information essential to verifying an applicant's eligibility for award or recognition.

	2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

      The information collected by the PY Awards Program is not designed or intended to support regulatory decision-making by EPA.  EPA uses the information collected in the PY Application Form to: (1) identify the candidate's commitment to promoting and using safer chemicals; (2) verify the candidate's involvement in promoting and using safer chemicals; and (3) determine the candidate's eligibility for PY award or recognition.

3.     NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a)	Non-Duplication

      Respondents will not be asked to provide information that has been or is currently being collected by EPA, other federal or state agencies, or proprietary sources.  The information collected by the PY Awards Program is unique and is not duplicative of previous information collection requests.  EPA also checked with potential respondents (e.g., trade associations) to confirm that the information being collected by the PY Awards Program does not exist elsewhere.

	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. EPA will ask for the following information:

   * Provide your best estimate regarding how long it would take to complete the application in terms of total hours.
   *  How many personnel (i.e., clerical, technical, and managerial) would it take for applicants to review the program information, obtain approval from senior management and complete the form.
   * In addition, provide EPA with any constructive criticism / comments regarding the application itself, questions posed, instructions, description of the program, etc.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      The PY Application Form is designed to be an annual information submission for organizations that wish to apply for recognition.  Without this information, EPA will not be able to effectively determine and formally recognize the extent to which organizations are engaged in activities to promote the use of DfE-labeled products and actions to advance the program.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

      The information collection activities discussed in this ICR comply with all regulatory guidelines under 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

	3(f)	Confidentiality

      No information collected by EPA under PY comprises confidential business information as defined by EPA's confidentiality regulations (40 CFR 2.201 et seq.).

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

      The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions involving sexuality, religious beliefs, political affiliation, or other matters considered private, as described in the document "The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:  Implementing Guidance for OMB Review of Agency Information Collection," from June 2, 1999.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents and NAICS Codes

      Under the PY awards program, EPA seeks applicants from establishments engaged in the production, use, and/or advancement of safer chemicals and who have furthered the goals of DfE through their active and exemplary participation in and promotion of the program.

      Below is a list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and associated industries that may be affected by information collection requirements covered under this ICR.  This list is intended to be illustrative; entities from other industries may elect to apply for recognition for PY awards.  However, EPA expects that most applications will come from the following industries:

NAICS Code
  Affected Industry
325510
  Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325611
  Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612
  Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325910
  Printing Ink Manufacturing
325992
  Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
325998
  All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
561210
  Facilities Support Services
561720
  Janitorial Services
561740
  Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
611310
  Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
8123
  Drycleaning and Laundry Services

	4(b)	Information Requested

      Once a prospective organization reviews the PY materials and decides to apply, it should submit a PY Application Form (see Attachment B for complete form).  To be eligible for the awards, which will be announced in the fall of 2012, candidates should submit their applications by July10, 2012.

      All forms will be available in hard copy and electronic format.  Participants can use the hard copy forms they receive from EPA by mail or download PDF versions of the forms from the DfE website at www.epa.gov/dfe.

(i)             Data items:

      The reporting items include:

   # Facility name and website URL;
   # Name, title, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the candidate's primary contact person;
   # Recognition category (or categories) for which the candidate is applying;
   # Descriptions of activities taken to qualify for recognition;
   # Signature, name, and title of senior company or organization authority (e.g., CEO, or vice president for health and environment).

      (ii)	 Respondent activities:

      Candidates will conduct the following activities in order to complete and submit the PY Application Form:

   # Review the PY information;
   # Decide whether to apply for recognition, and in what recognition category or categories;
   # Select a primary contact person for the program;
   # Complete the PY Application Form, including obtaining the signature of a company or organization authority (e.g., CEO or vice president for health and environment);
   # Describe how their organization meets the evaluation criteria for the relevant recognition;
   # Fax, e-mail, or mail the form to EPA;
   # Provide relevant documentation to EPA upon request.

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

	5(a)	Agency Activities

      EPA engages in the following activities related to the PY Application Form:

   # Distribute the PY Application Form to potential participants, and maintain a downloadable PDF version on the DfE website;
   # Answer questions posed by potential applicants regarding PY recognition;
   # Receive the completed forms, review for completeness and place any necessary follow-up calls;
   # Screen applicants to determine their history of civil or criminal EPA enforcement actions; and
   # Approve candidates for PY recognition based on evaluation criteria and notify both successful and unsuccessful applicants of the decisions.

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

      Respondents will be able to obtain the PY Application Form in hard copy from EPA or by downloading it from the DfE website.  The completed forms can be faxed, e-mailed, or mailed to EPA.

