Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 1 of 16 Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection Request to State Governments for Ecological Incident Reports OMB No. 2070 TBD EPA No. 2135.01 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract This proposed data collection program is designed to provide the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) with data on bird kills, fish kills, and other nonhuman animal incidents caused by pesticide poisoning (" ecological incidents"). In addition, incidents which occur to plant species via spray drift from pesticides will be collected. The Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( EFED) of the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) will request these data from state government agencies that are involved in investigating and writing reports on such incidents. The request will be made through an initial letter and follow up phone call the first year, followed by an annual reminder letter or phone call thereafter. When incident reports are received, EFED will extract data from the incident reports and enter them into the Ecological Incident Information System ( EIIS), a national database of ecological incidents, for use by the staff of OPP. These data provide important information on the field effects of pesticides that would help OPP conduct better ecological risk assessments and make more informed decisions for regulation of pesticides. The annual data collection would provide us with more complete coverage of ecological incidents, thereby reducing bias associated with use of sparse and unevenly reported incident data. Ultimately, collection of these data would improve our capability for comparing ecological risks among pesticides as well as for conducting ecological risk assessments for individual chemicals.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection A primary responsibility of EFED is to conduct ecological risk assessments on uses of pesticides. A typical ecological risk assessment includes a review of the available toxicity data for aquatic ( invertebrates and at least two species of fish) and terrestrial organisms ( at least two species of birds), plants and mammals as well as an assessment of the exposure. The exposure can be derived from modeling and/ or actual field monitoring data. When there are available ecological incident data, based on the circumstances under which the incident occurred, the data may very well be confirmatory or may identify risks that had not been predicted in EPA's risk Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 2 of 16 assessment. An example of where the incident data identified risk to terrestrial species but was not observed in the laboratory studies was when EPA was reviewing dimethoate data. Based on the avian acute and dietary studies, it appeared there was not a significant risk to avian species. However, based on incident data reported by the US Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) and the state of Idaho, there was a high incidence of sage grouse mortality. After discussion with the EPA Corvallis Laboratory and the USFWS, it was determined that based on the unusual feeding habits of the juvenile sage grouse, there was higher than estimated exposure within EPA's original risk assessment. Therefore, incident data not only increases the robustness of the risk assessments, but it also bolsters the validity of the assessment.

Ultimately, EPA characterizes the level of risk of current and proposed pesticide uses to fish, wildlife, and nontarget plants. The ecological risk assessments produced by EFED are used by the Registration Division ( RD) and the Special Review and Reregistration Division ( SRRD) to make regulatory decisions under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and amendments. EFED assesses risks of pesticides by evaluating toxicity data and modeling of exposure, and by monitoring actual observed adverse effects from current use. Ecological incidents represent the primary source of information on actual field effects of pesticides to fish and wildlife. This information is therefore critical for EFED to perform its core responsibility of assessing ecological risks of pesticides to nontarget species.

Ecological incidents are investigated by state government agencies ( e. g., state departments of agriculture, state departments of natural resources, or state fish and game departments). However, the states are not required to inform the EPA of these ecological incidents. Currently, many of these incidents are never reported to the EPA, not entered into our database, and therefore are not included in the risk assessment process. Many of the state agencies are not even aware of our need for incident reports. Furthermore, most of the ecological incidents are not reported to EPA under FIFRA 6( a)( 2) regulations because the state agencies typically do not inform the pesticide registrants when they determine that a product caused an incident, and the pesticide registrants are not required to seek out this information from the states. Even when the registrants do become aware of these incidents, they report the information second hand and often only report a summary of the events, without the details which would be contained in the investigatory reports from the states. Therefore, EPA needs to ask these state agencies to voluntarily submit their incident reports.

FIFRA provides the authority for EPA to collect information on adverse field effects of pesticides to nontarget animals and plants. Section 20( c) provides authority to undertake " monitoring of man and animal and their environment for incidental pesticide exposure, including, but not limited to, the quantification of incidental human and environmental pesticide pollution and the secular trends thereof, and identification of the sources of contamination and their relationship to humans and environmental effects." Collection of incident data is a type of monitoring for incidental pesticide exposure and effects to nontarget plants and animals. These Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 3 of 16 reports identify effects to the environment and the source of the pesticide contamination. This same section of FIFRA further states that " such activities shall be carried out in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies." Section 22( b) also gives authority for EPA to cooperate with " any appropriate agency of any State or political subdivision thereof" in carrying out the provisions of the Act.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data Data extracted from the incident reports obtained through this ICR will be entered into the EIIS database and utilized in a manner consistent with EPA's Information Quality Guidelines. Recognizing the importance of ecological incidents in risk assessments, EFED created the EIIS database to allow its scientists easy access to information on ecological incidents caused by pesticides that have occurred throughout the country. Scientists routinely use this database to identify incidents related to exposure to the pesticides they are reviewing. They incorporate a discussion of the ecological incidents into the risk assessment review documents, including chapters for Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( REDs) and New Chemical Reviews. The scientists rely on this database as their primary source of information on ecological incidents. Maintaining the database with current and accurate information is therefore critical for the division.

Incident data in the EIIS database are also used by various other parties inside and outside EPA. OPP uses the data to assess trends in pesticide impacts over time and to evaluate changes in the magnitude of adverse ecological effects following regulatory restrictions or implementation of risk mitigation measures. Ecological incident data are the basis for environmental indicators used to monitor the performance of the program at protecting fish and wildlife resources from pesticide pollution, and are the basis for an indicator that is being included in the State of the Environment Report. RD and SRRD use incident data in EIIS for comparative analysis and other special projects concerning evaluation of ecological risks of pesticide uses. The Field and External Affairs Division also uses data in EIIS for assessing ecological risk of pesticides to threatened and endangered species. Finally, information from this database is supplied to various outside government agencies and nongovernment organizations ( NGO's) that are interested in identifying the frequency of ecological incidents associated with pesticides. This information could be provided in the form of an annual report that can be made available to the public on the EPA web site. Such information would help the public make informed decisions on choosing safer pesticides.

