Information Collection Request for
Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater Laboratories

                                  March 2020

                                 Prepared by:
                     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
                             Office of Compliance
              Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division
                                 Water Branch
                      1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, MC-2227A
                            Washington, D.C. 20460
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

1	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	1
1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection	1
1(b)	Short Characterization	1
2	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	2
2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection	2
2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data	2
3	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA		3
3(a)	Non-duplication	3
3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	3
3(c)	Consultations	3
3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	4
3(e)	General Guidelines	4
3(f)	Confidentiality	5
3(g)	Sensitive Questions	5
4	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	5
4(a)	Respondents and SIC/NAICS Codes	5
4(b)	Information Needed	5
4(b)(i)	Data items	5
4(b)(ii)	Respondent Activities	5
5	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	7
5(a)	Agency Activities	7
5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management	7
5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility	7
5(d)	Collection Schedule	7
6	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	8
6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden	8
6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs	10
6(b)(i)	Respondent Labor	10
6(b)(ii)	Respondent Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs	10
6(b)(iii) Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs	11
6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs	12
6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs	12
6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables	12
6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden	13
6(g)	Burden Statement	13
APPENDIX A:	LIST OF CHEMISTRY & MICROBIOLOGY ANALYTES AND WET TEST METHODS	15
APPENDIX B:	LIST OF TOP CHEMISTRY & MICROBIOLOGY ANALYTES AND WET TEST METHODS AND TIMES FOR ANALYZING	17

1	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection
      Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater Laboratories (Renewal). OMB Control No. 2080-0021, EPA ICR No. 0234.13.
1(b)	Short Characterization
      This is a request to renew an existing Information Collection Request (ICR) to support the collection of Proficiency Testing (PT) data on the performance of laboratories that conduct discharge analyses for the Discharge Monitoring Report  -  Quality Assurance (DMR-QA) study program. This request will replace the expiring ICR, Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater Laboratories (OMB Control No. 2080-0021, EPA ICR No. 0234.12). This ICR refers only to DMR-QA. Therefore, the figures for burdens only support DMR-QA. EPA is requesting a standard three-year clearance for this ICR.

      The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is implemented by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states that EPA has authorized to implement the program. In accordance with terms and conditions of NPDES permits, chemical monitoring data for wastewater are submitted from a variety of laboratories to the appropriate NPDES permitting authority every year. EPA and states must rely on these results when carrying out permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities. In order to provide an objective demonstration that these laboratories are submitting reliable information, the subject Performance Evaluation (PE) studies were developed. Participation in the DMR-QA studies is mandatory for major dischargers and selected minor dischargers under the NPDES program. Major municipal dischargers are defined as facilities designed to discharge at least 1 million gallons per day of wastewater, service a population of at least 10,000, or have a discharge that causes significant water quality impacts. Non-municipal major facilities are defined as major facilities based on a numerical rating system that evaluates their significance using criteria such as toxic pollutant potential, flow volume and water quality factors. Minor dischargers are selected to monitor the analytes/toxics discharged by the facility.

EPA formerly administered and prepared test standards for the DMR-QA program as part of the Agency's mandate to assure the quality of environmental monitoring data submitted by NPDES permit holders (permittees). Preparation, distribution and grading of the test standards have now been privatized to lessen EPA's burden in carrying out this mandate. The public- and private-sector organizations that manufacture and distribute test samples to contract and in-house laboratories are known as Proficiency Testing (PT) providers. The laboratories submit their analytical results to the PT Providers for evaluation. The PT Providers evaluate the submitted data and send the graded results back to the laboratories. These laboratories then forward copies of their graded data to their permittee clients, who will review the results and forward the data to their designated certifying/enforcement authorities. PT Providers also send electronic copies of the graded results to the designated certifying/enforcement authorities and to EPA. Graded results include the names and addresses of the laboratories, analytes tested, concentration of the analytes, and the acceptance criteria and evaluations.

EPA is required to conduct this ICR analysis because more than nine non-Federal entities will be asked to respond to this data request. Because state agencies use the resulting data for their own laboratory certification/enforcement programs and are not reporting any information from the PE studies to EPA, they do not incur any burden under this ICR. In addition, cost and burden to PT Providers are not considered in this ICR because the vendor costs associated with this program are accounted for in the pricing of their standards (i.e., the costs incurred by the Providers is factored into the cost of the PT standards).

      The total annual burden and labor costs incurred by the 5,500 permittees associated with this ICR are estimated to be 36,300 hours and $5,368,055 per year over the 3-year ICR period (calendar years 2020-2022). EPA estimates that it takes 6.6 hours and costs $976.01 per year per respondent to comply with this requirement. Respondent labor costs are linked with the time it takes to read and understand the annual DMR-QA announcement sent by EPA, plan activities, analyze PT standards, report information to the PT Providers, and maintain records. Respondent operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are associated with purchasing the PT standards. No costs or burdens to PT Providers or state regulatory agencies are associated with this ICR.
2	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection
      Laboratory Performance Evaluation (PE) studies are designed to fulfill the need to monitor the quality of analytical data for select critical analytes within major point-source discharge samples. Results from the PE studies over time have generally shown a slow but regular improvement in average performance by the laboratories producing the monitored data. By helping laboratories identify and correct analytical problems, the PE studies are also responsible for documented improvement in this data.

      The Clean Water Act, and the related regulations in 40 CFR part 136, require extensive analyses of water and wastewater samples by permittee-owned laboratories and third-party laboratories contracted by such permittees to control point-source discharges and protect ambient water quality. EPA uses this data as the basis for many important decisions, which include policy and regulation development, compliance and enforcement determinations, and program development. The data quality depends heavily upon the availability of capable laboratory analyses at all levels and reliability must be ensured.
2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data
      States and laboratory personnel will use the results of these studies to identify problems associated with laboratory analysis and substandard facility discharges. This will improve the quality of water data in critical monitoring areas and the quality of facility discharges returned to the environment. These studies have demonstrated that problems exist and arise periodically with dischargers and water testing laboratories. Without future studies, many such problems will go unrecognized and unresolved. Results from the DMR-QA studies are used to highlight NPDES facilities and laboratories with apparent analytical problems that should be inspected on-site by state regulatory personnel. Results from the PE studies are used by state personnel as a major part of the basis for certifying laboratories to produce required regulatory data and as a basis for potential regulatory enforcement.
3	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA
3(a)	Non-duplication
      Data and results from other federally sponsored water quality programs, such as the Water Pollution (WP) program, can be used to fulfill obligations under the DMR-QA study program only if the laboratories meet the condition that they perform the PE sample analyses between January 1st of the DMR-QA study year and the last day of the DMR-QA study. The DMR-QA study commences on or around March 15th and concludes on or around July 1st of each year.