      In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA will use a telephone system, personal computers, and applicable database software.  EPA will ensure the accuracy and completeness of collected information by reserving the right to request relevant documentation at any time to confirm that candidates have achieved the criteria for recognition.  Based on its experience with the Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI) Awards Program, EPA anticipates needing to exercise this right for no more than one candidate per participant category and has incorporated the associated burden into section 6 below.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

      EPA expects that a small number of participants in the PY Awards Program will be small entities. EPA has designed its application form to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information.  In addition, given the voluntary nature of the collection, EPA expects that respondents will participate only if the benefits of participation outweigh the information collection burden.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

      Organizations may submit an application for this annual awards program each of the three years covered by this ICR.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

      The data collection mechanism for the PY awards is the PY Application Form.  In an effort to minimize burden and cost, the PY Application Form was designed to contain straightforward questions. In addition, one application package will serve all types of participants.  The expected participant categories for PY are as follows:  (1) Formulators/Product Manufacturers (of both consumer and Institutional/Industrial (I/I) products), (2) Purchasers and Distributors, (3) Retailers, (4) Supporters (e.g., non-governmental organizations, including environmental and health advocates, trade associations, academia, sports teams, and others) and (5) Innovators (e.g., chemical manufacturers, technology developers, and others). Within these participant categories, it is expected that participants will be private sector institutions.  Within the participant category Purchasers and Distributors, about five local or state governments are likely to participate, with the remaining participants being private sector institutions.

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

      The average respondent burden is estimated to be 15 hours for all participant types.  EPA used professional judgment to arrive at a burden estimate, as well as its experience with administering the Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI).  Burden hours for the PY application package are for reporting purposes only.

      We expect that for a typical entity, program and application review will take about one hour (technical staff).  Obtaining approval, which is likely to involve verifying assumptions with staff and ensuring support from multiple levels of management, will take about three hours (1 managerial, 1 technical, 1 clerical).  Completing the application form will take about 11 hours (10 technical, 1 clerical).  Included in the application form estimate of 11 hours is the potential applicant burden that would be incurred if EPA finds it necessary to verify the accuracy and/or completeness of information in an application.  For purposes of the burden estimate, EPA assumes that it will need to verify information from one organization in each participant category.

      6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

      EPA estimates an average loaded hourly labor rate (base hourly rate plus fringe and overhead) of $58.22 for managerial staff, $55.43 for technical staff, and $26.03 for clerical staff.  These three labor rate estimates are based upon manufacturing industry wage data from Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2010 (Supplementary Table 2).  In addition, the hourly labor rates have been rounded, to the nearest cent, for the purposes of this ICR.  The derivation of labor rates for managerial, technical, and clerical staff are shown in Exhibit 6.1.

Exhibit 6.1.  Derivation of Total Compensation

                              Total compensation
                              Wages and Salaries
                                 Benefit costs

                                     Total
                                  Paid leave
                               Supplemental pay
                                   Insurance
                            Retirement and Savings
                           Legally Required Benefits

                                  Managerial
                                    $58.22
                                    $39.27
                                    $18.95
                                     $5.40
                                     $2.03
                                     $4.47
                                     $3.14
                                     $3.91
                                   Technical
                                    $55.43
                                    $36.93
                                    $18.50
                                     $5.10
                                     $2.00
                                     $4.42
                                     $3.22
                                     $3.77
                                   Clerical
                                    $26.03
                                    $17.36
                                     $8.67
                                     $1.90
                                     $0.68
                                     $3.16
                                     $0.87
                                     $2.06

      Exhibit 6.2 presents the estimated burden hours and costs for all respondents during each of the three years covered under this ICR assuming 15 hours for all participant categories.  No capital or operations and management costs are incurred by respondents under this ICR, with the possible exception of postage and photocopy costs.
Exhibit 6.2.  Estimated Annual Burden and Costs to Respondents

                            Type of Affected Public
                              Collection activity
                           Estimated # of applicants
                        Estimated response time (hours)
                             Total burden (hours)
                              Hourly labor cost*
                                  Total cost

                                     Mgr.
                                     Tech.
                                     Cler.
                                     Mgr.
                                     Tech.
                                     Cler.
                                     Total
                                     Mgr.
                                     Tech.
                                     Cler.

