Because these activities would not occur during the ICR period, however, the associated burden and burden reduction are not included here. See the Economic Analysis for further discussion of these savings and associated assumptions.
Total Respondent Costs
To estimate the total respondent costs, EPA multiplies the burden estimates derived in Section 6(a) by the appropriate labor costs (discussed in Section 6(b)(i) below). Next, EPA estimates the capital costs associated with paper and mailing savings (see Section 6(b)(ii) below). Detailed cost estimates for regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
Labor Costs
EPA estimates respondent costs by multiplying the unit burden hour estimates described above by fully loaded hourly rates for workers of appropriate labor categories. The analysis uses 2014 hourly wage rates for three job categories: managerial, programmer/technical, and data clerk/administrative; each of which includes fringe benefits and overhead. Average wage data for these categories are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation in December 2014, which has separate wage estimates for government and private sector workers.
More specifically, the managerial labor rate for government workers is the BLS national average in the management, professional, and related occupational group. The managerial labor rate for private industry workers is the BLS national average in the management, business, and financial occupational group. Its use in this analysis includes as the average hourly wages for staff who plan, direct, or coordinate electronic data processing, information systems, systems analysis, and computer programming.
The programmer/technical labor rate for each sector is the BLS national average in the professional and related occupational group. Its use in this analysis includes as the average hourly wages for staff who convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow charts for coding into computer language; develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information; and may program web sites.
The data clerk/administrative labor rate for each sector is the BLS national average in the office and administrative support occupational group. Its use in this analysis includes as the average hourly wages for staff who compute, classify, and record numerical data to keep financial records complete; perform any combination of routine calculating, posting, and verifying duties to obtain primary financial data for use in maintaining accounting records; and may also check the accuracy of figures, calculations, and postings pertaining to business transactions recorded by other workers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides hourly wage and benefit rates (e.g., paid leave and insurance). Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations, an additional loading factor of 17% is applied to hourly wages and benefits for general overhead (see Table 4).

                     Table 4: Deriving Loaded Hourly Costs
                       Cost Components, by Job Category
                        BLS Government Hourly Wage Rate
                         BLS Industry Hourly Wage Rate

Managerial

Hourly Wage
                                                                        $35.52
                                                                        $44.52
Benefits
                                                                        $17.72
                                                                        $22.04
Overhead
                                                                         $6.04
                                                                         $7.57
Managerial Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour
                                                                        $59.28
                                                                        $74.13
Programmer/Technical

Hourly Wage
                                                                        $35.16
                                                                        $34.63
Benefits
                                                                        $17.16
                                                                        $14.87
Overhead
                                                                         $5.98
                                                                         $5.89
Programmer/Technical Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour
                                                                        $58.30
                                                                        $55.39
Data Clerk/Administrative

Hourly Wage
                                                                        $18.08
                                                                        $16.52
Benefits
                                                                        $12.27
                                                                         $7.46
Overhead
                                                                         $3.07
                                                                         $2.81
Data Clerk Fully Loaded Wage Rate Per Hour
                                                                        $33.42
                                                                        $26.79

Capital Costs
Regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs will experience capital cost savings associated with reduced printing and mailing costs. Table 5 shows the unit cost assumptions used to calculate these savings.
                            Table 5: Mailing Costs
                                 Cost Category
                                     Cost
Page of Paper[a]
                                                                          $0.01
Envelope  -  Small[b]
                                                                          $0.04
Envelope  -  Large[c]
                                                                          $0.18
Postage  -  Small[d]
                                                                          $0.49
Postage - Large Envelope with 60 Pages inside[d]
                                                                          $2.87
Postage - Flat Rate Envelope[d]
                                                                          $5.75
a. Source: Office Depot brand standard white paper (March 2015)
b. Source: Office Depot brand #10 security envelopes (March 2015)
c. Source: Office Depot brand white 9" x 12" catalog envelopes (March 2015)
d. Source: usps.com (March 2015)