An example of how ecological incident reports have been used in the past is with the case of Swainson Hawk mortalities in Argentina in 1996. US academicians were tracking the migration of Swainson hawks from South America to the United States when it was discovered there were significant die offs ( thousands of birds) occurring in Argentina. After investigation, it was discovered that these birds were dying after exposure to grasshoppers ( primary food source Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 4 of 16 of this species) feeding on alfalfa treated with monocrotophos. Through negotiations with international governments, NGO's and private industry, changes in agricultural practices, and restriction of this pesticide in the Swainson Hawk roosting sites, the mortalities had significantly decreased.

3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Non duplication The only government activity we are aware of in which a federal office contacts state governments to collect data on ecological incidents is done by the EPA Region V Office. That office collects incident information from the six states within their region. The Office of Pesticide Programs, working through the Field and External Affairs Division ( FEAD), will coordinate efforts with the regional offices to ensure that there is no duplication of effort in this information collection with EPA regional offices. We will check with each region to determine if they are contacting state agencies to request incident information. When the regional office does request this information, we will not contact the state agencies in that region, but rather will request that the regional office pass the information that they obtain on to OPP. Such arrangement has already been established with Region V. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Geological Survey maintain collections of information on ecological incidents, but neither agency has a program to systematically collect incident reports generated by state agencies.

Some ecological incident data are reported to EPA by the registrant under section 6( a)( 2) of FIFRA. The collection of incident information being requested in this ICR, however, is very different from the collection done under FIFRA Section 6( a)( 2). The 6( a)( 2) regulation obligates pesticide product registrants to submit adverse effects information, including reports of incidents associated with the use of their registered product. It does not require state agencies to submit any information about incidents they investigate. Since the state agencies and pesticide registrants often do not communicate about these incidents, the pesticide registrants are often unaware of these incidents, and therefore the incidents often do not get reported through the 6( a)( 2) process. Furthermore, as the pesticide registrants are not obligated to investigate such incidents themselves, they often only provide a brief summary of the incident based on second hand information. When state agencies investigate incidents, however, they normally produce a detailed report that provides much more thorough information than is generally obtained from 6( a)( 2) reports. Thus, on the occasion when the pesticide registrant does report on an incident through the 6( a)( 2) process, EPA still desires to obtain the investigatory report from the state to get complete information about the incident. Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 5 of 16 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 EPA staff sent letters to nine state government departments asking them to assess the burden that this data collection would impose on them. Letters were sent to the following persons:

Mr. Linda Coulter, Chief Pesticide Section Colorado Department of Agriculture Denver, CO 80203 Mr. William Ossman, Chief Plant Health Division Kansas Department of Agriculture Topeka, KS 66612 Mr. William Stansley, Wildlife Toxicologist Freshwater Fisheries Lab Department of Environmental Protection State of New Jersey Trenton, NJ Mr. Jim Johnson, Assistant Administrator of Enforcement Division of Wildlife Ohio Department of Natural Resources Columbus, OH 43209 Mr. Cliff Weed, Program Manager Pesticide Management Division Compliance Section Washington Department of Agriculture Olympia, WA Dr. Wayne Faatz Contaminates Program Manager Department of Natural Resources State of Indiana Indianapolis, IN Mr. Sean Strom Wildlife Management Program Department of Natural Resources State of Wisconsin Madison, WI Mr. Robert Hosea, Environmental Specialist Department of Fish and Game Pesticide Investigation Unit State of California Sacramento, CA Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Mary Ellen Mr. , Chief Pesticide Regulations Office of Plant Industries & Pest Management Maryland Department of Agriculture Annapolis, MD EPA received only three responses to our request for assistance. Mr. Johnson of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Dr. Faatz of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources returned the form that we enclosed with the letter. Mr. Johnson said that his department would have approximately two incidents to report per year. He estimated sending us these incidents would require 0.5 hours of managerial time and 1.4 hours of clerical time, and estimated the costs of labor and postage to be $ 31.00 per year. Dr. Faatz estimated that he would have 3 4 incidents to report per year. He estimated sending us these incidents would require a total of three hours of technical time at a total salary cost of $ 35 per year. He did not estimate any other associated costs.

Ms. Katherine Matherly of the Washington Department of Agriculture did not return the form but instead responded with a letter. Mr. Matherly estimated that they would have approximately 250 cases to report. She gave a " worst case" estimate of $ 750 per year based on their fee of $ 0.15 per page and the worst case scenario of each report being 20 pages long. In a follow up telephone call made by EPA to Ms. Matherly, she revealed that a summary report would be available ( Report " B") that would provide sufficient information for our purposes. Assuming an average of three pages per summary report, the total cost for sending just the summary reports would be $ 112.50 per year. Ms. Matherly also stated that almost all of the reports were complaints of crop damage, whereas one or two reports per year involve adverse effects to fish or wildlife. Submitting summary reports only for the fish and wildlife incidents would therefore accrue a cost of only $ 0.45 to $ 0.90 per year. Because of this response, we decided to restrict our request for incident reports to fish and wildlife incidents and to exclude crop damage and other plant incidents not associated with spray drift. However, EPA does believe it is cost effective to continue to receive reports of incidents that have occurred as a result from spray drift to nontarget plants.

Crop damage can also occur from plants being intentionally sprayed to control a certain insect or plant disease. These types of incidents are generally reported to the pesticide registrant and the grower is subsidized for the damage. The crop damage that occurs from spray drift often cannot be proven, and most often the grower can lose significant income as a result. EFED does not assess damage to crops that are intentionally sprayed as a mechanism of control; that is more of an efficacy question and is addressed by OPP's Registration Division. EFED only gets involved if phytotoxicity occurs to nontarget plants from spray drift. Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 7 of 16 State agencies may submit the incident information in electronic format ( PDF, TIFF, WordPerfect, Word, etc.). If the data are submitted electronically, then EPA expects that the costs would be significantly lower.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA is requesting incident reports to be submitted at least once per quarter, but would be willing to accept incident reports to be submitted annually if the state agency would prefer. More frequent reporting would benefit OPP by providing more current information on the adverse field effects of pesticides. Also, OPP may need to conduct an unscheduled review of pesticide products in response to particularly large or frequent incidents. One example of where EPA has responded to a particularly large series of fish kill incidents ( hundreds of incidents involving thousands of fish) occurring in one location was the use of azinphos methyl on sugarcane in Louisiana in 1991. As a result of the reporting and through negotiations with private industry and the state agencies involved, EPA implemented risk mitigation measures ( i. e., registered safer pesticides, limited application to prescription use only, etc.). Thereby reducing the number of fish kills every year until 1995, when no more fish kills were observed or reported. Submitting reports less frequently than once per year is considered inadequate for meeting the Office's information needs on ecological incidents, to ensure a systematic risk assessment processes.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR does not include any third party burden.

