[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5056-5060]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01736]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-0451; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-253-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-23-
20 for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and Model A300 B4-
601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R,
A300 F4-605R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes. AD 2004-23-20 currently
requires, for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections for cracking
around certain attachment holes, installation of new fasteners for
certain airplanes, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. AD
2004-23-20 also requires modifying certain fuselage frames, which
terminates certain repetitive inspections. Since we issued AD 2004-23-
20, we received a report indicating that the material used to
manufacture the upper frame feet was changed and negatively affected
the fatigue life of the frame feet. This proposed AD would reduce the
compliance times for the initial inspection and the inspection
intervals. This proposed AD would also expand the applicability and
require an additional repair on certain airplanes that have been
modified. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the center
section of the fuselage, which could result in a ruptured frame foot
and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 17, 2016.

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 NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
0451; 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 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, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
425-227-1149.

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-2016-0451;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-253-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 November 10, 2004, we issued AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875
(69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004) for all Airbus Model A300 series
airplanes and Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622,
A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 F4-605R and A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes. (That AD superseded AD 2001-06-10, Amendment 39-12157 (66 FR
17490, April 2, 2001)). AD 2004-23-20 requires actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779,
November 26, 2004) we received a report indicating that a change in
material for manufacturing the frame feet for certain airplanes
negatively impacted the fatigue life of the frame feet.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0295, dated December 11, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A300 B4-
601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R,
A300 F4-605R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a scheduled inspection of the fuselage frame feet of an
in-service A300-600 aeroplane, cracks were observed in Frame (FR)
43, FR 44, FR 45 and FR 46 between stringer (STGR) 24 and STGR 30.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, [Direction Generale de
l'Aviation Civile] DGAC France issued [an] AD * * * to require
repetitive inspections of the affected frames and stringers on both
sides of the fuselage and, depending on findings, repairs, as
specified in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-6122.
    Subsequently, DGAC France issued AD F-2004-002 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/F-2004-002] (EASA approval 2003-2108) [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779,
November 26, 2004)], retaining the requirements of [an] AD * * * and
required the embodiment of Airbus SB A300-53-6125 (Airbus
modification 12168) in order to improve the life of the frame foot
attachment.
    Since DGAC France AD F-2004-002 was issued, a fleet survey and
updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses were performed in
order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal
(ESG2) exercise.
    It was highlighted that the frame feet material change from
2024T3511 (A300B4) to 7175T7351 (A300-600) had an impact on the
frame feet fatigue life duration. Airbus SB A300-53-6122 was revised
accordingly to decrease the inspection thresholds and intervals.
Subsequent SB revision introduced a second structural modification
point (SMP2) for aeroplanes that embody Airbus SB A300-53-6125
(modification 12168).
    For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD F-2004-002, which is superseded, but
requires those actions within the new thresholds and intervals as
specified in Revision 04 of Airbus SB A300-53-6122.

    The retained requirements include rototest inspections for cracking
in the area surrounding the frame feet attachment holes between
fuselage FR 41 and FR 46 from stringers 24 to 28 on the left and right
sides, and related investigative and corrective action if necessary.
The related investigative actions include additional rotating probe
inspections of the adjacent holes. The corrective actions include
reaming out cracks, cold working fastener holes, and installing
oversized fasteners, or repair. This proposed AD also expands the
applicability to include airplanes on which Airbus Modification 12168
was done. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2016-0451.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, Revision 04, dated
February 27, 2012. The service information describes procedures for the
repetitive inspections of certain frame feet attachment holes for
cracks, installation of new fasteners, and repair of cracked areas.
    In addition, Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6125,
Revision 01, dated June 13, 2003. The service information provides
compliance times for certain airplanes to do the proposed modification.
    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 04,
dated March 17, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
the modification of certain upper frame feet fittings.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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.

Changes to AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26,
2004)

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2004-23-20,
Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004). Since AD 2004-23-
20 was issued the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs
have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph
designators have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the
following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Designators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Requirement in AD 2004-23-20,
  Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779,    Corresponding requirement in this
         November 26, 2004)                      proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             paragraph (f)                       paragraph (g).
             paragraph (g)                       paragraph (h).
             paragraph (h)                       paragraph (i).
             paragraph (i)                       paragraph (j).
             paragraph (j)                       paragraph (k).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have converted ``TABLE 1.--SERVICE INFORMATION'' in AD 2004-23-
20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004) to text in
paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (j)(3)(ii) of this proposed AD for formatting
purposes only.
    We have also moved the service information acceptable for
compliance if previously done from ``TABLE 1.--SERVICE INFORMATION'' in
AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004) to
paragraph (r)(2) of this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875
(69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 90 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Required parts cost about $4,000 per product. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD
2004-23-20 is $11,650 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take up to 109 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost up
to $6,070 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $996,775, or $15,335 per
product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-0451; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
253-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 17, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779,
November 26, 2004).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-
203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; and Model A300 B4-601,
A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R,
A300 F4-605R and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; certificated in
any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the material
used to manufacture the upper frame feet was changed and negatively
affected the fatigue life of the frame feet. We are issuing this AD
to prevent cracking of the center section of the fuselage, which
could result in a ruptured frame foot and reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004),
with revised service information. For Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-
600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F and A300 F4-
605R airplanes, except those airplanes modified by Airbus
Modification 12168: Perform a high-frequency eddy-current or
rototest inspection to detect cracking in the area surrounding the
frame feet attachment holes between fuselage frames (FR) 41 and FR
46 from stringers 24 to 28, left-and right-hand sides, in accordance
with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, dated February 9, 2000;
or the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
53-6122, Revision 04, dated February 27, 2012; at the applicable
time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
Accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD
terminates the inspections required by this paragraph.
    (1) For airplanes on which Task 53-15-54 in Maintenance Review
Board Document (MRBD), Revision 3, dated April 1998, has not been
accomplished as of May 7, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-06-10,
Amendment 39-12157 (66 FR 17490, April 2, 2001)): Perform the
inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to the accumulation of the total flight-cycle or
flight-hour threshold, whichever occurs first, specified in
paragraph 1.E. (``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
6122, dated February 9, 2000; or
    (ii) Within the applicable grace period specified in paragraph
1.E. (``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, dated
February 9, 2000.
    (2) For airplanes on which Task 53-15-54 in the MRBD, Revision
3, dated April 1998, has been accomplished as of May 7, 2001 (the
effective date of AD 2001-06-10, Amendment 39-12157 (66 FR 17490,
April 2, 2001)): Perform the next repetitive inspection at the later
of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of
this AD.
    (i) Within the flight-cycle or flight-hour interval, whichever
occurs first, specified in paragraph 1.E. (``Compliance'') of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, dated February 9, 2000, following the
latest inspection accomplished as specified in MRBD, Revision 3,
dated April 1998; or
    (ii) Within the grace period specified in paragraph 1.E.
(``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, dated
February 9, 2000.

