[Federal Register: February 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 29)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7202-7204]
[DOCID:fr13fe09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0055; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-194-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, A300 B2-203,
A300 B2K-3C, A300 B4-103, A300 B4-203, and A300 B4-2C Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88). * * *
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft * * * are required to conduct a design
review against explosion risks.
    One of the consequences of the Airbus design review is the
modification of the fuel pump wiring to provide protection against
chafing of the fuel pump cables. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, arcing,
and possible fuel tank explosion.
    [A previous AD] was issued to require * * * modification [of the
fuel pump against short circuit]. * * * More recently, an additional
modification of the electrical wiring of the outer fuel pump and the
landing lights on the left (LH) and right (RH) sides has been
introduced * * *.

The additional modification will provide additional protection from
chafing and will prevent intermittent operation of the fuel pump and
landing lights, as well as failure of the power supply. The proposed AD
would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced 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> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0055;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-194-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On August 17, 2007, we issued AD 2007-18-02, Amendment 39-15182 (72
FR 49175, August 28, 2007). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2007-18-02, an Airbus design review has shown
that the LH (left-hand) and RH (right-hand) landing light power
supplies, which are installed in the same metallic conduits as the fuel
pump cables, are subject to chafing. The design review also showed that
installing additional mechanical protection will protect against
chafing of the landing light cables, provide further protection against
chafing of the fuel pump cables, and will prevent intermittent
operation of the fuel pump and landing lights, as well as failure of
the power supply. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is
the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community,
has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0188, dated October 10,
2008 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88). Subsequently, the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)
recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National
Aviation Authorities (NAA) of its member countries. Under this
regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport
aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a
payload capacity of 3,402 kg (7,500 lbs) or more, which have
received their certification since 01 January 1958, are required to
conduct a design review against explosion.
    One of the consequences of the Airbus design review is the
modification of the fuel pump wiring to provide protection against
chafing of the fuel pump cables. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, arcing,
and possible fuel tank explosion.
    EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) AD 2007-0066 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2007-18-02] was issued to require this
modification in accordance with Airbus SB [service bulletin] A300-
24-0103, Revision 01. More recently, an additional modification of
the electrical wiring of the outer fuel pump and the landing lights
on the left (LH) and right (RH) side has been introduced in Revision
02 of Airbus SB A300-24-0103. For the reason described above, this
new AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2007-0066, which is
superseded, and requires additional work.

The additional modification will provide additional protection from

chafing and will prevent intermittent operation of the fuel pump and
landing lights, as well as failure of the power supply. The additional
work is installing mechanical protection (shrink sleeve to cover the
whole wire cable length, and additional braided conduit sleeves
(Halar)) for the outer fuel pumps and the landing light cables on the
LH and RH side. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision
02, dated April 4, 2008. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 88 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $9,150 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $210,470, or $16,190 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15182 (72 FR
49175, August 28, 2007) and adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2009-0055; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
194-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 16, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) The proposed AD supersedes AD 2007-18-02, Amendment 39-
15182.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, A300 B2-203,
A300 B2K-3C, A300 B4-103, A300 B4-203, and A300 B4-2C, certificated
in any category, as identified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-24-0103, Revision 02, dated April 4, 2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24:
Electrical Power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88). Subsequently, the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)
recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National
Aviation Authorities (NAA) of its member countries. Under this
regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport
aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a
payload capacity of 3,402 kg (7,500 lbs) or more, which have
received their certification since 01 January 1958, are required to
conduct a design review against explosion.
    One of the consequences of the Airbus design review is the
modification of the fuel pump wiring to provide protection against
chafing of the fuel pump cables. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in short circuits leading to fuel pump failure, arcing,
and possible fuel tank explosion.
    EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) AD 2007-0066 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2007-18-02] was issued to require this
modification in accordance with Airbus SB [service bulletin] A300-
24-0103, Revision 01. More recently, an additional modification of
the electrical wiring of the outer fuel pump and the landing lights
on the left (LH) and right (RH) side has been introduced in

Revision 02 of Airbus SB A300-24-0103. For the reason described
above, this new AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2007-0066,
which is superseded, and requires additional work.