Regulated Entity Capital Cost Savings
Once regulated entities establish their electronic accounts, they will experience savings due to the fact that they no longer have to mail their submissions to the authorized NPDES program. Regulated entities submitting DMRs electronically will save on paper and postage. According to EPA program experts, the average DMR form is five pages long. The analysis assumes four DMR forms per submission for major individual permits, two forms per submission for nonmajor individual permits, and one form per submission for general permits, for a total of five to 20 pages per submission. DMRs are partially filled out by the regulated entity, sent to an independent laboratory for completion, and then sent to the authorized NPDES program. Therefore, electronic DMR submission will save two standard envelopes, two first class stamps and five to 20 pages of paper, saving a total of $1.13 to $1.31 per submission. As discussed below, the analysis assumes that EPA Regions and authorized NPDES programs currently mail pre-populated DMR forms to an estimated 50% of all NPDES regulated entities. DMR savings for these entities are $1.07 per submission. Combining these two scenarios, average DMR savings are $1.10 to $1.19 per submission. As noted in Table 2, DMR submission rates vary from annual to monthly according to the subprogram and permit type.
During the ICR period, regulated entities in states where EPA is the authorized NPDES biosolids program (currently 42 of 50 states and all other tribal lands and territories) will submit their Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Report electronically to EPA. These entities will have associated paper and postage savings. The analysis assumes that these program reports average 1.5 pages, and require one standard size envelope and postage. Electronic submission of these program reports, therefore, will save regulated entities $0.55 per report.  At full implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule), regulated entities also will experience savings associated with electronic submission of other program reports. Because these savings would not occur during the ICR period, however, they are not included here. See the Economic Analysis for further discussion of these savings and associated assumptions.
Note that it is not possible to simply multiply the per regulated entity savings by the sub program universe to estimate total regulated entity submission costs savings due to the fact that reporting frequencies are different within and across subprograms. For example, major stormwater regulated entities submit DMRs monthly, multi-sector generals submit DMRs three times per year, and only a few construction stormwater covered facilities have DMR reporting requirements.
State Authorized NPDES Program Capital Cost Savings
State authorized NPDES programs will also experience savings from no longer sending pre-populated DMR forms to regulated entities. Currently, authorized NPDES programs mail DMR forms with regulated entity-specific limits to an estimated 50% of all NPDES regulated entities. Post rule, electronic copies of DMR forms will be available to all regulated entities, making them universally available and eliminating the need to mail the forms out. Table 6 details the per permit savings from eliminating the preparation and mailing of pre-populated DMR forms.
           Table 6: Unit Savings from Eliminating Pre-populated DMRs
                                Type of Savings
                               Annual Frequency
                                Number of Pages
                                     Cost
                           Annual Savings per Permit
Paper
                                      12
                                    5 to 20
                                                                         $0.01
                                                                 $0.06 to $0.24
Envelopes
                                       1
                                       1
                                                                         $0.18
                                                                         $0.18
Postage
                                       1
                                       1
                                                                         $2.87
                                                                         $2.87
                                                                          Total
                                                                 $3.11 to $3.29

Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
EPA Headquarters and EPA Regions would incur burden and cost associated with the transition to electronic reporting and newly shared data. Due to the different activities each group would undertake to comply, the burden to EPA Headquarters and EPA Regions is discussed separately in the following sections. When calculating the Agency cost, EPA uses the loaded hourly costs for government workers shown in Table 4. The detailed burden and cost estimates for EPA are presented in Appendix C.
EPA Headquarters
EPA Headquarters is responsible for the following activities:
Electronic reporting tool implementation;
Operations and maintenance of the ICIS-NPDES system;
Developing training webinars for authorized NPDES programs;
Reviewing state implementation plans;
Developing criteria for temporary and permanent waivers from electronic reporting for facilities where EPA is the authorized NPDES program;
   * Assessing participation rates and, where appropriate, issuing individual notices to compel NPDES-regulated entities to utilize their NPDES program's electronic reporting system; and
   * Developing a National Non-Compliance Report that will replace the Annual and Quarterly Non-Compliance Reports and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary.
The sections below discuss the burden associated with each of these activities.
Electronic Reporting Tool Implementation
Before regulated entities can use the electronic reporting system, authorized NPDES programs and EPA will need to provide the necessary reporting tools. The tools EPA will develop include augmented versions of the current NeT and NetDMR systems. Cost estimates for information technology system modifications were derived by comparing the architecture of the current system against the requirements of the rule. Rule requirements involving capabilities not currently in place were identified and rough orders of magnitude (defined as the true value being within -25% and +75% of the estimated value) of the level of effort required to meet those requirements were developed. The burden to implement the necessary electronic reporting infrastructure is approximately 166,433 hours for a single year. This estimate includes 28,818 hours to add data elements.
Operations and Maintenance
EPA will have ongoing annual costs to operate and maintain the necessary changes in the ICIS-NPDES system. Operations include accepting data from regulated entities, receiving data from authorized NPDES programs, and sending EPA data to the state authorized NPDES programs. Maintenance includes routine database refreshes, updates, and licensing. The annual burden of EPA activities required by the rule to support this information collection activity is estimated at 16,389 hours per year.
Develop Webinars
To ensure that state authorized NPDES programs are properly informed of the changes to the ICIS-NPDES system and the new data standards, EPA will develop and offer a 90-minute online training webinar for each phase of the implementation. The two webinars will require 100 hours total of EPA technical time to develop. The analysis also assumes that one EPA headquarters technical staff member will attend each webinar. The analysis conservatively assumes separate webinars for each state and EPA region, resulting in a total burden for EPA headquarters attendance of 171 hours.
Review and Approve Implementation Plans
Section (6)(a)(ii)(4) describes state implementation plans. The analysis assumes that EPA will spend 40 hours of managerial time to review and approve each implementation plan.
Waiver Criteria Development
As discussed in Section (6)(a)(ii)(7), the analysis estimates that developing the waiver criteria for each authorized NPDES program will require 40 hours of managerial time. The analysis assumes EPA will incur the same burden to develop a set of waiver criteria for facilities where EPA is the authorized NPDES program.
EPA Oversight
EPA will use its CWA authority and ICR to issue targeted individual notices requiring NPDES-regulated entities to utilize their NPDES program's electronic reporting system. EPA would likely undertake this oversight activity when and authorized state, tribe, or territory has less than 90% participation rate for one or more data groups. EPA will assess participation rates separately for individual permitted facilities and for facilities covered under general permits. EPA makes a number of assumptions in estimating the cost of oversight including:
   * EPA will spend a total of 80 hours of technical labor to assess and report participation rates.
   * EPA would then send letters to facilities that are not reporting electronically in specific states that do not initially meet the participation rate targets. These letters would each require 0.25 hours of managerial labor and 0.25 hours of clerical labor, for a cost of $23.77 per letter including mailing costs.
   * EPA would need to undertake this activity in five states for individual permitted facilities and ten states for facilities covered under general permits.
   * Participation rates achieved in these states will be 75% for individual permitted facilities and 50% for facilities covered under general permits (such that 25% of individual permits and 50% of general permits will require letters).