Collection of data through this ICR may be made through electronic submission of data. Incident reports may be submitted electronically through e mail in the form of a word processing document, a portable document format ( PDF), or an image file. Submission through fax is also acceptable.

3( f) Confidentiality Reports on adverse field effects caused by pesticides generally do not include confidential business information. If an agency does submit information that could be considered confidential, such as information that might suggest inert ingredients contained in a product, this information will be protected according to FIFRA regulations. Such data submitted to the EPA are handled strictly in accordance with provisions of the FIFRA Confidential Business Security Manual. This manual contains instructions relative to all contact with confidential documents including: responsibilities of EPA employees physical security measures; CBI copying and destruction procedures; transfer of CBI materials within the EPA to contractors or other government offices; computer security; CBI typing procedures; and procedures internal to OPP. The manual dictates that all CBI must be kept in secure ( double locked) areas, and all CBI intended to be destroyed Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 8 of 16 must be cleared by a Document Control Officer and shredded.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in conjunction with this collection activity. The state agencies will be asked to exclude or sanitize information that is private or sensitive, such as private citizens' home phone numbers or social security numbers.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes Respondents affected by the collection activities under this ICR are state regulatory agencies which are involved with investigating and collecting information on ecological incidents related to pesticide use. The Environmental Fate and Effects Division maintains a database of contact information for 161 such state agencies. They include state departments of agriculture as well as other state departments and commissions involved with protecting fish, wildlife, and the environment. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) code assigned to state regulatory agencies is 92411.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items, including record keeping requirements We are requesting state agencies submit reports on ecological incidents attributed to pesticide poisoning, including fish kills, bird kills, honeybee kills, and any other reports of adverse effects to nontarget animals and plants caused by pesticides. We expect the agencies can provide us with the information we desire by reproducing reports or parts of reports that already have created for other purposes, without any reformatting work. Reports of adverse effects to nontarget plants are not being included in this ICR because these incidents are numerous and would require a large burden to the respondents and EPA. Reports will be limited to legal and illegal use of pesticides. Reports should give preliminary or final findings from official investigations. Reports may be on for an individual incident or a summary of multiple incidents. Photocopies, e mail messages, faxes, and scanned images are acceptable.

The minimum information required on the incident reports is:

$ LocationBstate and county $ Date( s) of incident ( when observations of adverse effects began and ended)

$ Known or suspected pesticide( s) to which animals were exposed $ Number killed or affected, by species. Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 9 of 16 Information on pesticide exposure is necessary for attributing the cause of the incident to a pesticide or pesticides. Data on the species and number killed or affected are obviously necessary for understanding the nature and extent of the incident. The location and date are important for several reasons. These endpoints serve as a way to identify unique incident events, helping to avoid counting the same incident more than once or concluding similar incidents are the same when they are actually separate incidents. They are also useful for ascertaining the likelihood of the cause of incidents since information may be available about the types of pesticides are typically applied in a given area and at a given time of the year. Finally, date and location information are important for conducting temporal and spatial analysis of incident data, including analysis of incident data using GIS.

Because of the inconsistency of incident investigation and reporting from state to state, sometimes the above cited information may be all that is available. However, OPP believes that the following information is also important and will ask the states to supply it whenever it is available:

$ where ( use pattern) and how the pesticides were applied ( e. g., crop, application rate, and method of application),

$ results of pesticide residue analysis, findings of necropsy studies,

$ a judgment on the certainty of the cause of the incident ( possible, probable, or highly probable), and $ a brief description of conditions which may have contributed to the cause of the incident ( rainfall, wind conditions, improper application, etc.).

This information is important for evaluating the certainty of the cause of the incident. It also helps OPP to weigh the contribution of various factors, such as application method and weather conditions, in causing the exposure and effects to the nontarget organism. This allows EPA to develop more effective regulatory measures to reduce risk to nontarget organisms.

Detailed incident data are key to confirming ecological risk. In fact, in the regulatory history of pesticides, evidence from ecological incident data have played a key role in decisions to cancel pesticide uses. For example, DDT was cancelled in part because its agricultural use caused egg shelling thinning, and a decrease in survival of avian species, especially noticeable in raptors. Diazinon was cancelled for use on golf courses and sod farms as a result of the reported waterfowl mortality for this particular use pattern of diazinon. The use of tributyltin compounds on small watercraft caused shell deformities on the Pacific oyster, eventually affecting food production. After a series of international negotiations and a congressional hearing, this pesticide was cancelled for this use to limit exposure and therefore mitigate risk. These are only a few examples of how incident data has been used in the past for regulatory decisions.

( ii) Respondent Activities Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 10 of 16 A State must engage in the following activities in order to comply under this data collection program:

Respondent Activity Description 1. Read instructions Read instructions provided on how to submit information.

2. Compile and review information Search files and/ or computerized document storage for new reports on fish kills, bird kills, and other ecological incidents. (" New reports" are those that were produced within the past year or since the last submission, whichever is shorter.) Identify incidents associated with pesticide use only.

3. Reproduce reports Reproduce reports through photocopying, scanning, or copying electronic files.

4. Submit reports Package hard copies of reports and mail them or fax them to EPA, or send electronic copies of reports to EPA through e mail.

5. Record keeping Record which reports were submitted to avoid duplication.

5. The Information Collected B Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities Agency Activity Description 1. Receive information Receive reports through mail, fax, or email.

2. Log in and scan documents Reports are logged in initially in an EFED database. They are then sent to IRSD, where they are scanned, assigned an identification number, and logged into the Incident Data System.

3. Enter data into database Incident reports are then returned to EFED. EFED staff read and extract pertinent data from each report and enter the data into the Ecological Incident Information System ( EIIS). This system, which is stored on a shared drive on the LAN, makes the data available to all OPP staff. Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 11 of 16 4. Data quality review A staff member, different from the one who entered the data, evaluates the data in the database against the original report and corrects any data errors.