The additional modification will provide additional protection from
chafing and will prevent intermittent operation of the fuel pump and
landing lights, as well as failure of the power supply. The
additional work is installing mechanical protection (shrink sleeve
to cover the whole wire cable length, and additional braided conduit
sleeves (Halar)) for the outer fuel pumps and the landing light
cables on the LH and RH side.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007-18-02

    (f) Within 31 months after October 2, 2007 (the effective date
of AD 2007-18-02), unless already done, modify the inner and outer
fuel pump wiring, route 1P and 2P harnesses in the LH (left-hand)
wing and in the RH (right-hand) wing, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0103,
Revision 01, dated January 11, 2007. Actions done before October 2,
2007 in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, dated
March 15, 2006, for airplanes under configuration 1 as defined in
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 01, dated January 11,
2007, or Revision 02, dated April 4, 2008, except as provided by
paragraph (g) of this AD, are acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph.

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (g) After the effective date of this AD, Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 02, dated April 4, 2008,
must be used for the actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (h) Unless already done, within 12 months after the effective
date of this AD, modify the wiring of the outer fuel pump and the
landing light on the LH side route 1P harness and RH side route 2P
harness in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 02, dated April 4,
2008.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. (2) Alternative methods of
compliance, approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-18-02,
are approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0188, dated October 10, 2008; Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 01, dated January 11, 2007;
and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-24-0103, Revision 02,
dated April 4, 2008; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 21, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-3121 Filed 2-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62653-62656]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1060; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Within the scope of the Fuel System Safety Program (FSSP),
analyses of the wire routing showed that the route 2S of the fuel
electrical circuit in the Right Hand (RH) wing must be modified in
order to ensure better segregation between fuel quantity indication
wires and the 115 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) wires of route 2S.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in short circuits
leading to arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion.
* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 25,
2011.

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1060;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-015-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On January 3, 2008, we issued AD 2008-01-05, Amendment 39-15330 (73
FR 2795, January 16, 2008). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2008-01-05, Amendment 39-15330 (73 FR 2795,
January 16, 2008), we have determined

that the route 2S of the fuel electrical circuit in the right hand wing
must be modified to ensure better segregation between fuel quantity
indication wires and the 115 volts alternating current wires of route
2S. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0005, dated January 17, 2011 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Within the scope of the Fuel System Safety Program (FSSP),
analyses of the wire routing showed that the route 2S of the fuel
electrical circuit in the Right Hand (RH) wing must be modified in
order to ensure better segregation between fuel quantity indication
wires and the 115 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) wires of route 2S.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in short circuits
leading to arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion.
    To address this unsafe condition, [Direction
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile] DGAC France issued AD
2002-578(B) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2004-15-16, Amendment 39-
13750 (69 FR 45578, July 30, 2004)] to require improvements of the
design as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310-28-2148
original issue or Revision 01. EASA AD 2007-0230 [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2008-01-05 (73 FR 2795, January 16, 2008)], which
superseded DGAC France AD 2002-578(B), required those same actions,
plus additional work as defined in Airbus SB A310-28-2148 Revision
02.
    Since EASA AD 2007-0230 was issued, an operator reported the
possibility of chafing with the new routing of the wire bundle 2S in
the RH wing pylon area to the generator wire bundle of engine 2. The
modification of this zone was introduced by A310-28-2148 Revision 02
as additional work. Investigation showed that, to avoid the risk of
chafing, the affected wiring harnesses must be installed at a higher
position to provide sufficient clearance with the newly routed wire
bundle 2S conduit.
    Airbus published Revision 03 of SB A310-28-2148 to describe
these changes, but a new interference has been found and requires
updating SB A310-28-2148 to Revision 04 [or 05].
    For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2007-0230, which is superseded, and requires
the additional work as specified in Revision 04 [or 05] of Airbus SB
A310-28-2148.