      As of March 1, 2020, EPA has granted full or partial waivers to 17 states to use their state laboratory certification program in lieu of their permittees participating in DMR-QA. No new waivers have been granted since the last ICR was renewed in May 2017.
3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB
      In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, a notice of this Information Collection Request ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2019 (84 FR 54140). EPA received no public comments.
3(c)	Consultations
      In preparation of this ICR, EPA contacted the seven PT Providers and three responded (PT Provider contact information can be found in Table 3.1, below, and on Page 6 of EPA Form 6400-01 [OMB 2080-0021], which is included as an attachment to this ICR package). The PT Providers were asked to provide input on the estimated time burden for respondents as well as the fees which laboratories need to pay for samples provided by the PT Providers. The PT Providers that responded indicated that it costs $305 to $849 per laboratory for chemical/microbiological samples. EPA chose to use the conservative high-end estimate of $849 per laboratory for the purposes of estimating ICR costs to respondents. For Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests, the range was $1,008 to $2,529 per laboratory, and the high-end estimate of $2,529 was used. It should be noted that this is the cost that both in-house and contract laboratories pay, and this is passed on to the permittee. Therefore, if a lab is contracted by several permittees, then EPA considers that the cost will be distributed evenly among the permittees. However, if a permittee employs an in-house laboratory, the permittee is burdened with the entire cost of obtaining samples as well as the labor costs of the laboratory. Since the ratio of in-house and contract laboratories is unknown, an average was obtained for all laboratories and a ratio of 0.633 laboratories per permittee was used. This ratio is the same as used in the previous renewal of this ICR. Using this ratio, the cost of obtaining samples is estimated to be $537.42 per permittee for chemical/microbiological tests and $1,600.85 for WET tests.

Table 3.1: List of Accredited Proficiency Test (PT) Providers
Absolute Standards, Inc., Hamden, CT
Mr. Stephen Arpie
(203) 281-2917 or<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.absolutestandards.com
New York State Department of Health Wadsworth Center, Albany, NY
Dr. Patrick Parsons
(518) 474-7161
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.wadsworth.org/programs/ehs/pt
Advanced Analytical Solutions, LLC, Parkersburg, WV
Fred Anderson
(304) 485-6325
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.advancedqa.com
NSI Lab Solutions, Raleigh, NC
Mr. Mark Hammersla
(800) 234-7837
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.nsilabsolutions.com
Environmental Resource Associates (ERA), Golden, CO
(800) 372-0122
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.eraqc.com
Phenova Inc., Golden, CO
(866) 942-2978
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.phenova.com
MilliporeSigma, Laramie, WY
(800) 576-5690
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.sigmaaldrich.com/pt

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection
      The current frequency for the DMR-QA is judged to be the minimum needed to assess the accuracy of data production required by discharge permits. Under DMR-QA, laboratories producing data are expected to demonstrate adequate analytical proficiency once per year for each analyte they test routinely for their NPDES permittee clients. Collecting water quality data less than once per year to measure the accuracy of laboratory work would potentially delay corrective actions required by the permittee and therefore compromise discharge water quality.
3(e)	General Guidelines
This ICR was prepared in accordance with the October 2009 version of the ICR Handbook developed by EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Amendments and OMB's implementing guidelines.

      EPA believes participation in these studies is a reasonable requirement for all laboratories routinely producing data to satisfy NPDES permit requirements. Providing PE samples to the responsible NPDES permitting authorities assures that permittees' laboratories are testing the analytes using methods specified by the permit.
3(f)	Confidentiality
      This information collection does not require respondents to disclose confidential information.
3(g)	Sensitive Questions
      No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements outlined in this ICR.
4	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
4(a)	Respondents and SIC/NAICS Codes
      Respondents in DMR-QA studies are NPDES permittees designated by the EPA Region or state with permitting responsibility and the laboratories doing chemical/microbiological analyses and WET analyses for these permittees. These respondents are most likely from the following SIC and NAICS codes:

CATEGORY
SIC NUMBERS
NAICS NUMBERS
Manufacturers
2011 through 3999
311611
Water Supply Systems
4941
22131
Sewerage Systems
4952
22132
Water Testing Laboratories
8734
54194
4(b)	Information Needed
4(b)(i)	Data items
      In all laboratory PE studies, the data result from analyses of synthetic samples that contain known amounts of specific compounds, usually dissolved in reagent water. In DMR-QA studies, the compounds are those of primary interest with regard to the monitoring requirements found in NPDES permits. All studies also collect sufficient data to properly identify and characterize the respondents. Each respondent reports only data for that portion of the study analytes for which they wish to be certified or as directed by the responsible regulatory official.
4(b)(ii)	Respondent Activities
The primary burden involves analyzing and reporting results for relevant study samples according to instructions. About 5,500 respondents participated in the 2019 DMR-QA study. EPA projects that this number of respondents will remain relatively static for the next ICR period.

The DMR-QA program requires major permittees to submit results annually, and minor permittees are selected for participation by the DMR-QA state coordinators. The fluctuation of major permittees and the selection process of minor permittees at the state level causes the exact number of permittees to vary each year. A percentage of these permittees do all the work onsite themselves using in-house laboratories. The remaining permittees contract at least some of the analyses to commercial laboratories. The commercial laboratory may do work for many permittees; the DMR-QA results would then be sent to these permittees. Therefore, there are fewer labs than permittees. However, EPA does not have data on how many in-house laboratories and contract laboratories are used, as permittees may choose to have commercial or in-house laboratories perform the analyses. In addition, EPA does not track how many laboratories participated in one or more studies. Furthermore, EPA does not track how many permittees participated in only chemistry and microbiology testing and those that participated in WET testing. EPA is estimating the "maximum" impact of the DMR-QA program on the regulated community. EPA will assume that all 5,500 permittees will fulfill requirements for the top 10 chemistry and microbiology analytes and the top 10 WET test methods. EPA believes this ICR may overestimate the burden because not all permittees are required to perform WET testing. (See Appendix B for a list of the top 10 chemistry and microbiology analytes and the top 10 WET test methods).