(h) Retained Installation of Fasteners and Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004),
with revised service information. For airplanes on which no cracking
is detected during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, prior to further flight, install new fasteners as applicable, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, dated February
9, 2000; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6122, Revision 04, dated February 27, 2012; and
repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable intervals
specified in paragraph 1.E. (``Compliance'') of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6122, dated February 9, 2000; until the actions
required by paragraph (j) or (o) of this AD have been done or the
initial inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD is done.

(i) Retained Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004),
with revised service information. For airplanes on which cracking is
detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD:
Prior to further flight, except as required by paragraph (k) of this
AD, accomplish corrective actions (e.g., performing rotating probe
inspections, reaming out cracks, cold working fastener holes, and
installing oversized fasteners) in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6122, dated February 9, 2000; or the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, Revision 04,
dated February 27, 2012. Repeat the inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable
intervals specified in paragraph 1.E. (``Compliance'') of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, dated February 9, 2000; until the
actions required by paragraph (j) or (o) of this AD have been done,
or the initial inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD is
done.

(j) Retained Modification: Model A300 Series Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004), for
certain airplanes, with no changes. For Model A300 series airplanes:
Within the compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E.
(``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0271, Revision
03, dated June 13, 2003, modify the fuselage frames, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-53-0271, Revision 03, dated June 13, 2003. For airplanes that
have exceeded their design service goal, as specified in NOTE (01)
of paragraph 1.E. (``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
53-0271, Revision 03, dated June 13, 2003; this AD requires
compliance within the earlier of the flight-cycle and flight-hour
grace periods specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0271,
Revision 03, dated June 13, 2003.

(k) Retained Exceptions to Service Bulletin Procedures

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004),
with specific delegation approval language. During any inspection
required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, if the
applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g), (h),
(i), and (j) of this AD specifies to contact the manufacturer for
appropriate instructions: Before further flight, perform all
applicable corrective actions in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC) (or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(l) New Definition for This AD: Average Flight Time (AFT)

    For the purpose of this AD, use the parameters specified in
paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD to determine the
applicable AFT for the actions required by paragraph (m) and
compliance times required by paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (1) The initial inspection compliance time, as the total
accumulated flight hours counted from take-off to touch-down,
divided by the total accumulated flight cycles as of the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) The first repetitive inspection interval, as the total
accumulated flight hours divided by the total accumulated flight
cycles at the time of the inspection.
    (3) The second inspection interval and subsequent, as the flight
hours divided by the flight cycles between the last two inspections.

(m) New Requirements of This AD: Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this
AD, do a rotating probe inspection for discrepancies of the frame
feet attachment holes from FR 41 through FR 46, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
6122, Revision 04, dated February 27, 2012. Repeat the inspections
thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in paragraph
(n)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of this inspection terminates the
inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    (2) If any discrepancy (e.g., cracking or damage) is found
during any inspection required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD,
before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, Revision 04,
dated February 27, 2012; except where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
53-6122, Revision 04, dated February 27, 2012, specifies to contact
Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    (3) Corrective actions, as required by paragraph (m)(2) of this
AD, do not constitute terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(n) Compliance Times for Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    (1) Do the initial rotating probe inspection required by
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD at the applicable times specified in
paragraphs (n)(1)(i), (n)(1)(ii), and (n)(1)(iii) of this AD; or
within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD;
whichever occurs later.
    (i) For airplanes on which the modification specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6125 has not been done as of the effective
date of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph
(n)(1)(i)(A) or (n)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) If the AFT is greater than 1.5 flight hours/flight cycles:
Within 14,800 flight hours or 6,800 flight cycles, whichever occurs
first, since the airplane's first flight.
    (B) If the AFT is less than or equal to 1.5 flight hours/flight
cycles: Within 11,100 flight hours or 7,400 flight cycles, whichever
occurs first, since the airplane's first flight.
    (ii) For airplanes on which the modification specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6125 has been done as of the effective date
of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (n)(1)(iii) of this AD:
At the applicable times specified in paragraph (n)(1)(ii)(A) or
(n)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) If the AFT is greater than 1.5 flight hours/flight cycles:
Within 56,400 flight hours or 26,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs
first, after doing the modification specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6125.
    (B) If the AFT is less than or equal to 1.5 flight hours/flight
cycles: Within 42,300 flight hours or 28,200 flight cycles,
whichever occurs first, after doing the modification specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125.
    (iii) For airplanes on which the additional modification
required by paragraph (p) of this AD has been done: At the
applicable times in paragraph (n)(1)(iii)(A) or (n)(1)(iii)(B) of
this AD.
    (A) If the AFT is greater than 1.5 flight hours/flight cycles:
Within 69,400 flight hours or 32,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs
first, after doing the modification specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6125.
    (B) If the AFT is less than or equal to 1.5 flight hours/flight
cycles: Within 52,000 flight hours or 34,700 flight cycles,
whichever occurs first, after doing the modification specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125.
    (2) Do the repetitive rotating probe inspections required by
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD at intervals not to exceed those
specified in paragraph (n)(2)(i) or (n)(2)(ii) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (i) If the AFT is greater than 1.5 flight hours/flight cycles:
7,800 flight hours or 3,600 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) If the AFT is less than or equal to 1.5 flight hours/flight
cycles: 5,800 flight hours or 3,900 flight cycles, whichever occurs
first.