                                Private Sector
                       Formulators/Product Manufacturers
                                      50

Review application and program information

                                       0
                                       1
                                       0
                                       0
                                      50
                                       0
                                      50
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $2,772

Obtain senior approval

                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                      50
                                      50
                                      50
                                      150
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $6,984

Complete and submit package

                                       0
                                      10
                                       1
                                       0
                                      500
                                      50
                                      550
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                        $29,017

                                   Subtotal
                                      50
                                       1
                                      12
                                       2
                                      50
                                      600
                                      100
                                      750
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                                                        $38,772

                          Purchasers and Distributors
                                      10

Review application and program information

                                       0
                                       1
                                       0
                                       0
                                      10
                                       0
                                      10
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                           $554

Obtain senior approval

                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                      10
                                      10
                                      10
                                      30
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $1,397

Complete and submit package[1]

                                       0
                                      10
                                       1
                                       0
                                      100
                                      10
                                      110
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $5,803

                                   Subtotal
                                      10
                                       1
                                      12
                                       2
                                      10
                                      120
                                      20
                                      150
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                                                         $7,754

                                   Retailers
                                      10

Review application and program information

                                       0
                                       1
                                       0
                                       0
                                      10
                                       0
                                      10
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                           $554

Obtain senior approval

                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                      10
                                      10
                                      10
                                      30
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $1,397

Complete and submit package

                                       0
                                      10
                                       1
                                       0
                                      100
                                      10
                                      110
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $5,803

                                   Subtotal
                                      10
                                       1
                                      12
                                       2
                                      10
                                      120
                                      20
                                      150
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                                                         $7,754

                                  Supporters
                                      20

Review application and program information

                                       0
                                       1
                                       0
                                       0
                                      20
                                       0
                                      20
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $1,109
                  Private Sector and Local/State  Governments
Obtain senior approval

                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                      20
                                      20
                                      20
                                      60
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $2,794

Complete and submit package

                                       0
                                      10
                                       1
                                       0
                                      200
                                      20
                                      220
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                        $11,607

                                   Subtotal
                                      20
                                       1
                                      12
                                       2
                                      20
                                      240
                                      40
                                      300

                                                                        $15,509

                                  Innovators
                                      20

Review application and program information

                                       0
                                       1
                                       0
                                       0
                                      20
                                       0
                                      20
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $1,109

Obtain senior approval

                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                      20
                                      20
                                      20
                                      60
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                         $2,794

Complete and submit package

                                       0
                                      10
                                       1
                                       0
                                      200
                                      20
                                      220
                                     58.22
                                     55.43
                                     26.03
                                                                        $11,607

                                   Subtotal
                                      20
                                       1
                                      12
                                       2
                                      20
                                      240
                                      40
                                      300
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                                                        $15,509

                                     Total
                                      110

                                     1650

                                                                        $69,790

      6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

      Exhibit 6.3 presents the total compensation for Agency employees, and Exhibit 6.4 the estimated Agency burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this ICR.  Other direct costs (copying, printing, telephone, and mailing expenses) are also included.  EPA based its burden estimates on its experience managing SDSI and other voluntary programs.

      Agency labor costs are calculated based on hourly basic rates for federal employees in the Washington-Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management for 2011, frozen at January 2010 levels.  The average hourly labor rate for managerial staff is estimated as the rate for a GS-13 Step 5 employee, for technical staff as a GS-10 Step 10 employee, and for clerical staff as GS-5 Step 1.  These GS-level assumptions are consistent with those used in past EPA OPPT ICRs.  The hourly rates were multiplied by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and overhead.  This loading factor is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (OPPE, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).

Exhibit 6.3.  Total compensation for Agency Employees

                           Agency Employee Function
                                2011 pay grade
                                  Hourly rate
                                  Managerial
                                 GS-13 Step 5
                                    $48.35
                                   Technical
                                 GS-10 Step 10
                                    $35.32

Taken from http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/dcb_h.pdf

Exhibit 6.4.  Estimated Annual Agency Burden and Costs

                                  Activities
                           Hours per Labor Category
                              Labor Cost per Hour
                            Total Cost per Activity
                             Total Hours and Cost
                              PY application form
                                EPA managerial
                                 EPA technical
                                EPA managerial
                                 EPA technical
                                EPA managerial
                                 EPA technical
                           Total Hours per Activity
                            Total Cost per Activity
                               Distribute forms
                                       7
                                      23
                                    $48.35
                                    $35.52
                                     $338
                                     $817
                                      30
                                                                         $1,155
                               Answer questions
                                       7
                                      23
                                    $48.35
                                    $35.52
                                     $338
                                     $817
                                      30
                                                                         $1,155
                             Record / enter forms
                                      10
                                      30
                                    $48.35
                                    $35.52
                                     $484
                                    $1,066
                                      40
                                                                         $1,549
                   Verify information; Make awards selection
                                      12
                                      38
                                     48.35
                                     35.52
                                     $580
                                    $1,350
                                      50
                                                                         $1,930
                         Notify applicants of decision
                                       3
                                       9
                                     48.35
                                     35.52
                                     $145
                                     $320
                                      12
                                                                           $561

      6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

      EPA estimates that 110 applications will be submitted each year over the three-year life of the clearance.  Furthermore, due to the nature of the PY awards and the demographic of interested parties, EPA estimates that about nearly half of participating companies will be product formulators/manufacturers.  The total annual burden hours and cost associated with this information collection are 1,650 hours and $69,790, respectively.