Required actions include modifying the wire routings and installing a
modified bracket. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision
05, dated August 3, 2010. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 61 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                             Table--Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number  of
                                              Work     Average                Cost per     U.S.-
                   Action                     hours   labor rate    Parts     airplane   registered   Fleet cost
                                                       per hour                          airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification (required by AD 2004-15-16,         35          $85     $4,459     $7,434           68     $505,512
 Amendment 39[dash]13750 (69 FR 45578, July
 30, 2004))................................
Modification (required by AD 2008-01-05,         22           85      1,870      3,740           68      254,320
 Amendment 39[dash]15330 (73 FR 2795,
 January 16, 2008))........................
Modification (new proposed action).........      62           85      2,210      7,480           61      456,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15330 (73 FR
2795, January 16, 2008) and adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2011-1060; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-
015-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 25, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-01-05, Amendment 39-15330 (73 FR
2795, January 16, 2008).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222,
-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category;
all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Within the scope of the Fuel System Safety Program (FSSP),
analyses of the wire routing showed that the route 2S of the fuel
electrical circuit in the Right Hand (RH) wing must be modified in
order to ensure better segregation between fuel quantity indication
wires and the 115 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) wires of route 2S.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in short circuits
leading to arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion.
* * * * *

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 2004-15-16 Amendment 39-13750 (69 FR
45578, July 30, 2004), With New Service Information

Modification

    (g) For all airplanes except airplanes on which Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007, has been
done (Airbus Modifications 12427 and 12435): Within 4,000 flight
hours after September 3, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-15-16
(69 FR 45578, July 30, 2004)), modify the routing of wires in the RH
wing by installing cable sleeves, per the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01,
dated October 29, 2002; Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007; or
Revision 05, dated August 3, 2010. As of February 20, 2008 (the
effective date of AD 2008-01-05, Amendment 39-15330 (73 FR 2795,
January 16, 2008)), Revision 02 must be used. As of the effective
date of this AD, Revision 05 must be used.

Actions Accomplished Previously

    (h) Modification of the routing of wires accomplished before
September 3, 2004, per Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, dated
January 23, 2002, is acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2008-01-05, Amendment 39-15330 (73 FR
2795, January 16, 2008), With New Service Information

Modification (Additional Work)

    (i) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, dated January 23, 2002; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 01, dated October 29, 2002;
have been done before February 20, 2008, except for airplanes on
which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March
9, 2007, has been done (Airbus Modifications 12427 and 12435):
Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months after February 20, 2008,
whichever occurs first, perform further modification by installing
additional protection sleeves in the outer wing area near the
cadensicon sensor and segregating wire route 2S in the RH pylon
area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007; or
Revision 05, dated August 3, 2010. As of the effective date of this
AD, Revision 05 must be used.

New Requirements of This AD

Additional Modification/Installation for Certain Airplanes

    (j) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007,
have been accomplished, and do not have production modification
07633 and on which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-2015 has not been
done: Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, modify the wire routings,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 05, dated August 3, 2010.
    (k) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007,
have been accomplished, and have production modification 07633 or on
which Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-2015 has been done: Within
1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, install a
modified bracket, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.(7) ``Additional
Work 2'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 05, dated August 3, 2010.
    (l) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 03, dated June 2, 2009, have
been accomplished; and have modification 07633 done in production or
on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-36-
2015 have been done; no further action is required by this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (m) Modifications done in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 04, dated April 14, 2010, before the
effective date of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding modification required by paragraph (g), (i), (j), and
(k) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (n) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD. AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2008-01-05,
Amendment 39-15330 (73 FR 2795, January 16, 2008), are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they

are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated
agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before
it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (o) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0005, dated January 17, 2011; and
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2148, Revision 05, dated August 3,
2010; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 28, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-26106 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 19489]
[DOCID:fr18ap07-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-540-000]

High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; Notice of Informal
Settlement Conference

April 12, 2007.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened
in this proceeding commencing at 10 a.m. (EST) on Thursday, April 19,
2007 at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible
settlement of the above-referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact Arnold Meltz (202-502-
8649).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7314 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


INFORMATION MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Documenting Electronic Reporting Participation Rates for Authorized NPDES Programs
FROM:	Carey A. Johnston, NPDES Electronic Reporting Team Lead
		US EPA/OECA/Office of Compliance

TO:		Randolph L. Hill, Director
		Enforcement Targeting and Data Division
		US EPA/OECA/Office of Compliance

