[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23247-23250]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10692]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0006; FRL-9976-87]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or

delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number:
(703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected].; or Michael
Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number:
(703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected]. The mailing address
for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends
to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained
through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

Amended Tolerances for Inerts

    PP IN-11085. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0150). Sci Reg., Inc. 12733
Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22191 on behalf of Bayer CropScience
Biologics GmbH, requests to amend an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of the titanium dioxide (CAS
Reg. No. 13463-67-7) when used as an inert ingredient (carrier) in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    PP 7F8650. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0030). Makhteshim Agan of North America
(d/b/a ADAMA, 3120 Highlands Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604),
requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.680 for residues of the
nematicide, fluensulfone and its metabolite BSA expressed as
fluensulfone equivalents, in or on Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G
at 0.5 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at
1.5 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 20 ppm; Potato, chips
at 2 (ppm); Potato, granules/flakes at 2 ppm; Tomato, paste at 1.5ppm;
Vegetables, cucurbits, group 9 at 0.7 ppm; Vegetables, fruiting, group
8-10 at 0.7 ppm; Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 4 ppm;
Vegetables, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet at 50
ppm; Vegetables, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 4 ppm; and
Vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.8 ppm. The LC-MS/MS
methods are used to measure and evaluate the chemical fluensulfone plus
its metabolite 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3-ene-1-sulfonic acid (BSA)
expressed as fluensulfone equivalents. Contact: RD

New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP IN-11097. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0151). Nalco Water, an Ecolab
Company, 1601 W Diehl Road,

Haperville, IL 60563, requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of phosphonic acid,
[[phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[2,1-
ethanediylnitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakis-, sodium salt (CAS Reg. No.
22042-96-2) and phosphonic acid, [[phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[2,1-
ethanediylnitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakis-, disodium salt (CAS Reg. No.
94987-75-4) when used as inert ingredients in antimicrobial pesticide
formulations (food-contact surface sanitizing solutions) under 40 CFR
180.940(a) with an end use concentration not to exceed 10,000 parts per
million (ppm). The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. Contact: RD.
    2. PP IN-11101. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0163). Fine Agrochemicals Ltd., c/
o SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192, requests
to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of glycine betaine (CAS Reg. No. 107-43-7) when used as an
inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops
only under 40 CFR 180.920. The petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance Contact: RD.
    3. PP IN-11102. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0152). Nutrenare-AG, Inc., 4740 N.
Interstate 35 E, Waxahachie, Texas 75165, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of fulvic
acid (CAS Reg. No. 479-66-3) when used as an inert ingredient (carrier)
in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural
commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes
no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    4. PP IN-11104. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0156). Spring Trading Company on
behalf of Evonik Corporation, P.O. Box 34628, Richmond, VA 23234,
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of butoxypolypropylene glycol (CAS Reg. No. 9003-13-8);
oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono-2-propen-1-yl ether (CAS
Reg. No. 9041-33-2); poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-acetyl-[omega]-
(2-propen-1-yloxy)- (CAS Reg. No. 27252-87-5); and poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), [alpha]-acetyl-[omega]-(2-propen-1-yloxy)- (CAS Reg. No.
27252-80-8) when used as inert ingredients in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest
under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.930. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not
required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact:
RD.
    5. PP IN-11111. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0058). Lamberti USA, Incorporated,
P.O. Box 1000, Hungerford TX 77448, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-
2-propenyl)amino]-1-propanesulfonic acid monosodium salt polymer with
2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, C12-16 alkyl esters (CAS Reg. No. 2115702-
24-2) with a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of 10,000
when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR
180.1960. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance Contact: RD.
    6. PP IN-11113. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0157). Ecolab Inc., 655 Lone Oak
Dr., Egan, MN 55121, requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of lactic acid (CAS Reg. No.
50-21-5) when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide
formulations (food-contact surface sanitizing solutions) under 40 CFR
180.940(a) with an end use concentration not to exceed 10,0000 parts
per million (ppm). The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. Contact: RD

New Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP 7F8620. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0560). Andermatt Biocontrol AG,
Stahlermatten 6, CH-6146 Grossdietwil, Switzerland (c/o SciReg, Inc.,
12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192), requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subspecies
plantarum strain FZB42 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
subspecies plantarum strain FZB42 is being requested. Contact: BPPD.
    2. PP 7F8628. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0046). Bi-PA nv, Technologielaan 7,
B-1840 Londerzeel, Belgium (c/o SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop,
Woodbridge, VA 22192), requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide Trichoderma atroviride strain SC1 in or on all agricultural
commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because it is applying for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance and, accordingly, believes that the requirement for an
analytical method is not applicable. Contact: BPPD.
    3. PP 8F8663. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0158). Verdesian Life Sciences U.S.,
LLC, 1001 Winstead Dr., Suite 480, Cary, NC 27513, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR
part 180 for residues of the plant regulator (2S)-5-Oxopyrrolidine-2-
carboxylic Acid (L-PCA) in or on agricultural crops. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because the chemical is of low
toxicity and a tolerance exemption is being proposed. Contact: BPPD.