(o) New Requirement of This AD: Modification for Model A300 B4-601,
A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300
F4-605R and A300 C4-605R Variant F Airplanes

    (1) For Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-
622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 F4-605R and A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes, except those modified in production before the
effective date of this AD by Airbus Modification 12168 or those on
which the modification (i.e., reinforcement of the upper frame feet
fittings) specified in the service information identified in
paragraph (p)(1)(i), (p)(1)(ii), or (p)(1)(iii) of this AD has been
done before the effective date of this AD: At the applicable time
specified in paragraph (o)(1)(i) or (o)(1)(ii) of this AD: Reinforce
the upper frame feet fittings, including doing all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125,
Revision 04, dated March 17, 2015, except where Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 04, dated March 17, 2015, specifies
to contact Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions before
further flight.
    (i) For airplanes with an AFT greater than 1.5 flight hours/
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: At the later of
the times in paragraphs (o)(1)(i)(A) and (o)(1)(i)(B) of this AD:
    (A) Within 18,200 flight hours or 8,400 flight cycles, whichever
occurs first, since the airplane's first flight; or
    (B) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(o)(1)(i)(B)1 and (o)(1)(i)(B)2 of this AD.
    1 Within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.
    2 Within the compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E.
(``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision
01, dated June 13, 2003. For airplanes that have exceeded their
design service goal, as specified in NOTE (01) of paragraph 1.E.
(``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision
01, dated June 13, 2003; within the earlier of the flight-cycle and
flight-hour grace periods specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
53-6125, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2003.
    (ii) For airplanes with an AFT less than or equal to 1.5 flight
hours/flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: At the
later of the times in paragraphs (o)(1)(ii)(A) and (o)(1)(ii)(B) of
this AD:
    (A) Within 13,700 flight hours or 9,100 flight cycles, whichever
occurs first, since the airplane's first flight; or
    (B) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(o)(1)(ii)(B)1 and (o)(1)(ii)(B)2 of this AD.
    1 Within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD
    2 Within the compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E.
(``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision
01, dated June 13, 2003. For airplanes that have

exceeded their design service goal, as specified in NOTE (01) of
paragraph 1.E. (``Compliance'') of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
6125, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2003; within the earlier of the
flight-cycle and flight-hour grace periods specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2003.
    (2) For the affected Model A300 B4-600 series airplanes:
Accomplishment of the modification specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6125 before the effective date of this AD
terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this
AD.
    (3) For Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes:
Accomplishment of the modification specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6125 terminates certain repetitive inspections
required by AD 2007-04-11, Amendment 39-14943 (72 FR 8604, February
27, 2014), i.e., inspections of the frame feet holes for frames 41
to 46 (as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0345) and
frames 48 to 54 (as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
238). However, the repetitive inspections of the frame foot angle
radius (as specified in Service Bulletin A300-53-238), which are
required by AD 2007-04-11, must continue.

(p) New Requirement of This AD: Additional Modification for Certain
Airplanes

    (1) For Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-
622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 F4-605R and A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes modified in production before the effective date
of this AD by Airbus Modification 12168, or modified before the
effective date of this AD by accomplishment of the reinforcement of
the upper frame feet fittings specified in the service information
identified in paragraph (p)(1)(i), (p)(1)(ii), or (p)(1)(iii) of
this AD: Within 360 flight cycles prior to reaching the applicable
compliance time specified in paragraph (p)(2)(i) or (p)(2)(ii) of
this AD, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA;
for modification instructions and within the applicable compliance
time specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD, do the modification
using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, dated November 8,
2000.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 01, dated
June 13, 2003,
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 02, dated
February 25, 2005.
    (2) Do the modification required by paragraph (p)(1) of this AD
at the applicable time specified below.
    (i) For airplanes with an AFT greater than 1.5 flight hours/
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 32,100
flight cycles after the modification was completed.
    (ii) For airplanes with an AFT less than or equal to 1.5 flight
hours/flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within
34,700 flight cycles after the modification was completed.

(q) Modification Is Not Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of the modification specified in paragraph (o) or
(p) of this AD does not constitute terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(r) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) For Model A300 B4-600 and B4-600R series airplanes, and
Model A300 C4-605R Variant F and A300 F4-605R airplanes: This
paragraph provides credit for inspections and corrective actions
required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using
the applicable service information specified in paragraphs
(r)(1)(i), (r)(1)(ii), and (r)(1)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, Revision 01, dated
September 5, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, Revision 02, dated
June 17, 2002, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6122, Revision 03, dated
August 25, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph restates the credit for Airbus Model A300
series airplanes for previous actions as provided by Table 1 of AD
2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004). For
Airbus Model A300 series airplanes: This paragraph provides credit
for actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions
were performed before January 3, 2005 (the effective date of AD
2004-23-20) using the service information specified in paragraph
(r)(2)(i), (r)(2)(ii), or (r)(2)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0271, dated September 10,
1991, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0271, Revision 01, dated
February 16, 1993, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0271, Revision 02, dated
July 13, 2000, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(s) Other FAA AD Provisions

    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, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 96-13-11, Amendment 39-
9679 (61 FR 35122, July 5, 1996), and AD 2001-06-10, Amendment 39-
12157, April 2, 2001), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
requirements of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus' EASA DOA. If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(t) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0295, dated December 11,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0451.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 21, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-01736 Filed 1-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 52862-52863]
[DOCID:fr11se08-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0475]

Request for Notification From Industry Organizations Interested
in Participating in Selection Process for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives on Public Advisory Panels or Committees and Request for
Nonvoting Industry Representatives on Public Advisory Panels or
Committees

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any
industry organization interested in participating in the selection of
nonvoting industry representatives to serve on the Devices Good
Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee (DGMPAC) and certain device
panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee in the Center for
Devices and Radiological Health notify FDA in writing. A nominee may
either be self nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a
nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for
current vacancies effective with this notice.