	6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

      a.	Respondent Tally

      Exhibit 6.5 below summarizes the total annual estimated respondent burden and cost.  These estimates represent the average burden in any given year over the three years covered by this ICR.

Exhibit 6.5.  Total Annual Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary

                            Total # of Respondents
                             Average Burden Hours
                           Capital and O&M Cost
                               Annual Labor Cost
                                      110
                                     1,650
                                      $0
                                    $69,790

      b.	Agency Tally

      Exhibit 6.6 below summarizes the total annual estimated agency burden and cost.  These estimates represent the average burden in any given year over the three years covered by this ICR.

Exhibit 6.6.  Total Annual Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary

                                 Burden Hours
                               Annual Labor Cost
                                      162
                                    $6,350

	6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

      Since this is a new ICR, change in respondent burden is not applicable.

	6(g)	Burden Statement

      The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated at 15 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, gathering information, and completing and reviewing the application.  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.

      To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0858.  The docket is available for public 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 EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 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>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.regulations.gov.  Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  Once in the system, select "search," then key in the docket ID number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0858 and OMB control number 2070-NEW in any correspondence.

                    ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

      Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0858.  These attachments are available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov or otherwise accessed as described in section 6(g) of the supporting statement.

Attachment A:
42 USC 13103 - Pollution Prevention Act Section 6604. Also available at online at the US House of Representatives' Office of the Law Revision Counsel's US Code website

Attachment B:
Design for the Environment Safer Product Labeling Program Partner of the Year Application Form


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14778-14780]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05497]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1180; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00794-R;
Amendment 39-21967; AD 2022-06-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters.
This AD was prompted by reports of a main rotor (M/R) blade lead-lag
damper in a tilted position. This AD requires inspecting the Flex
Control Unit (FCU), and corrective actions if necessary, as well as
rework and re-identification of the bearing pin, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated
by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 20, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 20,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
final rule, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available
in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1180.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1180; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
EASA AD, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0160, dated July 5, 2021 (EASA
AD 2021-0160), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH (AHD), formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, Model
MBB-BK117 D-3 helicopters, all serial numbers, including Model MBB-
BK117 D-2 helicopters that have been converted into Model MBB-BK117 D-3
helicopters through Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 D-2-
00-003.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on January 14, 2022 (87 FR 2368). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of an M/R blade lead-lag damper in a tilted
position. EASA advises that subsequent investigation results determined
that the tolerances stack-up may lead to an insufficient clamping on
the bearing pin. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the FCU, and
corrective actions if necessary, as well as rework and re-
identification of the bearing pin.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address this unsafe condition, which
if not detected and corrected, could result in an unbalance of the M/R
system, excessive vibration, and reduced control of the helicopter. See
EASA AD 2021-0160 for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters. This AD is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0160 requires a one-time inspection of the affected
FCU and depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective
actions. EASA AD 2021-0160 also requires after the initial FCU
inspection, re-working and re-identifying each affected part by marking
the part with a letter ``M.'' EASA AD 2021-0160 also prohibits
installing an affected FCU or affected part on any helicopter.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB MBB-
BK117 D-3-62A-002, dated June 29, 2021, which specifies procedures for
a one-time inspection of the FCU and re-work of the bearing pin
installed on the support assembly.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 41 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Inspecting each FCU, including inspecting each rotor hub-shaft,
hexagonal screw, nut, damper assembly, bearing pin, support assembly,
spherical bearing, and integrated bearing sleeve, takes about 3 work-
hours for an estimated cost of $255 per FCU inspection and $10,455 for
the U.S. fleet per FCU inspection.
    Reworking and re-identifying the bearing pin takes about 0.5 work-
hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $1,763 for the
U.S. fleet per bearing pin.
    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2022-06-01 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Amendment 39-21967;
Docket No. FAA-2021-1180; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00794-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 20, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters, certificated in any category.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Model MBB-BK117 D-2
helicopters that have been converted into Model MBB-BK117 D-3
helicopters are Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters and this AD is also
applicable to those helicopters.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a main rotor (M/R) blade
lead-lag damper in a tilted position. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent an unbalance of the M/R system. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in excessive vibration and reduced control
of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0160, dated July 5, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0160).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0160