New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    PP 7F8612. EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0002. BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive,
P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3528,
requests to establish tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide mefentrifluconazole (BAS 750 F); 2-[4-(4-chlorophenoxy)-2-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-1-(1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-yl)propan-2-ol] in or
on the following raw agricultural commodities: Almond, hulls at 4 parts
per million (ppm); barley, hay at 15 ppm; barley, straw at 30 ppm;
cattle, fat at 0.3 ppm; cattle, kidney at 0.2 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.5
ppm; cattle, meat at 0.09 ppm; cattle, muscle at 0.04 ppm; cereal
grains crop group 15, except wheat and corn at 3 ppm; cherry subgroup
12-12A at 4 ppm; citrus, oil at 30 ppm; corn, aspirated grain fractions
at 0.3 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, stover at 9
ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 6 ppm; corn, sweet, grain at 0.02 ppm;
corn, sweet, stover at 6 ppm; foliage of legume vegetables, except
soybean, crop subgroup 7A at 20 ppm; forages of cereal grains, crop
group 16 at 4 ppm; goat, fat at 0.3 ppm; goat, kidney at 0.2 ppm; goat,
liver at 0.5 ppm; goat, meat at 0.09 ppm; goat, muscle at 0.04 ppm;
grape, raisin at 4 ppm; grapefruit subgroup 10-10C at 1 ppm; horse, fat
at 0.3 ppm; horse, kidney at 0.2 ppm; horse, liver at 0.5 ppm; horse,
meat at 0.09 ppm; horse, muscle at 0.04 ppm; legume vegetables
(succulent or dried) crop group 6, except lentil at 0.1 ppm; lemon/lime
subgroup 10-10B at 2 ppm; lentil, dry at 2 ppm; milk at 0.03 ppm;
orange subgroup 10-10A at 1 ppm;

peach subgroup 12-12B at 2 ppm; peanut at 0.01 ppm; peanut, hay at 30
ppm; plum prune, fresh at 4 ppm; plum subgroup 12-12C at 2 ppm; pome
fruit crop group 11-10 at 1.5 ppm; poultry, eggs at 0.01 ppm; poultry,
fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, liver at 0.01 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.01 ppm;
poultry, muscle at 0.01 ppm; poultry, skin at 0.01 ppm; rapeseed
subgroup 20A at 1 ppm; rice, straw at 9 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.3 ppm;
sheep, kidney at 0.2 ppm; sheep, liver at 0.5 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.09
ppm; sheep, muscle at 0.04 ppm; small fruit vine climbing, except fuzzy
kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F at 1.5 ppm; sorghum, stover at 9 ppm;
soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 5 ppm; soybean, forage at 4 ppm;
soybean, hay at 15 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.3 ppm; sugar beet at 0.6
ppm; sugar beet, top at 9 ppm; swine, fat at 0.01 ppm; swine, liver at
0.01 ppm; swine, meat at 0.01 ppm; swine, skin at 0.01 ppm; tree nut
crop group 14-12 at 0.06 ppm; tuberous and corm vegetables subgroup 1C
at 0.02 ppm; wheat, aspirated grain fractions at 20 ppm; wheat, grain
at 0.4 ppm; wheat, hay at 8 ppm; and wheat, straw at 30 ppm. The
independently validated method (L0295/01, based on the QuEChERS method)
was used for analyzing residues of BAS 750 F with appropriate
sensitivity and selectivity in all crops and processed commodities. Two
independently validated methods (L0272/01 and L0309/01) have been
submitted for analyzing residues of BAS 750 F and its metabolite
M750F022 (and conjugates) in animal commodities with appropriate
sensitivity and selectivity, to measure and evaluate the chemical
mefentrifluconazole. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-10692 Filed 5-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 61416-61417]
[DOCID:fr16oc08-48]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8730-2; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-00461]

Draft Toxicological Review of Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene): In Support of the Summary Information in the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of peer-review meeting.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
will convene an independent panel of experts and organize and conduct a
review of the draft document titled, ``Toxicological Review of
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene): In Support of Summary
Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/
635/R-08/011A). The NAS is organizing, convening, and conducting this
independent peer-review meeting. A public meeting of the NAS peer
review panel will be held on November 13, 2008.
    The draft document was prepared by the National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and
Development and was released on June 26, 2008, (73 FR 36321) solely for
the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable
information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally
disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed
to represent any Agency policy or determination.
    The draft ``Toxicological Review of Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene): In Support of Summary Information on the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' is available on the
Internet on NCEA's home page under a June 26, 2008, Recent Additions
entry and the Data and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
Copies are not available from NAS.
    In previous Federal Register notices concerning this draft
document, EPA announced a 90-day public comment period that ended
September 24, 2008, (73 FR 36321), as well as a public

listening session that was held on August 18 (73 FR 43932). Submitted
public comments may be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0461. EPA intends to forward public
comments submitted in accordance with the June 26, 2008, Federal
Register notice to the NAS for consideration by the external peer
review panel prior to the November 13, 2008, meeting. In finalizing the
draft document, EPA will consider public comments and recommendations
from the expert panel.
    NAS invites the public to register to attend this peer review panel
meeting as observers. In addition, NAS invites the public to give oral
and/or provide written comments at the meeting regarding the draft
document under review. Space is limited, and reservations will be
accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. A time limit for
presentations will be specified by the NAS based on the number of
registrants.