DATES: Any industry organizations interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by October
14, 2008, for the vacancies listed in this notice. Concurrently,
nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA
by October 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: All letters of interest and nominations should be sent to
Kathleen L. Walker (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen L. Walker, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (HFZ-17), Food and Drug Administration, 7520
Standish Pl. (MPN1), Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agency intends to add nonvoting industry
representatives to the following advisory committees:

I. CDRH--Various Committees and Panels

A. Devices Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee (DGMPAC)

    Section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act)
(21 U.S.C. 360(j)), as amended, provides that the DGMPAC shall be
composed of two representatives of interests of the device
manufacturing industry.

B. Medical Devices Advisory Committee

    Section 520(f)(3) of the act, as amended by the Medical Device
Amendments of 1976, provides that each medical device panel include one
nonvoting member to represent the interests of the medical device
manufacturing industry.

II. CDRH--Committee and Panels Functions

    FDA is requesting nominations for nonvoting members representing
industry interests for the following vacancies listed in table 1 of
this document.

                                TABLE 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Committee Name or Panel              Approximate Date Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DGMPAC--The functions of the committee    Immediately
 are to review proposed regulations
 issuance regarding good manufacturing
 practices governing the methods used
 in, and the facilities and controls
 used for manufacture, packaging,
 storage, installation, and servicing of
 devices, and make recommendations
 regarding the feasibility and
 reasonableness of those proposed
 regulations. The committee also reviews
 and makes recommendations on proposed
 guidelines developed to assist the
 medical device industry in meeting the
 good manufacturing practice
 requirements, and provides advice with
 regard to any petition submitted by a
 manufacturer for an exemption or
 variance from good manufacturing
 practice regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Panels of the Medical Devices     ..............................
 Advisory Committee--The medical device
 panels perform the following functions:
 (1) Review and evaluate data on the
 safety and effectiveness of marketed
 and investigational devices and make
 recommendations for their regulation,
 (2) advise the Commissioner of Food and
 Drugs (the Commissioner) regarding
 recommended classification or
 reclassification of these devices into
 one of three regulatory categories, (3)
 advise on any possible risks to health
 associated with the use of devices, (4)
 advise on formulation of product
 development protocols, (5) review
 premarket approval applications for
 medical devices, (6) review guidelines
 and guidance documents, (7) recommend
 exemption to certain devices from the
 application of portions of the act, (8)
 advise on the necessity to ban a
 device, (9) respond to requests from
 the agency to review and make
 recommendations on specific issues or
 problems concerning the safety and
 effectiveness of devices, and (10) make
 recommendations on the quality in the
 design of clinical studies regarding
 the safety and effectiveness of
 marketed and investigational devices.
    Circulatory System Devices Panel      July 1, 2009
    Ear, Nose and Throat Devices Panel    November 1, 2008
    Neurological Devices Panel            December 1, 2008
    Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices     February 1, 2009
     Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter stating that interest to the contact
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will
send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest,
attaching a complete list of all such organizations, and a list of all
nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state
that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer
with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the
receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to
represent industry interests for a particular committee or device
panel. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of
nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is
selected within the 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting
member to represent industry interests.

IV. Qualifications

A. DGMPAC

    Persons nominated for membership as an industry representative on
the DGMPAC should possess appropriate qualifications to understand and
contribute to the committee's work. The particular needs for this
committee are listed in section II of this document.

B. Medical Devices Advisory Committee

    Persons nominated for the device panels should be full-time
employees of firms that manufacture products that would come before the
panel, or consulting firms that represent manufacturers, or have
similar appropriate ties to industry.

V. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self nominate and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. A current curriculum vitae and the name of the
committee or panel of interest should be sent to the FDA contact person
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days. FDA will forward
all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in
participating in the selection process for the committee or panel.
(Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives
will not participate in the selection process).
    FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups,
individuals with physical disabilities, and small businesses are
adequately represented on its advisory committees, and therefore,
encourages nominations for appropriately qualified candidates from
these groups.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: September 3, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-21016 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44614-44615]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20430]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0180; FRL-9967-59]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting for the
Clarification of Charge Questions on PBPK

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a three-hour meeting of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to
review and consider the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions
for the October 24-27, 2017 SAP Meeting on physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to address pharmacokinetic differences
between and within species.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 2, 2017, from approximately
2 p.m. to 5 p.m. (EST). This is an open public meeting that will be
conducted via webcast using Adobe Connect and telephone. Registration
is required to attend this meeting. Please visit: http://www.epa.gov/sap to register.
    Comments. Written comments on the scope and clarity of the draft
charge questions should be submitted by noon on September 27, 2017.
FIFRA SAP may not be able to fully consider written comments submitted
after noon on September 27, 2017. Requests to make oral comments at the
meeting should be submitted on or before noon on September 27, 2017 by
registering at http://www.epa.gov/sap. For additional instructions, see
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION or contact the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Webcast. This meeting will be webcast only. Please refer to the
FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sap for information on how to
access the webcast.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to allow EPA time to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: Meeting: This meeting will be webcast only. Please refer to
the following Web site to register and for information on how to access
the webcast: http://www.epa.gov/sap.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0180, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Requests for special accommodations. Submit requests for special
accommodations to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dr. Marquea D. King, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special
instructions before submitting your comments.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

C. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0180 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. Written comments should be submitted, using
the instructions in ADDRESSES and Unit I.B., on or before noon on
September 27, 2017, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider
and review the written comments. FIFRA SAP may not be able to fully
consider written comments submitted after noon on September 27, 2017.
    2. Oral comments. Registration is required to attend this meeting.
Please visit: http://www.epag.gov/sap to register. Each individual or
group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP may submit their
request by registering on or before noon September 27, 2017. Oral
comments before FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes due to
the time constraints of this webcast.

