SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production plants were promulgated on December 29, 1992 and amended on December 17, 2001. These standards apply to owners or operators of existing phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production facilities. The rule applies to component processes at these facilities and to any new, modified, or reconstructed sources. Component processes include wet process phosphoric acid plants, superphosphoric acid plants, purified phosphoric acid plants, phosphate rock dryers, phosphate rock calciners, diammonium and monoammonium phosphate plants, and granular triple superphosphate ( GTSP) plants. Since many of the facilities affected by the standards are also subject to new source performance standards ( NSPS), the standards include an exemption from the NSPS for those sources. The exemption eliminates a duplication of information collection requirements.

Consistent with the General Provisions for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Source Categories ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), respondents are major sources. Respondents are required to submit one time notifications ( where applicable) and a one time report on performance test results and must notify the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) if annual performance tests indicate a change in the baseline operating range of emission control equipment. Plants must develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and submit semiannual reports of any event in which the plan was not followed. Semiannual reports are required. Quarterly reporting is required when excess emissions occur. General requirements applicable to all NESHAP require records of applicability determinations; test results; exceedances; periods of startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions; monitoring records, and all other information needed to determine compliance with the applicable standard. Records and reports must be retained for a total of five years ( two years at the site; the remaining three years of records may be retained off site).

Respondents are required to install monitoring devices to measure the pressure drop and liquid flow rate for wet scrubbers. These operating parameters are permitted to vary within ranges determined concurrently with performance tests. Respondents must perform annual performance tests to verify or reestablish operating ranges for purposes of determining exceedances. 2 The standards require sources to determine and record the amount of phosphatic feed material processed or stored on a daily basis. This requirement allows verification of plant operating rates, which is one of the factors considered in establishing the operating ranges of control devices. This requirement poses no additional burden upon the industry. This is so because proper plant operation and industry practice include daily recording of phosphate bearing feed processed. This practice predates the regulations and would continue in their absence. Because of this daily recording requirement it places no additional burden upon sources; thus, no estimate has been made for this requirement.

In the development of this Information Collection Request ( ICR), we addressed the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) " Terms of Clearance" ( TOC) on the active ICR which state:

This collection is approved for three years. OMB notes that EPA should ensure that a mechanism is in place to allow for electronic reporting of the requested information. When EPA next submits this collection to OMB for revision or renewal, EPA should assure that amortized capital costs are appropriately included in that submission.

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC as instructed by OMB in the previous ICR. Electronic reporting is in place to adequately handle requested information. The capital cost associated with this ICR is a one time cost when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. Since there are no new sources expected during the next three years, there are no capital costs and amortization is not necessary.

Approximately 12 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. The average annual cost to the industry over the next three years of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is estimated to be $ 109,908.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and will require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to: 3 ( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) emissions from phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NESHAP was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of HAP from phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of HAP from phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers plants are the result of operation of the affected facilities. The subject standards are achieved by the reduction of HAP emissions using control technology and/ or leak detection and repair procedures. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the regulations are being met.

Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's records of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities that are affected by NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court. 4 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register 68 FR 27059 on May 19, 2003. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations For this information collection, we referenced the most recent ICR, the preparer of the active ICR, and accessed the most recent data available on the Air Facility System ( AFS) database as maintained by the Office of Compliance. We reviewed information available from the Office of Compliance Sector Notebook " Profile of the Agricultural Chemical, Pesticide, and Fertilizer Industry," the United States Census Bureau via the internet, and other websites covering off site waste and recovery operations. We consulted with EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division; The Fertilizer Institute ( TFI), Mr. William Herz, ( 202) 544 8123; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( FDAP), Ms. Cindy Phillips, ( 805) 921 9534; and the PCS Phosphate Company Incorporated, Mr. William Schimming, ( 847) 849 4302.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease. 5 3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, Section 1320.5.

These standards require affected facilities to maintain all records, including reports and notifications, for at least five years. This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards. EPA believes that the five year record's retention requirement is consistent with Part 70 permit programs and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. Also, the retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action. Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years. EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records were retained for less than five years.

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production facilities. The United States Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standards is SIC 2874 which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) 325312 for phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production facilities.