To calculate the burden incurred on laboratories performing PE samples, EPA used a ratio of 0.633 laboratories per NPDES permittee. This ratio was calculated based on data procured by four PT Providers in 2006. EPA assumes that the ratio of laboratories per permittee has not changed significantly since the last ICR was approved. Based on this ratio (0.633 laboratories per NPDES permittee) and that there are 5,500 permittees participating in the DMR-QA, EPA estimates there are a total of 3,482 laboratories performing PE studies under DMR-QA. To provide an estimate of respondent burden for the WET testing portion of DMR-QA, EPA determined that an average of 4.77% of all laboratories participating in DMR-QA perform WET PE tests, or 166 laboratories. This percentage is also based on the information from the four providers received in 2006. EPA is not estimating the burden for the PT Providers because this burden is internalized in the cost of obtaining PE samples from the PT Providers.

Respondents (permittees) will participate in the following activities:

 Read Instructions: Each of the 5,500 respondents will read the instructions provided by EPA.

 Plan Activities:  Each of the 5,500 respondents will incur burden to plan activities associated with the PE studies.

 Analyze Chemistry and Microbiology Analytes: EPA assumes that all 5,500 respondents will participate in the PE studies for microbiology, trace metals, demands, minerals, nutrients, and miscellaneous chemical analytes as required by respondents' permits. EPA assumes that 3,482 in-house and contract laboratories will do the work for the 5,500 permittees.

 Analyze WET: EPA assumes that all 5,500 permittees will participate in the PE studies for WET. It is assumed that 166 in-house and contract laboratories will do the work for the 5,500 permittees.

 Report Results: Each of the 5,500 respondents will incur burden to report its study results to the PT Provider.

 Maintain Records: Each of the 5,500 respondents will incur burden to maintain records associated with the PE study.
5	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
5(a)	Agency Activities
      EPA provides general program management support, develops guidance, and maintains oversight of state DMR-QA activities.  In addition, EPA oversees of the PT Providers and participating laboratories on an as-needed basis.
5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management
      EPA notifies the permittee of their requirement to participate in the relevant PE program annually. The permittee's in-house or contract laboratory will then select an accredited PT Provider to send them the appropriate PE samples. After following the PT Provider's instructions to complete the PE study, the laboratory then submits the analytical data of these samples back to the selected PT Provider by the instructed deadline. The permittee will use the form approved by OMB to report DMR-QA results. This form will be available in two formats: a hard copy that will be part of the announcement that is mailed annually, and an online PDF form that is available on the EPA website. This PDF form can be filled out and then printed for submission. The PT Provider will grade and send evaluations of the submitted data back to the permittee and the designated certifying/enforcement authority. PT Providers may also send summary data in electronic form to EPA for archiving.
5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility
      The major requirement under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) is a regulatory flexibility analysis of all rules that have a "significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities."  Since this data request is not part of a rule, this ICR is not subject to SBREFA.
5(d)	Collection Schedule
      EPA determines the requirements for the frequency that a permittee must demonstrate proficiency by passing a PE study. The study typically starts on or around March 15[th] and ends on or around July 1[st]. The participating permittees' in-house/contract laboratories demonstrate their proficiency by passing a PE study conducted by an accredited PT Provider for a fee. The PT Provider must submit the results of each study to the participating laboratories. The permittees must then request the participating laboratories to forward the graded results that were transmitted by the PT Provider, and in turn, the permittee must submit the graded results to the appropriate EPA Regional or state DMR-QA coordinator.

      In summary: each participating in-house or contract laboratory must report test results to the PT Provider once a year. The PT Provider must submit the results of all studies they conduct to the participating laboratories. The permittees must then require the laboratories to forward them the graded results the laboratories received from the PT Provider. The permittees then submit a copy of the graded results to the appropriate EPA Regional or state DMR-QA coordinator. Participating permittees must re-qualify for each analyte it reports one year from the last certification that it received.
6	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
      This section describes the estimated average annual burden and costs for the information collection activities for PE studies that will be conducted by laboratories. For this data submission, PT Providers, state agencies and EPA have no burden and costs. The Agency's burden and cost estimates are outlined in Section 6(c).

      To estimate the costs, EPA made assumptions about the burden associated with activities that would likely be needed to fulfill the request. EPA emphasizes that the per-respondent estimates represent the average annual burden and cost over the 3-year period covered by this ICR (2020-2022). Some respondents may incur higher costs, and some will fall below the average. EPA assumed that all respondents perform all the tests included in this analysis. As a result, the burden is assumed to be a high estimate.

      Burden and costs are not distinguished by categorized entities, public (federal, state, and local government dischargers) and private (commercial, industrial and others) sectors, because EPA does not currently track this information.
6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden
      The average annual respondent burden (in labor hours) for permittees is shown in Table 6.1, below. PT Providers conduct the studies, removing this burden from EPA. Participating laboratories receive samples from the PT Provider and return test results to the PT Providers. The PT Providers evaluate the data and send reports to the laboratories. The total burden on the laboratories is 36,300 hours, with an average of 6.6 hours per respondent (36,300 total hours divided by 5,500 permittees). This estimate includes burden for participating laboratories to read instructions, plan activities, analyze samples, submit data to the PT Providers, and maintain records.

      EPA assumes that the respondent burden will be divided among three labor categories:  manager, chemist, and records clerk. The labor associated with each of the ICR activities are discussed in more detail below.
             Read Instructions:  EPA assumes that each of the 5,500 respondents will require 0.5 hours to read the instructions provided by EPA. The burden will be divided between a manager and chemist. Sample instructions and forms can be found in the Draft DMR-QA Study 40 package included in the docket.
             Plan Activities:  EPA assumes that the manager of each laboratory will require 0.5 hours to plan activities associated with the PE studies. The burden will be divided between a manager and chemist.
             Analyze Chemistry and Microbiology Analytes:  A total of 5,500 permittees are expected to use a total of 3,482 laboratories (a ratio of 0.633 laboratories for every permittee). Analysis is assumed to require approximately 2.1 hours to analyze PT standards for the top 10 analytes. All hours will be incurred by a chemist. See Appendix B for these tests and the estimated time for an analysis. These estimates assume that the laboratory is adding a DMR-QA sample to the normal processing that occurs in the laboratory using an already calibrated instrument/process.
             Analyze WET:  A biologist or project manager constructs the test chambers and records organism mortality (morbidity) of test organisms while a chemist analyzes the water chemistry. Biologists and chemists are assumed to require 2.4 hours to analyze PT standards for WET. It is assumed that 166 laboratories do this work for all 5,500 permittees.  These estimates assume that the laboratory is adding a DMR-QA sample to the normal processing that occurs in the laboratory using an already calibrated instrument/process.
             Report Results:  EPA assumes that each of the 5,500 respondents will require 1.0 hours to report the results of the study to the PT Provider. The burden will be divided between a manager and records clerk.
             Maintain Records:  EPA assumes that each of the 5,500 respondents will require 0.1 hours from a records clerk to maintain the files from the PE study.
Table 6.1:	Estimated Annual Respondent Burden, Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater Laboratories (Renewal)
                             Collection Activities
                            Annual # Respondents[1]
                                    Burden