II. Background

A. Purpose of FIFRA SAP Virtual Meeting on PBPK Charge Questions

    FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and

Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific
advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on
pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory
actions on health and the environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory
committee established in 1975 pursuant to FIFRA and operates in
accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. Appendix). FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting
of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from
nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National
Science Foundation. The FIFRA SAP is assisted in their reviews by ad
hoc participation from the Science Review Board (SRB). As a scientific
peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations, and
recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses
made by Agency scientists. The FIFRA SAP strives to reach consensus
however, is not required to reach consensus in its recommendations to
the Agency.

B. Public Meeting

    During the meeting scheduled for October 2, 2017, the FIFRA SAP
will review and consider the Charge Questions for the Panel's October
24-27, 2017 Meeting on Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK)
Modeling. The SAP will receive a short background briefing including
the EPA's history and current position on the use of PBPK modeling. In
addition, the panel members will have the opportunity to comment on the
scope and clarity of the draft charge questions. Subsequent to this
meeting, final charge questions will be provided for the FIFRA SAP's
deliberation on the white papers and supplemental information during
the in-person meeting to be held on October 24-27, 2017.

C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background documents, charge questions to the FIFRA SAP, and
the meeting agenda will be available before or on September 13, 2017.
In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as
additional materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies
of most meeting documents, including FIFRA SAP composition (i.e.,
members and ad hoc members for this meeting) and the meeting agenda, at
http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sap.
    FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes approximately 90 calendar
days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA
SAP Web site: http://www.epa.gov/sap and may be accessed in the docket
at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: September 11, 2017.
Inza Graves,
Acting, Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-20430 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		24 April 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (17 April 2014) [DCN 0134]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

      This was the seventh meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions will help inform the upcoming planned supplemental Federal Register notice and will continue beyond the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA's Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

     EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting with a roll call and then turned the meeting over to Ms. Lisa Lund, Office Director for EPA's Office of Compliance. Ms. Lund started the meeting by noting that that the next set of teleconferences will focus on different aspects of the minimum set of data for electronic reporting ("Appendix A" to the proposed rule). In particular, she noted that EPA would like to use the next set of meetings to explain how EPA used its NPDES regulations to create Appendix A and how EPA economized the data elements. Ms. Lund said that EPA will use the next set of meetings to discuss the different sections of Appendix A and solicit feedback. Ms. Lund also explained that EPA has made a public commitment to publish a supplemental notice within 180 days (including OMB review time) from the end of the proposed rule comment period. She noted that EPA is using the supplemental notice to gain additional input on options for EPA to consider as it develops the final rule.

     Ms. Lund mentioned that ECOS and ACWA have added new names to the Technical Workgroup. She reminded all workgroup participants that the goal of the EPA-state workgroup discussion is to clarify issues where there is confusion, explore the issues of most concern to the states, and solicit state input on the issues and potential solutions. She noted that EPA does not expect to find resolution of these issues prior to publication of the supplemental Federal Register notice but that EPA would like highlight the most important issues and identify potential regulatory options. Ms. Lund also noted that EPA would like to continue this dialogue after publication of the supplemental notice, as an on-going and meaningful exchange between EPA and the states is critical to the success of the eRule. Finally, Ms. Lund noted that while EPA is interested in hearing input and ideas from states, the technical workgroup is not a FACA and is not a decision-making body.

     Mr. Johnston then gave an overview of Appendix A, which including information on how this appendix is organized and how EPA developed the data elements. Mr. Johnston then ask teleconference participants to focus on the `Basic Facility and Permit Data' in Appendix A (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46084).  Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading off the name of each data elements along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup.

* A state commenter asked about mobile permitted entities that don't have a fixed latitude and longitude. In particular, they asked about requirements on states for mobile permitted entities with respect to the Facility Site Longitude and Facility Site Latitude data elements. Mr. Johnston stated that he would look into how ICIS-NPDES manages these data elements. [Subsequent to this meeting Mr. Johnston confirmed with Mr. Steve Rubin (EPA) that these two data elements are not system required. This means that a facility record can be entered or shared with ICIS-NPDES without these two data elements.]

* Another state commenter about outfalls that are not fixed at a single location (e.g., hydrostatic testing operations). Mr. Johnston stated that he would look into how ICIS-NPDES manages these data elements: Permitted Feature Longitude and Permitted Feature Latitude. [Subsequent to this meeting Mr. Johnston confirmed with Mr. Steve Rubin (EPA) that these two data elements are not system required. This means that a permitted feature record (e.g., outfall) can be entered or shared with ICIS-NPDES without these two data elements.]

* Several states asked if EPA could identify the data elements that are system-generated (e.g., no key entry required as the state data system or ICIS-NPDES will generate these data) or system-required (e.g., a record cannot be successfully entered without these data). EPA noted that it will identify these system-generated or system-required data for states.

* A few states pointed out that the latitude and longitude metadata are required by EPA policy (EPA National Geospatial Data Policy  -  CIO Policy Transmittal 05-002) and not EPA regulations. These data elements include:

      o Facility Site Source Map Scale Number
      o Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure
      o Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method
      o Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum
      o Facility Site Reference Point
      o Permitted Feature Source Map Scale Number
      o Permitted Feature Horizontal Accuracy Measure
      o Permitted Feature Horizontal Collection Method
      o Permitted Feature Horizontal Reference Datum
      o Permitted Feature Reference Point

   Mr. Johnston noted that these data elements are meant to improve the accuracy and utility of the latitude and longitude data. He also noted that electronic reporting tools can be set-up in a way to allow NPDES regulated entities to identify their location via an online map with marker or mouse click and that these metadata can be created in the background by the electronic reporting tool. Mr. Andrew Hudock (EPA) noted that the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulator activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In particular, he noted that these data elements are part of the data standard for latitude and longitude data (see 78 FR 46071).