DATES: The peer-review panel meeting will be held on November 13, 2008,
beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The peer-review panel meeting will be held at the NAS's Keck
Center, 500 Fifth St., NW., Washington, DC 20001, in Room 201. For
details about registering for and attending the meeting, please see the
NAS's Web site at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/
projectview.aspx?key=48697.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding information,
registration, access or services for individuals with disabilities, or
logistics for the external peer-review panel meeting should be directed
to NAS. For further information, please see the NAS's Web site http://
www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=48697. For technical
information about the document, please contact the Information
Management Team, NCEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 703-347-
8691; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 8, 2008.
Peter Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E8-24595 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Information Collection Request for the State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis March 14, 2000 Prepared by:

The Cadmus Group, Inc. 135 Beaver St. Waltham, MA 02452 Prepared for:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 401 M Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 i CONTENTS A. 1 Identification of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. 1. a Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. 1. b Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. 2 Need for and Use of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. 2. a Authority and Need for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. 2. b Practical Utility/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. 3 Nonduplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. 3. a Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. 3. b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. 3. c Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. 3. d Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. 3. e General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. 3. f Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. 3. g Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. 4 The Respondents and the Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. 4. a Respondents and SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. 4. b Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ( i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( ii) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. 5 The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology and Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. 5. a Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. 5. b Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. 5. c Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A. 5. d Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A. 6 Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. 6. a Estimating Burden and Costs to the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. 6. b Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A. 6. c Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. 6. d Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. 6. e Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Attachment 1: Federal Register Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Attachment 2: Burden and Cost Tables for State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Attachment 3: State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis Activity Based Workload Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 2 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT A. 1 Identification of the Information Collection A. 1. a Title of the Information Collection The title of this ICR is the Information Collection Request for the State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis ( EPA ICR Number 1945.01)

A. 1. b Short Characterization The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), in partnership with States, is conducting the State Water Quality Management Gap Analysis ( Gap Analysis) to help enumerate current and future funding needs and to help identify innovative strategies for reducing resource gaps. To gather preliminary information in a short time frame, the Gap Analysis was divided into two phases. Phase I consisted of the development of an initial, national estimate of the resource gap faced by water quality management programs to provide a general idea of the magnitude of the resource gap faced by States.

Phase II of the Gap Analysis involves developing a detailed, activity based workload model to provide a common framework and consistent methodology for States and EPA to estimate what it costs the States to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). In order to complete the model, EPA's Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM) needs to gather data on the resources needed by each State for water quality management activities.

This is a one time collection effort by OWM and responses to this ICR are voluntary. The collection is necessary to develop a detailed activity based workload model that will provide an estimate of the resource needs facing water quality management programs, both for individual States and the nation. EPA will use the collected information to estimate resource needs for water quality management activities.

This effort will involve an estimated 20 Respondents, requiring an average of $ 7,220 and 180.5 hours per Respondent for each Respondent that chooses to submit information. Section A. 6 Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection, provides a detailed description of the unit burden and costs for this collection. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 3 A. 2 Need for and Use of the Collection A. 2. a Authority and Need for the Collection EPA is collecting the information to estimate the total State resources needed to address specific water quality management problems and meet the objectives of the CWA. This effort, supported by EPA and the States, is necessary to develop strategies for better managing state water quality programs implementing the CWA. Responses to this collection are voluntary. The activity based workload model will provide an estimate of the resource need and the resource gap, both for individual States and the nation, for water quality management activities. EPA will use the information to estimate resource needs for the management and administration of the water quality programs under 33 U. S. C. Section 1251 et. seq.

A. 2. b Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The information will be collected by EPA and made available to the States and to the public in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. EPA will use the collected data to develop a workload based national estimate of the resources needed to achieve the objectives of the CWA. The estimates will improve the Agency's and State's abilities to administer and manage water quality management programs.

The information that will be collected from each Respondent will likely have several secondary uses, both inside and outside of EPA. For example:

States may use the model for workload planning and budgeting. The model will be flexible enough to capture State specific programs and approaches.

States and EPA may use the collected data to document budget requests. Similar models have been developed for other programs and State program managers report that they are excellent tools for explaining their budget to State legislatures.

EPA and States may use the data to identify efficiencies that can be realized in State water quality management programs. For example, as States share pricing information for various program activities, it may ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 4 become apparent that a particular State has developed a more efficient means of accomplishing a particular activity.

EPA and States may use the data to develop a framework for prioritization by linking staffing and resource needs to watersheds, which will enable States to estimate specific environmental or economic benefits that might be achieved by meeting these staffing and resource needs. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 5 A. 3 Nonduplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria The following sections verify that this information collection satisfies the Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB's) nonduplication and consultation guidelines.

A. 3. a Nonduplication The information will be created by the Respondents; it does not duplicate information otherwise reasonably accessible to EPA.

. A. 3. b Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB EPA published a notice in the Federal Register ( Attachment 1) on January 13, 2000. The notice requested public comment on this ICR. No comments were received.

A. 3. c Consultations EPA has consulted with several State water quality management personnel on the burden and cost estimates provided in this ICR including:

New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. . Their comments and suggestions have been carefully considered in the development of this document. None anticipated any capital, start up, or operation and maintenance costs, or any change in record keeping practices.