                                    Manager
                                  Chemist[2]
                                 Record Clerk
                           Total Burden (hours/year)

                                  hours/
year
                                  hours/
year
                                  hours/
year
                                Per Respondent
                                All Respondents
Read Instructions
                                     5,500
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.3
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.5
                                                                          2,750
Plan activities
                                     5,500
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.3
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.5
                                                                          2,750
Analyze Chemistry/ Microbiology
                                     5,500
                                                                              0
                                                                            2.1
                                                                              0
                                                                            2.1
                                                                         11,550
Analyze WET
                                     5,500
                                                                              0
                                                                            2.4
                                                                              0
                                                                            2.4
                                                                         13,200
Report Results
                                     5,500
                                                                            0.3
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.7
                                                                              1
                                                                          5,500
Maintain Records
                                     5,500
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.1
                                                                            0.1
                                                                            550
Total Annual Respondent Burden
                                     5,500

                                                                           6.6
                                                                         36,300
[1]	In 2019, it is estimated that 5,500 NPDES permittees participated in the DMR-QA program. Most of the permittees participate in the Chemistry/Microbiology component. A smaller number of permittees also participate in WET analysis; it is estimated that 4.77% of all labs participate in WET analyses.
[2]	Refer to Appendix B for analysis times for Chemistry/Microbiology analytes and WET methods.
6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs
      Table 6.2 shows the total annual average costs for laboratories over the 3-year ICR period. Average annual labor costs for all 5,500 permittees are estimated to be $1,992,265. Average annual O&M costs are estimated to be $3,375,790. EPA estimates each laboratory will incur an annual average labor plus non-labor cost of $976.01 for this data collection effort (see Table 6.2, below).
6(b)(i)	Respondent Labor
      The labor cost was arrived at by estimating the amount of labor required to participate on an annual basis in the DMR-QA study. Labor costs are based on information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, May 2018, National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimate. The labor categories include a manager at an hourly rate of $59.55, a skilled technician or chemist to conduct the measurements at an hourly rate of $36.97, and a data entry clerical person at an hourly rate of $19.59. Table 6.2 lists the estimated burden and costs for labor related to each activity. The annual respondent labor cost for all 5,500 respondents is estimated to be $1,992,265 for 36,300 hours. The labor costs consider benefits/compensation in addition to salary. EPA relies on the Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate the benefits/compensation to be 30.9% of total compensation for management positions, 32.5% of total compensations for natural resource positions, and 30.2% of total compensation for office positions. See Table 6.2 for references.
6(b)(ii)	Respondent Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs
      There are no Capital/Startup costs associated with this information collection. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for laboratories include all costs related to providing personnel with the space, equipment, and materials necessary to perform the tasks required by this ICR. Since laboratories are driven by their compliance monitoring requirements to purchase the analytical instrumentation and computers and not by this ICR, no capital costs are associated with this ICR. Only the costs associated with purchasing the PT standards is appropriate for consideration in this category.

      Permittees may participate in the PE studies for some or all the chemistry and microbiology analytes and WET test methods (refer to Appendix A for a list of chemistry and microbiology analytes and WET test methods). The cost of the PE samples varies with the costs for the chemical, microbiological, and WET testing required for each calendar year. This is complicated by the fact that the participants in any given study need not analyze all the samples available for that study, only the ones that are required by their permits. EPA estimated a cost of $969.64 per laboratory based on feedback from PT Providers who did an analysis of the average cost of buying PE samples.

      Because EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate how many analytes are contained in the PE samples sent to each laboratory, EPA assumes that a single PE sample contains standards for the top ten analytes for chemistry and microbiology and the top 10 WET test methods, based on information from the PT Providers. Therefore, laboratories participating in the chemistry and microbiology PE study are assumed to receive and run analyses for 10 analytes. Similarly, those participating in the PE study for WET would receive samples for each of 10 WET test methods. EPA estimates the costs of obtaining PE samples to be $969.64 per laboratory and $613.78 per permittee (respondent). Average annual O&M costs (fees for PE samples) for the respondents is estimated to be $3,375,790.

Table 6.2:	Estimated Annual Respondent Costs, Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater Laboratories (Renewal)
                             Collection Activities
                                 Labor Cost[1]
                                Non-Labor Cost
                             Labor
Plus Non-Labor

                                  Manager[2]
                                  Chemist[3]
                                Record Clerk[4]
                                  Labor Costs
                      Cost of Standards
per PE Study[5]
                      Average Labor
plus Non-Labor Costs

                                 at $86.18/hr.
                                 at $54.77/hr.
                                 at $28.21/hr.
                                per Respondent
                                All Respondents
                                per Respondent
                                All Respondents
                                per Respondent
                                All Respondents
Read Instructions
                                                                         $17.24
                                                                         $16.43
                                                                             $0
                                                                         $33.67
                                                                       $185,185
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                         $33.67
                                                                       $185,185
Plan activities
                                                                         $17.24
                                                                         $16.43
                                                                             $0
                                                                         $33.67
                                                                       $185,185
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                         $33.67
                                                                       $185,185
Analyze Chemistry and Microbiology
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $115.02
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $115.02
                                                                       $632,610
                                                                        $537.42
                                                                     $2,955,810
                                                                        $652.44
                                                                     $3,588,420
Analyze WET
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $131.45
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $131.45
                                                                       $722,975
                                                                         $76.36
                                                                       $419,980
                                                                        $207.81
                                                                     $1,142,955
Report Results
                                                                         $25.85
                                                                             $0
                                                                         $19.75
                                                                         $45.60
                                                                       $250,800
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                         $45.60
                                                                       $250,800
Maintain Records
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                          $2.82
                                                                          $2.82
                                                                        $15,510
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
                                                                          $2.82
                                                                        $15,510
Total Annual Respondent Costs