4( b) Information Requested None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, Section 1320.5. 6 ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that are recorded and/ or reported are required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Standard Citation by Section Notification and application of construction/ reconstruction 63.5( d)

Notification of initial startup 63.09( b), 63.607, and 63.627 Notification of initial performance test 63.7( b), 63.9( e), 63.607, and 63.627 Extension of compliance 63.607, 63.627, and 63.9( c)

Special compliance requirements 63.607, 63.627, and 63.9( d)

Waiver of performance testing 63.607, 63.627, and 63.7( h)

Notification of compliance status 63.607, 63.627, and 63.9( h)

Reports Initial performance test report 63.607( a)( 1), 63.627( a)( 1), and 63.10( d)

Semiannual report 63.10( e) and 63.607( c)( 2)

Quarterly report 63.10( e) and 63.607( c)( 2)

Annual report 63.10( e) and 63.607( c)( 1) 7 A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Performance test report 63.607( b)( 1), 63.627( b)( 1), and 63.10( b)

Excess emissions report. 63.607( b)( 2), 63.627( b)( 2), and 63.10( b)

Summary report 63.607( b)( 3), 63.627( b)( 3), and 63.10( b)

Reports and notifications 63.10( b)

Records retained for 5 years 63.10( b)( 1)

Electronic Reporting Presently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e. g., leaks and spills of phosphoric acid. Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping. In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically, which is reducing the reporting burden. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies. It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate devices for HAPs.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 5 and 13 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above. 8 Respondent Activities Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data. Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS).

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operational. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply 9 with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for more than 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for five years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility A majority of the affected facilities are large entities ( e. g., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden  NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for each of the subparts included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory. 10 The 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.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 1,542 ( Total Annual Burden from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a Technical Labor Rate of $ 64.13 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The types of industry cost associated with the information collection activity in the standards are labor and CEMs. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor( s) and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startup Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startup Cost, ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M, ( E X F)

Temperature monitoring device $ 2,700 0 0 $ 886 12 $ 10,632 11 The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are zero. The cost of the temperature monitoring device would likely be written off the first year, so no amortization of the cost is indicated. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 10,632. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance cost to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 11,000 ( rounded). This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 43,922. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 39.49. This rate as from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2003 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden  NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB).

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 12 existing sources are currently subject to the standard. It is estimated that no additional sources per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR. 12 Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports Year ( A) Number of New Respondents ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 0 12 0 0 12 2 0 12 0 0 12 3 0 12 0 0 12 Average 0 12 0 0 12 To avoid double counting respondents, column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 12. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

The number of responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses ( A) Average Number of New Respondents per Year ( B) Number of Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Respondents ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Sources ( F) Number of Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( AxB)+( CxD)+ F 0 0 12 7 0 84 The number of Total Annual Responses is 84. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 98,908, based on 1,542.3 hours at $ 64.13. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1, Annual Industry Burden  NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB). 13 Note that the total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 11,000. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 18 hours per response.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due in part to a decrease in the number of sources. Since there were no new sources, the burden was drastically reduced. The decrease was also due to an error in the tables from the active ICR that increased the number of hours and the burden. The state of the economy also played a part in the decline of sources, as a result of the pricing anomaly, a growing number of manufacturing companies are taking their operation overseas while others are forced to close their plants. It has become profitable for distributers to purchase fertilizer products at a much lower cost overseas than can be produced in the United States.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 18 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

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 Number OECA 2003 0027, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA 14 West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET 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. When 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. OECA 2003 0027 and OMB Control Number 2060 0361 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 15 TABLE 1: Annual Industry Burden  NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB)

Burden item ( A)

Hours per Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

respondent/

per year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Hours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Cost/

year a ( F= E x $ 64.13)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems N/ A 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 4 1 4 0 0 0 B. Required activities Initial performance test 28 1 28 0 0 0 Repeat of initial performance test 28 0.1 2.8 0 0 0 Startup, shutdown, malfunction plan 40 1 40 0 0 0 Annual performance test 28 1 28 12 b 336 $ 21,547.68 Repeat annual performance test 28 0.2 5.6 0.84 c 4.70 $ 301.41 C. Create information See 4B D. Gather existing information See 4B E. Write report j Notification of applicability N/ A Notification of constr./ reconstr. 2 1 2 0 0 0 Notification of actual startup N/ A Notification of compliance requirements N/ A Notification of performance test 2 1 2 0 0 0 Notification of compliance status 4 1 4 0 0 0 Report of performance test See 4B 16 Burden item ( A)

Hours per Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

respondent/

per year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Hours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Cost/

year a ( F= E x $ 64.13)

