[Federal Register: May 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30411-30412]
[DOCID:fr25my11-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64519; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-33]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Permit the
Listing of Additional Expiration Months if Such Expiration Months Are
Listed on Another Exchange

DATES: May 19, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on May 6, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Amex'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by NYSE Amex. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .14 to NYSE Amex Rule 903
to permit the listing of additional expiration months if such
expiration months are listed on another exchange. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's principal office,
at http://www.nyse.com, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at
the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit the Exchange
to list additional expiration months if such expiration months are
listed on another exchange. This filing is based on a filing previously
submitted by the International Securities Exchange LLC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 64343 (April 26, 2011) 76 FR
24546 (May 2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Rule 903(b), NYSE Amex usually will open four (4)
expiration months for each type of option of a class of options open
for trading on the Exchange: The first two (2) being the two nearest
months, regardless of the quarterly cycle on which that class trades;
the third and fourth month being the next two months of the quarterly
cycle previously designated by the Exchange for the specific class. For
example, if the Exchange listed in late September a new stock option on
a January-April-July-October quarterly cycle, the Exchange would list
the two nearest term months (October and November) and the next two
expiration months of the cycle (January and April). Further, when the
October series expire, the Exchange would add the December series as
the next nearest month. And when the November series expire, the
Exchange would add the July series as the next month of the cycle.
    In 2010, the Exchange established a pilot program to add up to the
two additional expiration months for each class of options opened for
trading on the Exchange (the ``Additional Expiration Months
Pilot'').\4\ Under the Additional Expiration Months Pilot, NYSE Amex
lists expiration months that are considered ``mid-month''. For example,
for options classes that have expiration months of October, November,
February, and May, the Exchange lists the December and January series.
The listing of additional expiration months has been well received by
ATP Holders, and has had very limited impact on system resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63170 (October 25, 2010) 75 FR
66818 (October 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE recently submitted a filing in response to a filing by NASDAQ
OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX'').\5\ PHLX amended its rules so that it can
open ``at least one expiration month'' for each class of standard
options open for trading on that exchange. Consequently, while NYSE
Amex is currently restricted to listing a limited number of expiration
months that are permissible under its rules and the Additional Months
Expiration Months Pilot, PHLX has the ability to list expiration months
that NYSE Amex would not be able to list under its rules. Indeed, PHLX
has listed additional expiration months that no other exchange could
list at the time they were added (ISE listed matching series only on
April 28, 2011, effective for trading April 29, 2011). For example, in
January 2011, PHLX listed the October 2011 expiration in Omnicare, Inc.
(ticker: OCR). Meanwhile, NYSE Amex could not list the October 2011
series under Rule 903(b) because the standard expiration months for OCR
at the time were February, March, June, and September. NYSE Amex could
not list the October 2011series as part of the Additional Expiration
Months Pilot because OCR is not one of the classes selected by the
Exchange to participate in the Additional Expiration Months Pilot. As a
result, PHLX was the only exchange that listed the October 2011 series
in OCR and, until April 29, 2011, continued to trade those series
without competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63700 (January 11,
2011) 76 FR 2931 (January 18, 2011) (SR-PHLX-2011-04). In its
filing, PHLX cites to the Commission's approval of the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM'') and rules pertaining thereto as the basis
for making the change to its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For competitive reasons, NYSE Amex now proposes to add new
Commentary .14 to its Rule 903 and new Commentary .08 to its Rule 903C
to permit the Exchange to list additional expiration months on options
classes opened for trading on the Exchange if such expiration months
are opened on at least one other national securities exchange,
identical to the provision recently added by ISE.\6\ This proposed rule
change will allow NYSE Amex to match the listing of expiration months
that PHLX or NOM lists in the event NYSE Amex is not able to list those
expiration months because they do not comport to NYSE Amex Rules or the
Additional Months Expiration Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change affords additional
flexibility in that it will permit the exchange to list those
additional expiration months that have an actual demand from market
participants thereby potentially reducing the proliferation of classes
and series. The Exchange believes the

proposed rule change is proper, and indeed necessary, in light of the
need to have rules that permit the listing of identical expiration
months across exchanges for products that are multiply listed and
fungible with one another. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change should encourage competition and be beneficial to traders and
market participants by providing them with a means to trade on the
Exchange securities that are listed and traded on other exchanges.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \7\ (the ``Act'') in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\
in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general
to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the
proposed rule change will permit the Exchange to accommodate requests
made by its permit holders and other market participants to list the
additional expiration months and thus encourage competition without
harming investors or the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal should promote competition by allowing
the Exchange to list and trade option series that are trading on other
options exchanges without undue delay. Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-33 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-33. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-33 and should be submitted on or before June 15, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12874 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Alan Stout/ AA/ USEPA/ US 01/ 20/ 2005 10: 06 AM To Sheila Boyd/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Barbara Pace/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Michael Horowitz/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Glenn Passavant/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA bcc Subject Prepublication of Docket OAR 2004 0008 Sheila, With the consensus of management and legal counsel, I authorize the prepublication of Docket OAR 2004 008 related to emission standards for nonroad spark ignition engines, effective immediately. We request that you enable electronic submission of comments on the rulemaking starting on the date that the rulemaking proposal is signed by the Administrator.

Alan Stout U. S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality 2000 Traverwood Dr. Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734 214 4805 734 214 4816 ( fax) stout. alan@ epa. gov www. epa. gov/ otaq/