                                                                        $362.23
                                                                     $1,992,265
                                                                        $613.78
                                                                     $3,375,790
                                                                        $976.01
                                                                     $5,368,055
[1] Median salaries from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May 2018, National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (http://www.bls.gov/oes/). As a percentage of total compensation, BLS estimates benefits to be 30.9% for management positions, 32.5% for natural resource positions and 30.2% for office positions.  (Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, September 2019, Table 5, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12182019.htm)

2 BLS, Natural Science Manager 11-9121 ($59.55/hr., median salary only--see Footnote 1).
[3] BLS, Chemist 19-2031 ($36.97/hr., median salary only--see Footnote 1).
[4] BLS, Information and Record Clerk 43-4199 ($19.69/hr., median salary only--see Footnote 1).
5 Based upon estimated cost of $849 per chemistry/microbiology laboratory and $2,529 per WET laboratory. Includes a factor of 0.633 labs per respondent. WET analysis is multiplied by 0.0477 since only 4.77% of all labs perform WET tests. Therefore, the average cost for each respondent is $2,529 x 0.633 x 0.0477 = $76.36.
6(b)(iii) Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
      There are no Capital/Startup costs associated with this information collection. The annual Operating and Maintenance costs associated with this ICR are estimated to be $613.78 per respondent.
6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs
      EPA's role is advisory and involves program management only. The burden to the Agency, other than the time required to put together the annual announcement and printing and mailing costs of the annual announcement, is low. On average, 3,000 announcements are printed annually to send out to permittees as well as spare copies. This annual average is also a conservative estimate because in 2013 EPA began distributing announcements by e-mail when possible. The annual burden is estimated below:

             Maintaining records of active participants in the program: 80 hours
             Putting together the annual announcement and answering questions: 480 hours (40 hours/month)
             Cost of printing 3,000 announcements: $1,920
             Cost of mailing announcements: $3,360
             Total Agency Burden and Cost: 560 hours and $5,280
6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
      The respondents for this ICR are major and select minor NPDES permittees. Some or all permittees in states that have received EPA waivers from the DMR-QA program may not be required to participate. Permittees who participate may use contract laboratories to perform the work, but the burden is considered to be upon the permittees, since they bear the costs of labor as well as operations & maintenance. As itemized in section 6(b), the annual respondent burden is 6.6 hours and $976.01 per participant. The total annual respondent burden is 36,300 hours and $5,368,055 for 5,500 participants. Currently, there are 7 PT Providers. PT Providers' burdens are not assessed in this ICR because their cost burden for this ICR is part of the estimated PE sample cost burden for the laboratories. Burden and costs to EPA is minimal, being limited to the drafting of the annual announcement and printing/mailing costs, which come to a total of 560 hours and $5,280 on an annual basis.
6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
      The bottom-line burden hours and costs for this ICR are shown in Table 6.3. This includes the burden and costs to the 5,500 respondents that are affected by this ICR.

Table 6.3:	Bottom Line Burden and Costs, Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater Laboratories (Renewal)
                                 Cost / Burden
                               Average per Year
(A)	Number of Respondents (Permittees)
                                                                          5,500
(B)	Number of Responses per Permittee
                                                                              1
(C)	Burden Hours per Permittee
                                                                            6.6
(D)	Total Burden Hours [D = A x B x C]
                                                                         36,300
(E)	Per Permittee Labor Costs
                                                                       $362.23
(F)	Per Permittee O&M Costs
                                                                       $613.78
(G) TOTAL LABOR COST [G = (A x B) x E]
                                                                    $1,992,265
(H)	TOTAL O&M COST [H = (A x B) x F]
                                                                    $3,375,790
TOTAL COSTS (LABOR PLUS O&M COSTS FOR ALL 5,500 PERMITTEES)
                                                                    $5,368,055
6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden
      Participation in the DMR-QA PE study has decreased from an estimated average of 5,700 permittees to 5,500 since the last renewal of this ICR. This is due to a slight decrease of NPDES major permittees over the last three years through permit terminations or permittees using state-certified laboratories that are exempt from DMR-QA PE studies.

      Labor and O&M costs have been updated since the previous renewal of this ICR. Labor costs increased modestly due to changes in employee benefit compensation costs and inflation. O&M costs also increased, although the total burden hours per respondent remained the same; O&M costs reflect the costs of obtaining PE samples from the PT Providers. The estimated annual average cost of obtaining PE samples increased from $560.36 to $613.78 per respondent.
6(g)	Burden Statement
      The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.6 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 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.

      To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0547, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0547 and OMB Control Number 2080-0021 in any correspondence.
APPENDIX A:	LIST OF CHEMISTRY & MICROBIOLOGY ANALYTES AND WET TEST METHODS
                      Chemistry and Microbiology Analytes
Microbiology
Trace Metals
Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Aluminum
Fecal Coliform, MF or MPN
Antimony
Total Coliform, MF or MPN
Arsenic
Minerals
Barium
Alkalinity, total (CaCO3)
Beryllium
Chloride
Cadmium
Fluoride
Chromium, total
Hardness, total (CaCO3)
Chromium, hexavalent
Specific conductance (25°C)
Cobalt
Sulfate
Copper
Total Dissolved Solids (180°C)
Iron
Nutrients
Lead
Ammonia (as N)
Manganese
Nitrate (as N)
Mercury
Nitrite (as N)
Mercury (Low Level)
Orthophosphate (as P)
Molybdenum
Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen (as N)
Nickel
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Selenium
Miscellaneous Analytes
Silver
Non-Filterable Residue (TSS)
Thallium
Oil and Grease
Vanadium
pH
Zinc
Total Cyanide
Demands
Total Phenolics (4-AAP)
5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Total Residual Chlorine

Total Residual Chlorine (Low Level)
5-day Carbonaceous BOD (CBOD5)
Settleable Solids
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Turbidity
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

                   WET Organisms/Test Conditions/End Points

Analyte Number
Organisms/Conditions
                                  End Points
Test Code 13/EPA Method 2000

                                      754
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) - MHSF 25°C
                                     LC50
Test Code 14/EPA Method 2000

                                      755
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) - 20% DMW
                                     LC50
Test Code 15/EPA Method 1000

                                      756
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) - MHSF
                                 NOEC SURVIVAL
                                      808
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) - MHSF
                               IC25 (ON) GROWTH
                                      810
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) - MHSF
                               NOEC (ON) GROWTH
Test Code 16/EPA Method 1000