5. File incident reports Paper copies of the reports are currently filed in cabinets by the PC Code ( unique identification numbers for pesticide active ingredients). Reports are made available for EFED staff to review. In the future, we plan to scan the reports and put the images on a searchable database.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Data extracted from incident reports are stored and managed in the EIIS database. EIIS is a relational database that uses Lotus Approach as the data base management system ( DBMS). Several forms are used for entering data of different types. The first form is for entering general attributes of the incident, such as date, location, and type of incident. A second form is then used to enter information on each pesticide involved in the incident, including the active ingredient name, the product name, the treatment site, use rate, and method of application. This form also includes a discussion of the certainty that each pesticide was a significant causal factor for the incident. A third form is used to enter information on each species affected, including species name, number of individuals affected, type of response to the pesticide, and route of exposure. Also entered on this form are diagnostic findings, such as measurements of cholinesterase inhibition and concentrations of pesticide residues detected in tissue samples taken from the carcass. Finally, a fourth form is used to record concentrations of pesticide residues detected in other samples taken from the environment and other environmental measurements.

A staff member carefully reads each report and extracts all of the available information into these database forms. He then prints a report from the database that contains all of the attributes of that incident. A second staff member then checks the database report and compares it to the original report to check for errors. After any errors have been corrected, the printed database report is attached to the original source report and both are stored in file cabinets by PC Code. In the future, we plan to scan all new incident reports and store the images in a document storage database.

Scientists in EFED, as well as other staff throughout OPP, may access data in the EIIS database through a Lotus Approach DBMS maintained on the office's LAN. People may conduct standard searches for incidents by PC Code or incident number, or custom searches based on any combination of attributes. Staff can print two types of standard reports from the database. One is a summary report for all the incidents related to that active ingredient. The other is a report Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 12 of 16 showing all of the attributes for a selected incident or incidents.

In addition to this routine management of new incident reports, reports that are of special significance or relevant to current risk assessment activities will be photocopied and provided to the appropriate staff in EFED. This will allow the information to be immediately available for inclusion in ecological risk assessments currently being conducted.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility Not applicable. There are no small entities among the States under this program.

5( d) Collection Schedule The collection schedule will be flexible and left to the state office to determine. States would be encouraged to submit incidents on a regular quarterly schedule, although other regular or irregular schedules would be acceptable. At a minimum, we ask that each state submit incident reports at least once a year.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Based on the survey EPA conducted with the various states agencies, the overall respondent burden associated with this collection is estimated to be 340 hours per year. Since state agencies are being asked only to supply information in the form of incident reports which they have already prepared for their own use, the respondent burden is based only on the amount of time required to collect the reports and submit them to EPA. This burden was estimated from the results of consultation that EPA conducted with staff of state government agencies, as described in section 3( c) of this document. Averaging the responses received in this consultation yielded the estimate of 2.27 hours required per year for a single respondent to complete each type of collection activity, as shown in the tables in section 6( b). Total respondent burden was estimated by multiplying the estimated annual burden per a single respondent by the total number of respondents. OPP has identified approximately 150 state agencies which we will ask to submit incident information. Multiplying 2.27 hours by 150 respondents yielded the total annual burden estimate of 340 hours.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The following estimates are based on averages of the hours of burden estimated by category from two responses we received from our consultation. Only two of the three responses we received included estimated hours by categories. The estimates in this table are the annual Draft for Public Comment December 2003 1These labor rates reflect employee compensation statistics for state governments from the Department of Labor, Division of Employment Cost Trends. The technical labor rate for state governments was adjusted because the statistics combined technical employees with higher paid professionals ( such as doctors and lawyers). These rates were calculated in 2003 using the NASA Gross Domestic Product Deflator Inflation Calculator for the years 1999 to 2002. The rates are fully loaded, i. e., they consist of wages/ salary, benefits, and compensation for each labor classification plus an overhead multiplier of 1.9.

Page 13 of 16 costs and burdens for one respondent to comply with our data request.

STATE GOVERNMENT HOURS, RATES1 TOTAL Collection Activities Mgmt $ 84/ hr Tech. $ 63/ hr Cler. $ 32/ hr Hours Costs Read Instructions 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 $ 44.75 Compile and review information 0.5 0.25 0.75 $ 39.50 Reproduce reports 0.25 0.01 0.26 $ 16.07 Submit reports 0.25 0.01 0.26 $ 16.07 TOTAL 0.25 1.25 0.52 1.76 $ 116.39 ANNUAL BURDEN: 1.76 hours/ respondent x 150 respondents ( approximate) = 264 hours ANNUAL COSTS: $ 116.39/ respondent x 150 respondents ( approximate) = $ 17,459 ( i) Estimating Labor Costs Since the respondents would only be asked to reproduce and submit reports that they have already produced, the majority of the costs for their ICR would be for labor. The only cost other than labor would be that for postage. Therefore, the total annual labor costs are estimated as the total annual costs ($ 17.459) minus the annual postage costs ($ 1,200), which equals $ 16,259.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs No capital, operational, or maintenance costs are expected except for postage for mailing the reports to us. If reports are mailed quarterly at a cost of $ 3 per package, then the total annual Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 14 of 16 costs would be $ 12 per respondent. Assuming that one third of the respondents would avoid this cost by submitting reports electronically, the total annual postage cost is estimated as $ 12 x 100 respondents or $ 1200.

( iii) Capital/ Start up Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs No costs are expected.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs No costs are expected. Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 15 of 16 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES The following are estimates of EPA burden for processing incident reports received annually from a single respondent. Agency labor rates are based on Office of Personnel Management salary tables for federal employees for the years 1999 through 2001 and include benefits and overhead costs, as well as locality pay for the Washington, DC Baltimore area.

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES HOURS, RATES TOTAL Mgmt. $ 96/ hr Tech. $ 70/ hr Cler. $ 33/ hr Hours Costs Receive information 0.5 0.5 1.0 $ 51.50 Log in and scan documents 0.1 3 3.1 $ 219.60 Enter data into database 0.3 6 6.3 $ 448.80 Data quality review 0.1 3 3.1 $ 219.60 File incident reports 0.1 0.5 2 2.6 $ 110.60 TOTAL 0.6 13 2.5 16.1 $ 1050.10 ANNUAL BURDEN: 16.1 hours x 150 state agency x 2 responses/ agency/ year = 4830 hours.