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE FILTER BACKWASH RECYCLING RULE EPA ICR No. 1928.02 Prepared For: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water Prepared By: The Cadmus Group, Inc. 1901 N. Ft. Meyer Drive Suite 900 Arlington, Virginia 22209 U. S. EPA Contract: 68 C 99 206 Work Assignment: 1 16 August 2, 2000 August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1a Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1b Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2a Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2b Practical Utility/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3a Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3c Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3d Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3e General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3f Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3g Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4a Respondent/ SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4b Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4b( i) Data Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4b( ii) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4b( ii)( a) State Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4b( ii)( b) Public Water System Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4b( ii)( c) ICR Approval Activity Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5a Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5b Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5c Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5d Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6a Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6a( i) Burden to PWSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6a( ii) Burden to States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6b Estimating Respondent Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6b( i) Cost to PWSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6b( ii) Cost to States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ii Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 6c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6d Respondent Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6d( i) PWS Respondents per Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6e( i) Bottom Line Estimates for Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6e( i)( a) Bottom Line Burden Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6e( i)( b) Bottom Line Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6e( ii) Bottom Line Estimate for Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6f Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6g Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 List of Figures Figure 1. FBRR Information Collection Activity Compliance Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 2. Compliance Dates for the FBRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 3. Burden for PWSs   3 Year ICR Approval Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 4. Burden for PWSs   Years 4, 5, and 6 Following Rule Promulgation . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 5. Burden for States   3 Year ICR Approval Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 6. Burden for States   Years 4, 5, and 6 Following Rule Promulgation . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 7. Cost for PWSs   3 Year ICR Approval Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 8. Cost for PWSs   Years 4, 5, and 6 Following Rule Promulgation . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 9. Costs for States   3 Year ICR Approval Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 10. Costs for States   Years 4, 5, and 6 Following Rule Promulgation . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 11. Summary of Respondents, Responses, Burden, and Costs for PWSs and States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendices Appendix A Detailed Burden and Cost Estimates Appendix B Respondent Universe/ Activity Schedule August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 1 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: FILTER BACKWASH RECYCLING RULE SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1a Title of the Information Collection TITLE: Information Collection Request for the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Filter Backwash Recycling Rule U. S. EPA ICR NUMBER: 1928.02 Note: The description of the recordkeeping and reporting burden in this supporting statement covers all activities required for full rule implementation. EPA assumes that all start up costs ( e. g., reading and understanding the rule, and mobilization and planning) for States and water systems will be incurred during the ICR approval period. The Agency also assumes that all affected conventional and direct filtration systems will be subject to reporting requirements within the 3 year ICR approval period. However, to provide a complete picture of the cost and burden associated with the rule, costs and hourly burden estimates are provided for the fourth, fifth, and sixth years following rule promulgation. These estimates are provided in Section 6 of this document. A series of supporting tables are provided in Appendices A and B at the end of the document to ensure transparency.

1b Short Characterization The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule ( FBRR) requires the collection of recycle practice information and contains requirements designed to control the recycling of spent filter backwash, thickener supernatant, and liquids from solid/ liquid separation processes within public water systems ( PWSs) that rely on either surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water ( GWUDI) as their source [ Section 1412( b)( 14)].

Systems that return filter backwash, thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes to the treatment train may reintroduce large concentrations of contaminants and may increase the risk of hydraulic surges that may, in turn, allow some contaminants to pass through the systems' 1This estimate includes seven respondents ( four conventional filtration systems and three direct filtration systems) that serve greater than one million people.

2The term State, as used in this ICR, refers to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

2 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 filters. Of particular concern is the possibility of the reintroduction of microbiological contaminants such as Cryptosporidium due to recycling practices or the failure to remove oocysts during a hydraulic surge.

Cryptosporidium is a protozoan parasite that is common in the environment and widely found in surface water supplies ( see publications by Drs. Rose, 1998; LeChevallier and Norton, 1995; Atherholt et al., 1998). In the infected species, the parasite multiplies in the gastrointestinal tract and is then excreted in the form of oocysts. These oocysts are relatively resistant in the environment and are not easily killed by commonly used disinfectants such as chlorine and chloramines ( in the concentrations that are used in drinking water treatment). The only widely used water treatment that removes or kills Cryptosporidium is filtration.

The FBRR requires all Subpart H ( PWSs using surface water or GWUDI as a source) that employ conventional or direct filtration to return recycled filter backwash water, sludge thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes to a location where all steps in a system's conventional or direct filtration are employed. Systems may apply to the State to recycle to a different location. However, all conventional and direct filtration systems practicing recycle must notify the State that they are recycling filter backwash and provide detailed information on recycle flows. In addition, systems must collect and maintain information on their recycling practice for review by the State. States will, in turn, approve or reject applications for alternate recycle return locations and review all submitted information from systems.

The required information collection will involve a total of 4,650 PWS respondents1 and 56 State respondents and is expected to cost approximately $ 4.2 million prior to full implementation. 2 During this 3 year ICR reporting period, an estimated 4,650 PWSs will spend a total of 181,540 hours and $ 3.8 million on required activities associated with the rule. The average annual burden over the 3 year ICR reporting period is 60,513 hours and $ 1.3 million.

On average, 19 States are expected to respond each year ( 512 responses annually). The estimated annual State burden and cost during this ICR approval period will be 5,849 hours and $ 136,182. Appendix A provides a detailed summary of the annual burden and costs anticipated for PWSs and States for the first 3 years following promulgation of the rule as well as the second 3 year implementation period. August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 3 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION The following sections describe the need for this information collection and the legal authority under which this information will be collected.

2a Need/ Authority for the Collection The information collected under this rule is required by EPA to carry out its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA). Without comprehensive, up to date information on drinking water contamination, the Agency would not be able to meet the SDWA statutory requirements.

Sections 1401( 1) and 1412( a)( 3) of the SDWA, as amended in 1986, require that when EPA publishes a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal ( MCLG), it must also publish a NPDWR that specifies either a Maximum Contaminant Level ( MCL) or treatment technique. MCLGs are to be set at a level at which " no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety" ( Section 1412( b)( 4)). The SDWA authorizes EPA to promulgate an NPDWR " that requires the use of a treatment technique in lieu of establishing an MCL," if the Agency finds that " it is not economically or technologically feasible to ascertain the level of the contaminant." The Act was again amended in August 1996, resulting in the addition of new sections that establish new drinking water requirements. Section 1412( b)( 14) requires the Administrator to promulgate a regulation to govern the recycling of filter backwash water within the treatment process of a PWS. The amendment requires the Administrator to promulgate such regulation no later than 4 years after the date of the enactment of the 1996 SDWA amendments, unless such recycling has been addressed by the Administrator's Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( ESWTR) prior to such date.

Prior to the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, EPA instituted a formal regulatory negotiation ( RegNeg) process in 1992 with potentially affected parties ( 57 FR 53866; Nov. 13, 1992). This RegNeg Committee included representatives from water utilities and other industries, State public health and regulatory agencies, environmental groups, consumer groups, and EPA. Following an extensive consensus building effort, the RegNeg Committee agreed that EPA should propose three rules:

1. An Information Collection Rule ( ICR) ( final in 1996);

2. A staged ESWTR; and 3. A staged Disinfectants/ Disinfection Byproducts Rule ( DBPR; first stage to be promulgated concurrently with the first stage of the ESWTR).