The analysis assumes that one such set of oversight letters will be completed during the ICR period (specifically, during the final year of the ICR period), based on Phase 1 participation rates. The Economic Analysis includes the assumption that 20% of facilities will require a second letter, one year later, to achieve full participation. It also includes a second round of oversight letters based on participation rates for Phase 2 data. Because these activities would not occur during the ICR period, however, they are not included here.
Develop New National Non-Compliance Report
Under the rule, compliance information will be readily available to EPA directly from ICIS-NPDES, obviating the need for state authorized NPDES programs to compile and submit the information. Therefore, the rule will replace the existing annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports with a National Non-Compliance Report that EPA headquarters will develop. Because this activity would not occur during the ICR period, however, the associated burden and costs are not included here. See the Economic Analysis for further discussion of this activity.
EPA Regions
Where EPA Regions are the permitting authority, they would incur costs and savings similar to those incurred by authorized state programs (discussed in Section 6(a) above). Specifically, they would incur costs for the following activities:
   * Attend EPA training webinars on changes to the ICIS-NPDES system and new data standards;
   * Modify permits to include electronic reporting requirements;
   * Share facility information, limits, and limit sets with EPA electronically; and
   * Share programmatic data required by Appendix A to 40 CFR 127, such as inspections, violations determinations and enforcement actions, with EPA electronically.
EPA Regions would also experience burden reduction by eliminating data entry and processing associated with incoming DMRs and Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports. At full implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule), they would experience additional burden reduction by eliminating other program report processing and preparation of annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports regarding the compliance status of regulated entities in their jurisdiction. The sections below identify the assumptions used to estimate the burden and burden reduction associated with those activities that occur during the ICR period.
EPA Training Webinars
Three technical staff from each EPA Region where the Region is the permitting authority would be required to attend each 90-minute online training webinar offered by EPA.
            (2)(1)(2)(1) Permit Modifications
EPA Regions would modify permits for regulated entities in states where the EPA Region is the permitting authority to require electronic reporting (and, where applicable, remove language that explicitly requires paper reporting). It is estimated that it would take EPA Regions five minutes per permit to make the necessary modifications. The analysis assumes EPA Regions would complete these permit modifications within the first year after the effective date of the rule.
Initial Data Entry
As with state authorized NPDES programs, where EPA is the permitting authority, EPA Regions would need to share their facility information, limits and limit sets with EPA. This analysis assumes each EPA Region would manually enter appropriately formatted limit and limit set information into the new system in the first year after the effective date of the rule so that regulated entities would be able to use the system when the rule requires them to sign up for electronic accounts. In reality, many EPA Regions may have already automated much of this data, in which case their costs would be lower than those estimated in this analysis.
The data entry burden associated with initial data entry is estimated by multiplying the number of permit, limit, and limit set data elements required for each subprogram and permit type by the number of permits and the average data entry burden for the mode of submission (all Regions are direct users) and subprogram. Estimated data entry times were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements associated with entering various data elements. This survey is described in further detail in the Economic Analysis. Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry burden, and frequency of reporting, the burden for initial data entry will vary by region. The average burden per region for this activity is 1,005 hours.
Submit Programmatic Data to EPA
The rule would increase the amount of information authorized NPDES programs must share with EPA. In this analysis, the data entry burden for EPA Regions is estimated by multiplying the number of programmatic data elements in each permit subprogram and permit type (major vs. nonmajor individual vs. nonmajor general) by the average data entry burden for each mode of submission and subprogram. The total cost for each permit is then multiplied by the number of permits as well as the frequency of reporting. Estimated data entry times were developed by surveying nine states with regard to the time requirements associated with entering various data elements.
Note that, in addition to applying to regulated POTWs with approved pretreatment programs, the Pretreatment Program Annual Report requirement also applies to nine EPA regions (covering the 14 states that are not authorized for the pretreatment program). Under existing reporting requirements, these regions submit an annual pretreatment program report covering industrial user discharges in municipalities without an approved pretreatment program (i.e., where the state or region is the Control Authority, instead of an approved POTW). The analysis includes the burden and burden reduction associated with electronic submission of pretreatment program reports from EPA regions, in addition to pretreatment program reports from approved POTWs.