ANNUAL COSTS: $ 1050.10 x 150 state agency x 2 responses/ agency/ year = $ 315,030 Annual costs and burdens were estimated based on the cost and burdens that are associated with processing incidents reports that we already receive from a few states and agencies. There are approximately 150 state agencies that we expect to contact to request to send us incident reports. If EPA chooses to submit reports quarterly, they would prepare and mail four packages to us a year. However, since some agencies will report to us only once a year and some will choose not to report incidents to us at all, we are estimating an average of two responses per agency per year. Draft for Public Comment December 2003 Page 16 of 16 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost TOTAL Hours Costs Respondent Burden Estimate 264 $ 17,459 Agency Burden Estimate 4,830 $ 315,030 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden Not applicable. This is an application for a new ICR.

6( f) Burden Statement The annual respondent burden for this collection of information is estimated to average approximately 1.76 hours per response, including the time for reading instructions, compiling and reproducing incident reports, and submitting the reports. 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. 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 EPA'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. OPP 2003 0241, which is available for public viewing at the OPP Docket in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305 5805.

An electronic version of the public docket for this proposed ICR 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. 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 Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OPP 2003 0241 and OMB Control No. 2070 TBD in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55049-55051]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31162; Amdt. No. 3772]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective November 20, 2017. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of November 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each

separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2017.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35  [AMENDED]

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AIRAC date            State             City               Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7-Dec-17.................  IL           Moline.............  Quad City Intl.....       7/2247      9/26/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  CA           Bakersfield........  Meadows Field......       7/3688      9/28/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  MI           Grand Rapids.......  Gerald R Ford Intl.       7/3819      9/27/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  MI           Grand Rapids.......  Gerald R Ford Intl.       7/3820      9/27/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  MI           Grand Rapids.......  Gerald R Ford Intl.       7/3821      9/27/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  ME           Brunswick..........  Brunswick Executive       7/4801      10/2/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  IL           Chicago............  Chicago O'Hare Intl       7/7608      9/28/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  MA           Provincetown.......  Provincetown Muni..       7/8469      9/27/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  CA           Susanville.........  Susanville Muni....       7/9026      9/27/17  This NOTAM, published in TL 17-24, is hereby
                                                                                rescinded in its entirety.
7-Dec-17.................  DE           Dover/Cheswold.....  Delaware Airpark...       7/0423     10/17/17  VOR RWY 27, Orig.
7-Dec-17.................  AK           Klawock............  Klawock............       7/0450     10/17/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-C.
7-Dec-17.................  WA           Ellensburg.........  Bowers Field.......       7/0683     10/17/17  VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3A.
7-Dec-17.................  CA           Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl...       7/1516      10/5/17  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 25R, Amdt 3.

7-Dec-17.................  CA           Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl...       7/1517      10/5/17  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7L, Amdt 3.
7-Dec-17.................  CA           Los Angeles........  Los Angeles Intl...       7/1518      10/5/17  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7R, Amdt 3.
7-Dec-17.................  WY           Jackson............  Jackson Hole.......       7/1552      10/5/17  ILS Y OR LOC RWY 19, Orig-A.
7-Dec-17.................  LA           Monroe.............  Monroe Rgnl........       7/1823     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1A.
7-Dec-17.................  AK           Deadhorse..........  Deadhorse..........       7/1857     10/17/17  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 24, Amdt 2.
7-Dec-17.................  AK           Deadhorse..........  Deadhorse..........       7/1858     10/17/17  ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 3.
7-Dec-17.................  IA           Muscatine..........  Muscatine Muni.....       7/1920     10/17/17  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3.
7-Dec-17.................  TN           Knoxville..........  Knoxville Downtown        7/2001      10/4/17  LOC RWY 26, Amdt 4.
                                                              Island.
7-Dec-17.................  OH           Columbus...........  John Glenn Columbus       7/2079      10/5/17  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10R, Amdt 3B.
                                                              Intl.
7-Dec-17.................  OH           Columbus...........  John Glenn Columbus       7/2080      10/5/17  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28L, Amdt 3B.
                                                              Intl.
7-Dec-17.................  WI           Madison............  Dane County Rgnl-         7/2281     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2E.
                                                              Truax Field.
7-Dec-17.................  WI           Madison............  Dane County Rgnl-         7/2282     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2D.
                                                              Truax Field.
7-Dec-17.................  WI           Madison............  Dane County Rgnl-         7/2283     10/13/17  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 36, Amdt 2.
                                                              Truax Field.
7-Dec-17.................  IN           Seymour............  Freeman Muni.......       7/2519      10/4/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1.
7-Dec-17.................  MI           Bad Axe............  Huron County              7/2538     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A.
                                                              Memorial.
7-Dec-17.................  NM           Deming.............  Deming Muni........       7/2811     10/17/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig.
7-Dec-17.................  NM           Deming.............  Deming Muni........       7/2813     10/17/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig.
7-Dec-17.................  NM           Deming.............  Deming Muni........       7/2814     10/17/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1.
7-Dec-17.................  NM           Deming.............  Deming Muni........       7/2815     10/17/17  VOR RWY 26, Amdt 10.
7-Dec-17.................  NY           New York...........  John F Kennedy Intl       7/2945      10/4/17  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 22L, Amdt 1C.
7-Dec-17.................  NC           Fayetteville.......  Fayetteville Rgnl/        7/2946      10/4/17  ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 17A.
                                                              Grannis Field.
7-Dec-17.................  NC           Greensboro.........  Piedmont Triad Intl       7/2971      10/4/17  ILS OR LOC RWY 23R, Orig-B.
7-Dec-17.................  MO           Kansas City........  Kansas City Intl...       7/3177      10/4/17  ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 3A.
7-Dec-17.................  FL           Miami..............  Miami Intl.........       7/3233      10/4/17  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 8R, Amdt 1A.
7-Dec-17.................  NC           Wilmington.........  Wilmington Intl....       7/3279     10/17/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 3.
7-Dec-17.................  MT           Great Falls........  Great Falls Intl...       7/3305      10/4/17  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 3B.
7-Dec-17.................  KS           Wellington.........  Wellington Muni....       7/4215     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1.
7-Dec-17.................  MS           Meridian...........  Key Field..........       7/4340     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 3B.
7-Dec-17.................  MT           Great Falls........  Great Falls Intl...       7/4859      10/4/17  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1.
7-Dec-17.................  OH           Akron..............  Akron-Canton Rgnl..       7/5046      10/4/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig.
7-Dec-17.................  IN           Frankfort..........  Frankfort Muni.....       7/5086     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1A.
7-Dec-17.................  MT           Cut Bank...........  Cut Bank Intl......       7/5118     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig.
7-Dec-17.................  OH           Columbus...........  John Glenn Columbus       7/5119      10/5/17  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10L, Amdt 3B.
                                                              Intl.
7-Dec-17.................  MT           Cut Bank...........  Cut Bank Intl......       7/5120     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-A.
7-Dec-17.................  MT           Cut Bank...........  Cut Bank Intl......       7/5121     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A.
7- Dec-17................  MT           Cut Bank...........  Cut Bank Intl......       7/5122     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A.
7-Dec-17.................  MT           Cut Bank...........  Cut Bank Intl......       7/5124     10/13/17  VOR RWY 32, Amdt 16A.
7-Dec-17.................  KY           Danville...........  Stuart Powell Field       7/5262      10/2/17  LOC/DME RWY 30, Amdt 1C.
7-Dec-17.................  MO           Fort Leonard Wood..  Waynesville-St            7/9226      10/5/17  VOR RWY 14, Orig.
                                                              Robert Rgnl Forney
                                                              Fld.
7-Dec-17.................  OH           Cleveland..........  Burke Lakefront....       7/9328     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24R, Orig.
7-Dec-17.................  FL           Tampa..............  Tampa Intl.........       7/9876     10/13/17  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R, Amdt 2B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-25001 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22087-22091]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09978]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0789; FRL-9993-57-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Boston Metropolitan Area,
Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision includes the second 10-
year limited maintenance plan (LMP) for Carbon Monoxide (CO) for the
Boston Metropolitan Area, as well as for the cities of Lowell,
Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester. This LMP addresses maintenance of
the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for a second 10-
year period beyond the original re-designation to attainment. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0789 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, Air Quality Branch, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Revision to the Initial Maintenance Plan for Lowell
III. The CO Limited Maintenance Plan Option in Massachusetts
IV. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
V. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revision
    A. Attainment Inventory
    B. Maintenance Demonstration
    C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment
    D. Contingency Plan
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    Under the provisions outlined in Sections 186 and 187 of the CAA,
the Boston metropolitan area, which covers the nine surrounding cities
of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everette, Malden, Medford, Quincy,
Revere, and Somerville (the ``Boston area''), as well as the cities of
Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and Worcester (the ``four city areas'')
were designated nonattainment for the CO NAAQS on November 6, 1991 (56
FR 56694). The Boston area was classified as ``Moderate'' nonattainment
and the four city areas were classified as ``Not Classified''
nonattainment. On December 12, 1994, Massachusetts submitted a re-
designation request for the Boston area and on May 25, 2001,
Massachusetts submitted a re-designation request for the four city
areas. These re-designation requests included a maintenance
demonstration and contingency plans that outline Massachusetts' control
strategy for maintenance of the CO NAAQS. The maintenance plan
provisions under Section 175A of the CAA require that maintenance of
the relevant NAAQS be provided for at least 10 years after re-
designation, followed by an additional 10-year maintenance period.
    On January 30, 1996, the Boston area was re-designated to
attainment and EPA approved the first maintenance plan for this area
(61 FR 2918). On February 19, 2002, the cities of Lowell, Springfield,
Waltham, and Worcester were re-designated to attainment and EPA
approved the first maintenance plan for these four city areas (67 FR
7272).
    On February 9, 2018, to meet the requirements of Section 175A of
the CAA, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP consisting of a second 10-
year CO limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the Boston area and for the
four city areas. For the Boston area, the initial 10-year