These rules formed the basis for the provisions of the 1996 amendments. The 1996 amendments require EPA to promulgate regulations to " govern" filter backwash recycling within the treatment process of public utilities [ Section 1412( b)( 14)] and to promulgate regulations specifying criteria for requiring disinfection " as necessary" for ground water systems. The Agency is promulgating 4 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 these recycling regulations as part of the provisions of the FBRR. The provisions of the FBRR require:

That recycled filter backwash water, sludge thickener supernatant, and liquids from dewatering processes must be returned to a location such that all steps of a system's conventional or direct filtration as defined in 40 CFR, Section 141.2 are employed. Systems may apply to the State to recycle at an alternate location.

That systems which practice conventional filtration and recycle spent filter backwash, sludge thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes, must notify the State in writing that they practice recycle.

That systems which practice direct filtration and recycle spent filter backwash, sludge thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes, must notify the State in writing that they practice recycle.

Additionally, both conventional and direct filtration systems must collect and maintain information on recycle flows for review by the State Since changes to the Surface Water Treatment Rule ( SWTR) were initially proposed in 1994, Congress has mandated the promulgation of the " M/ DBP Cluster" of rules to address microbial contaminants and disinfection byproducts ( M/ DBPs) under the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA. An M/ DBP Advisory Committee, formed under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committees Act ( FACA), convened in 1997 to review the data and assumptions used to support the 1994 proposal and data that had subsequently been collected. The Interim Enhances Surface Water Treatment Rule ( IESWTR) incorporated these data and assumptions. The burden analysis for the FBRR also relies on these data and assumptions, although they have been modified to reflect small system conditions and stakeholder input.

2b Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The FBRR requires each PWS to maintain system level records on recycling practices. These data may be used by PWSs to:

Determine system specific needs, and

Track progress.

States are required to maintain records submitted by PWS respondents ( 40 CFR, Section 142.14). States could then use these records to track PWS monitoring efforts, compliance violations, and enforcement activities. This will help States target systems for compliance and take the necessary and appropriate remedial action.

As part of their supervision of PWSs, the States and EPA have a number of critical questions to answer. August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 5 At the system level:

Is each PWS in compliance with the standards?

For systems not in compliance, why are they not in compliance and how can they achieve compliance?

What is the threat to public health for a system that is not in compliance?

At the State and national level:

What are the State and national trends in compliance?

What changes in State or national policy or regulation may be needed to increase the State and/ or national compliance rate?

Is noncompliance a function of location, size, or another explanatory characteristic? 6 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 3 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA The following sections verify and affirm that this ICR satisfies the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) data collection guidelines, has public support, and does not duplicate another collection.

3a Nonduplication EPA has searched the Federal Information Locator System ( FILS) in an effort to ensure nonduplication of the data collection efforts. To the best of the Agency's knowledge, data that this rule requires are not available from any other source.

3b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB EPA initially proposed the FBRR in conjunction with the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT1ESWTR) in the Federal Register on Monday, April 10, 2000 ( Vol 65, No 69, 19045 19150) and a 60 day public comment period was provided. EPA refined the proposed rule in response to public comments about burden, which resulted in two separate rulemakings.

3c Consultations After consulting with regional offices, State drinking water programs, individuals who have attended stakeholder meetings, foundations, and the Small Business Administration ( SBA), EPA developed a list of representatives of small water utilities. The list included representatives from small water utilities; businesses such as restaurants, mobile home parks, hotels, motels, factories, and campgrounds that provide drinking water ancillary to their primary business; homeowner associations; investor owned systems; purchased water systems; small local governments; churches; and individuals who do not directly own systems but provide technical and compliance assistance to small systems. EPA invited 24 Small Entity Representatives ( SERs) to participate in the FBRR and LT1ESWTR consultation process. The names and organizational affiliations of each of the 15 SERs who agreed to participate in the FBRR/ LT1ESWTR consultation process are provided in the list below.

SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES NAME ORGANIZATION Dan Boyce Water and Light Department, East Grand Fork, MN Doug Evans Salt Lake County Service Area # 3, UT Danny Flemming Blanding City Water Treatment Plant, UT J. D. Hightower City of Escalon, CA Charlie Holbrook Water Treatment Plant, Allum Creek, WV Michael Knox Cherry Valley & Rockdale Water District, MA Chris Kramer Bayfield, CO August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 7 Al Lamm Thief River Falls Municipal Utilities, MN Tom McFeron Nashville Water Treatment Plant, IL Albert Ricksecker Brooklyn Tapline Co., Inc., UT Tom Sakry International Falls Water Utility, MN Jim Sheldon Cedar Knox Rural Water Project, NE Paul Torok Seeley Lake, Missoula County Water District, MT Gary Walter Tuolumne Utilities District, CA Tom Weathers Glencoe Water Department, IL EPA sponsored a SER teleconference on April 28, 1998, in Washington, D. C., with the purpose of providing SERs with summaries of the data that support rule development; engaging SERs in analysis and discussion of the implications of the data; and soliciting additional data, especially actual experience with costs. While the meeting focused on the FBRR and the LT1ESWTR, the SERs also received a brief overview of the planned Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT2ESWTR) and Stage 2 DBPR. During the meeting SERs raised many questions concerning the potential cost of turbidity monitoring and exceptions reporting. Comments on the anticipated labor rates were mixed, with some SERs considering them low while others voiced their belief that they were too high.

On August 21, 1998, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel in accordance with Section 609( b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act of 1996 ( SBREFA). The Panel consisted of:

EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson;

The Director of the Standards and Risk Management Division ( SRMD) in the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ( OGWDW) within EPA's Office of Water;

The Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB; and

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

The Panel met a total of three times between August 21 and October 19, 1998.

In September 1998, the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel distributed additional information on potential regulatory approaches and the anticipated costs associated with these approaches to the SERs for their review and comment. On September 25, the Panel held a teleconference during which they discussed the recycling provisions of the FBRR with the SERs.