EPA Regions would also receive savings from no longer having to enter information submitted by regulated entities on paper DMRs and general permit reports. Data entry savings are calculated using the same method as data entry costs: multiply the number of programmatic data elements that are no longer entered by the Region by the data entry burden, number of permits, and frequency of reporting. For the burden reduction associated with DMRs, this calculation also incorporates the number of DMR forms per submission, which is assumed to be four for major individual permits, two for nonmajor individual permits, and one for general permits. Due to the variation in the number and types of permits, data entry burden, and frequency of reporting, the burden for submitting programmatic data to EPA will vary by region. The average burden reduction per region for this activity is 2,481 hours.
DMR Processing and Pre-Populated DMR Paper and Mailing Savings
Electronic submission of DMRs by regulated entities would create savings for EPA Regions that are directly implementing the NPDES program in the first three years after the effective date of the rule by eliminating the cost of processing incoming DMRs. Currently, EPA Regions receive these reports in the mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This process is estimated to take a data entry clerk 20 minutes per DMR. The calculation of total DMR processing savings incorporates the number of DMR forms per submission, which is assumed to be four for major individual permits, two for nonmajor individual permits, and one for general permits.
In addition to reduced burden from processing, EPA Regions would also experience capital cost savings associated with savings by no longer sending pre-populated DMR forms to regulated entities. Currently, EPA Regions mail DMR forms with regulated entity-specific limits to an estimated 50% of all NPDES regulated entities. When fully implemented, the rule would allow all authorized NPDES programs to provide electronic copies of DMR forms to all regulated entities, making them universally available and eliminating the need to mail the forms out. The savings per permit to EPA Regions from eliminating the preparation and mailing of pre-populated DMR forms would be the same as those to state authorized NPDES Programs shown in Table 6.
Program Report Processing Savings
Electronic submission of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports by regulated entities would create savings for EPA Region authorized NPDES programs during the ICR period by eliminating the cost of processing incoming program reports. Currently, authorized NPDES programs receive these reports in the mail, staff open and inspect them to ensure they are filled out correctly, enter their information into the state or EPA data system, and usually store them in a physical filing system. This process is estimated to take a data entry clerk 7.5 minutes per program report. Following rule implementation, the processing activities would be automated.
            (2)(2)(2)(2) Burden and Savings for Other Activities beyond the ICR Period
At full implementation (five years after the effective date of the rule), EPA Regions would experience additional savings by eliminating the cost of processing other program reports, in addition to the Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual Program Reports discussed above.
In addition, existing CWA regulations (40 CFR 123.45) require that authorized NPDES programs submit to EPA annual, quarterly, and semi-annual reports regarding the compliance status of regulated entities in their jurisdiction. To meet this requirement, EPA Regions that are directly implementing the NPDES program submit their non-compliance information to the Regional Administrator, who submits them to EPA headquarters. Under the rule, this information will be readily available to EPA Headquarters directly from ICIS-NPDES, obviating the need for EPA Regions to compile and submit the information. Therefore, the rule will eliminate this reporting requirement, resulting in savings for EPA Regions.
Under the final rule, for the pretreatment program, when the state or EPA is the Control Authority, they must notify the industrial users they directly control of the applicable electronic reporting requirements (i.e., the electronic submission of bi-annual compliance reports, which would begin during Phase 2 of rule implementation).
Because these activities would not occur during the ICR period, however, the associated burden and burden reduction are not included here. See the Economic Analysis for further discussion of these savings and associated assumptions.
Estimating the Respondent Universe
The respondent universe is comprised of authorized state programs and regulated entities. As was noted in Section 4(a), 46 states and one U.S. territory are authorized by EPA to administer some or all of the NPDES program. The regulated entity respondent universe is estimated based on information in ICIS-NPDES and information provided by EPA's Office of Water. Table 7 summarizes the regulated entity universe by subprogram and permit type.