maintenance period was from 1996 to 2006, and the second 10-year
maintenance period was from 2006 to 2016.\1\ For the four city areas,
the initial 10-year maintenance period was from 2002 to 2012, and the
second 10-year maintenance period is from 2012 to 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Boston metropolitan area is no longer required to
demonstrate transportation conformity for the Boston metropolitan
area because the 20-year maintenance period for the Boston
metropolitan CO maintenance area expired on April 1, 2016. However,
the remainder of the maintenance plan requirements continue to
apply, in accordance with the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Revision to the Initial Maintenance Plan for Lowell

    On May 13, 2011, EPA published a final rule approving a SIP
revision, submitted by MassDEP, which revised the contingency plan
portion of the original CO maintenance plan for the city of Lowell (76
FR 27908). This portion of the plan is used to determine when
contingency measures need to be triggered to reduce CO concentrations
in Lowell. After EPA determined that CO concentrations measured in
Lowell had been below the NAAQS for nearly 25 years, EPA's approval
action allowed the discontinuation of CO monitoring in the Lowell
maintenance area. Massachusetts established an alternative triggering
mechanism for Lowell, which relies on CO data from a nearby CO monitor
in the city of Worcester to determine when and if monitoring will be
reestablished in the Lowell maintenance area, and, in some
circumstances, when contingency measures will be triggered in the
Lowell maintenance area.

III. The CO Limited Maintenance Plan Option in Massachusetts

    EPA issued guidance via a memorandum dated October 6, 1995, on an
LMP option for non-classifiable CO nonattainment areas.\2\ This
guidance states that to quality for the LMP option, an area's second
highest 8-hour average CO concentration (design value) must be below 85
percent of the NAAQS for the two-year period leading up to re-
designation. EPA has determined that the CO LMP option is also
available for second 10-year maintenance plans, regardless of the
original nonattainment classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated
Policy and Strategies Group (MD-15), ``Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,'' dated October
6, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Boston area's 1994 CO re-designation request was submitted
prior to the availability of the LMP option. However, the 1994 CO re-
designation request illustrated that monitored levels of CO were below
the ``85 percent of the NAAQS'' threshold. Massachusetts' monitored CO
design values for the Boston metropolitan area have remained well below
85 percent of the NAAQS; therefore, the Boston area is eligible for the
LMP option. EPA's evaluation of the four city areas' 2001 CO re-
designation request resulted in approval of an LMP. The monitored CO
design values continue to be well below 85 percent of the NAAQS for the
four city areas, thus the four city areas are also eligible for the LMP
option.
    EPA believes that it is justifiable and appropriate to apply a
reduced set of maintenance plan requirements on areas with data below
85 percent of the NAAQS, thereby allowing areas to implement the LMP
option. This includes not requiring the area to forecast future
emissions or to develop transportation conformity budgets for use in
conformity determinations in future Transportation Improvement
Programs. EPA has concluded that emission budgets should not be
required in LMP areas because it is unreasonable to assume that these
areas will experience so much growth in the remaining portion of a 20-
year maintenance period that an exceedance or violation of the CO NAAQS
would result.