During the rule development process, EPA also organized a Small System Data Needs Working Group composed of representatives from: the American Water Works Association ( AWWA), Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ( ASDWA), National League of Cities, National Resources Defense Council ( NRDC), and National Rural Water Association ( NRWA). Established in the Spring of 1997, the group held six meetings, from March through December of 1997, to discuss the availability of the water quality and financial data for small systems needed to support the FBRR and other drinking water regulations. 8 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 3d Effects of Less Frequent Collection During the development of the FBRR, EPA considered alternatives for a wide range of frequency and burden estimates for data collection. The alternatives that will require the least frequent collection while achieving contaminant monitoring objectives were selected. Unless a system's recycling practices change, all collection activities will occur one time only.

3e General Guidelines This collection does not violate any of the guidelines established by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act [ 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2)] with one possible exception. Specifically, respondents will not be required to:

° Report information to the Agency more than quarterly;

° Prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of a request;

° Submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

° Participate in a statistical survey that is designed to produce data that can be generalized to the universe of the study;

° Utilize a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

° Receive a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or ° Submit proprietary, trade secret, or other confidential information.

However, the rule will require retention of records for more than 3 years. As required under 40 CFR 142.16 ( b)( 3)( i), water systems must maintain records until the next sanitary survey conducted by the State. For noncommunity water systems, sanitary surveys must be conducted at least every 5 years, and therefore, these systems would have to maintain their records until the next sanitary survey. August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 9 3f Confidentiality This information collection will not require respondents to disclose confidential information.

3g Sensitive Questions The information collection does not ask any questions pertaining to sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private. 3 Within this ICR, references to the respondent category " States" refers to both States and territories.

10 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED The following sections provide information on the respondents and the information the rule would require them to provide.

4a Respondent/ SIC Codes Under this rule, there are two primary respondent categories. The first respondent category is composed of the operators and owners of PWSs ( including both community water systems ( CWSs) and noncommunity water systems ( NCWSs)). The second respondent category is composed of the States and territories in which the PWSs are located. 3 The Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code for private water systems is 4941. The SIC Code for both publiclyowned water systems and for State agencies is 9511.

PWSs are defined as those water systems that provide piped water for human consumption and have at least 15 service connections or regularly serve at least 25 people at least 60 days per year. A CWS is a PWS that serves at least 15 connections used by year round residents or that regularly serves at least 25 year round residents. NCWSs, by definition, are all other PWSs. NCWSs include transient systems ( TNCWSs) and nontransient systems ( NTNCWSs). NTNCWSs serve the same 25 or more people for at least 6 months per year, while transient systems serve a constantly changing population ( 40 CFR, Section 141.2).

4b Information Requested The following sections provide details about the requested data items and the activities that the FBRR requires respondents to undertake to provide this information.

4b( i) Data Items EPA is adding new requirements to PWS reporting and recordkeeping responsibilities. These new requirements, which are itemized in Sections 141.75 and 141.76, include:

A copy of the recycle notification and information submitted to the State;

A list of all recycle flows and the frequency with which they are returned;

The average & maximum backwash flow rate through the filters and the average and maximum duration of the filter backwash process in minutes;

The typical filter run length and a written summary of how filter run length is determined;

The type of treatment provided for the recycle flow; and August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 11

Data on the physical dimensions of the equalization and/ or treatment units, typical and maximum hydraulic loading rates, type of treatment chemicals used and average dose and frequency of use, and frequency at which solids are removed if applicable.

Consequently, States will incur a new recordkeeping requirement for:

maintenance of data submitted by conventional and direct filtration PWSs that recycle.

4b( ii) Respondent Activities As outlined in Section 4a ( above), respondents include both States and PWSs. Their respective information collection activities are described below.

4b( ii)( a) State Activities States with primacy will act as the Agency in ensuring the implementation of the FBRR ( 40 CFR, Section 142.16). To successfully meet their responsibilities, EPA anticipates that States will engage in the following activities:

Start up:

S New regulation adoption and program development ( includes primacy applications);

S Training PWS and consultant staff;

Analyzing and reviewing PWS data;

Making determinations concerning PWSs;

Consulting with PWSs on changes in recycling practices;

Recordkeeping;

Compliance tracking; and

Conducting follow up inspections.

4b( ii)( b) Public Water System Activities The FBRR requires each affected PWS to report recycle practice information to the State and maintain records on recycle flows. In general, PWSs will be involved in the following collection activities:

Start up:

S Reading and understanding the rule;

S Mobilization and planning activities;

Gathering information, ( e. g., system influent and recycle flow rates);

Reviewing, processing, and compiling, the information collected;

Submitting recycle return location information to State;

Meeting with the State regarding changes in recycling practices; and

Recording and maintaining the information. 12 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 Systems must perform these activities to complete the information collection requirements under this rule, which include monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements as described below.

Recycle Return Location. The rule requires all Subpart H PWSs that use conventional or direct filtration, and that recycle spent filter backwash, thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes to a location other than one that returns these recycle flows through processes of a system's existing conventional or direct filtration system including specifically coagualtion, flocculation, sedimentation ( in conventional filtration only) and filtration to either propose a schedule for making necessary capital improvements to recycle through the aforementioned processes or to request an alternate recycle location [ 40 CFR, Section 141.76( b)].

Conventional Filtration Report. The rule requires all PWSs that use conventional filtration, regardless of system size, to submit a report of their recycling practices to the State [ 40 CFR, Section 141.76( b)].

Direct Filtration Report. The rule requires all PWSs that use direct filtration, regardless of system size, to submit a report of their recycling practices to the State [ 40 CFR, Section 141.76( b)].

Primacy Requirements. Under the FBRR, individual States must submit an application to EPA for the approval of their program. This application must describe the criteria they will use to grant systems approval to return spent filter backwash, thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering to an alternative location, and describe how thy will use Sanitary Surveys, CPEs, other inspections, or existing State program elements to evaluate recycle practices and information collected by the systems.

Summary of Respondent ICR Activities. A summary of the information collection activities required by the FBRR is provided in Figure 1. As previously mentioned, the number of respondents required to undertake a given activity would be contingent on the current operational practices of the PWS.

4b( ii)( c) ICR Approval Activity Schedule For the FBRR, all compliance dates for regulatory monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping activities described above occur beyond the 3 year ICR approval period. The appendices at the end of this document provide year by year burden and cost estimates. Exhibits A2 to A5 provide respondent costs and burdens for the 3 year ICR approval period. Exhibits A13 to A16 extend these year by year cost and burden estimates out 6 years following promulgation, at which point the rule would be fully implemented. This information has been included in this document to provide a complete picture of the burden anticipated from the implementation of the rule requirements. August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 13 For the ICR approval period, public water systems will undertake start up acitivities which include: reading and understanding the rule, mobilization and planning, and preparation to submit reports on recycling practices. The States will also only be involved in start up activities which include: regulation adoption, program development including primacy applications, and training of PWS and consultant staff.