                 Table 7: Universe Summary by NPDES Subprogram
                               NPDES Subprogram
                            Number of NPDES Permits

                               Individual Majors
                             Individual Nonmajors
                               General Nonmajors

Non-POTWs (Industrial, Agriculture, and Stormwater)
       Standard Industrial Dischargers (may also file CWA §316(b) data)
                                                                          1,683
                                                                         18,993
                                                                     118,073[a]
                              CWA §316(b) Filers

                                         Permits with Cooling Water Intake Data
                                                                          1,171
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                             Permits with Thermal Variance Data
                                                                            554
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                   Industrial Facilities Submitting CWA §316(b) Annual Reports
                                                                            200
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                    Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)[b]

                               SIUs in Municipalities with Pretreatment Program
                                                                              0
                                                                         29,060
                                                                              0
                            SIUs in Municipalities without Pretreatment Program
                                                                              0
                                                                          2,487
                                                                              0
                    Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
                                                                              0
                                                                          1,266
                                                                          5,291
                    Industrial and Construction Stormwater

                                                                     Industrial
                                                                            132
                                                                            563
                                                                         92,282
                                                                   Construction
                                                                              1
                                                                            638
                                                                        243,227
                            Municipal Stormwater[c]

                          Phase I municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)
                                                                            249
                                                                              0
                                                                              9
                                                                  Phase II MS4s
                                                                              0
                                                                            204
                                                                          5,093
POTWs and TWTDSs (may have a CSS or a SSS, may also file more than one report)
                                    POTWs with Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)[d]
                                                                            462
                                                                            244
                                                                             68
                               POTWs with Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs) only[d]
                                                                          3,533
                                                                          9,197
                                                                          1,281
                                                                         TWTDSs
                                                                            779
                                                                          7,510
                                                                            655
                           POTW NPDES Report Filers

                                          Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report Filers
                                                                          4,209
                                                                            694
                                                                              0
                                             Pretreatment Program Report Filers
                                                                          1,462
                                                                            114
                                                                              0
                                          Sewer Overflow Event Report Filers[d]
                                                                          4,774
                                                                         16,950
                                                                          2,003
[a] Includes 9,125 pesticide applicators and 63,000 vessels that are already filing electronically
[b] These industrial facilities discharge to POTWs and are regulated by the NPDES program through EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) and Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 405  -  471). They do not have NPDES permits, but those in municipalities without pretreatment programs would report electronically under the rule.
[c] Nearly all Phase I MS4s are individually permitted facilities. For purposes of cost estimating, the analysis treats all individually permitted Phase I MS4s as majors and all Phase II MS4s as nonmajors.
[d] The analysis divides the total universe of POTWs into CSSs and SSSs and treats those that are only partially composed of CSSs as CSSs.

Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
This section presents the total incremental burden and cost to regulated entities, authorized NPDES programs and EPA to comply with the information collection requirements associated with the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule in the three-year period covered by this ICR.

Respondent Tally
The bottom line burden hours and costs for regulated entities and state authorized NPDES programs are the average annual hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Table 8 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and costs. A more detailed summary is provided in Appendix A and B.

              Table 8: Average Annual Respondent Burden and Cost
                               Unit of Analysis
                              Regulated Entities
                                    States
                                     Total
Average Annual Number of Respondents[a]
                                    213,349
                                      47
                                    213,396
Average Annual Number of Responses
                                    78,477
                                   1,135,376
                                   1,213,854
Average Annual Increase in Burden (hours)
                                    118,577
                                    555,202
                                    673,779
Average Annual Decrease in Burden (hours)
                                       0
                                   -871,015
                                   -871,015
Average Annual Incremental Burden (hours)
                                    118,577
                                   -315,814
                                   -197,236
Average Annual Incremental Cost
                                  $6,867,716
                                  -$1,072,586
                                   5,795,130
Average Annual Incremental Burden per Respondent (hours)
                                     0.56
                                    -6,719
                                     -0.92
Average Annual Incremental Burden per Response (hours)
                                     1.51
                                     -0.28
                                     -0.16
Average Annual Incremental Cost per Respondent
                                    $32.19
                                   -$22,821
                                    $27.16
Average Annual Incremental Cost per Response
                                    $87.51
                                    -$0.94
                                     $4.77
[a] The number of respondents includes regulated entities that both submit information (a response) and experience a cost or cost savings while the number of responses is limited to a count of information submissions. Thus, there are more affected respondents than responses.