Report of monitoring exceedances 16 4 64 1.2 d 76.8 $ 4,925.18 Report of no excess emissions 8 2 16 10.8 e 172.8 $ 11,081.66 Startup/ shutdown/ malfunction report 8 1 16 1f 16 $ 1,026.08 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions 4 1 4 0 B. Plan activities See 5E C. Implement activities See 5E D. Develop record system See 5E E. Time to enter information Records of operating parameters 1.5 g 52 h 78 12 b 936 $ 60,025.68 F. Time to train personnel i N/ A G. Time to comply with applicable requirements See 4B H. Time for audits N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN ( rounded) 1,542.3 $ 98,908 a Assume that all tasks are to be performed by a technical person. This ICR uses a labor rate of $ 64.13 for Technical labor. This rate is from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2003, Table 2: Employment Costs of Civilian Workers by Occupational and Industry Group. The wage rate obtained from the table has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

b Assume that 12 major sources are subject to the standard. No new or reconstructed plants or sources ( respondents) are expected over the 3 years period of this ICR.

c Assume 7 percent of 12 respondents will fail the initial performance test and must repeat it.

d Assume 10 percent of 12 respondents report exceedances. Respondents are required to report quarterly.

e Assume 90 percent of existing respondents report no excess emissions semiannually.

f Assume 1 of 12 sources will have to submit a startup, shutdown, or malfunction report. 17 g Assume it will take 1.5 hours per respondent to enter information.

h Assume information is entered one time per week for 52 weeks per year.

i There are no hours for training personnel since no training is required by the rule, and hours have been allotted under 5A for reading and understanding the recordkeeping/ reporting requirements.

j Time to transmit or disclose information included. 18 TABLE 2: AVERAGE Annual EPA Burden  NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts AA and BB)

Burden Item ( A)

EPA hrs/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrence s plant/ year ( C) EPA person/

hour per plant per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants per year ( E) Technical person/ hours per year ( E= CxD) ( H)

EPA Cost/

year a Initial performance test 40 1 40 0 0 0 Repeat initial performance test Retesting preparation Retesting 8 40 1 1 8 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities N/ A Report Review Notification of applicability Notification of construction./ reconstruction Notification of anticipated startup Notification of actual startup Notification of special compliance req.

Notification of initial performance test Notification of compliance status Annual performance test Repeat annual performance test Excess emissions report No excess emissions report NESHAP waiver application Startup/ shutdown/ malfunction report 2 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2 2 40 40 20 20 N/ A 20 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 40 40 80 40 20 0 0 0 12 b 0.84 c 1.2 d 10.8e 1f 0 0 0 480 33.6 96 432 20 0 0 0 $ 18,955.20 $ 1,326.86 $ 3,791.04 $ 17,059.68 $ 789.80 TOTAL ANNUAL EPA BURDEN 1,062 $ 41,922.58 19 Travel Expenses ( 1 person x 4 plants/ year x 2 days/ plant x $ 75 per diem) + ($ 350 round trip x 4 plants/ year) = $ 2,000 $ 2,000 TOTAL ANNUAL EPA BURDEN ( rounded) $ 43,922 a The cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 39.49. This rate is from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2003 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay.

b Assume that 12 major sources are subject to the standard. No new or reconstructed plants or sources ( respondents) are expected over the 3 years period of this ICR.

c Assume 7 percent of 12 respondents will fail the initial performance test and must repeat it.

d Assume 10 percent of 12 respondent report exceedances. Respondents are required to report quarterly.

e Assume 90 percent of existing respondents report no excess emissions semiannually.

f Assume 1 of 12 sources will have to submit startup, shutdown, or malfunction report.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55235-55237]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0277; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-05-AD;
Amendment 39-18262; AD 2015-18-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B and CFM56-3 turbofan engines.
This AD was prompted by a report of an uncommanded in-flight shutdown
(IFSD) on a CFM CFM56-7B engine following rupture of the 73-tooth
gearshaft located in the engine accessory gearbox (AGB). This AD
requires AGB/transfer gearbox (TGB) magnetic chip detector (MCD)
inspection of the affected gearshafts until removal. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of certain engine AGB gearshafts, which
could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control,
and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective October 20, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 20,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM
International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room
285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0277.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0277; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain CFM CFM56-7B series
turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 1,
2015 (80 FR 24856). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an uncommanded
IFSD on a CFM CFM56-7B engine following rupture of the 73-tooth
gearshaft located in the engine AGB. The NPRM proposed to require MCD
inspection of the affected gearshafts until removal.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80
FR 24856, May 1, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Add CFM56-3 Engines to Applicability

    CFM requested that we add CFM56-3 engines to this AD, as the CFM56-
3 engines share the same 73-tooth and 41-tooth gearshafts as the CFM56-
7B engines.
    We agree. We revised the applicability of this AD by adding CFM56-3
engines.