The following list indicates the States, other interested stakeholders, and the EPA Regions that EPA consulted to develop the workload model that will be used in this collection. Each of the Regions, States, organizations, or associations assisted EPA with determining the activities and the default values for each of the programs areas; the development of the necessary linkages between the modules so that the final model covered all the activities in State water quality management programs; and reviewing, commenting on, and testing the accuracy, utility, and usability of the model. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 6 States Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Georgia Department of Natural Resources Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Maine Department of Environmental Protection Maryland Department of Natural Resources Massachusetts Department of Environmental Conservation Michigan Department of Environmental Quality New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New York Department of Environmental Conservation North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Associations American Clean Water Federation Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators Environmental Council of States Water Environment Federation Wisconsin Association of Lakes EPA Regions Region V Region X A. 3. d Effects of Less Frequent Collection This is a one time collection of information from the Respondents with no record keeping requirements.

A. 3. e General Guidelines This collection does not violate any of the OMB guidelines for information collection activities. Specifically, the Respondents are not required to:

1. Report information to EPA more than quarterly; ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 7 2. Prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of a request;

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

4. Retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant inaid or tax records, for more than three years;

5. Participate in a statistical survey that is not designed to produce data that can be generalized to the universe of the study;

6. Use a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

7. 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 8. Submit proprietary, trade secret, or other confidential information unless EPA can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

A. 3. f Confidentiality This information collection does not require Respondents to disclose confidential information. Respondents are not obliged to respond to this strictly voluntary information collection.

A. 3. g Sensitive Questions This information collection does not ask questions pertaining to sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 8 A. 4 The Respondents and the Information Requested A. 4. a Respondents and SIC Codes The Respondents to this information collection include personnel from State water quality management programs. The Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code for the State agencies that include the water quality management programs are classified under either 9511   Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management or 9431   Administration of Public Health Programs. State licensing/ certification agencies are classified under 9651.

A. 4. b Information Requested EPA is asking States to provide estimates of resource needs for water quality management program activities. EPA will provide the States with four integrated modules ( the Gap Analysis model) that cover activities in the following program areas: ( 1) point source controls ( permitting, compliance, and enforcement); ( 2) total maximum daily loads ( TMDLs), reporting ( as required under CWA 303( d) and ( 305( b)), water quality standards, and monitoring; ( 3) nonpoint source and coastal nonpoint source management, clean lakes, and wetlands; ( 4) coastal and marine programs ( related to the objectives of the CWA), clean water state revolving fund and grants management, data management, planning, and special regional initiatives. All modules were designed to capture the total workload need required to perform all activities associated with the development, planning, coordination, management, and implementation of State water quality management programs.

Each of the four modules are composed of sub modules which contain lists of activities in each of the program areas. The four modules will be integrated so that estimates for various program areas can be combined into a total estimate across all program areas.

To reduce the burden of the collection, the Gap Analysis model is being designed to maximize State flexibility. It will contain default values developed for the national estimate of the resource gap faced by State water quality management programs. Respondents can accept the default values or enter an appropriate value for their individual State. For example, if the default, average, fully loaded salary for an FTE is $ 70,000, the individual Respondent can accept this value or alter the cost of an FTE based on the FTE cost in their State. If the default value is altered, the change will cascade throughout the rest of the module. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 9 There are no record keeping requirements associated with this information collection.

( i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements For each activity listed in the sub modules, each State will be asked to provide an estimate of:

The unit of analysis ( e. g. annual, one time, grants issued, permits issued, sample events, special studies, FTEs, square miles etc.)

Units per year

The required effort ( FTE hours/ unit)

Other Unit costs ( dollars/ unit)

Based on the information provided by each State, the Gap Analysis model will automatically calculate the total annual effort ( FTEs/ yr), total other costs ( dollars/ yr), and the total annual costs for each line item ( dollars/ yr).

( ii) Respondent Activities In order to provide the data items listed above each Respondent will: ,

Review the workload modules, instructions, and accompanying materials; coordinate with program area managers to determine the appropriate personnel for providing estimates; and distribute the modules to the appropriate program area staff. Some States may contact EPA to obtain assistance in responding to this ICR.

Develop estimates of resource needs by searching data sources ( e. g. water quality program management budgets) and consulting personnel who are familiar with the activities listed in each sub module.

Enter estimates of resource needs into the module. Once estimates have been developed, the State will need to enter the data into the model. Estimates can be provided in hard copy, on the web site, or though other electronic means. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 10

Review estimates, make any necessary revisions, and submit the modules to EPA.

Respond to questions from EPA about the estimates and provide additional information, if necessary. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 11 A. 5 The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology and Information Management A. 5. a Agency Activities The following EPA activities are associated with this information collection for the State Water Quality Program Gap Analysis:

Creating a letter requesting information from State agencies

Developing the modules listing activities and default values to send to the States

Responding to questions from States about the information collection

Reviewing the submitted information from States

Auditing information to assess quality

Compiling and storing the data

Requesting, if necessary, additional information from States

Analyzing and extrapolating the data A. 5. b Collection Methodology and Management This section describes the steps EPA has taken to ensure that the collected information is accurate, reliable, and retrievable. The steps have been developed based on comments and advice from EPA staff, State staff, and other interested Stakeholders.