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0160 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0160 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0160 specifies to contact Airbus Helicopters or replace the Flex
Control Unit (FCU) if you find cracks or damage at the protruding
conical end of the integrated bearing sleeve, this AD requires
removing the FCU from service and replacing with an airworthy part,
or repairing the FCU in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (4) Where a work card in the service information referenced in
EASA AD 2021-0160 specifies performing the corrective action and
contacting Airbus Helicopters when discrepancies are found, this AD
requires performing the corrective actions as specified in the work
card but does not require contacting Airbus Helicopters.
    (5) Where a work card in the service information referenced in
EASA AD 2021-0160 specifies to do a dye penetrant inspection for the
inspection of Zone B of the rotor hub-shaft ``if you are not sure
there are cracks,'' this AD requires performing a dye penetrant
inspection.
    (6) Where paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2021-0160 specifies ``it is
allowed to install a hexagonal screw P/N D622M0500207 on any
helicopter, provided that installation is accomplished in accordance
with the instructions of section 3.D of the ASB, or in accordance
with the instructions of an AMM revision which includes the
technical content of section 3.D of the ASB,'' for this AD replace
the text ``in accordance with the instructions of section 3.D of the
ASB, or in accordance with the instructions of an AMM revision which
includes the technical content of section 3.D of the ASB'' with ``in
accordance with the instructions of section 3.D of the ASB, or in
accordance with the instructions of an AMM revision which includes
the identical content of section 3.D of the ASB.''
    (7) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2021-0160.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0160
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the
helicopter can be modified, provided no passengers are onboard.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600
Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7330; email [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0160,
dated July 5, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0160, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the
EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1180.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 9, 2022.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-05497 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


" Grahame, Thomas" < Thomas. Grahame@ HQ. DOE. GOV>

07/ 06/ 2006 01: 36 PM T o " Flynn, Amy E." < Amy_ E._ Flynn@ omb. eop. gov>, " Fraas, Arthur G." < Arthur_ G._ Fraas@ omb. eop. gov>, Jason Burnett/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, " Fredriksen, Kathy" < Kathy. Fredriksen@ hq. doe. gov> c c " Difiglio, Carmen" < Carmen. Difiglio@ hq. doe. gov> S u b j e c t summary of DOE views on draft PA and briefing material Everyone, the attached document contains the analysis behind the summary statements provided below for this afternoon's 3 PM conference call.

We would make the following summary points.

1. Fine PM is not an appropriate measure of pollution for protecting the public health. Some constituents appear not to be harmful, while new studies with new methodologies show increasing large health effects associated with one major source of pollution, vehicles. These emissions include both particles and gases, but all are health relevant.

2. Newer studies, those using newer methodologies, almost all published since the April 2002 " cutoff date," show that vehicular emissions generally, and residual oil emissions in certain localities, are the important health threats from ambient air pollution in the U. S. today. Secondary sulfate and secondary organic aerosols appear to cause little to no harm in virtually all of these new studies, including for the following health endpoints:

  Daily mortality   Daily morbidity   Heart rate variability ( reduction)

  ST segment depression   Respiratory symptoms in children with asthma   Vasoconstriction   Increased blood pressure   Mutagenicity   Long term mortality via inflammatory pathway   Various cytotoxicity effects in vivo   Various inflammatory effects in vivo 3. The Lipfert et al ( 2006) studies are two such studies. These studies show that when a variable for traffic density is included in a multi city study of health effects from air pollution, the traffic density variable drives all measures of air pollution to insignificance in multi pollutant models ( except occasionally peak ozone).

This finding suggests that traffic density is a better surrogate for exposure to the types of vehicular pollution that decline rapidly within 100 to 200 meters of major roads, which are rarely monitored, and which are different from the types of pollution typically used in epidemiological studies of air pollution   e. g., pollutants such as PM2.5.

This finding suggests that other multi city studies, old or new, which use the older methodology of central monitor pollution concentrations as a measure of exposure, all may be missing the most important measure of exposure to harmful pollutants, vehicle density. These studies would include the Six Cities studies, the ACS studies, the NMMAPS and related studies, and the Seventh Day Adventists ( AHSMOG) studies. We suggest in the attachment and in earlier DOE comments, based on internal evidence or reanalyses of several of these studies, that indeed there is evidence that traffic emissions are the main cause of mortality or other adverse health effects.

4. The main finding of the two Lipfert et al ( 2006) studies is that no other measure of pollution other than traffic density ( except occasionally peak ozone) is significantly related to long term mortality in many robust multi pollutant models. For this reason, it is very misleading for EPA to use the one result, in only one of the studies, showing a positive significant association between long term mortality and fine PM in a non robust, single pollutant, and report this one finding in the draft PA and the briefing materials as if it is a conclusion of the study, rather than part of the usual preliminary assessment, in studies using multi pollutant modeling.