* A state commenter asked about whether the eRule would change EPA's business rules for the Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator data element. Currently, this value defaults to minor (non-major) and updatable only by EPA OECA Headquarters. Mr. Johnston replied that the eRule is has not proposed changes but would like to states to provide comment on options for alternative business rules for this data element.

* A few state commenters asked about the two flow data elements in the "Basic Permit Information" section of Appendix A:   Permit Application Total Design Flow and Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow. The state commenters questioned whether it should be part of NPDES Data Groups 1 and 2 instead of Groups 1 through 9. Other states noted that EPA regulations and forms may only require the reporting of these data elements for POTWs. Mr. Dombrowski (EPA) also noted that the eRule is looking to electronically capture data as currently required by EPA's regulations. Mr. Johnston also noted that EPA is seeking comment in the forthcoming supplemental notice on different implementation approaches (e.g., state implementation plans). These alternative approaches might allow states to share with EPA within nine-months of the effective date of the final rule the Appendix A data that they currently have in an electronic format and provide more time for states to electronically share with EPA the remaining Appendix A data over a longer time period.

* Mr. Andy Putnam (Colorado) asked if the Permit Application/NOI Received Date could be modified to account for the fact that this data element can be configured to be system-generated for NOI submissions.

* A few commenters had suggestions for the SIC Codes and NAICS Codes data elements. They asked if these data elements could be simplified to one data element or allow states and permittees to only provide one or the other industrial category code.

* One state commenter asked why EPA is Application Design Flow (MGD) and Application Actual Average Flow (MGD) in the "Permitted Feature" section of Appendix A when it has the Permit Application Total Design Flow and Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow data elements. Mr. Johnston replied that the NPDES permit program regulates wastewater pollution at the point of discharge and that EPA's ICIS-NPDES is set to track pollutant discharges at each outfall. Since facilities can have more than one outfall it is necessary to individually identify the flow rates for each outfall.

      Subsequent to this call, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality submitted questions to EPA on the data elements reviewed on April 17th. These questions and EPA's responses are presented in Attachment 1.

Next Steps

      The next technical workgroup meeting is May 1st.
     State Technical Workgroup Meeting  -  NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
                                 17 April 2014

      1pm		Introduction/Roll Call

      1:05		Introduction and Purpose of Reviewing Appendix A

      1:10		Overview of Appendix A

      1:20		Discussion of Basic Facility and Permit Data

      2:00		End of Call

Quick Reminder
   *    The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

   *    There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

   *    There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not achieve consensus.

   *    Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

                                 Main Contact
                             State or Organization
                              Main Contact Email
                         State/Org. Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Glenda Dean

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                   Pat Goff

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                   Mo Shafii

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Karen Bassett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Ramsey

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Ellen Carpenter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Wendy LeStarge
                                      AZ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Robin Belley

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  David Lelsz

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Elisa Willard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Beth Graves
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                              Jessica Kleinfelter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Edward Smith

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Frances Carpenter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                               Jeremy Chenevert

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Ed Dillingham
                                      KS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                             Shelly Shores-Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Shawn Hokanson
                                      KY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Tamara Dahl
                                      MN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Greg Jackson
                                      MS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Julio Collazo

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Nancy Kempel
                                      NJ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Jeffrey MacMullen

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Robert Wither
                                      NY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Joseph DiMura

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Walker

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Pruitt

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jim Billings
                                      OR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Sean Furjanic
                                      PA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Kent Woodmansey
                                      SD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                   Tim Flor

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Albert Spangler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Lynley Doyen

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Kimberly Shepard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jeff Studenka
                                      UT
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Phani Eturu

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Stephen Bernath
                                      WA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Nancy Kmet

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members
                                     Name
                                  EPA Office
                                     Email
                               Present? (Yes/No)
                                   Lisa Lund
                                  OECA/OC/IO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                John Dombrowski
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Andy Hudock
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Rochele Kadish
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Carey Johnston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jackie Clark
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Chaudet
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Chuck Freeman
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Aditi Prabhu
                                    OGC/WLO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Glynis Hill
                                 OP/ORPM/PRAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes

  Attachment 1:Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Comments on the
    ACWA/ECOS/EPA Technical WG Meeting on NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
                 Appendix A - Basic Facility and Permit Data
                         Teleconference April 17, 2014

Questions:

1. Basic Facility/Permit Information (general):  What is the source of the Basic Facility/Permit Information for Industrial Users, the POTW at application or the IUs (directly)?  Is all of this information available for all IUs on the POTW application?

EPA Response: The source of each data element is shown in the `NPDES Data Group Number' column. For example, the `Complete Permit Application/NOI Received Date' data element has "1" in this fourth column, which means it comes from the NPDES program. In general, data elements with "1" in the fourth column means that the NPDES program is the source of the data (e.g., identifying the date when the NPDES permit application is complete, inspection data). These data elements with "1" in the fourth column also include data that come from individual NPDES permit applications (that are most likely submitted on paper).