Development of the Gap Analysis Model During the initial development of the Phase II Gap Analysis model, EPA worked with focus groups that consisted of State and EPA representatives. Because of the size and complexity of State water quality management programs, there were four focus group sessions, each addressing particular ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 12 program areas. The four sessions covered point source controls, including permitting, compliance, and enforcement; standards, ambient monitoring, 303( d) listing, 305( b) reports and total maximum daily loads ( TMDLs); nonpoint source controls, wetlands, and clean lakes; and coastal and marine programs, clean water state revolving fund ( CWSRF) and grants management, data management, planning, and regional initiatives.

Focus groups met four times, in Albany, NY; Renton, WA; Madison, WI; and Atlanta, GA. The outcome of each session was a draft workload module for a particular group of program areas. The groups determined the activities and default values that should be included in each of the modules and then reviewed, commented on, and tested the accuracy, utility, and usability of each of the modules. The focus groups also developed the necessary linkages between the modules so that the final model incorporated all of the applicable State water quality management activities.

The outcome of this process was the development of a model that includes consensus based definitions of activities in each program area and default pricing for each activity ( i. e., the level of effort required to produce an output). EPA and the focus groups have also identified national databases that can provide uniform sources of information on critical variables that affect workload ( e. g. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits database).

Data Quality Data quality will be assured by implementing the following mechanisms throughout the collection and processing phases of the information collection:

Detailed Instructions. Through the focus group process, EPA has developed detailed instructions and supplemental materials that explain exactly what is being asked of States. The materials include explanations of the assumptions that went into the model's development and a frequently asked questions document that further explains how each module works, the scope of each module, how the module relates to the other modules, and the general assumptions underlying each module.

EPA will also be available to answer any questions that arise once the model and supplemental materials are sent to the States. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 1These definitions were taken from section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA).

13 Data Entry. All information will be reviewed for completeness and internal consistency. States will be contacted for additional or clarifying information, if necessary.

Data Systems. EPA is developing an executable, web based application that will allow States to access, download, and verify their data. EPA will use a commercial " off the shelf" program, such as Microsoft Excel   , to manage the information.

Public Access to Data The Agency will make the collected information available to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA policies and procedures.

A. 5. c Small Entity Flexibility In developing this ICR, EPA considered the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules that have a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." Under the RFA small entities include " small businesses," " small organizations" and " small government jurisdictions." These terms are defined below. 1 A small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA) regulations under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.

A small organization is any non profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field.

A small governmental jurisdiction is the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district or special district that has a population of fewer than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian Tribes. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 14 EPA is not promulgating a rule for any activities associated with the ICR. Therefore, this ICR is not subject to a regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of the RFA. In addition, since OWM is only requesting information from State governments, small entities will not be significantly impacted.

EPA also considered the requirement of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) to minimize the burden of the information collection on small entities. There will be no burden placed on small entities by this ICR and therefore EPA has met the requirements of SBREFA.

A. 5. d Collection Schedule Upon receipt of approval for this collection from OMB, EPA will send the request for information ( modules with default values and detailed instructions) to State water quality management personnel. EPA will request that the States submit their values or accept the default values within 45 days of receiving the information request. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 15 A. 6 Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection This section describes the annual burden and cost for the information collection activities of the State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis. The burden and cost estimates for the States are shown in Section A. 6. a and the Agency's burden and cost estimates are shown in Section A. 6. b.

A. 6. a Estimating Burden and Costs to the States Upon receiving the modules and additional materials from EPA, a State water quality senior manager will review the information and decide whether to respond. Since responding to this ICR is voluntary, EPA estimates that 20 States will provide estimates of resource needs. This response rate is consistent with similar voluntary collection efforts conducted in the past and with feedback provided by focus group participants.

The senior manager receiving the materials will need to coordinate with program managers ( i. e. personnel responsible for non point source activities, coastal zone activities etc.), explain the request and the Gap Analysis project, and distribute the various components of the model to appropriate staff. These activities are estimated to take 6 hours.

The various program managers will develop estimates of resource needs by examining the activities and default values, researching data sources such as past budgets and performance summaries, and meeting with staff. These activities are estimated to take 145 hours.

Each program manager will then enter the estimates or resource needs into the model or will accept the default values. The estimated time to complete these activities is 3 hours.

Once the model is complete, EPA assumes that each State will review the estimates, revise the information if necessary, and submit the final product to EPA. Reviewing and revising the estimates may involve coordinating with various program managers to ensure that the estimate are accurate. These activities are estimated to take 26 hours.

Once the model has been submitted by the participating States, EPA estimates that 5 States will need to be contacted for additional information concerning their submissions. Responding to EPA's request for additional information is estimated to take 0.5 hours. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 2These estimates are consistent with the estimates used in the approved Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation ICR, EPA ICR # 1882.01, June 1999, and the 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey ICR, EPA ICR # 1708.02, approved October 1998.

16 Table 6.1 illustrates the estimated average annual burden and costs associated with responding to this ICR. For purposes of calculating State burden, EPA assumed that one FTE is equivalent to 1,800 hours worked per year and a fully loaded cost of $ 72,000 to employ one State full time equivalent ( FTE) with managerial responsibilities. 2 EPA assumed that program mangers will provide the requested information due to their comprehensive knowledge of water quality management programs and their detailed understanding of each program area. There are no capital or operations and maintenance costs associated with this ICR.