It is all the more misleading when one realizes that there are a total of eight other fine PM associations in the two studies which are not significant. A more comprehensive and balanced assessment of the Lipfert findings regarding fine PM is that it is almost never significant, with the one significant finding coming in a non robust single pollutant model. In addition, because it is important for understanding which pollutants are harmful and which are not, the draft Provisional Assessment ( PA) and briefing materials for the conference call should state that sulfate is never found significant, even in single pollutant models.

5. Two other new studies make the points that centrally monitored pollutants don't pick up the pollutants of relevance to health:

Delfino et al ( 2005):

" The main limitation of most epidemiological studies is exposure misclassification from dependence on central site rather than on personal or microenvironmental exposure data"

Sioutas et al ( 2005) point to the differences in types of pollutants near major roads, vs. pollutants measured further away:

"... people who live within about 90 meters of roadways are exposed to particles of very different size and chemical composition than are others who live farther away from busy streets and roadways."

6. Several studies of health effects in the draft PA and the briefing materials occur in California. California doesn't have major sources of fine PM found in the east, such as coal plants and steel complexes, but instead is dominated by vehicular emissions ( with residual oil emissions from shipping as well in some localities). EPA should recognize that pollution in California is dominated by vehicular emissions, and state that findings from studies such as Kuenzli et al ( 2005) and the Jerrett et al ( 2005) study of the Los Angeles ACS cohort are studies of vehicular emissions. One of the studies reviewed by EPA, Gauderman et al ( 2004), the 12 city Children's Health Study, does make this conclusion:

" In southern California, the primary source of these pollutants is motor vehicles, either through direct tailpipe emissions or downwind physical and photochemical reactions of vehicular emissions...

" In the current study, however, we could not discern the independent effects of pollutants because they came from common sources and there was a high degree of correlation among them."

Failure to note that associations found with fine PM in California reflect health effects associated with vehicular emissions may lead people to think that all components of fine PM, including those found in abundance in the east but missing in California, are associated with adverse health effects, and may lead them away from the important conclusion that vehicular emissions are the main cause of harm from ambient pollution in the U. S.

7. The draft PA and briefing materials should be completely refocused to reflect these new findings.

Thanks,

Tom Thomas J. Grahame U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 202 586 7149 ( voice)

202 586 7085 ( fax)

<< SHORT VERSION. doc>>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40398-40400]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0071]

Pipeline Safety: Ineffective Protection, Detection, and
Mitigation of Corrosion Resulting From Insulated Coatings on Buried
Pipelines

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to remind all owners
and operators of hazardous liquid, carbon dioxide, and gas pipelines,
as defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 192 and 195,
to

consider the overall integrity of the facilities to ensure the safety
of the public and operating personnel and to protect the environment.
Operators are reminded to review their pipeline operations to ensure
that pipeline segments that are both buried and insulated have
effective coating and corrosion-control systems to protect against
cathodic protection shielding, conduct in-line inspections for all
threats, and ensure in-line inspection tool findings are accurate,
verified, and conducted for all pipeline threats.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Operators of pipelines subject to
regulation by PHMSA should contact Mr. Kenneth Lee at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 19, 2015, the Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains), Line 901, a
24-inch pipeline in Santa Barbara County, California, ruptured,
resulting in the release of approximately 2,934 barrels of heavy crude
oil. The spill resulted in substantial damage to natural habitats and
wildlife. This buried pipeline failed due to extensive external
corrosion that occurred under the insulated coating.
    The Line 901 pipeline is coated with coal tar urethane and covered
with foam insulation which, in turn, is covered by a tape wrap over the
insulation. Shrink wrap sleeves, which provide a barrier between the
steel pipeline and soil for corrosion prevention, are present at the
pipeline joints (girth welds) on Line 901. Line 901 carried high-
viscosity crude oil at a temperature of approximately 135 degrees
Fahrenheit to facilitate transport. Line 901's pipe specifications are
API 5L, Grade X-65 pipe, 0.344-inch wall thickness, with a high
frequency-electric resistance welded (HF-ERW) long seam. Line 901 was
hydrotested to 1,686 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) on November
25, 1990, and has a maximum operating pressure (MOP) of 1,341 psig.
Line 901 delivered crude oil into 30-inch Line 903. Line 901 is 10.7
miles in length and Line 903 is 128 miles in length. Line 903 has
similar insulated coating and shrink wrap sleeves at girth welds.
    Under 49 CFR 195.563, cathodic protection (CP) is required to
prevent external corrosion of buried pipelines. Historical CP records
for Line 901 revealed protection levels that typically are sufficient
to protect non-insulated, buried, coated steel pipe. As mentioned
previously, however, Line 901 and Line 903 are insulated. An increasing
frequency and extent of corrosion anomalies were noted on both Lines
901 and 903 on in-line inspection tool (ILI) survey results, anomaly
excavations, and repairs. PHMSA inspectors noted moisture entrained in
the insulation at four excavations performed by Plains on Line 901
after the May 19, 2015 spill.
    Plains conducted ILI surveys on Line 901 to assess the integrity of
the pipeline in accordance with pipeline safety regulations in 2007,
2012, and 2015. Under Sec.  195.452(j)(3), all pipelines are required
to be surveyed at intervals commensurate with the pipeline's risk of
integrity threats, but at least every five years. Plains changed Line
901 from a five-year assessment cycle to a three-year assessment cycle
after the 2012 ILI survey. Preliminary data from the results of the ILI
surveys are summarized below and show a growing number of corrosion
anomalies on Line 901. Discrepancies between the ILI data generated
during the 2007 and 2012 surveys of Line 901 and the ``as found''
anomaly sizes discovered in correlation digs after those prior surveys
had not been shared with the ILI vendor to reanalyze the data. The
frequency and magnitude of the anomalies below are derived from the
reported ILI vendor analysis.