DATE: 	16 September 2019

Overview
The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule ("NPDES eRule") requires EPA to calculate electronic reporting participation rates for each authorized NPDES program six months after the deadline for conversion from paper to electronic submissions and annually thereafter [see 40 CFR 127.26(j)]. The first electronic reporting deadline for the NPDES eRule was 21 December 2016 and it included NPDES Data Groups No. 3 (Discharge Monitoring Reports or "DMRs") and No. 4 [Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports, where EPA implements the biosolids program (40 CFR Part 503)]. See Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16.
This memorandum documents the third assessment of these electronic reporting participation rates since publication of the 2015 NPDES eRule. EPA used data in its national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES) as of 13 September 2019 to calculate electronic reporting participation rates for NPDES Data Groups No. 3. Separately, EPA used data from its biosolids annual report NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool ("NeT-Biosolids") as 31 July 2019 to calculate electronic reporting participation rates for NPDES Data Groups No. 4.
EPA will continue to work collaboratively with authorized NPDES programs to enhance implementation of the NPDES eRule. Authorized NPDES programs can request assistance from EPA by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                  2019 NPDES Electronic Reporting Assessment
                               40 CFR 127.26(j)

Discharge Monitoring Reports (NPDES Data Group No. 3)

EPA's NPDES regulations require NPDES permittees to report their effluent monitoring data on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). See 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i). The start date for permittees to electronically submit these DMRs was 21 December 2016 (see Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16).

EPA created the "NPDES eRule Readiness and Data Completeness Dashboard" to collaborate with authorized NPDES programs and to calculate the annual electronic reporting participation assessments for NPDES Data Groups No. 3 (DMRs). This online tool shows how well authorized NPDES programs are doing in sharing facility, permit, and DMR data for DMR filers with ICIS-NPDES. To ensure that this dashboard accurately represents the progress states are making in implementing the NPDES eRule, EPA performs weekly updates of the dashboard with data from ICIS-NPDES. For the 2019 assessment for DMR filers, EPA calculated the percentage of individually permitted facilities that do not have permit limits data in ICIS-NPDES (shown as "Permit Limits Not in ICIS" on the dashboard). See Attachment 1. The dashboard has a drilldown feature that allows EPA and States to identify those facilities in the "Permit Limits Not in ICIS" category. EPA is helping the authorized NPDES programs so that they can provide us the minimum set of data as required by the NPDES eRule (see 40 CFR 127.23).

For the 2020 assessment and annually thereafter, EPA plans to expand the assessment to include all relevant data elements for tracking implementation for all DMR filers, except those that file DMRs irregularly and/or have an approved electronic reporting waiver. In particular, EPA will limit these calculations to facilities that report DMRs to the permitting authority on a regular frequency (i.e., "NPDES Data Group Number" = G3A) and exclude facilities that have an approved electronic reporting waiver (i.e., "Electronic Reporting Waiver Type" = TMP or PER). EPA will also identify if a DMR filer electronically submitted their DMRs by using the "Electronic Submission Type (Compliance Monitoring Activity)" data element (ES1, ES2, or ES7).

Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports (NPDES Data Group No. 4)

EPA's biosolids regulations (40 CFR part 503) require certain generators of biosolids to file a Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report (NPDES Data Group No. 4). This annual report is submitted each February and documents the measures taken to protect public health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain pollutants and pathogens that might be present in sewage sludge/biosolids. The start date for regulated entities to electronically submit this report where EPA is the authorized NPDES program was 21 December 2016 (see Table 1 to 40 CFR 127.16).

EPA calculated the electronic reporting participation rates by EPA Region for NPDES-regulated entities that electronically submitted the annual report. This calculation was based on those NPDES-regulated entities that electronically submitted their annual report through EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool ("NeT") and those NPDES-regulated entities that submitted their annual report on paper or through non-standard electronic submissions (e.g., via email). For the 2018 Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report, which had a due date of 19 February 2019, EPA received 2,290 annual reports electronically through NeT. EPA also received 52 paper biosolids annual reports that should have been filed electronically through NeT-Biosolids. This equates to an overall electronic participation rate of 97.7%. See Attachment 2.

With respect to the 52 reports submitted to EPA on paper or by non-standard electronic submissions, EPA plans to work with its Biosolids Center of Excellence (Region 7 in Kansas City, KS) to contact these filers to ensure they are aware of the electronic reporting requirement. In particular, EPA will offer additional training to these facilities so that they can submit their annual report using EPA's NeT application.