Table 6.1  State Burden and Costs Activities Number of State Respondents Frequency of Response Burden per State ( Hours) Labor Cost per State ($)

Review workload model, coordinate distribution, and distribute 20 1 6 $ 240 Develop estimates of resource needs 20 1 145 $ 5,800 Enter estimates of resource needs 20 1 3 $ 120 Review estimates, revise if necessary, and submit workload model to EPA 20 1 26 $ 1,040 Responding to EPA requests for additional information 5 1 0.5 $ 20 TOTALS 180.5 $ 7,220 A. 6. b Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Due to the complexity of water quality management programs, certain activities associated with the development of the Gap Analysis will fall to managerial level personnel. These activities require a comprehensive knowledge of program activities, how these activities interrelate, and the resources necessary to manage and implement State water quality programs. Other tasks, such as entering data into a database, do not require specialized knowledge and therefore will be completed by technical level staff.

EPA is currently developing the activity based workload model for distribution to all 50 States. EPA will update the modules to reflect recent regulatory and policy ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 17 requirements that may have impacted the assumptions and pricing of activities included in the draft modules, integrate the modules, make final calibrations to the model, and test the calibrated model for accuracy and reliability. EPA will also prepare a User's Guide and other documentation to provide to the States with the final model. These activities are estimated to take 200 hours of managerial level time.

Based on past experience in developing the national estimate of State water quality management program needs, EPA estimates that 20 States will have questions about the modules and the Gap Analysis project. EPA estimates that it will take 20 minutes of an Agency program managers time, per State, to respond to questions and provide additional information.

Since this is a voluntary request for information, EPA estimates that 20 States will submit responses. An EPA technical level FTE will review and audit the submitted information, compile the responses, and store the submitted data in a database. Reviewing and auditing the information is estimated to take one hour per response and compiling and storing the submitted data is estimated to take an additional 30 minutes per response.

After reviewing the responses, EPA assumes that additional information or clarification will be necessary from five of the States that have submitted information. These activities are estimated to take a technical level FTE 15 minutes per State to complete.

To complete the Gap Analysis, EPA will analyze the information based solely on the default values in the model, based on a combination of the default values and State data, and based on State data and an extrapolation to a national estimate. EPA will coordinate with water quality management program personnel to ensure accuracy of the analysis. These activities are estimated to take 300 hours of managerial level time.

For purposes of calculating Agency burden, EPA assumed that one FTE is equivalent to 1,800 hours worked per year ( see footnote # 2). For labor costs, EPA assumed a fully loaded cost of $ 71,043 ( GS 11 Step 5) to employ one Agency FTE with managerial responsibilities and $ 58,714 ( GS 9 Step 5) to employ one Agency FTE with technical responsibilities. EPA multiplied the basic hourly rates by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6 to get the fully loaded labor rates.

Table 6.2 illustrates the total estimated burden and costs for activities associated with developing an estimate of the resource gap for State water quality management programs.

Table 6.2  Agency Burden and Costs ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 3For one activity, the number of Respondents is 5. The Total Burden represents the total number of hours needed by all Respondents for all activities.

18 Activities Hours per Activity Labor Cost per Hour Total Cost per Activity Develop and distribute the workload model 200 $ 39.47 $ 7,894 Respond to questions concerning the model 6.7 $ 39.47 $ 263 Review and audit submitted information 20 $ 32.62 $ 652 Compile and store submitted data 10 $ 32.62 $ 326 Review and audit additional information, if requested 1.25 $ 32.62 $ 41 Analyze and extrapolate the data and prepare report 300 $ 39.47 $ 11,841 TOTALS 538   $ 21,017 A. 6. c Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Table EPA will request information from 50 States. Based on the expected responses from 20 States, the total burden for submitting the information is estimated to be 3,602.5 hours at a cost of $ 144,100. The total estimated Agency burden is 538 hours at a cost of $ 21,017.

Table 6.3 illustrates the total estimated burden and labor costs for both the States and the Agency for activities associated with developing an estimate of the resource gap for State water quality management programs.

Table 6.3  Total Burden and Cost for the ICR for the State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis Respondent Number of Respondents Total Burden ( hours) Total Cost State 203 3,602.5 $ 144,100 Agency 1 538 $ 21,017 TOTALS 21 4,141 $ 165,117 Burden per Response 197.17 Cost per Response $ 7,863 ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 19 A. 6. d Reasons for Change in Burden This ICR does not renew or modify an existing ICR.

A. 6. e Burden Statement Burden statement: The reporting burden for a State water quality management program that chooses to respond to this ICR is estimated to average 180.5 hours. The estimate includes time required to:

Review the workload modules, instructions, and accompanying materials; coordinate with program area managers to determine the appropriate personnel for providing estimates; and distribute the modules to the appropriate program area staff. Some States may contact EPA to obtain assistance in responding to this ICR.

Develop estimates of resource needs by searching data sources ( e. g. water quality program management budgets) and consulting personnel who are familiar with the activities listed in each sub module.

Enter estimates of resource needs into the module. Once estimates have been developed, the State will need to enter the data into the model. Estimates can be provided in hard copy, on the web site, or though other electronic means.