                                    24-Inch Line 901--ILI Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Metal loss                              June 19, 2007   July 3, 2012    May 6, 2015 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 80%................................................               0               0               2
60 to 79%.......................................................               2               5              12
40 to 59%.......................................................              12              54              80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Results not received until after spill.

    The most recent ILI survey for Line 901 was completed on May 6,
2015. At the time of the spill, the preliminary vendor report had not
been received. As a result, no correlation digs for this ILI survey had
been attempted.
    The May 6, 2015, ILI survey data and subsequent analysis by the ILI
vendor predicted external corrosion at the failure site with an area of
5.38 inches by 5.45 inches, and a maximum depth of 47% of the original
pipe wall thickness. After the failure, the metallurgical investigators
physically measured external corrosion at the failure site to have a
maximum depth of 89%. The dimensions of the corrosion feature were 12.1
inches axially by 7.4 inches in circumference. The maximum depth, as
measured using laser scan data, was 0.318 inches or 89% of the measured
pipe wall thickness (0.359 inches). Discrepancies between the historic
ILI data and the ``as found'' anomaly size had not been shared with the
ILI vendor to reanalyze the data.
    PHMSA determined that the proximate or direct cause of the release
was progressive external corrosion of the insulated, buried steel
pipeline. The corrosion occurred under the pipeline's coating system,
which consisted of a urethane coal tar coating applied directly to the
bare steel pipe, covered by foam thermal insulation with an overlying
tape wrap. Water was noted in the foam insulation at a number of digs,
indicating that the integrity of the coating system had been
compromised. The external corrosion was facilitated by the
environment's wet/dry cycling, as determined by the PHMSA-approved,
third-party metallurgical laboratory. The release was a single event
caused at an area where external corrosion had thinned the pipeline
wall thickness. There is no evidence that the pipeline leaked before
the rupture. There was a telltale ``fish mouth'' (a split due to over-
pressurization) at the release site indicating the line failed in a
single event.
    PHMSA's Failure Investigation Report indicated that the proximate
or direct cause of the Line 901 failure was external corrosion that
thinned the pipe wall to a level where it ruptured suddenly and
released heavy crude oil. PHMSA's Failure Investigation Report of the
Plains Line 901 incident can be reviewed at:.http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles//PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/PHMSA_Failure_Investigation_Report_Plains_Pipeline_LP_Line_901_Public.pdf. PHMSA's investigation identified numerous contributory causes of the
rupture, including:
    (1) Ineffective protection against external corrosion of the
pipeline:
     The condition of the pipeline's coating and insulation
system fostered