2. Basic Facility Information (metadata): "Facility Site Source Map Scale Number", "Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure", "Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method", "Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum", and "Facility Site Reference Point" - Since the Latitude/Longitude metadata is required and will be collected via the application/NOI, what/who is the source of information for the allowable entries for different Codes/descriptions?  For instance, if the owner of an individual facility (residence) is completing a NOI and is not sure what codes/descriptions to select for the coordinates from Google Earth; to what source would this person refer for the definitions of each code/description of the metadata?  These questions also apply to the same metadata Data Names for "Permitted Feature".
                         Table 2: Required NPDES Data
Data Name
Data Description
                      CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation
                                   (40 CFR)
                            NPDES Data Group Number
                                 (see Table 1)
Basic Facility Information
Facility Site Source Map Scale Number
The number that represents the proportional distance on the ground for one unit of measure on the map or photo for the facility. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.
     EPA National Geospatial Data Policy  -  CIO Policy Transmittal 05-002
                                  1 through 9
Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure
The measure of the accuracy (in meters) of the facility's latitude and longitude coordinates. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.
EPA National Geospatial Data Policy  -  CIO Policy Transmittal 05-002/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m)
                                  1 through 9
Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method
The text that describes the method used to determine the latitude and longitude coordinates for the facility. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.
     EPA National Geospatial Data Policy  -  CIO Policy Transmittal 05-002
                                  1 through 9
Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum
The code/description that represents the reference datum used in determining latitude and longitude coordinates for the facility. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.
     EPA National Geospatial Data Policy  -  CIO Policy Transmittal 05-002
                                  1 through 9
Facility Site Reference Point
The code/description for the place for which geographic coordinates were established. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.
     EPA National Geospatial Data Policy  -  CIO Policy Transmittal 05-002
                                  1 through 9

EPA Response: These data elements are meant to improve the accuracy and utility of the latitude and longitude data. As noted in our teleconference, electronic reporting tools can be set-up in a way to allow NPDES regulated entities to identify their location via an online map with marker or mouse click such that these metadata can be created in the background by the electronic reporting tool. In other words, all the NPDES regulated entity has to do is pin point their location (facility and/or outfall) and the electronic reporting tool will autocomplete the five associated data elements (highlighted in red above).

3. Basic Permit Information: "Permit Issue Date, Permit Effective Date, Permit Expiration Date, Termination Date, and Permit Status"  -  Not all states issue (or reissue) Industrial User permits.  The individual IU coverage is through the self-implementing regulations in 40 CFR 403.  Since no specific Permit Issue Date, Permit Effective Date and Permit Expiration Date exist and no NOI or NOT is submitted for IUs, how do those states submit/enter these required dates into the NPDES data system (ICIS)?  If there is an acceptable procedure, please include it in this rule.

EPA Response: The technical workgroup has not yet talked about the pretreatment data elements. In general, we are trying to mirror the existing NPDES regulations (including Part 403). EPA welcomes any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility for IU control mechanisms. EPA would also reflect these changes in the ICIS-NPDES.

Permittees (especially those with stormwater permits) will allow their permits to expire without renewing the permit (or permit coverage), and do not submit any notice of termination.  What can be used for a "Termination Date" when there is no request for termination?

EPA Response: The submission of NOTs varies from permit to permit. EPA welcomes any suggestion you might have on the business rules for this data element. For example, EPA could auto-populate this data element if the permit is terminated and the facility has not re-applied for its permit.

"Permit Status" is described as a code/description that indicates whether the permit is Effective, Expired, Administratively Continued, Pending, Not Needed, Retired, or Terminated.  What status should be used for a permit that has expired without renewal (coverage is canceled by letter, but the Director has not formally Terminated the permit)?
EPA Response: Below is the language on permit termination, administratively continued, and expiration from ICIS-NPDES User's Manual (Page 7-63):
 Effective. A Permit that is in its lifetime (Effective Date <= current date < expiration date)
 Administratively Continued. A Permit that is at the Permit's Expiration Date. All monitoring data are still collected and used against the Permit's terms.
 Pending. A Permit with incomplete data or a Permit with an Effective Date that has not yet been reached.
 Expired. A Permit that 90 days after the expiration date has been reached on a Permit that has no new Application Received Date or complete Application Received date entered.
 Retired. A Permit that all monitoring data is stopped against a retired Permit; used in conjunction with Reissue. If a Permit is reissued before its expiration date, the Permit Status Code or the previous version of the Permit will be set to Retired. Also, the Compliance Tracking Status will be set to Inactive.
 Terminated. A Permit that if the user enters the Termination Date, upon that date being reached, the system will automatically change the Permit Status Code to Terminated. Also, the Compliance Tracking Status will be set to Inactive.

There are also facilities that are automatically covered under a regulation (e.g. 40 CFR 403, 503), but are not issued permits by a regulatory authority.  If there is an acceptable procedure, please include it in this rule.  Should there be other "Permit Status" codes (Expired w/o Renewal" & "Self-Implementing") for these cases?
We haven't yet talked about the pretreatment data elements but we will. In general, we are trying to mirror the existing NPDES EPA Response: The technical workgroup has not yet talked about the pretreatment data elements. In general, we are trying to mirror the existing NPDES regulations (including Part 403). EPA welcomes any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility for IU control mechanisms. EPA would also reflect these changes in the ICIS-NPDES.
                         Table 2: Required NPDES Data
Data Name
Data Description
                      CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation
                                   (40 CFR)
                            NPDES Data Group Number
                                 (see Table 1)
Basic Permit Information
Permit Issue Date
This is the date the permit was issued. The date data must be provided in
CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.
                     122.46/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m)
                                  1 through 9
Permit Effective Date
This is the date on which the permit is effective. The date data must be provided in
CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.
                                    122.46
                                      1
Permit Expiration Date
This is the date the permit will expire. The date data must be provided in
CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.
                    122.46/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m)
                                       1
Permit Termination Date
This is the date the permit was terminated. The date data must be provided in
CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.
                                    122.64
                                       1
Permit Status
This is a code/description that indicates whether the permit is Effective, Expired, Administratively Continued, Pending, Not Needed, Retired, or Terminated.
                                122.64, 122.46
                                       1

4. Basic Permit Information & Permitted Feature, Data Names: "Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow & Application Actual Average Flow (MGD)"  -  What is the acceptable value for "Application Total Actual Average Flow" submitted for permit facilities with variable flow, or no flow for the last permit cycle, or a new non-municipal facility?  This is common for small wet-weather related facilities. Please include instructions or examples with the Data Description.