Request To Clarify Discussion of IFSDs

    CFM commented that the NPRM (80 FR 24856, May 1, 2015) incorrectly
indicated that multiple instances of uncommanded IFSDs occurred on
CFM56-7B engines following rupture of the 73-tooth gearshaft when only
one IFSD actually occurred. CFM requested that this AD be revised to
reflect that only one IFSD occurred following rupture of the 73-tooth
gearshaft.
    We agree. We revised the Summary, Discussion, and Unsafe Condition
sections of this final rule to reflect the occurrence of one IFSD
following rupture of the 73-tooth gearshaft in the CFM56-7B's AGB.

Request To Clarify Inspection Requirement

    CFM commented that the NPRM (80 FR 24856, May 1, 2015) did not
clearly specify that the MCD inspection is of the AGB/TGB.
    We agree. We revised the Summary and the Compliance sections of
this final rule to reflect that the required inspection is an ``AGB/TGB
MCD inspection.''

Request To Clarify Relevant Service Information

    CFM requested that we specify in the Relevant Service Information
section of the NPRM (80 FR 24856, May 1, 2015) that the referenced
service bulletins (SBs) describe the procedures for removal of the
affected 73-tooth and 41-tooth gearshafts and also list the affected
gearshafts by serial number (S/N).
    We disagree. This AD does not include a ``Relevant Service
Information'' section. We are, however, incorporating this SB by
reference and it is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0277. We did not change this AD.

Request To Clarify Proposed AD Requirements

    CFM commented that the Proposed AD Requirements section should be
revised to be consistent with the compliance and mandatory terminating
action paragraphs in this AD.
    We disagree. This AD incorporates changes produced as a result of
the comments received, as permitted by the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA) (Pub. L. 79-404, 5 U.S.C. 551, et. seq.). To take the action
the commenter suggests would be contrary to the APA. We did not change
this AD.

Request To Allow Use of Later Revisions to SBs

    CFM requested that we include a provision in this AD to allow for
use of later revisions to CFM SB No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964, Revision 1,
dated December 15, 2014, and SB No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-0965, dated
December 16, 2014.
    We disagree. We do not know the content of future revisions of SBs
and, therefore, cannot approve them before publication. We did not
change this AD.

Request To Revise Description of Laboratory Analysis

    CFM requested we change the wording in the Compliance section of
this AD from ``particles lab analysis'' to ``laboratory analysis.''

    We agree. The term ``laboratory analysis'' is more accurate. We
revised the term ``particles lab analysis'' to read ``laboratory
analysis'' in the Compliance section of this AD.

Request To Include Serial Numbers of Affected Gearshafts

    CFM requested that we include the S/Ns of the affected 73-tooth and
41-tooth gearshafts in this AD instead of referencing the SBs. CFM
indicated that CFM56-3 operators may not have access to the CFM56-7B
SBs.
    We disagree. Operators have access to CFM SB No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-
0964, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2014, in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2015-0277, or by requesting the SB from CFM. We did not
change this AD.

Request To Limit Applicability by Engine Serial Number

    Sun Country Airlines requested that the Applicability of this AD be
limited to CFM56-7B engines with engine S/Ns listed in Appendix A of
CFM SB No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964 and CFM56-7B engines that have the 73-
tooth gearshafts listed in Appendix B of CFM SB No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-
0964 installed post-production. Sun Country Airlines noted that the
applicability of the NPRM (80 FR 24856, May 1, 2015) could be
misconstrued to mean to include all CFM56-7B engines unless it is
proven that they do not have the affected 73-tooth or 41-toth
gearshafts.
    We disagree. CFM identified the affected population of gearshafts
by gearshaft S/N and by the engine S/N on which it was installed.
However, an affected gearshaft may now be installed on an engine with
an S/N not listed in Appendix A. To address the latter population,
those engines with a gearshaft that has been installed on an unknown
engine, we identified the affected population of 73-tooth and 41-tooth
gearshafts by gearshaft part number and S/N. We did not change this AD.

Request To Clarify That Applicability Is by Gearshaft Serial Number

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that we clarify that the
applicability of the AD is by gearshaft S/N rather than by engine S/N.
    We agree. We revised the Applicability paragraph of this AD to
read: ``This AD applies to all CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B
and CFM56-3 engines with a 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft installed in
the accessory gearbox (AGB), that has a gearshaft serial number in
Appendix A or Appendix B of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-7B S/B
72-0964, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2014.''