Review estimates, make any necessary revisions, and submit the modules to EPA.

Respond to questions from EPA about the estimates and provide additional information, if necessary.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology, and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 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 ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 20 currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulation are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

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 through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Stategies Division, Office of Environmental Information, U. S. EPA ( 2822), 401 M. St., S. W., Washington, D. C. 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. Include the EPA ICR number ( 1945.01) and OMB control number in any correspondence. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 21 Attachment 1 Federal Register Notice ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 Insert copy of the actual pages from the Federal Register or a printout from the Internet version to prove that the first Federal Register notice was published. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 21 Attachment 2 Burden and Cost Tables for State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 22 Activities Number of Respondents Frequency of Response Burden per Respondent ( hrs) Cost per Respondent ($) Total Burden ( hrs) Total Cost ($)

Review workload model, coordinate distribution, and distribute 20 1 6 $ 240 120 $ 4,800 Develop estimates of resource needs 20 1 145 $ 5,800 2,900 $ 116,000 Enter estimates of resource needs 20 1 3 $ 120 60 $ 2,400 Review estimates, revise if necessary, and submit workload model to EPA 20 1 26 $ 1,040 520 $ 20,800 Responding to EPA requests for additional information 5 1 0.5 $ 20 2.5 $ 100 TOTALS 180.5 $ 7,220 3,602.5 $ 144,100 Assumptions: Fully loaded Program Manager Cost $ 72,000 Hours per FTE per year 1,800 Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis: Information Collection Request State Burden and Cost Estimates EPA estimates that 20 States will submit workload estimates that differ from the default values. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 23 Activities Number of Hours ( hrs) Cost per Hour ($) Total Cost ($)

( 1) Develop and distribute the workload model 200 $ 39.47 $ 7,894 ( 2) Respond to questions concerning the model 6.67 $ 39.47 $ 263 ( 3) Review and audit submitted information 20 $ 32.62 $ 652 ( 4) Compile and store submitted data 10 $ 32.62 $ 326 ( 5) Review and audit additional information, if requested 1.25 $ 32.62 $ 41 ( 6) Analyze and extrapolate the data and prepare report 300 $ 39.47 $ 11,841 TOTALS 538 $ 21,017 Assumptions: Basic Salary Multiplier Fully loaded Salary for GS 11/ 5: $ 44,402 1.60 $ 71,043 Salary for GS 9/ 5: $ 36,696 1.60 $ 58,714 Hours per FTE per year: 1,800 Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis: Information Collection Request Agency Burden and Cost Estimates The burden estimate for activity ( 2) assumes that 20 States will request more information about the module and the gap analysis project. EPA estimates that 20 States will submit information. Therefore, burden estimates for activities ( 3) and ( 4) were based on 20 States submitting responses. The burden estimate for activity ( 5) was based on the assumption that additional information would be required from 5 of the 20 States submitting responses. Due to the nature of the activity and the complexity of water quality programs, EPA estimates that a manager will complete tasks ( 1), ( 2), and ( 6). Since tasks ( 3), ( 4), and ( 5) require less specialized knowledge, EPA estimates that these tasks will be completed by technical level staff. ICR for the State Water Quality Management Program Gap Analysis 3/ 14/ 00 24 Attachment 3 State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis Activity Based Workload Model


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1723-1726]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1314; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-227-AD;
Amendment 39-17312; AD 2012-26-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This
emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators
of these airplanes. This AD requires revising the airplane flight
manual (AFM) to advise the flight crew of emergency procedures for
addressing Angle of Attack (AoA) sensor blockage. This AD also provides
for optional terminating action for the AFM revision, which involves
replacing AoA sensor conic plates with AoA sensor flat plates. This AD
was prompted by a report that an airplane equipped with AoA sensors
installed with conic plates recently experienced blockage of all
sensors during climb, leading to autopilot disconnection and activation
of the alpha protection (Alpha Prot) when Mach number was increased. We
are issuing this AD to prevent reduced control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective January 24, 2013 to all persons except
those persons

to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2012-26-51,
issued on December 17, 2012, which contained the requirements of this
amendment.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication identified in the AD as of January
24, 2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by February 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-227-1149; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On December 17, 2012, we issued Emergency AD 2012-26-51, which
requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to advise the flight
crew of emergency procedures for addressing AoA sensor blockage. This
emergency AD also provides for optional terminating action for the AFM
revision, which involves replacing AoA sensor conic plates with AoA
sensor flat plates. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known
U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0264-E, dated December 17, 2012
(referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products.
    EASA has advised that an Airbus Model A330 airplane equipped with
AoA sensors installed with conic plates recently experienced blockage
of all sensors during climb, leading to autopilot disconnection and
activation of the alpha protection (Alpha Prot) when Mach number was
increased. Based on the results of subsequent analysis, it is suspected
that these conic plates may have contributed to the event.
Investigations are ongoing to determine what caused the blockage of
these AoA sensors.
    Blockage of two or three AoA sensors at the same angle may cause
the Alpha Prot of the normal law to activate. Under normal flight
conditions (in normal law), if the Alpha Prot activates and Mach number
increases, the flight control laws order a pitch down of the airplane
that the flight crew might not be able to counteract with a side stick
deflection, even in the full backward position. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in reduced control of the airplane.
    EASA also issued Emergency AD 2012-0258-E, dated December 4, 2012,
for Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes to require an amendment of the
AFM to ensure that flight crews apply the applicable emergency
procedure.
    AoA sensor conic plates of similar design are also installed on
Model A320 series airplanes. Installation of these AoA sensor conic
plates was required for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes by EASA AD 2012-0236, dated November 9, 2012 (corrected
November 12, 2012). Subsequently, EASA issued AD 2012-0236R1, dated
December 17, 2012, to remove the requirement to install AoA sensor
conic plates.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR286,
Issue 1.0, dated December 17, 2012, to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). The temporary revision provides
information to advise the flight crew of emergency procedures for
addressing AoA sensor blockage.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