Burden of third party activities is anticipated in public notification provisions. The public notification burden resulting from the rule requirements will be included in the renewal of the Public Notification Rule ICR.

Figure 1 provides the anticipated compliance schedule for PWSs and States over the ICR approval period and the following 3 years ( 6 years total) during which EPA anticipates that full implementation of the rule will be achieved. Refer to Exhibit B2 of Appendix B for a more detailed compliance schedule. The estimates presented in both the FBRR Regulatory Impact 14 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 Figure 1.

FBRR Information Collection Activity Compliance Schedule Activity First Three Year Period Second Three Year Period Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Percent of Public Water Systems Performing Activity Start up1 0% 34% 66% 0% 0% 0%

Request Alternate Recycle Return2 0% 0% 10% 50% 40% 0%

Conventional Filtration Reporting3 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Direct Filtration Reporting4 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Percent of States Performing Activity Start up5 50% 25% 25% 0% 0% 0%

Review Requests for Alternate Recycle Return Location6 0% 0% 10% 50% 40% 0%

Review Conventional Filtration7 0% 0% 10% 90% 0% 0%

Review Direct Filtration Reports8 0% 0% 10% 90% 0% 0%

1 reading and understanding the rule; mobilization and planning activities 2 submission of alternate recycle location request to State; consultation with State; recordkeeping 3 report recycle status, schematic and flows; collect additional recycle data; recordkeeping 4 report recycle status, schematics and flows; collect additional recycle data; recordkeeping 5 new regulation adoption and program development ( includes priamcy applications); training PWS and consultant staff 6 review recycle plans, alternate location requests; consult with system; recordkeeping 7 review system submittal; review additional data; recordkeeping 8 review system submittal; review additional data; recordkeeping Analysis and this ICR were based on this schedule. August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 15 5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The following sections describe the Agency activities related to analyzing, maintaining, and distributing the information collected.

5a Agency Activities The Agency will be responsible for promulgating this rule and overseeing its implementation. The Agency will be involved in the following activities:

Developing this rule and guidance materials

Reviewing and analyzing data submissions from the States In addition to these activities, the Agency will also assume the activities performed by the State in those States and territories that do not have primacy. To ensure the implementation of the FBRR ( 40 CFR, Section 142.16) for those PWSs, the Agency will be involved in the following activities:

Start up:

S Mobilization, planning, and implementation;

S Training PWS and consultant staff;

Analyzing and reviewing PWS data;

Making determinations concerning PWSs;

Meeting with PWSs about changes in recycling practices;

Compliance tracking; and

Recordkeeping.

5b Collection Methodology and Management EPA will not be managing data collected under the FBRR, except for data submitted by systems in non primacy States. However, the FBRR does expect PWSs to be responsible for validating the information collected. States are expected to maintain records essential for program implementation and oversight.

5c Small Entity Flexibility Throughout the 1992   93 negotiated rulemaking process for the Stage 1 DBPR and IESWTR and the July 1994 proposals for these rules, a small PWS was defined as a system serving fewer than 10,000 people. This definition reflects the original 1979 standard for total trihalomethanes ( TTHMs) which applied only to systems serving at least 10,000 people. The definition thus recognizes that the baseline conditions from which systems serving fewer than 10,000 people would approach disinfection byproduct control and simultaneous control of microbial pathogens would be different than those for systems serving 10,000 or more people. Consistent with the 1994 proposals, EPA is continuing to define a " small system" for the purposes of this rule as a PWS that serves fewer than 10,000 people. Subsequent to the 1994 proposals, EPA defined a " small business" for purposes of Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in drinking water regulations as a 16 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 PWS serving 10,000 or fewer people. This definition is consistent with the approach used herein and that noted in the 1996 Congressional amendments to SDWA.

The FBRR applies to both large and small systems. Therefore, the rule will have an effect on small entities. Accordingly, as part of the economic analysis for the rule, EPA is certifying that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small systems. As a result, an Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not required to be conducted.

5d Collection Schedule It is anticipated that this rule will be promulgated by November of 2000. None of the compliance deadlines for the FBRR fall within the 3 year ICR period.

Figure 2 details the compliance dates by which affected PWSs must be in compliance with specific provisions of the FBRR.

Figure 2. Compliance Dates for the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule Request for Alternate Recycle Return Location or Proposed Schedule for Recycle Return Location Capital Improvements 36 months following rule promulgation Approval of Alternate Recycle Location or Completion of Modifications to recycle practices 60 months following rule promulgation Conventional Filtration Report 36 months following rule promulgation Direct Filtration Report 36 months following rule promulgation August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 17 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION The following sections discuss costs and burden for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the FBRR. The cost and burden estimates presented in this section are derived from the exhibits found in Appendix A.

6a Estimating Respondent Burden Section 6a discusses the burden faced by PWSs and States. This section defines respondent burden as the hours required to complete each information collection and recordkeeping activity required under the three provisions of the FBRR. The activities have been separated into those that will occur during the ICR approval period and those that will occur in the 3 years following that period ( years 4, 5, and 6 following rule promulgation). As previously mentioned, the rule does not require all respondents to complete all activities.

6a( i) Burden to PWSs The burdens estimated for start up and implementation activities include reading the rule, mobilization and planning, and preliminary activities for conventional and direct filtration reporting, and recordkeeping. Figures 3 and 4 summarize the estimated system level burdens for each of the compliance activities that PWSs may undertake. The hourly totals in these two figures are the sum of all hours worked by managerial and technical staff. Descriptions of burdens by occupational category are detailed in Exhibit A11.