an environment that led to external corrosion; and
     The pipeline's CP system was not effective in preventing
corrosion from occurring beneath the pipeline's coating/insulation
system.
    (2) Failure to detect and mitigate the corrosion:
     The ILI and subsequent analysis of ILI data did not
characterize the extent and depth of the external corrosion accurately.
    Corrosion under insulation (CUI) is recognized as an integrity
threat difficult to address through conventional cathodic protection
systems and can lead to accelerated wall-loss corrosion and stress
corrosion cracking of the pipe steel. A NACE International (NACE)
technical committee report titled ``Effectiveness of Cathodic
Protection on Thermally Insulated Underground Metallic Structures''
dated September 2006 (NACE International Publication 10A392, 2006
Edition), was prepared as a guide for external corrosion control of
thermally-insulated underground metallic surfaces and considerations of
the effectiveness of CP. A summary of the NACE report's conclusions are
as follows:
    (1) ``Generally, the application of external CP to thermally
insulated metallic surfaces has been ineffective.
    (2) The principal or primary means of corrosion control of
thermally-insulated metallic surfaces is the application of an
effective coating on the metallic surface.
    (3) Care is typically taken in the application of the external
jacket and during pipe installation to minimize water ingress, which
causes corrosion at imperfections in the primary coating.
    (4) When practical, the thermally insulated metallic surfaces need
to be inspected at routine time intervals for metal loss (e.g., an
internal pipeline inspection tool could be used).''

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2016-04)

    To: Owners and Operators of Hazardous Liquid, Carbon Dioxide and
Gas Pipelines.
    Subject: Ineffective Protection, Detection, and Mitigation of
Corrosion Resulting from Insulated Coatings on Buried Pipelines.
    Advisory: Operators of hazardous liquid, carbon dioxide and gas
pipelines, as defined in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195, should review their
operating, maintenance, and integrity management activities to ensure
that their insulated and buried pipelines have effective cathodic
protection systems, including coating systems to protect against
cathodic protection shielding and moisture under the coatings with
higher operating temperatures, and in-line inspection tool findings are
accurate, verified, and the in-line tools are appropriate for the
pipeline threat. This bulletin is intended to inform operators about
PHMSA' failure investigation of the Plains Pipeline May 19, 2015,
accident in Santa Barbara, California and to urge operators to take all
necessary actions, including, but not limited to, those set forth in
this bulletin, to prevent and mitigate the breach of integrity, leaks,
and/or failures of their pipeline facilities and to ensure the safety
of the public and operating personnel and to protect the environment.
    Operators must have and implement procedures to operate, maintain,
assess, and repair their pipelines. These procedures for insulated and
buried pipelines should take into consideration:
    (1) The need for coatings and cathodic protection systems to be
designed, installed, and maintained so as not to foster an environment
of shielding and moisture that can lead to excessive external corrosion
growth rates and pipe steel cracking such as stress corrosion cracking.
    (2) Coatings for buried, insulated pipelines that may result in
cathodic protection ``shielding'' yet still comply with 49 CFR part
192, subpart I or 49 CFR part 195, subpart H. Inadequate corrosion
prevention may be addressed through any one or more methods, or a
combination of methods, including, but not limited to, the following:
     Replacing insulated and buried pipelines with compromised
coating systems or inadequate cathodic protections systems;
     Repairing or re-coating compromised portions of the
coating on insulated and buried pipelines to ensure adequate corrosion
control; or
     Taking other special precautions if an operator suspects
that adequate cathodic protection cannot be provided due to shielding
resulting from insulated coatings that have become disbonded. Such
precautions may include:
    [cir] More frequent reassessments;
    [cir] Usage of the appropriate assessment tools for all threats
including stress corrosion cracking;
    [cir] Coordination of data from the appropriate ILI technologies;
    [cir] More stringent repair criteria targeted at CUI or corrosion
under disbonded coatings for insulated and buried pipelines;
    [cir] Usage of a leak detection system with instrumentation and
associated calculations to monitor line pack (the total volume of
liquid present in a pipeline section) along all portions of the
pipeline when it is operating or shut down; and
    [cir] Valve spacing to limit any possible spill volumes with
remotely operated valves and pressure monitoring at the valves.
    (3) Advanced ILI data analysis techniques to account for the
potential growth of CUI, including interaction criteria for anomaly
assessment.
    (4) ILI data, subsequent analysis of the data, and pipeline
excavations that:
     Confirm the accuracy of the ILI data to characterize the
extent and depth of the external corrosion and ILI tolerances and unity
charts;
     Follow the ILI guidelines of API Standard 1163, ``In-Line
Inspection Systems Qualification Standard'' 2nd edition, April 2013,
(API Std. 1163) for ILI assessments;
     Use additional or more frequent reassessment intervals and
confirmations when the insulated and buried pipeline external coating,
shields the pipeline from CP, retains moisture on insulated coating
systems, and operates at higher operating temperatures; and
     Assess and mitigate operational and environmental
conditions in shielded and insulated coatings that lead to excessive
corrosion growth rates, pipe steel cracking, and all other threats.
    In addition to the above, an operator's operating and maintenance
processes and procedures should be reviewed and updated at least
annually, unless operational inspections for integrity warrant shorter
review periods.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2016-14651 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-W