Attachments (2)

          Attachment 1  -  2019 NPDES Electronic Reporting Assessment
                     (DMR Filers - NPDES Data Group No. 3)
                                      No.
                          State, Tribe, or Territory
                Authorized for NPDES Program
(40 CFR part 122)
                                  EPA Region
                 Number of Individual DMR Filers in ICIS-NPDES
Percentage of Individually Permitted DMR Filers That Do Not Have Limits Data in ICIS-NPDES
                                       1
                                    Alabama
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,237
                                     0.1%
                                       2
                                    Alaska
                                      Yes
                                      10
                                      60
                                     0.0%
                                       3
                                    Arizona
                                      Yes
                                       9
                                      108
                                     0.9%
                                       4
                                   Arkansas
                                      Yes
                                       6
                                      788
                                     0.0%
                                       5
                                  California
                                      Yes
                                       9
                                      404
                                     1.7%
                                       6
                                   Colorado
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      382
                                     0.0%
                                       7
                                  Connecticut
                                      Yes
                                       1
                                      150
                                     0.0%
                                       8
                                   Delaware
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                      41
                                     0.0%
                                       9
                             District of Columbia
                                      No
                                       3
                                      10
                                     0.0%
                                      10
                                    Florida
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                      416
                                     0.0%
                                      11
                                    Georgia
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                      630
                                     0.2%
                                      12
                                    Hawaii
                                      Yes
                                       9
                                      45
                                     2.2%
                                      13
                                     Idaho
                                      Yes
                                      10
                                      21
                                     0.0%
                                      14
                                   Illinois
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                     1,445
                                     0.3%
                                      15
                                    Indiana
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                     1,231
                                     0.4%
                                      16
                                     Iowa
                                      Yes
                                       7
                                      17
                                     41.2%
                                      17
                                    Kansas
                                      Yes
                                       7
                                      728
                                     0.0%
                                      18
                                   Kentucky
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,386
                                     0.1%
                                      19
                                   Louisiana
                                      Yes
                                       6
                                     1,225
                                     6.6%
                                      20
                                     Maine
                                      Yes
                                       1
                                      149
                                     0.0%
                                      21
                                   Maryland
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                      473
                                     2.3%
                                      22
                                 Massachusetts
                                      No
                                       1
                                      207
                                     3.4%
                                      23
                                   Michigan
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                      15
                                     0.0%
                                      24
                                   Minnesota
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                      600
                                     66.5%
                                      25
                                  Mississippi
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,134
                                     0.0%
                                      26
                                   Missouri
                                      Yes
                                       7
                                     2,390
                                     0.8%
                                      27
                                    Montana
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      99
                                     1.0%
                                      28
                                   Nebraska
                                      Yes
                                       7
                                      680
                                     12.5%
                                      29
                                    Nevada
                                      Yes
                                       9
                                      88
                                     3.4%
                                      30
                                 New Hampshire
                                      No
                                       1
                                      69
                                     0.0%
                                      31
                                  New Jersey
                                      Yes
                                       2
                                      401
                                     0.2%
                                      32
                                  New Mexico
                                      No
                                       6
                                      112
                                     0.9%
                                      33
                                   New York
                                      Yes
                                       2
                                     1,333
                                     0.0%
                                      34
                                North Carolina
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                     1,103
                                     2.3%
                                      35
                                 North Dakota
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      27
                                     3.7%
                                      36
                                     Ohio
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                     2,116
                                     0.1%
                                      37
                                   Oklahoma
                                      Yes
                                       6
                                      444
                                     0.0%
                                      38
                                    Oregon
                                      Yes
                                      10
                                      298
                                     0.0%
                                      39
                                 Pennsylvania
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                     3,809
                                     48.4%
                                      40
                                  Puerto Rico
                                      No
                                       2
                                      191
                                     0.0%
                                      41
                                 Rhode Island
                                      Yes
                                       1
                                      68
                                     0.0%
                                      42
                                South Carolina
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                      388
                                     1.3%
                                      43
                                 South Dakota
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      201
                                     0.0%
                                      44
                                   Tennessee
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                      961
                                     0.1%
                                      45
                                     Texas
                                      Yes
                                       6
                                     3,041
                                     9.4%
                                      46
                                     Utah
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      120
                                     0.8%
                                      47
                                    Vermont
                                      Yes
                                       1
                                      183
                                     1.1%
                                      48
                                Virgin Islands
                                      Yes
                                       2
                                      78
                                     0.0%
                                      49
                                   Virginia
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                      857
                                     0.1%
                                      50
                                  Washington
                                      Yes
                                      10
                                       6
                                     83.3%
                                      51
                                 West Virginia
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                     1,730
                                     2.8%
                                      52
                                   Wisconsin
                                      Yes
                                       5
                                      708
                                     0.1%
                                      53
                                    Wyoming
                                      Yes
                                       8
                                      286
                                     0.0%
                                      54
                               Other Territories
                                      No
                                    2, 6, 9
                                      20
                                     0.0%