                                      759
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) - 20% DMW
                                 NOEC SURVIVAL
                                      812
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) - 20% DMW
                               IC25 (ON) GROWTH
                                      814
Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) - 20% DMW
                               NOEC (ON) GROWTH
Test Code 19/EPA Method 2002

                                      764
Ceriodaphnia dubia - MHSF 25°C
                                     LC50
Test Code 20/EPA Method 2002

                                      765
Ceriodaphnia dubia - 20% DMW 25°C
                                     LC50
Test Code 21/EPA Method 1002

                                      766
Ceriodaphnia dubia - MHSF
                                 NOEC SURVIVAL
                                      767
Ceriodaphnia dubia - MHSF
                               IC25 REPRODUCTION
                                      768
Ceriodaphnia dubia - MHSF
                               NOEC REPRODUCTION
Test Code 22/EPA Method 1002

                                      769
Ceriodaphnia dubia - 20% DMW
                                 NOEC SURVIVAL
                                      770
Ceriodaphnia dubia - 20% DMW
                               IC25 REPRODUCTION
                                      771
Ceriodaphnia dubia - 20% DMW
                               NOEC REPRODUCTION
Test Code 32/EPA Method 2021

                                      788
Daphnia magna - MHSF 25°C
                                     LC50
Test Code 38/EPA Method 2021

                                      794
Daphnia pulex - MHSF 25°C
                                     LC50
Test Code 42/EPA Method 2007

                                      798
Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia) - 25°C
                                     LC50
Test Code 43/EPA Method 1007

                                      799
Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia)
                                 NOEC SURVIVAL
                                      816
Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia)
                               IC25 (ON) GROWTH
                                      818
Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia)
                               NOEC (ON) GROWTH
Test Code 44/EPA Method 2006

                                      803
Inland silverside (Menidia beryllina) - 25°C
                                     LC50
Test Code 45/EPA Method 1006

                                      824
Inland silverside (Menidia beryllina)
                                 NOEC SURVIVAL
                                      825
Inland silverside (Menidia beryllina)
                               IC25 (ON) GROWTH
                                      826
Inland silverside (Menidia beryllina)
                               NOEC (ON) GROWTH
Test Code 46/EPA Method 2004

                                      804
Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) - 25°C
                                     LC50
Test Code 47/EPA Method 1004

                                      805
Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
                                 NOEC SURVIVAL
                                      820
Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
                                  IC25 GROWTH
                                      822
Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
                               NOEC (ON) GROWTH

APPENDIX B:	LIST OF TOP CHEMISTRY & MICROBIOLOGY ANALYTES AND WET TEST METHODS AND TIMES FOR ANALYZING

                   CHEMISTRY/MICROBIOLOGY ANALYTE CHECKLIST

                                     Rank
                                    Analyte
                      Time (in minutes) for one analysis*

                                       1
pH
                                      10

                                       2
Total Suspended Solids
                                      30

                                       3
Ammonia (as N)
                                       5

                                       4
Total Residual Chlorine
                                       3

                                       5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
                                      45

                                       6
Carbonaceous BOD
                                      45

                                       7
Total Phosphorus as P
                                      10

                                       8
Settleable Solids
                                      10

                                       9
Fecal Coliform (MF)**
                                      30

                                      10
Oil and Grease
                                      15

                                                                TOTAL (minutes)
                                      203

                                                                  TOTAL (hours)
                                     3.38

* These estimates assume the DMR-QA sample is being added as additional single analyses to an already calibrated instrument/process, and to the normal processing that occurs in the laboratory.

** 24 hours for incubation

2.1 hours per permittee for Chemistry/Microbiology

using ratio of 0.633 labs per permittee

              WET ORGANISMS/TEST CONDITIONS/END POINTS CHECKLIST

                                     Rank
                                    Analyte
                       Time (hours) for one analysis***
                                 type of test

                                       1
Fathead minnow - MHSF - NOEC Survival
                                      10
Chronic

                                       2
Fathead minnow - MHSF - NOEC (ON) Growth
                                      10
Chronic

                                       3
Ceriodaphnia - MHSF - NOEC Survival
                                      10
Chronic

                                       4
Fathead minnow - MHSF 25°C - LC50
                                       3
Acute

                                       5
Fathead minnow - MHSF - IC25 (ON) Growth
                                      10
Chronic

                                       6
Ceriodaphnia - MHSF - NOEC Reproduction
                                      10
Chronic

                                       7
Ceriodaphnia - MHSF - IC25 Reproduction
                                      10
Chronic

                                       8
Ceriodaphnia - MHSF 25°C - LC50
                                       3
Acute

                                       9
Fathead minnow - MHSF 20°C - LC50
                                       3
Acute

                                      10
Mysid - 40 fathoms - NOEC Survival
                                      10
Chronic

                                                                  TOTAL (hours)
                                      79

*** based on set-up, maintenance, data crunching at conclusion, 10 hr. (chronic) also includes daily weighting

50.0 hours for WET analysis per lab using ratio of 0.633 labs per permittee.

Because only 4.77% of labs do WET analyses, the following number will be used for time burden for WET tests:

2.4 hours for WET analysis


[Federal Register: October 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 194)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61977-61980]
[DOCID:fr07oc10-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0552; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-095-AD;
Amendment 39-16464; AD 2010-21-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
200B, and 747-200F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding two existing airworthiness directives
(ADs), which apply to certain Model 747-100, 747-200B, and 747-200F
series airplanes. The existing ADs currently require inspections to
detect fatigue-related skin cracks and corrosion of the skin panel lap
joints in the fuselage upper lobe, and repair if necessary. One of the
existing ADs, AD 94-12-09, also requires modification of certain lap
joints and inspection of modified lap joints. The other AD, AD 90-15-
06, requires repetitive detailed external visual inspections of the
fuselage skin at the upper lobe skin lap joints for cracks and evidence
of corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions. This AD
reduces the maximum interval of the post-modification inspections, and
adds post-repair inspection requirements for certain airplanes. This AD
results from reports of cracking on modified airplanes. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking and corrosion in the
fuselage upper lobe skin lap joints, which could lead to rapid
decompression of the airplane and inability of the structure to carry
fail-safe loads.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 12, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 12,
2010.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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 Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 90-15-06, Amendment 39-
6653 (55 FR 28600, July 12, 1990), and AD 94-12-09, Amendment 39-8937
(59 FR 30285, June 13, 1994). The existing ADs apply to certain Model
747-100, 747-200B, and 747-200F series airplanes. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35356). That
NPRM proposed to continue to require inspections to detect fatigue-
related skin cracks and corrosion of the skin panel lap joints in the
fuselage upper lobe, and repair if necessary; modification of certain
lap joints and inspection of modified lap joints; and repetitive
detailed external visual inspections of the fuselage skin at the upper
lobe skin lap joints for cracks and evidence of corrosion, and related
investigative and corrective actions. That NPRM also proposed to reduce
the maximum interval of the post-modification inspections, and adds
post-repair inspection requirements for certain airplanes.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comment that has been
received on the NPRM.