IV. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms
to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from
the planned action are consistent with the emissions budgets for the
area.
    While qualification for the CO LMP option does not exempt an area
from the need to affirm conformity, conformity may be demonstrated
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the CO NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity
purposes, EPA concludes that emissions in these areas need not be
capped for the maintenance period and, therefore, a regional emissions
analysis is not required. Similarly, EPA concludes that Federal actions
subject to the general conformity rule satisfy the ``budget test''
specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the
budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.
    Under the LMP option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially
not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable
to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that
period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with
maintenance plans approved under the LMP option are not subject to the
budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation
conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the state must
document and ensure that: (1) Transportation plans and projects provide
for timely implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs)
in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113; (2) transportation plans and projects
comply with the fiscal constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR
93.108; (3) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105; (4) conformity of
transportation plans is determined no less frequently than every four
years, and conformity of plan amendments and transportation projects is
demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40
CFR 93.104; (5) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are
used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111; (6) projects do
not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon monoxide or
particulate matter violations, in accordance with procedures specified
in 40 CFR 93.123; and (7) project sponsors and/or operators provide
written commitments as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    In proposing to approve the second 10-year LMP, the four city areas
will continue to be exempt from performing a regional emissions
analysis, but must meet project-level conformity analyses as well as
the transportation conformity criteria mentioned above. The 20-year
maintenance period for the Boston area has expired; therefore, the
Boston area is no longer required to demonstrate transportation
conformity for the Boston metropolitan CO maintenance area.

V. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revision

    The CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-hour
average CO concentration (design value) for an area does not exceed a
concentration of 9.0 parts per million (ppm). EPA's October 6, 1995,
guidance states that to qualify for the LMP option, an area's 8-hour
average CO design value at the time of re-designation must be at or

below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the NAAQS) for two consecutive years.
    The 1994 CO re-designation request for the Boston area showed that
the 8-hour CO design value was 4.8 ppm in 1993. CO monitoring in the
years that followed has illustrated that the 8-hour design values have
remained well below 7.65 ppm. For example, the highest CO design value
for the Boston area in 2014 was 1.1 ppm and in 2015 was 0.9 ppm.
    The CO design values in the four city areas have been well below
7.65 ppm since 1997 and in the Boston area have been well below 7.65
ppm since 1985. The highest CO 8-hour design value in 2014 was 1.1 ppm
for Worcester, and in 2013 was 1.2 ppm for Springfield. MassDEP's
monitoring data illustrates that an exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS
has not occurred in the Boston area or the four city areas since 1987.
Therefore, as stated earlier in this proposed rulemaking action, the
Boston area and the four city areas are eligible for the LMP option.
    EPA's October 6, 1995, guidance on LMPs for CO specifies that LMPs
should include the following elements: (1) Attainment Inventory; (2)
Maintenance Demonstration; (3) Monitoring Network/Verification of
Continued Attainment; and (4) Contingency Plan. MassDEP's second 10-
year LMP for the Boston area and the four city areas includes these
necessary components.

A. Attainment Inventory

    The maintenance plan must contain an attainment-year emissions
inventory to identify a level of CO emissions that is sufficient to
attain the CO NAAQS. MassDEP's February 9, 2018, SIP submittal contains
a CO emissions inventory for the Boston area and the four city areas
using a base year of 2011.\3\ This inventory was developed following
EPA inventory guidelines, and EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
estimates were adopted for several Stationary Area/Nonpoint source
categories including residential wood-burning, open burning, and other
fires. For Stationary Point sources such as industrial, electric
generation, commercial/institutional, and large residential facilities,
annual activity and emissions data is submitted by the facilities to
MassDEP's point-source database. On-road mobile-source emissions were
calculated using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model.
MassDEP submitted MOVES inputs to EPA's 2011 NEI and MassDEP adopted
EPA's MOVES annual emissions estimates as reported in the NEI. As a
potential exceedance of the CO NAAQS is more likely to occur during
winter months when cooler temperatures contribute to incomplete
combustion of fuel from motor vehicles, a ``typical winter day'' format
is used for the CO inventory, consistent with EPA's inventory
guidelines. MassDEP adopted the EPA NEI annual CO emission estimates
for all off-road mobile source emission categories (including aircraft,
rail locomotives, boats, residential lawn/garden equipment, and
industrial/commercial construction off-road engines). In the 2011
emissions inventory, on-road mobile sources represent about 59 percent
of the typical winter-day CO emissions, followed by 22 percent from
nonroad mobile sources, nearly 19 percent from area sources, and under
one percent from point sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ At the time of the February 9, 2018 SIP submittal, the most
recent comprehensive periodic emissions inventory (PEI) for CO was
the 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory which can be found at:
https://www.mass.gov/lists/massdep-emissions-inventories (last
visited on April 12, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    Consistent with EPA's October 6, 1995, guidance, which states that
meeting the criteria for an LMP (7.65 ppm or lower design value for two
consecutive years) also satisfies the requirement for a maintenance
plan, MassDEP has provided CO monitoring data illustrating the
consistent low levels of CO. MassDEP illustrates that there has not
been an exceedance of the 1-hour CO standard of 35 ppm since 1983, and
an exceedance of the 8-hour standard has not occurred since 1987. In
addition, the 8-hour CO design values have continually been under 2.0
ppm (less than 25 percent of the CO NAAQS) since 2006. The monitored CO
levels were below the 85 percent LMP benchmark of 7.65 ppm for the
entire period of the initial 10-year maintenance plans and that trend
has continued into the second 10-year maintenance periods for all areas
in Massachusetts.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA's October 6, 1995, guidance states ``[t]o verify the attainment
status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan
should contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate,
EPA approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58.'' MassDEP's 2017 Air Monitoring Network Plan, the most recent
EPA-approved annual air quality monitoring network plan, is included in
the docket for this action. Under this plan, MassDEP currently operates
a CO monitor at Liberty Street in Springfield, MA (in addition to a
handful of other CO monitors across Massachusetts). Due to the low and
continually declining level of CO monitored at this site over the past
two decades since the last exceedance of the NAAQS, MassDEP requested
EPA's approval for the discontinuation of CO monitoring at the
Springfield-Liberty Street site. Since the Springfield CO maintenance
plan for the first 10-year period includes a commitment to continue to
operate an appropriate air-quality monitoring network during the
maintenance period, MassDEP proposes to use the Worcester-Summer Street
monitor as a surrogate for Springfield, once the Springfield CO
monitoring site is closed. MassDEP's February 9, 2018, SIP submittal
highlights that Worcester has a higher population than Springfield,
thus Worcester's CO concentrations are likely to be higher due to
greater motor vehicle emissions, as motor vehicles are significant
contributors of CO emissions. The Worcester and Springfield monitors
are both located adjacent to high traffic-volume intersections, and
MassDEP's monitoring data illustrates that the Springfield and
Worcester monitors have, for many years, recorded similar CO
concentrations, well below the NAAQS. For example, in 2014, the highest
CO 8-hr design value for Worcester was 1.1 ppm and for Springfield was
0.9 ppm, well below the 9.0 ppm NAAQS and well below 7.65 ppm (the 85%
of the NAAQS LMP option criteria). Based on these characteristics,
ambient CO concentrations in Worcester are a valid surrogate for CO
concentrations in Springfield. MassDEP proposes that, once the
Worcester monitor begins to serve as a surrogate, if the second-highest
monitored CO concentration in any calendar year in Worcester reaches 75
percent of the 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, MassDEP will, within 9
months of the date such concentrations are recorded, re-establish a CO
monitoring site in Springfield consistent with EPA siting criteria, and
resume analyzing and reporting CO concentrations in Springfield. Under
40 CFR part 58.14(c), which allows approval of requests to discontinue
ambient monitors ``on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not
compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS and if
the requirements of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 continue to be met,''
EPA proposes to find that the proposed (1) closure of the Springfield
CO monitoring site, (2) utilization of the Worcester monitor as a
surrogate, and (3) proposed criteria for re-instituting