    This AD requires revising the Emergency Procedures section of the
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AFM to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/
A321 Temporary Revision TR286, Issue 1.0, dated December 17, 2012, to
advise the flight crew of emergency procedures for addressing AOA
sensor blockage. This AD also provides for optional terminating action
for the AFM revision, which involves replacing AoA sensor conic plates
with AoA sensor flat plates.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim measure to mitigate risks
associated with the installation of AoA sensor conic plates. Further AD
action might follow.

Clarification of Service Information References

    In the ``Relevant Service Information'' section of this AD and
paragraph (h) of this AD, we have clarified that Airbus A318/A319/A320/
A321 Temporary Revision TR286, Issue 1.0, dated December 17, 2012, is
to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). We had
not specified ``to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM)'' in those locations in the emergency AD. This change does
not affect AD compliance.
    We have also included Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision
TR286, Issue 1.0, dated December 17, 2012, to the Airbus A318/A319/
A320/A321 AFM in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, which specifies
references for related information. We had not listed the temporary
revision in the corresponding paragraph of the emergency AD (paragraph
(l)(3) of the emergency AD). This change does not affect AD compliance.

    We incorrectly referred to a service bulletin number as ``Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-32-1521, dated * * * '' in the
``Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information''
section in the preamble of the emergency AD. The correct service
bulletin reference is ``Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-34-1521,
dated * * * '' That reference is correct in the regulatory section of
the emergency AD. We have revised the ``Differences Between the AD and
the MCAI or Service Information'' section of this AD accordingly. This
change does not affect AD compliance.

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The applicability of EASA Emergency AD 2012-0264-E, dated December
17, 2012, is limited to airplanes having an AoA sensor conic plate
installed either in production or in service. However, this emergency
AD applies to all of the affected airplane models; and this AD
prohibits installation of an AoA sensor conic plate in service as
specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-34-1521, dated May
7, 2012; and Revision 01, dated September 12, 2012; on any airplane as
of the effective date of this AD.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because we
received a report indicating that an airplane equipped with AoA sensors
installed with conic plates recently experienced blockage of all
sensors during climb, leading to autopilot disconnection and activation
of the alpha protection (Alpha Prot) when Mach number was increased.
This condition could result in reduced control of the airplane.
Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2012-1314 and
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-227-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 793 airplanes of U.S. registry.
(We have confirmed that at least 65 airplanes have the affected
configuration; however, there could be as many as 100.)
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM Revision (100 airplanes)..........  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $8,500
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the optional terminating action specified in this
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-26-51 Airbus: Amendment 39-17312; Docket No. FAA-2012-1314;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-227-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 24, 2013 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency
AD 2012-26-51, issued on December 17, 2012, which contained the
requirements of this amendment.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -
133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -
233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -
231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category, all serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 34: Navigation.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that an airplane
equipped with Angle of Attack (AoA) sensors (with conic plates
installed) recently experienced blockage of all sensors during
climb, leading to autopilot disconnection and activation of the
alpha protection (Alpha Prot) when Mach number was increased. We are
issuing this AD to prevent reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Flight Manual Revision

    For airplanes on which an AoA sensor conic plate is installed in
production by Airbus modification 153213 or 153214, or in-service as
specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-34-1521, dated
May 7, 2012; or Revision 01, dated September 12, 2012: Within 5 days
after the effective date of this AD, revise the Emergency Procedures
of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) by
inserting Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR286, Issue
1.0, dated December 17, 2012, to advise the flight crew of emergency
procedures for addressing AoA sensor blockage. When the information
in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR286, Issue 1.0,
dated December 17, 2012, is included in the general revisions of the
AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, and the
temporary revision may be removed.

(h) Optional Terminating Action

    Modification of an airplane by replacing AoA sensor conic plates
with AoA sensor flat plates, in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, constitutes terminating action for the AFM
revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD; and after the
modification has been done, Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary
Revision TR286, Issue 1.0, dated December 17, 2012, to the Airbus
A318/A319/A320/A321 AFM, may be removed from the AFM.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
AoA sensor conic plate in service using Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A320-34-1521, dated May 7, 2012; or Revision 01, dated
September 12, 2012; on any airplane.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For further information about this AD, contact: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency Airworthiness Directive
2012-0264-E, dated December 17, 2012; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Temporary Revision TR286, Issue 1.0, dated December 17, 2012, to the
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AFM; for related information.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Temporary Revision TR286, Issue
1.0, dated December 17, 2012, to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Airplane Flight Manual.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 27, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-31683 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P