Request to Correct Typographical Error in Paragraph (l) of the NPRM

    Boeing requests that we revise paragraph (l) of the NPRM to change
the numeral ``1'' to the letter ``l'' to correctly identify the
paragraph references.
    We agree and have corrected the typographical error accordingly.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comment that has been received, and determined that air safety and the
public interest require adopting the AD with the change described
previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 23 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                            Work      Average                                                   U.S.-
                 Action                    hours     labor rate    Parts           Cost per airplane          registered            Fleet cost
                                                      per hour                                                airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (required by AD 94-12-09)...        208          $85         $0  $17,680 per inspection cycle...            7  $123,760 per inspection cycle.
Modification (required by AD 94-12-09).      8,160           85          0  $693,600.......................            7  $4,855,200.
Post-Modification Inspection (required          56           85          0  $4,760 per inspection cycle....            7  $33,320 per inspection cycle.
 by AD 94-12-09).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have determined that 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); 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing Amendment 39-6653 (55 FR 28600, July 12, 1990) and Amendment
39-8937 (59 FR 30285, June 13, 1994) and by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

2010-21-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16464. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0552; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-095-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective November 12, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 90-15-06, Amendment 39-6653; and AD
94-12-09, Amendment 39-8937.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
200B, and 747-200F series airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 3,
dated April 16, 2009.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of fatigue cracking on modified
airplanes. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking and corrosion in the fuselage
upper lobe skin panel lap joints, which could lead to the rapid
decompression of the airplane and the inability of the structure to
carry fail-safe loads.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 94-12-09, With Revised Service
Information

Inspection

    (g) Within 1,000 flight cycles after July 13, 1994 (the
effective date of AD 94-12-09), and thereafter at the intervals
specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD,
perform inspections at the upper lobe skin panel lap joints in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 2,
dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009. After
the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 may be used.
    (1) Perform a detailed external visual inspection to detect
cracks and evidence of corrosion (bulging skin between fasteners,
blistered paint, dished fasteners, popped rivet heads, or loose
fasteners) in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307,
Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16,
2009. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 may

be used. Repeat that inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 2,000 flight cycles until the modification required by
paragraph (k) of this AD is accomplished.
    (2) Perform a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to
detect cracks in the skin at the upper row of fasteners of the skin
panel lap joints forward of body station (BS) 1000 in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 2, dated October
14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009. After the effective
date of this AD, only Revision 3 may be used. Repeat that inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight cycles until the
modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD is accomplished.
    (3) Perform a HFEC inspection to detect cracks in the skin at
the upper row of fastener holes of the skin panel lap joints aft of
BS 1480 to 2360 in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-
2307, Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April
16, 2009. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 may
be used.
    Repeat that inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
6,000 flight cycles until the modification required by paragraph (k)
of this AD is accomplished.
    (h) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) or (l) of this AD, or if any corrosion is found for
which material loss exceeds 10 percent of the material thickness,
accomplish paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 2, dated October
14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009. After the effective
date of this AD, only Revision 3 may be used.
    (1) Prior to further flight, repair any crack or corrosion
found, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307,
Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16,
2009. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 may be
used.
    (2) Within 18 months after accomplishing the repair, accomplish
the ``full'' modification described in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53-2307, Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated
April 16, 2009; for the remainder of any skin panel lap joint in
which a crack is found, or in which corrosion is found that exceeds
10 percent of the material thickness, in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or
Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009. After the effective date of this
AD, only Revision 3 may be used.
    (i) If no crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, but corrosion is found for which the
material loss does not exceed 10 percent of the material thickness:
Accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of
this AD for the entire affected skin panel lap joint, in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 2, dated October
14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009. After the effective
date of this AD, only Revision 3 may be used.
    (1) Within 500 flight cycles after accomplishing the inspection
during which the corrosion was found, and thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 500 flight cycles until the ``full'' modification
required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD is accomplished: Perform a
HFEC inspection to detect cracks of the corroded skin panel lap
joint, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307,
Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16,
2009. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 may be
used.
    (2) Within 36 months after accomplishing the inspection during
which the corrosion was found: Accomplish the ``full'' modification,
in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 2,
dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009. After
the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 may be used.
    (j) The inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD shall
be performed by removing the paint and using an approved chemical
stripper; or by ensuring that each fastener head is clearly visible.
    (k) Except as provided in paragraph (m) of this AD, prior to the
accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within the next 1,000
flight cycles after July 13, 1994, whichever occurs later:
Accomplish the modification described in Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53-2307, Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3,
dated April 16, 2009; as a ``full'' modification of the skin panel
lap joints at the locations specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and
(k)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or
Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009. After the effective date of this
AD, only Revision 3 may be used. Accomplishment of this modification
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g)
of this AD.
    (1) For airplane line numbers 001 through 058, inclusive: Modify
the skin panel lap joints at Stringer 12 (left and right), station
520 to 1,000; and Stringer 19 (left and right), station 520 to 740.
    (2) For airplane line numbers 59 through 200, inclusive: Modify
the skin panel lap joints at Stringer 12 (left and right), station
740 to 1,000; and Stringer 19 (left and right), station 520 to 740.
    (l) For all airplanes: Perform an external HFEC inspection to
detect skin cracks of any modified skin panel lap joints at the
times specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD,
as applicable, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-
2307, Revision 2, dated October 14, 1993; or Revision 3, dated April
16, 2009. As of the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 may
be used. Repeat that inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 3,000 flight cycles, except as required by paragraph (n) of
this AD.
    (1) For skin panel lap joints on which the ``full'' modification
has been accomplished: Within 10,000 flight cycles after
accomplishment of that modification.
    (2) For skin panel lap joints on which the ``optional''
(partial) modification has been accomplished: Within 7,000 flight
cycles after accomplishment of that modification.
    (3) For skin panel lap joints having deep countersink fasteners
located at Section 42 on which the ``full'' modification, as
described in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, dated December 21,
1989, has been accomplished: Within 5,000 flight cycles after
accomplishment of that modification.
    (m) In lieu of the ``full'' modification required by paragraph
(k) of this AD, the ``optional'' (partial) modification described in
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision 2, dated October 14,
1993; or Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009; may be accomplished for
skin panels that have an outer thickness of 0.090 inches or less,
and that do not have any cracks, corrosion, or an existing
structural repair on the skin panel lap joint. After the effective
date of this AD, only Revision 3 may be used. The ``optional''
(partial) modification shall not be accomplished at deep countersink
fastener locations. Accomplishment of this modification terminates
the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Post-Modification Inspection at Reduced Intervals