Request To Verify Affected Gearshafts Have Been Removed From Service
and Reduce the Scope of Applicability

    Delta requested that we verify which gearshafts have been removed
from service per the proposed requirements of the NPRM (80 FR 24856,
May 1, 2015). Delta further asked that we reduce the applicability to
only those affected gearshafts that remain in service.
    We disagree. This AD will ensure that all affected gearshafts are
removed from service and that gearshafts already removed from service
are not returned to service. We did not change this AD.

Support for the NPRM

    The Boeing Company and an anonymous commenter expressed support for
the NPRM (80 FR 24856, May 1, 2015) as proposed.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed CFM SB No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964, Revision 1, dated
December 15, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
removal of affected 73-tooth and 41-tooth gearshafts. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 67 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1
hour per engine to do the inspection and 8 hours per engine to replace
each affected gearshaft. We estimate thirty-six 73-tooth gearshafts and
forty 41-tooth gearshafts will need replacement at a cost of $12,480
and $7,680 per part, respectively. The average labor rate is $85 per
hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $813,855.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2015-18-04 CFM International S.A.: Amendment 39-18262; Docket No.
FAA-2015-0277; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-05-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 20, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B and
CFM56-3 engines with a 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft installed in
the accessory gearbox (AGB), that has a gearshaft serial number in
Appendix A or Appendix B of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-7B
S/B 72-0964, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2014.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an uncommanded in-flight
shutdown on a CFM CFM56-7B engine following rupture of the 73-tooth
gearshaft located in the engine AGB. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of certain AGB gearshafts, which could lead to
failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage
to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(1) Initial AGB/Transfer Gearbox (TGB)/Magnetic Chip Detector (MCD)
Inspection and Analysis

    (i) For affected 73-tooth gearshafts, perform an AGB/TGB MCD
inspection within 250 flight hours (FHs) since last inspection,
within 25 FHs from the effective date of this AD, or when the
gearshaft accumulates 3,000 FHs since new, whichever comes later.
    (ii) For affected 41-tooth gearshafts, perform an AGB/TGB MCD
inspection within 250 FHs since last inspection, within 25 FHs from
the effective date of this AD, or when the gearshaft accumulates
6,000 FHs since new, whichever comes later.
    (iii) If any magnetic particles, including fuzz, are seen,
determine with laboratory analysis if the particles are 73-tooth or
41-tooth gearshaft material.
    (iv) If the particles are 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft
material, remove the affected gearshaft(s) within 75 FHs since the
AGB/TGB MCD inspection.

(2) Repetitive AGB/TGB MCD Inspection and Analysis

    (i) For affected 73-tooth gearshafts, perform an AGB/TGB MCD
inspection and laboratory analysis within every 500 FHs since the
last AGB/TGB MCD inspection until affected gearshaft is removed.
    (ii) For affected 41-tooth gearshafts, perform an AGB/TGB MCD
inspection and laboratory analysis within every 500 FHs since the
last AGB/TGB MCD inspection until affected gearshaft is removed.
    (iii) If any magnetic particles, including fuzz, are seen,
determine with laboratory analysis if the particles are 73-tooth or
41-tooth gearshaft material.
    (iv) If the particles are 73-tooth or 41-tooth gearshaft
material, remove the affected gearshaft(s) within 75 FHs since the
AGB/TGB MCD inspection.

(f) Mandatory Terminating Action

    (1) Remove the affected 73-tooth gearshaft prior to the
gearshaft accumulating 6,000 FHs since new or within 50 FHs after
the effective date of this AD, whichever comes later.
    (2) Remove the affected 41-tooth gearshaft prior to the
gearshaft accumulating 9,000 FHs since new or within 50 FHs after
the effective date of this AD, whichever comes later.

(g) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected
gearshaft into an AGB.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kyle Gustafson,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 20, 2015.
    (i) CFM International Service Bulletin No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-0964,
Revision 1, dated December 15, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For CFM service information identified in this AD, contact
CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way,
M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 877-
432-3329; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 28, 2015.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-22598 Filed 9-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 159 (Monday, August 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49978-49981]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17837]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 159 / Monday, August 17, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0689; Product Identifier 2020-NM-060-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2013-18-08, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-200,
-200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2013-18-08 requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of certain upper and lower skin
panels of the fuselage, and of the fuselage skin along certain chem-
milled lines, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2013-18-08 also
includes a terminating action for the repetitive inspections of certain
modified or repaired areas only. Since the FAA issued AD 2013-18-08,
there have been reports of additional cracking in certain horizontal
and vertical chem-milled step locations outside of those identified in
AD 2013-18-08. This proposed AD would continue to require repetitive
inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin along certain chem-milled
lines and applicable on-condition actions, and would expand the
inspection area. This AD would continue to provide terminating action
for repetitive inspections of certain modified or repaired areas. This
proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1,
2020.