Source: EPA's NPDES eRule Readiness and Data Completeness Dashboard. The dashboard selector "Issuing Agency" was set to "State" for states and territories that are authorized to administer the NPDES program. Conversely, this dashboard selector was set to "U.S. EPA" for states and territories that are not authorized to administer the NPDES program. Data for the 2019 assessment was retrieved from the dashboard on 16 September 2019 (which uses data from ICIS-NPDES as of 13 September 2019).

Note: This table excludes EPA issued permits in states where the state is the authorized NPDES program (40 CFR part 122). The "Other Territories" row in this table includes: (1) American Samoa (AS), Guam (GU), Northern Mariana Islands (MP), Midway Island and Wake Island (MW), and Navajo Nation  -  these NPDES permits are issued by EPA Region 9 (NN); (2) Federal Offshore Oil and Gas permits in the Western Gulf of Mexico  -  these NPDES permits are issued by EPA Region 6 (GM); and (3) Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe - these NPDES permits are issued by EPA Region 2 (SR).
         Attachment 2  -  2019 NPDES Electronic Reporting Assessment
(Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers - NPDES Data Group No. 4)

                                  EPA Region
        Number of Sewage Sludge /Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers
Number of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers that Filed on Paper or Non-Standard Electronic Submissions
Number of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers that Filed Electronically via EPA's NeT
Number of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers that Filed Electronically via EPA's NeT (Regulated by State NPDES Biosolids Programs)
Percentage of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report Filers that Filed Electronically as Required by
                                  NPDES eRule
                                 (40 CFR 127)
                                       1
                                      162
                                       8
                                      154
                                      N/A
                                     95.1%
                                       2
                                      250
                                      10
                                      240
                                      N/A
                                     96.0%
                                       3
                                      271
                                       2
                                      269
                                      N/A
                                     99.3%
                                       4
                                      499
                                      12
                                      487
                                      N/A
                                     97.6%
                                       5
                                      306
                                       7
                                      310
                                      11
                                     97.7%
                                       6
                                      97
                                       2
                                      95
                                       0
                                     97.9%
                                       7
                                      248
                                       8
                                      240
                                      N/A
                                     96.8%
                                       8
                                      104
                                       2
                                      125
                                      23
                                     98.1%
                                       9
                                      238
                                       0
                                      242
                                       4
                                    100.0%
                                      10
                                      129
                                       1
                                      128
                                      N/A
                                     99.2%
                                     TOTAL
                                     2,304
                                      52
                                     2,290
                                      38
                                     97.7%

Source: EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool ("NeT"). These data represent reports that were received by NeT for the 2018 reporting year (as of 31 July 2019).

Note: The following states are authorized to run the Federal biosolids program (40 CFR part 503): Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. See: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-state-program-information. The NPDES eRule requires filers in these eight states to start electronically filing their annual reports no later than 21 December 2020. EPA received the following number of annual reports from filers in states authorized for the Federal biosolids program via NeT for the 2018 reporting year (as of 31 July 2019): Arizona (4), Michigan (5), Ohio (6), Oklahoma (0), South Dakota (19), Texas (0), Utah (4), and Wisconsin (0). EPA receive four paper annual reports from filers in states authorized for the Federal biosolids program: Ohio (2) and Wisconsin (2).