The Agency Tally
Incremental Agency bottom line burden hours and costs are the average annual incremental hours and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Table 9 provides a summary of the average annual burden hours and costs. A more detailed summary is provided in Appendix C.
                Table 9:  Average Annual Agency Burden and Cost
Average Annual Increase in Burden (hours)
                                                                         76,135
Average Annual Decrease in Burden (hours)
                                                                        -48,303
Average Annual Incremental Burden (hours)
                                                                         27,832
Average Annual Incremental Cost (labor)
                                                                     $2,636,543
Average Annual Incremental Cost (capital)
                                                                       -$18,083
Total Average Annual Incremental Cost
                                                                     $2,618,460

Reasons for Change in Burden
EPA believes electronic reporting is needed to improve data quality and availability while reducing costs. Specifically, the rule is expected to save time and resources for states while improving compliance and better protecting the Nation's waters. This ICR estimates that respondents would incur a total average annual incremental burden reduction of 197,236 hours to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule in the first three years of its implementation. Note that the net burden reduction results from labor burden reductions to state authorized NPDES programs; regulated entities do not experience a net reduction in labor burden.
Burden Statement
The calculations made for this ICR cover the burden and costs for EPA, authorized states, and operators of regulated entities. This ICR estimates a total average annual burden of 118,577 hours for 213,349 regulated entity respondents at a cost of $6,867,716. The average annual incremental burden per respondent is 0.56 hours per regulated entity. Burden reduction for the state respondents is 315,814 hours annually for 47 state respondents at a cost savings of $1,072,586. The average annual burden reduction per respondent is 6,719 hours per state. Agency burden is 27,832 hours annually at a net cost increase of $2,618,460.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to:
   * Review instructions;
   * Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
   * Adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
   * Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
   * Search data sources;
   * Complete and review the collection of information; and
   * Transmit or otherwise disclose information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OECA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 and OMB Control Number 2020-0035 in any correspondence.


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA / OECA / OC / CAMPD / CM& WPB 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0318 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Standards of Performance for Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments and Containers, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart CC and 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart CC 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Control Number  1593.05 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA)

10. Abstract RCRA Subpart CC requires control of organic air emissions from tanks, surface impoundments and containers holding hazardous waste. Records and reports are necessary in order for the EPA to determine that the standards are implemented and maintained to protect human health and the environment.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 6,318 b. Total annual responses 6,318 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically % c. Total hours requested 672,640 d. Current OMB inventory 557,248 e. Difference 115,392 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 115,392 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 1,460 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 1,460 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference $ 1,460 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment $ 1,460 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other notify RA when taking Measurements or fill/ refill tanks, exceedance reports.

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Everett Bishop Phone: 202 564 7032 OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16333-16335]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0008]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0008 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0008), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0008, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0008, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds such exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16,
1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998,
following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing
exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9,
1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures
established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon
application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a

person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a
commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,
March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers
demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive
years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two
years with their experiences in the final year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Vilas R. Adank

    Mr. Adank, 52, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2019,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my opinion, he has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Adank reported that he has driven buses for three years,
accumulating 6,648 miles. He holds a Class AMC CDL from Minnesota. His
driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Lance S. Binner

    Mr. Binner, 55, has had a retinal scar in his left eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
400. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Binner reported that he
has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 75,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for five years, accumulating 75,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for
the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Jody E. Bondi

    Mr. Bondi, 48, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200.
Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Jody Bondi has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Bondi
reported that he has driven straight trucks for four years,
accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Arizona. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Stephen L. Cornish

    Mr. Cornish, 52, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/250, and in his
left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist
stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Cornish has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
motor vehicle.'' Mr. Cornish reported that he has driven straight
trucks for ten years, accumulating 500,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 13 years, accumulating 1.3 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last three years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dale A. Dodson