Figure 3. Burden for PWSs   3 year ICR Approval Period*

Information Collection Activity Number of Systems ( i. e. number of responses) Burden for Activity ( hrs/ system) Total Estimated Burden ( hours) Average Annual Burden ( hours)

Start up 4,650 24 111,597 37,199 Recycle Return Location 9 21 195 65 Conventional Filtration Recycle Reporting 4,321 15 64,813 21,604 Direct Filtration Recycle Reporting 329 15 4,935 1,645 * Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding. 18 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 Figure 4. Burden for PWSs   Years 4, 5, and 6 Following Rule Promulgation*

Information Collection Activity Number of Systems ( i. e. number of responses) Burden for Activity ( hrs/ system) Total Estimated Burden ( hours) Average Annual Burden ( hours)

Recycle Return Location 84 21 1,755 585 Conventional Filtration Recycle Reporting 0 0 0 0 Direct Filtration Recycle Reporting 0 0 0 0 * Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding.

6a( ii) Burden to States States will complete only start up activities during the 3 year ICR approval period. Start up activities include: new regulation adoption and program development ( includes primacy applications), and training PWS and consultant staff. Implementation activities will occur after the 3 year ICR approval period. Implementation activities are primarily associated with reviewing data received from the PWSs.

State burden estimates were based on interviews with State officials, a review of similar regulatory requirements, and confirmation by the M DBP Committee.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate these burden estimates.

Figure 5. Burden for States   3 year ICR Approval Period1 Information Collection Activity Number of Responses Burden for Activity ( hrs/ system) 2 Total Estimated Burden ( hours) Average Annual Burden ( hours)

Start up* 112 260 14,560 4,853 Review Requests for Alternate Recycle Return Location 28 13 121 40 Review Conventional Filtration Reports 1,296 6 2,665 888 Review Direct Filtration Reports 99 6 203 68 1Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding.

2The hourly burden for start up activities is presented on a per State basis.

Figure 6 presents State burden on a per system basis for activities that will occur during the second 3 years following promulgation of the rule. August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 19 Figure 6. Burden for States   Years 4, 5, and 6 Following Rule Promulgation*

Information Collection Activity Number of Responses Burden for Activity ( hrs/ system) Total Estimated Burden ( hours) Average Annual Burden ( hours)

Review Requests for Alternate Recycle Return Location 251 13 1,086 362 Review Conventional Filtration Reports 11,666 6 23,981 7,994 Review Direct Filtration Reports 888 6 1,826 609 * Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding.

6b Estimating Respondent Cost This section presents the costs that are expected to be incurred by PWSs and States as a result of the implementation of the FBRR. Cost figures for each information collection activity were calculated by multiplying the burden estimates presented in the previous section by the appropriate hourly labor rate [ see Section 6b( i)]. For these calculations, EPA assigned tasks between two labor categories for PWSs and States: managerial and technical. The division of labor between these categories is expected to vary for systems of different sizes and for different activities. As with the burden estimates presented in the preceding section, cost estimates for both one time, start up activities, and implementation activities are provided.

6b( i) Cost to PWSs The costs estimated for start up and implementation activities include reading the rule, mobilization and planning, and preliminary activities for conventional and direct filtration reporting, and recordkeeping. Figures 7 and 8 provide estimates of the costs associated with the various compliance activities. Exhibit A8.1 A8.4 provides the basis for the derivations of costs in terms of number of responses.

The labor rates for PWSs used in this analysis are based on those used in the RIA for this rule. A key assumption used for the analysis is that system operators will complete all work for systems serving fewer than 1,000 customers since managerial staff are neither required nor typically retained for the routine operation of these systems.

As mentioned above, this analysis incorporates two labor categories: managerial and technical. All labor rates incorporate a 1.4 load factor in addition to a base hourly rate to account for fringe benefits, overhead, and general and administrative costs ( Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997). The loaded technical labor rate for affected PWSs was calculated to be $ 14.50. The management labor category was assigned a loaded labor rate of $ 28. In most instances for systems serving 1,000 or more customers, the cost analysis assumes that 80 percent of anticipated labor would be 4 As noted above, all labor for systems serving fewer than 1,000 customers was assumed to be completed by system operators ( technical labor).

20 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 completed by technical workers, while 20 percent would be completed by managerial workers. 4 The loaded labor rates for systems serving 10,000 or more customers is $ 40.00 for managerial workers and $ 28.00 for technical workers. Exhibit A11 provides a detailed description of labor burden assumptions and hourly labor rates. All rates are presented in January 1999 dollars.

Figure 7. Cost for PWSs   3 year ICR Approval Period*

Information Collection Activity Number of Systems ( i. e. number of responses) Average Cost for Activity ($/ system) Total Estimated Cost ($) Average Annual Cost ($)

Start up 4,650 530 2,462,589 820,863 Recycle Return Location 9 423 3,807 1,269 Conventional Filtration Recycle Reporting 4,321 288 1,246,320 415,440 Direct Filtration Recycle Reporting 329 401 131,818 43,939 * Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding.

Figure 8. Cost for PWSs   Years 4, 5, and 6 Following Rule Promulgation*

Information Collection Activity Number of Systems ( i. e. number of responses) Average Cost for Activity ($/ system) Total Estimated Cost ($) Average Annual Cost ($)

Recycle Return Location 84 408 34,264 11,421 Conventional Filtration Recycle Reporting 0 0 0 0 Direct Filtration Recycle Reporting 0 0 0 0 * Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding.

No capital or O& M costs will be incurred by PWSs as a result of the collection activities associated with the FBRR.

After full implementation of the rule, EPA estimates that total implementation activity costs for PWSs would be $ 3.9 million ( derived from Exhibit A13.5).

6b( ii) Cost to States Annual costs for States were estimated based on the anticipated labor requirements for monitoring those small systems that would be regulated under the LT1ESWTR. State labor rates were based August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 21 on those used in the cost estimates for the IESWTR, but were escalated to December 1998 dollars using the quarterly employment cost index for State and local employees ( BLS, 1999) to account for inflation. Thus, for this analysis, the unloaded rate for State technical staff was calculated to be $ 15.21 per hour, and the unloaded rate for managerial staff was calculated to be $ 22.31 per hour. Using the same 1.4 load factor used for the determination of PWS labor rates ( above), State labor rates were calculated to be $ 21.29 and $ 31.23, respectively.

To estimate the cost for each activity, these labor rates were multiplied by the managerial and technical burden estimates ( Exhibit A11). The cost analysis assumes that 80 percent of anticipated labor would be completed by technical workers, while 20 percent would be completed by managerial workers. Figures 9 and 10 present the cost estimates, associated with compliance assurance activities. Exhibit A9 provides the basis for the derivations of costs in terms of number of responses.