the Springfield CO monitor meet the requirements of 40 CFR part
58.14(c).
    MassDEP's Boston CO maintenance plan for the first 10-year period
includes a commitment to continue to operate a CO monitoring network in
compliance with 40 CFR part 53 that allows for monitors to be shut down
with EPA approval. MassDEP stopped monitoring CO at the Kenmore site at
the end of January 2015 in accordance with EPA's approval of the
Massachusetts' 2015 Network Plan \4\ because: (1) MassDEP transitioned
the CO monitoring efforts in Boston from Kenmore Square to Von Hillern
Street; (2) the CO concentrations measured for Kenmore had been very
low in years leading up to the closure; and (3) Boston's other monitor,
Harrison Avenue, will continue to monitor CO for the foreseeable
future. In addition, the Von Hillern Street CO monitor is located
adjacent to a high traffic-volume interstate highway where
concentrations of CO are presumably higher than the Kenmore Square
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Massachusetts 2015 Air Monitoring Network Plan can be found
at http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/air/reports/annual-ambient-air-quality-monitoring-network-plan.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts will continue to operate CO monitors in Boston,
Worcester, Chicopee, and Lynn in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Any
future modification to this network will require approval from EPA to
ensure that the attainment status of the area can be adequately
verified.

D. Contingency Plan

    CAA Section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of
any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after re-
designation of the area to attainment. MassDEP's February 9, 2018, SIP
submittal makes no changes to the contingency provisions approved as
part of the first 10-year maintenance plan for the Boston area (61 FR
2918; January 30, 1996) and for the four city areas (67 FR 7272;
February 19, 2002), with the exception of added contingency measures
due to the Springfield monitor closure.
    Three of the four contingency plan measures included in the first
10-year maintenance plans are being implemented without any triggering
event (exceedance of the CO design value). The three measures are: (1)
Reformulated gasoline; (2) enhanced motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance; and (3) California low-emission vehicle program. All three
measures are being implemented to meet other requirements of the CAA
and have the additional benefit of reducing CO emissions. The fourth
measure that will not go into effect unless a triggering event occurs
is investigation and potential implementation of local traffic control
measures, such as traffic-signal changes and revised parking
restrictions, as well as review and adoption of transportation control
measures, or other additional vehicle or fuel controls, as needed to
reduce monitored concentrations to levels that meet the NAAQS.
    In the initial 10-year CO maintenance plan for Springfield, the
trigger for implementing the contingency plan is a violation at the
Springfield monitor. MassDEP's proposed contingency plan trigger when
CO monitoring in Springfield is discontinued will be to use the
Worcester and Chicopee CO monitoring data as triggers for
implementation of the contingency plan in Springfield. If either the
Worcester or Chicopee monitor measures a CO violation, MassDEP will
implement contingency measures in Springfield. A violation at the
Worcester monitor would also trigger contingency measures in Worcester
under the terms of the existing maintenance plan for Worcester. In the
event that MassDEP is required to re-establish a CO monitor in
Springfield (which would be triggered by the second-highest CO
concentration in any calendar year in Worcester reaching 75 percent of
the NAAQS), a violation of the NAAQS at the re-established Springfield
monitor would trigger the contingency plan for Springfield.
    EPA is proposing to determine that the proposed contingency measure
plan for Springfield, in conjunction with the existing contingency
measure provisions from the first 10-year maintenance plans, continue
to satisfy the contingency plan requirement under CAA section 175A.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year LMPs submitted by
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on February 9, 2018, for the Boston
Metropolitan area and for the cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham,
and Worcester. We are also proposing to approve the closure of the
Springfield, Massachusetts monitor, as well as the revised contingency
plan trigger for the Springfield area. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant
matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible

methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 9, 2019.
 Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-09978 Filed 5-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 75960]
[DOCID:fr19de06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-102-000]

Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff and Filing of Non-Conforming Service Agreement

December 12, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 8, 2006, Northwest Pipeline
Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 374 to
become effective January 8, 2007. Northwest also tendered for filing a
restated Rate Schedule TF-1 nonconforming service agreement.
    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to (1) submit a
restated non-conforming Rate Schedule TF-1 service agreement for
Commission acceptance for filing, and (2) list the subject agreement on
the list of non-conforming service agreements in Northwest's tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21554 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P