    Mr. Dodson, 43, has a macular scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018,
his optometrist stated, ``From these findings I see no reason from a
visual standpoint why he should not be able to safely operate a motor
vehicle, commercially or privately.'' Mr. Dodson reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 625,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Kansas. His driving record for the
last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Jorge Estol

    Mr. Estol, 44, has a retinal scar in his left eye due to
toxoplasmosis in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
15, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2018, his
optometrist stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Jorge Estol has
sufficient vision to perform the task required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Estol reported that he has driven straight trucks for
five years, accumulating 750,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for five years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last three years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Bret S. Graham

    Mr. Graham, 55, has aphakia in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1989. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist
stated, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Graham has sufficient capabilities
to meet the commercial driving requirements.'' Mr. Graham reported that
he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating
3.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine. His driving
record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Daniel W. Hodge

    Mr. Hodge, 40, has glaucoma in his right eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye

is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in
2019, his ophthalmologist stated, ``As far as I can tell, he has
sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hodge reported
that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 100,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving record for
the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Russell P. Kosinko

    Mr. Kosinko, 58, has optic nerve damage in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
600, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2019, his
optometrist stated, ``In my professional opinion he has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Kosinko reported that he has driven straight trucks for
20 years, accumulating 2.6 million miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 20 years, accumulating 2.7 million miles. He holds a
Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Joe M. Perez

    Mr. Perez, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200.
Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Perez
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Perez reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating 280,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last three years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Samuel Sanchez

    Mr. Sanchez, 59, has had central serous chorioretinopathy in his
right eye since 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``Given an excellent visual field in both eyes,
normal color vision, perfect corrected vision with glasses in the left
eye, and an excellent commercial vehicle driving record over the past
five years in which he has had this eye condition, I believe he has
sufficient vision to perform the tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Sanchez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 35 years, accumulating 5.04 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from New York. His driving record for the last three years
shows no crashes and one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded
the speed limit by 10 mph.

Curtis M. Tharpe

    Mr. Tharpe, 51, has optic neuropathy in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr.
Tharpe has sufficient vision to perform the driving task required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Tharpe reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating 1.72 million miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years, accumulating 33,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last
three years shows one crash, for which he was not cited, and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in
the DATES section of the notice.

    Issued on: April 12, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-07785 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66534-66535]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0603; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-17-AD;
Amendment 39-17160; AD 2012-16-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG Rotax
Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that was
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to BRP-Powertrain
GmbH & Co KG Rotax 912 F2; 912 F3; 912 F4; 912 S2; 912 S3; and 912 S4
reciprocating engines. The word ``not'' was improperly omitted from the
Installation Prohibition section of the AD, thereby changing the
prohibition in the AD. This correction reinserts ``not'' into the
paragraph to correct the omission. In all other respects, the original
document remains the same.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 6, 2012. The effective
date for AD 2012-16-13 (77 FR 51462, August 24, 2012) remains September
10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airworthiness Directive 2012-16-13,
amendment 39-17160 (77 FR 51462, August 24, 2012), currently requires
replacing the pressure side fuel hose on certain fuel pumps and
inspecting the carburetors connected to those fuel pumps for
contamination within 5 flight hours after the effective date of this AD

for BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG Rotax 912 F2; 912 F3; 912 F4; 912 S2;
912 S3; and 912 S4 reciprocating engines.
    As published, the text of paragraph (g)(3), Installation
Prohibition, is incorrect.
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information is in
error; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being
published in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains September 10, 2012.

Correction of Regulatory Text

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
In the Federal Register of August 24, 2012, on page 51464, in the 1st
column, paragraph (g)(3) of AD 2012-16-13 is corrected to read as
follows:
* * * * *
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not approve for return
to service any product or article with a fuel hose removed from a P/N
893114 fuel pump with an S/N listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this
AD.
* * * * *

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 24, 2012.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-26772 Filed 11-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P