Figure 9. Costs for States   3 year ICR Approval Period1 Information Collection Activity Number of Responses Total Estimated Cost ($) Average Annual Cost ($)

Start up2 112 338,978 112,993 Review Requests for Alternate Recycle Return Location 28 2,810 937 Review Conventional Filtration Reports 1,296 62,034 20,678 Review Direct Filtration Reports 99 4,723 1,574 1Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding. 2The hourly burden for start up activities is presented on a per State basis.

Figure 10. Costs for States   Years 4, 5, and 6 Following Rule Promulgation*

Information Collection Activity Number of Responses Total Estimated Cost ($) Average Annual Cost ($)

Review Requests for Alternate Recycle Return Location 251 25,294 8,431 Review Conventional Filtration Reports 11,666 558,308 186,102 Review Direct Filtration Reports 888 42,511 14,170 * Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding.

The Agency estimates that total implementation activity costs for States would be $ 1.0 million ( Exhibit A14).

6c Estimating Agency Burden and Cost As previously mentioned, EPA has primacy for small PWSs on tribal lands and those in the State of Wyoming. For these systems, EPA will incur costs and burdens similar to those incurred by 5 This estimate includes 4,318 small systems and large systems serving fewer than one million that are shown in the RIA decision tree plus three plants serving between 10,000 and 50,000 that belong to a system that serves more than one million. EPA evaluated the systems in this largest size category at a plant level rather than the system level because EPA has plant level data for these systems and some plants do not practice direct recycling. The cost analysis for the RIA and this ICR include these three plants.

6 This estimate includes 325 small systems and large systems serving fewer than one million that are shown in the RIA decision tree plus four plants serving between 50,000 and one million that belong to systems that serve more than one million. EPA evaluated the systems in this largest size category at a plant level rather than the system level because EPA has plant level data for these systems and some plants do not practice recycle. The cost analysis for the RIA and this ICR includes these three plants.

22 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 States with primacy. Since these PWSs are potential respondents to the rule, the associated implementation costs and burden that the EPA will incur have been included as part of the State costs and burdens. It is possible that Wyoming may achieve primacy again, and at that point it would assume the burden of rule implementation from the Agency. Given this possibility, and the difficulty of distinguishing small PWSs on tribal lands from those systems that are not on tribal lands, this analysis did not attempt to distinguish between the implementation burden and costs that would be incurred by States and the small portion that would be incurred by EPA ( i. e., the estimated EPA burden and costs under the FBRR have been included in the State burden and cost estimates presented above).

6d Respondent Universe An estimated 4,650 PWSs and 56 States will be affected by the FBRR during this 3 year ICR approval period ( Exhibit A1). Exhibits A6, A7, A17 and A18 in Appendix A present a detailed summary of anticipated FBRR respondents and responses. Exhibits A8   A11 provide a more detailed description of the responses, burden hours, and costs for each FBRR provision, and Exhibits A2   A5 present the anticipated temporal distribution of these responses, burdens, and costs over the ICR approval period. These same figures for the fourth, fifth, and sixth years following promulgation of FBRR are presented in Exhibits A12 A16.

6d( i) PWS Respondents per Provision EPA estimated that 2 percent or 93 small and large systems will apply for an alternate recycle location. These systems will also be required to meet either the conventional or direct filtration reporting requirements.

Approximately 4,321 small and large systems that practice conventional filtration will be required to conduct start up activities and submit a report to the State containing information on recycle status and flow, and a schematic diagram of the plant. 5 Finally, approximately 329 small and large systems that use direct filtration will need to conduct start up activities and report their recycling practices to the State. 6 August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 23 6e Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs This section provides a description of bottom line estimates for implementation of the rule. The bottom line burden hours and costs for systems and States are the summaries of the hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities. The first part of this section describes the estimated average annual costs and hourly burdens for respondents to the rule. The second part discusses the potential cost and burden to the EPA.

To provide a coherent understanding of how the burden for the rule would occur, the compliance schedule from Figure 2 is summarized below. Furthermore, to provide a better understanding of how the bottom line burden and cost estimates were obtained, the steps for deriving them from the cost data in Section 6b are summarized below as well.

The average number of respondents for each activity was multiplied by the unit cost and burden estimates for each activity, which were reported earlier. Summing the burden across activities and PWSs and States provides the bottom line burden estimate. Similarly, summing costs across activities and PWSs and States gives bottom line costs.

6e( i) Bottom Line Estimates for Respondents Figure 11 presents a summary of these bottom line estimates. Please refer to the exhibits found in Appendix A for detailed breakdowns of the preliminary estimates derived for each activity. For convenience and to ensure transparency, Figure 11 lists the exhibits in Appendix A from which the summary numbers were derived.

Figure 11. Summary of Respondents, Responses, Burden, and Costs for PWSs and States*

Average Number of Respondents Average Number of Responses Average Annual Burden ( hours) Average Annual Labor Cost PWSs 1,967 7,430 60,513 $ 1,281,512 Exhibit A6 A7 A4.5 A2.5 States 19 512 5,849 $ 136,182 Exhibit A6 A7 A5 A3 TOTAL 1,986 7,942 66,363 $ 1,417,694 * Columns and rows may not add to total due to rounding.

6e( i)( a) Bottom Line Burden Hours Information collection activities required of PWSs under this rule during the first 3 years following promulgation will result in an average annual burden of 60,513 hours. For States, the average annual burden will be 5,849 hours. 24 Information Collection Request for the FBRR August 2, 2000 6e( i)( b) Bottom Line Costs Neither PWSs nor the States are expected to incur any capital or O& M costs as a result of the information collection requirements for the rule. The average annual cost to PWSs and States for the recycling provisions is estimated at $ 1.3 million and $ 136,182, respectively.

6e( ii) Bottom Line Estimate for Agency As previously mentioned ( see Section 6f), costs that are likely to be incurred by Agency to administer the FBRR for tribal water systems and the State of Wyoming were included in the tally for States and territories because most costs were estimated on a per system basis and the portion of PWSs affected by this rule that are located on tribal land or in Wyoming is uncertain.

6f Reasons for Change in Burden The FBRR is a new regulation intended to work in concert with the LT1ESWTR to improve control of microbial pathogens in drinking water, specifically the protozoan Cryptosporidium, and address risk trade offs with disinfection byproducts.