    (n) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD
at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and
(n)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals
not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles.
    (1) Within 3,000 flight cycles after the last inspection done in
accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (2) Within 1,000 flight cycles after the last inspection done in
accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD or 500 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

Post-Repair Inspection for External Doubler Repair

    (o) For all airplanes: Do an internal surface HFEC inspection
for cracking of the skin at any external doubler repairs greater
than 40 inches in length (in the horizontal direction) within 1,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53-2307, Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009. Thereafter, perform that
inspection at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.
    (p) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (o) of this AD, repair in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307,
Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (q)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590. Or, e-mail information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics
inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector,
your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval
letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Organization Designation Authorization who has been authorized by
the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 90-15-06,
Amendment 39-6653; and AD 94-12-09, Amendment 39-8937; are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (r) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2307, Revision
3, dated April 16, 2009, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise. If you accomplish the optional
actions specified by this AD, you must use Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53-2307, Revision 3, dated April 16, 2009, to perform those
actions, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 23, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-25019 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76107-76109]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26764]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0795; FRL-10217-02-R9]

Determination To Defer Sanctions; California; Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an interim
final determination that the California Air Resources Board has
submitted a revised rule on behalf of the Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD) that corrects a deficiency in its Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) State implementation plan (SIP) provisions
concerning reasonably available control technology (RACT) ozone
nonattainment requirements for controlling emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from solvent cleaning and degreasing
operations. This determination is based on a proposed approval,
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, of YSAQMD's
Rule 2.31, which regulates this source category. The effect of this
interim final determination is that the imposition of sanctions that
was triggered by a prior disapproval by the EPA, is now deferred. If
the EPA finalizes its approval of YSAQMD 's submission, relief from
these sanctions will become permanent.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on December 13,
2022. However, comments must be received on or before January 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0795 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any

information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if
you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation
at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 30, 2021 (86 FR 40959), the EPA issued a rule promulgating
a limited approval and limited disapproval for the YSAQMD rule listed
in Table 1 that was submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) to the EPA for inclusion into the California SIP.

                                 Table 1--District Rule With Previous EPA Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Rule No.                     Rule title           Revised        Submitted      EPA action in 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.31..............................  Solvent Cleaning and        11/2/2016      06/22/2017  Limited Approval and
                                     Degreasing.                                            Limited Disapproval.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas classified as Moderate nonattainment for an ozone standard
must implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) for each
category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The
YSAQMD area is classified as Severe nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and Moderate
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    In the 2021 final rule, we determined that the submitted YSAQMD
rule included a deficiency that precluded our full approval of the rule
into the SIP. YSAQMD's previously submitted Rule 2.31 exempted solvent
degreasing operations subject to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements of 40 CFR part 63
Subpart T--National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning
from the control requirements under the rule, which we found did not
satisfy SIP requirements under CAA section 182(b)(2) because the RACT
requirements for sources subject to the NESHAP requirements of 40 CFR
Subpart T are not included in the SIP. Pursuant to section 179 of the
CAA and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, the disapproval action on Rule
2.31 under title I, part D started a sanctions clock for imposition of
offset sanctions 18 months after the action's effective date of August
30, 2021, and highway sanctions 6 months later.
    On July 14, 2021, the YSAQMD revised Rule 2.31, and on July 18,
2022, CARB submitted the SIP revision to the EPA for approval into the
California SIP as shown in Table 2 below.

                                             Table 2--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Rule No.                                Rule title                  Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.31.......................................  Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing....      07/14/2021      07/18/2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2022, the submittal for YSAQMD Rule 2.31 was
determined to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix
V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
    The revised YSAQMD Rule 2.31 in Table 2 is intended to address the
disapproval issues in our 2021 final rule. In the Proposed Rules
section of this Federal Register, we have proposed approval of the
revised YSAQMD Rule 2.31. Based on this proposed action approving Rule
2.31 into the California SIP, we are also making this interim final
determination, effective on publication, to defer imposition of the
offset sanctions and highway sanctions that were triggered by our 2021
final action on Rule 2.31, because we believe that the submittal
corrects the deficiencies that triggered such sanctions.
    The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on
this deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our
assessment described in this interim final determination and the
proposed full approval of YSAQMD Rule 2.31, we would take final action
to lift this deferral of sanctions under 40 CFR 52.31. If no comments
are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions and any
sanction clocks triggered by our 2021 final action would be permanently
terminated on the effective date of our final approval of Rule 2.31.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

    We are making an interim final determination to defer the
imposition of sanctions under CAA section 179 associated with our
disapproval action on July 30, 2021, of YSAQMD's Rule 2.31 with respect
to the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA. This determination
is based on our concurrent proposed approval of Rule 2.31 which
resolves the deficiency that triggered sanctions under section 179 of
the CAA.
    Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that YSAQMD's Rule
2.31 addresses the limited disapproval issue under part D of title I of
the CAA identified in our 2021 final action and the rule is now fully
approvable, relief

from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore,
the EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before
this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action,
the EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on the EPA's
determination after the effective date, and the EPA will consider any
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
    The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. The EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and,
through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than
not that the State has submitted a revision to the SIP that corrects
deficiencies under part D of the Act that were the basis for the action
that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public
interest to impose sanctions. The EPA believes that it is necessary to
use the interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions while the
EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the
State's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this
action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day
notice requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act because the
purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action defers sanctions and imposes no additional
requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     The State did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in
the record inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
indigenous peoples.
     Is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
     Is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA
allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than
otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding
that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The
EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in section
II of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 13, 2023. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the EPA Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 4, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-26764 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P