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 https://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.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0689.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0689; 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 NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations) is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Guo, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites 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-2020-0689;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-060-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in

multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site
damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). It is associated with general
degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details
and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will
certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any
intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by ADs through
separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    The FAA issued AD 2013-18-08, Amendment 39-17581 (78 FR 60660,
October 2, 2013) (``AD 2013-18-08''), for certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2013-
18-08 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of certain upper and
lower skin panels of the fuselage, and of the fuselage skin along
certain chem-milled lines, and corrective actions if necessary. AD
2013-18-08 also includes a terminating action for the repetitive
inspections of certain modified or repaired areas only. The FAA issued
AD 2013-18-08 to address fatigue cracking of the skin panels, which
could result in sudden fracture and failure of the skin panels of the
fuselage, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2013-18-08 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2013-18-08, there have been reports of
additional cracking in the horizontal and vertical chem-milled step
locations outside of those identified in AD 2013-18-08. The cracking
was caused by fatigue from hoop stress and higher than expected bending
stresses across the chem-milled steps. The FAA has determined that the
repetitive inspections must be expanded to include these areas and that
additional airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated
March 27, 2020. This service information describes procedures for
repetitive detailed and non-destructive tests (NDTs) (including
external medium frequency eddy current (MFEC), external magneto optical
imaging (MOI), external c-scan, external sliding probe, external high
frequency eddy current (HFEC), external low frequency eddy current
(LFEC), internal ultrasonic phased array (UTPA), or internal
ultrasonic); inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin along all
horizontal and vertical chem-milled locations with a history of
cracking between stations (STAs) 259.5 and 1016; and applicable on-
condition actions. On-condition actions include repair; LFEC
inspections of certain repairs for cracking; detailed inspections of
certain repairs for cracking and loose, missing, or damaged fasteners;
replacement of loose, missing, or damaged fasteners; and preventative
modifications. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency 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

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2013-18-08, this proposed AD would retain certain
requirements of AD 2013-18-08. Those requirements are referenced in the
service information identified previously, which, in turn, is
referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would
expand the area for the existing inspections for cracking of the
fuselage skin along all horizontal and vertical chem-milled locations
and add airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD would also
require accomplishment of the actions identified as ``RC'' (required
for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated March 27, 2020, described
previously. For information on the procedures, see this service
information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0689.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 141 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                          Labor cost             Parts cost          Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.........................  Up to 165 work[dash]hours x               $0  Up to $1,977,525 per
                                       $85 per hour = $14,025 per                    inspection cycle.
                                       inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these corrective actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Labor cost                Parts cost      Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 185 work-hours x $85 per                $ *   Up to $15,725.
 hour = $15,725.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable providing
  parts costs for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
  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

    The FAA has 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    (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 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

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2013-18-08, Amendment 39-17581 (78 FR 60660, October 2, 2013), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2020-0689; Product Identifier
2020-NM-060-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 1,
2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-18-08, Amendment 39-17581 (78 FR 60660,
October 2, 2013) (``AD 2013-18-08'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1346, dated March 27, 2020.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of additional cracking in the
horizontal and vertical chem-milled step locations outside of those
identified in AD 2013-18-08. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
fatigue cracking of the skin panels, which could result in sudden
fracture and failure of the skin panels of the fuselage, and
consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Through 25 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 through 25 in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated March 27, 2020, except as
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated March 27, 2020, do all applicable
actions identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance) in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated March 27, 2020. Actions
identified as terminating action in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1346, dated March 27, 2020, terminate the applicable required
actions of this AD, provided the terminating action is done in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated March 27, 2020.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated March
27, 2020, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of this
AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated March
27, 2020, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, this
AD requires doing the repair before further flight using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

(i) Required Actions for Group 26 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 26 in Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1346, dated March 27, 2020: Within 120 days after the
effective date of this AD, inspect the fuselage skin along certain
chem-milled lines for cracks, using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO 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 certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair,

modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by
The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that
has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to
make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification
deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-18-08 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1346, dated March 27, 2020, that are required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (5) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(j)(5)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact James Guo,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5357; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on August 6, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-17837 Filed 8-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P