6g Burden Statement During the 3 year approval period of this ICR ( 2000  2004), the estimated average annual per respondent burden for PWSs and States is 31 hours and 308 hours, respectively. The estimate for PWSs includes time for start up activities and for all of the subject conventional and direct filtration systems to complete reporting requirements. These estimates are based on annual average burdens and respondents in Figure 11.

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; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instruction 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 currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR, Part 9 and 48 CFR, Chapter 15.

Please send comments 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 to the Director Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; and 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 ICR number ( 1928.02) and OMB control number in any correspondence. August 2, 2000 Information Collection Request for the FBRR 25 Appendix A DETAILED BURDEN AND COST ESTIMATES Appendix B RESPONDENT UNIVERSE/ ACTIVITY SCHEDULE


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2937-2938]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-3071]

Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory
Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for
Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs
Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to
provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The
meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for
public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held virtually on March 28 and 29, 2023,
from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19
pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory
committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to
commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be
accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2022-N-3071. Please note that late, untimely
filed comments will not be considered. The docket will close on March
27, 2023. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will
accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of March 27,
2023. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/
paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are received on or
before that date.
    Comments received on or before March 14, 2023, will be provided to
the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA
will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and
consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-N-3071 for ``Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public
Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Bautista, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417,

Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected],
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register
about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced
advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to
provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check FDA's website
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down
to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the
advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. The
committees will discuss proposed changes to the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation
and Mitigation Strategy requirements to minimize burden on patients,
pharmacies, and prescribers while maintaining safe use of isotretinoin
oral capsules for patients.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at
the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the
link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll
down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting
will include slide presentations with audio components to allow the
presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an
in-person advisory committee meeting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before March 14, 2023, will be provided to the
committees. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 10:30 a.m. and 12 p.m. Eastern Time on March 29,
2023. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations
should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the
general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the
names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
March 6, 2023. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 7, 2023.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Philip Bautista (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least
7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 11, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-00795 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 33)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7836-7838]
[DOCID:fr20fe09-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0046; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-05-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC)
Models PW305A and PW305B Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    P&WC has determined that the Post-Service Bulletin (SB) PW300-
72-24287 High Pressure Compressor (HPC) drum rotor assemblies P/N
30B2478 and 30B2542 on PW 305A and 305B engines with single stage
coated labyrinth seals, are susceptible to developing significant
cracks in the region of the labyrinth seal.

We are proposing this AD to detect cracks in the HPC drum rotor
assembly, which could lead to an uncontained failure of the drum rotor
assembly and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0046;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-05-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-25R1, dated February
13, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    P&WC has determined that the Post-Service Bulletin (SB) PW300-
72-24287 High Pressure Compressor (HPC) drum rotor assemblies P/N
30B2478 and 30B2542 on PW 305A and 305B engines with single stage
coated labyrinth seals, are susceptible to developing significant
cracks in the region of the labyrinth seal.
    P&WC issued SB PW300-72-24462 for initial inspection of affected
HPC drum rotor assemblies for cracks. In addition, the PW305
Maintenance Manual (MM) 05-20-00 was revised (Revision No. 26)
accordingly, to add requirement for repeat inspection interval. A
new P/N 31B6325-01, HPC drum rotor assembly, which is not
susceptible to subject cracking, is made available through SB PW300-
72-24376, as terminating action for the required repeat inspection.
    Recent data (Ref: SIL: PW300-093) indicate that a number of
high-time Pre-SB-PW300-72-24376 HPC drum rotor assemblies (P/N
30B2478 and 30B2542), with potential for a hazardous disk failure in
consequence of non-compliance with the inspection requirements, are
still in-service. This AD is issued to mandate the inspection of the
affected P/N 30B2478 and 30B2542 HPC drum rotor assemblies in
accordance with PW305-MM-05-20-00 requirements.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. has issued Service Bulletin PW300-72-
24462, dated December 13, 1999. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada,
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information
provided by Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 540 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with this
proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts would cost about $5,000 per product. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be
$3,132,000. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty
coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;

    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Docket No. FAA-2009-0046; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NE-05-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 23, 2009.

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC)
Models PW305A and PW305B turbofan engines with high pressure
compressor (HPC) drum rotor assemblies, post P&WC Service Bulletin
(SB) PW300-72-24287 but without P&WC SB PW300-72-24376, installed.
These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Bombardier
Learjet M60 and Hawker Beechcraft 1000 series airplanes.

Reason

    (d) P&WC has determined that the Post-Service Bulletin (SB)
PW300-72-24287 High Pressure Compressor (HPC) drum rotor assemblies
P/N 30B2478 and 30B2542 on PW305A and 305B engines with single stage
coated labyrinth seals, are susceptible to developing significant
cracks in the region of the labyrinth seal.

We are issuing this AD to detect cracks in the HPC drum rotor
assembly, which could lead to an uncontained failure of the drum
rotor assembly and damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 500 flight hours after effective date of this
directive, borescope-inspect the interiors of affected HPC rotor
assemblies for cracks. If a crack is found, remove the engine before
next flight for HPC drum rotor replacement. Pratt & Whitney
Maintenance Manual, Chapter 72-00-00, contains information about
borescope inspection.

Credit for Previous Inspections

    (2) Inspection of affected HPC drum rotor assembly per P&WC SB
PW300-72-24462 and or SB PW305 MM 05-20-00 inspection requirements
prior to the effective date of this directive satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
    (3) Repeat borescope inspection per paragraph (e)(1) of this AD,
at intervals not exceeding 1,350 flight cycles. If a crack is found,
remove the engine before next flight for HPC rotor drum replacement.

Optional Terminating Action

    (4) Replacement of the affected HPC rotor assembly P/N 30B2478
or 30B2542 with Post-SB PW300-72-24376 assembly P/N 31B6325-01 or
later superseding P/N, will constitute terminating action for the
inspection requirements of the above paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of
the corrective action requirements of this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (g) Refer to Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-25R1,
dated February 13, 2008, and P&WC SB PW300-72-24462, dated December
13, 1999, for related information. Contact Pratt & Whitney Canada
Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J4G 1A1,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, for a copy of this service information.
    (h) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 13, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-3622 Filed 2-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P