EPA Response: In the April 17[th] technical workgroup meeting EPA noted that it would likely provide language in the data element description that exempts states and facilities from reporting these two data elements for stormwater dischargers as stormwater discharges are mostly weather dependent. EPA welcomes any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions. For process wastewater, EPA is looking for the most representative flow from the facility from the previous permit cycle. This flow is likely already reported on NPDES permit applications and NOIs as NPDES permit writers need these data to calculate WQBELs. If the flow is zero  -  then the value for this data element is zero.

                         Table 2: Required NPDES Data
Data Name
Data Description
                      CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation
                                   (40 CFR)
                            NPDES Data Group Number
                                 (see Table 1)
Basic Permit Information
Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow
This is the actual average flow that a permitted facility will likely accommodate, in MGD, as stated on its NPDES application.
                                 122.21,122.41
                                  1 through 9
Permitted Feature
Application Actual Average Flow (MGD)
The flow that a permitted feature actually had at the time of application, in MGD.
                    122.21/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m)
                                       1

5. Basic Permit Information: "Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines"  -  I noticed that the examples used under the Description of "Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines" (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) are not available ELGs in ICIS-NPDES.  In ICIS-NPDES "Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines" are related to the Basic Permit Information included in Appendix A of the `Electronic Reporting Rule'.  The codes are 3-digit numeric and correspond to 40 CFR Chapter I Subchapter N Parts 400  -  471 (e.g., ELG Code = 413, description = "Electroplating point source category").  See "Effluent Limitations Guidelines.xls" attached.

EPA Response: EPA used the parenthetical to explain the term `effluent limitations guidelines'. To avoid confusion, EPA will strike that parenthetical from Appendix A.

On the other hand, "Basis of Limits" (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) are related to specific Limit information in ICIS-NPDES and are not included in Appendix A of the `Electronic Reporting Rule'.  They are single-character (0-B) codes that represent an environmental standard or regulation which was the basis for imposing a particular effluent limitation (e.g., Basis of Limits Code = 2, Description = BCT = "Best Control Technology").  See "Basis of Limits Codes.xls" attached.

EPA Response: You are correct. EPA is not requiring the submission of the "Basis of Limits" at the limit level. States are welcome to continue to use this existing feature in ICIS-NPDES. EPA opted to use the "Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines" at the permit level to more easily track permits with ELG effluent limits. Please let us know if you have any thoughts on this approach.

                         Table 2: Required NPDES Data
Data Name
Data Description
                      CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation
                                   (40 CFR)
                            NPDES Data Group Number
                                 (see Table 1)
Basic Permit Information
Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines
The applicable effluent limitations guidelines (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) and new source performance standards (NSPS) for the NPDES permit.
                    122.44/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m)
                                       1

6. Basic Permit Information: "SIC Codes" & "NAICS Codes"  -  It should be stated that if the "NAICS Code" is supplied, then the "SIC Code" is optional.

EPA Response: Please see the draft notes from the April 17[th] technical workgroup meeting.

Data Name
Data Description
                      CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation
                                   (40 CFR)
                            NPDES Data Group Number
                                 (see Table 1)
Basic Permit Information
SIC Codes
The four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code/description that represents the economic activity of the permitted facility.
                    122.21/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m)
                                  1 through 9
NAICS Codes
The six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code/description that represents the economic activity of the permitted facility.
   Agency Data Standard to replace SIC Codes/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m)
                                  1 through 9

7. Basic Permit Information: "Permittee Street Address"  -  The Data Description refers to the "physical location of the permit holder".  Is this the mailing address of the applicant (possibly not their physical location)?
Data Name
Data Description
                      CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation
                                   (40 CFR)
                            NPDES Data Group Number
                                 (see Table 1)
Basic Permit Information
Permittee Street Address
The address that describes the physical location of the permit holder.
                                    122.21
                                  1 through 9

EPA Response: This is the mailing address of the permittee. EPA will make this clear in Appendix A.

8. Limits: "Stay Limit Value"  -  Is the "Stay Limit Value" only required when that limit value is numeric?  In many cases (permit appeals) this value is "Report Only".  ICIS-NPDES does not allow "Report Only" Stay Limit Values.

EPA Response: The following comes from the ICIS-NPDES User's Guide (page 7-264):

"A Limit on a parameter may be stayed by a court injunction or an appeal. During the life of the stay, the Limit parameter may not be required to be reported, considered monitor only, or subject to new Limit Values. In legacy PCS, stays were handled by flagging a Limit as a contested parameter that was either monitor-only or not required on the Permit. ICIS  -  NPDES will augment Limit stay handling.

Users will continue to be able to stay a parameter so that it does not appear on DMR preprints and does not generate DMR Non-Receipt Violations. They will also continue to be able to change a Limit to monitor-only so that Effluent Violation generation is suppressed. In addition, they will be able to enter a Stay Value for compliance to be measured against during the period of a stay. Users will now also be able to indicate a reason for a Limit stay and the start and end date of the stay.

Finally, users will be able to indicate when they lift a stay whether or not the system should evaluate the DMR data for the monitoring periods covered by the stay."

Data Name
Data Description
                      CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation
                                   (40 CFR)
                            NPDES Data Group Number
                                 (see Table 1)
Limit
Stay Limit Value
The numeric limit value imposed during the period of the stay for the limit; if entered, during the stay period, the system will use this limit value for calculating compliance, rather than the actual limit value that was stayed.
                                    124.19
                                       1

9. For those Data Elements that are conditionally required, please include under what conditions they are required.

EPA Response: EPA is using the data descriptions to identify any conditions or exemptions. EPA welcomes any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility.