123 Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Replacement Standards: Proposed Rule, March 2004 ( Chapter 6), and Addendum to the Assessment. 137 morbidity cases account for $ 3.42 million of this total, and include: respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, chronic bronchitis, work loss days, and minor restricted activity. Chronic bronchitis accounts for approximately 89 percent of the total value of avoided PM morbidity cases. All morbidity cases are assumed to be avoided within the first year following reduced PM emissions and are not discounted under any scenario. Avoided premature deaths ( mortality) are valued at $ 2.87 million per year, undiscounted. Assuming a discount rate of three and seven percent, PM mortality benefits would be $ 2.52 million and $ 2.19 million, respectively. Our discounted analysis of PM mortality benefits assumes that 30 percent of premature mortalities occur during the first year, 50 percent occur evenly from the second through the fifth years, and the remaining 20 percent occur evenly from the sixth through the twentieth years124. Due to limitations in the risk analysis, this assessment of PM benefits does not consider corresponding health benefits associated with the reduction of HAP metals carried by the PM. Dioxin/ furan  Dioxin/ furan emissions are projected to be reduced by a total of 0.2 grams per year under the final standards. In the July 23, 1999 Addendum to the Assessment, cancer risk reductions linked to consumption of dioxin contaminated agricultural products accounted for the vast majority of the 0.36 cancer cases per year that were expected to be avoided due to the 1999 standards. Cancer risk reductions associated with the final standards are expected to be less than 0.36 cases per year, but greater than zero. At this time, the Agency is still using a cancer risk slope factor of 1.56 x 105 [ mg/ kg/ day] 1 for dioxin. This cancer slope factor is derived from the Agency's 1985 health assessment document for polychlorinated dibenzo p dioxins125 and represents an upper bound 95th percentile confidence limit of the excess cancer risk from a lifetime exposure. For the past several years the Agency has been conducting a reassessment of the human health risks associated with dioxin and dioxin like compounds. In October of 2004 this reassessment126 was delivered to the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS) for review. Evidence compiled from this draft reassessment indicates that the carcinogenic effects of dioxin/ furans may be six times as great as believed in 1985, reflecting an upper bound cancer risk slope factor of 1 x 106 [ mg/ kg/ day] 1 for some individuals. Agency scientists' more likely ( central tendency) estimates ( derived from the ED01 rather than the LED01) result in slope factors and risk estimates that are within 2 3 times of the upper bound estimates ( i. e., between 3 x 105 [ mg/ kg/ day] 1 and 5 x 105 [ mg/ kg/ day] 1) based on the available epidemiological and animal cancer data. However, risks could be as low as 124 See: U. S. EPA. March 2005. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Interstate Air Quality Rule.   125 USEPA, 1985. Health Assessment Document for Polychlorinated Dibenzo p Dioxins. EPA/ 600/ 8 84/ 014F. Final Report. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. September, 1985   126 U. S. EPA, Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo p Dioxin ( TCDD) and Related Compounds National Academy Sciences ( NAS) Review Draft, December 2003. [ Note: Toxicity risk factors presented in this document should not be considered EPA's official estimate of dioxin toxicity, but rather reflect EPA's ongoing effort to reevaluate dioxin toxicity.] 138 zero for some individuals. Use of the alternative upper bound cancer risk slope factor could result in a higher human health monetized health benefit associated with premature cancer deaths avoided in response to the final standard for dioxin/ furans. The assessment of upper bound cancer risk using this alternative slope factor should not be considered current Agency policy. The standards for dioxin in today's final rule were not based on this draft reassessment. Total non discounted human health benefits associated with projected dioxin reductions are estimated at $ 0.02 million/ year. These benefits may range from $ 0.01 million/ year to nearly zero, applying a discount rate of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. Our discounted estimates incorporate an assumed latency period of 21 and 34 years from exposure to death. 2. Non Monetized Benefits We examined, but did not monetize human health benefits potentially associated with reduced exposure to lead, mercury, and total chlorine. Non monetized ecological benefits potentially associated with reductions in dioxin/ furan; selected metals, total chlorine, and particulate matter were also examined. Finally, waste minimization is examined as a non monetized benefit. Lead  The final standards are expected to reduce lead emissions by approximately 2.5 tons per year. In comparison, the 1999 standards were expected to reduce lead emissions by 89 tons per year, and were expected to reduce cumulative lead exposures for two children, ages zero to five, to less than 10 µ g/ dL. The lead benefits associated with these final standards are therefore expected to be modest. The final standards will also result in reduced lead levels for children of sub populations with especially high levels of exposure. Children of subsistence fishermen, commercial beef farmers, and commercial dairy farmers who face the greatest levels of cumulative lead exposure may also experience comparable reductions in overall exposure as a result of the MACT standards. Mercury. The HWC MACT final standards are expected to reduce mercury emissions by approximately 0.21 tons per year, approximately 93 percent less than the 130 Grandjean, P., K. Murata, E. Budtz Jorgensen, and P. Weihe. 2004. " Autonomic Activity in Methylmercury Neurotoxicity: 14 Year Follow Up of a Faroese Birth Cohort." Journal of Pediatrics. 144: 169 76; Kjellstrom, T., P. Kennedy, S. Wallis, A. Stewart, L. Friberg, B. Lind, P. Witherspoon, and C. Mantell. 1989. Physical and mental development of children with prenatal exposure to mercury from fish. Stage 2: Interviews and psychological tests at age 6. National Swedish Environmental Protection Board Report No. 3642; Crump, K. S., T. Kjellstrom, A. M. Shipp, A. Silvers, and A. Stewart. 1998. " Influence of prenatal mercury exposure upon scholastic and psychological test performance: benchmark analysis of a New Zealand cohort." Risk Analysis. 18( 6): 701 713; Davidson, P. W., G. J. Myers, C. Cox, C. Axtell, C. Shamlaye, J. Sloane Reeves, E. Cernichiari, L. Needham, A. Choi, Y. Wang, M. Berlin, and T. W. Clarkson. 1998. " Effects of prenatal and postnatal methylmercury exposure from fish consumption on neurodevelopment: outcomes at 66 months of age in the Seychelles Child Development Study." Journal of the American Medical Association. 280( 8): 701 707; and Myers, G. J., P. W. Davidson, C. Cox, C. F. Shamlaye, D. Palumbo, E. Cernichiari, J. Sloane Reeves, G. E. Wilding, J. Kost, L. S. Huang, and T. W. Clarkson. 2003. " Prenatal methylmercury exposure from ocean fish consumption in the Seychelles child development study." Lancet. 361( 9370): 1686 92 139 four ton reduction expected under the 1999 Standards. We do not attempt to quantify the mercury related benefits associated with today's final standards. However, because the reduction in mercury emissions represents a fraction of the reduction expected under the 1999 Standards, the mercury related benefits of the final standards are likely to be less than the corresponding benefits under the 1999 Standards. To characterize the benefits associated with reduced mercury emissions, the 1999 Assessment measured changes in hazard quotients for populations living near hazardous waste combustion facilities. For any given population, the hazard quotient is the ratio of the actual level of exposure to a safe level of exposure. A hazard quotient greater than one implies that a population is potentially at risk. The exposure quotient analysis in the 1999 Assessment found that the measurable benefits of reduced mercury emissions under the 1999 Standards were likely to be small because baseline exposures were relatively low. In addition, many of the studies examining the adverse health effects of mercury are inconclusive. Over the past several years, however, scientists have conducted three large scale studies of individuals in the Faroe Islands, New Zealand, and the Seychelles Islands examining the relationship between mercury exposure in women and the neurodevelopment of their unborn children130. The New Zealand and Faroe Islands studies both found a statistically significant relationship between maternal methylmercury exposure and IQ decrements in the unborn children of these women. In its 2000 report on the toxicological effects of methylmercury, the National Research Council suggested that integrating the results of all three studies could be useful for risk assessment purposes131. Such an integrative risk assessment, later published by Ryan et al. in 2005, served as the basis of the Agency's health effects analysis for the Clean Air Mercury Rule ( CAMR) 132. The regulatory impact analysis for CAMR summarizes several of the adverse health effects that may be linked to mercury and reviews the epidemiological literature examining the link between these effects and exposure to mercury133. Total Chlorine We were not able to quantify the benefits associated with reductions in total chlorine emissions. Total chlorine is a combination of hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas. The final standards are projected to reduce total annual chlorine emissions by about 107 tons per year134 ( HCl production furnaces only). Hydrogen chloride is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation can cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation, and pulmonary edema. Chronic occupational inhalation has been reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Long term exposure can also cause dental discoloration and erosion. Chlorine gas inhalation can cause bronchitis, asthma and swelling of the lungs, headaches, heart disease, and meningitis. Acute exposure causes more severe respiratory and lung effects, and can result in fatalities in extreme cases. The exposure levels established under 112( d)( 4) are expected to reduce chlorine exposure 131 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. 2000, p. 299 132 Ryan, L. M. Effects of Prenatal Methylmercury on Childhood IQ: A Synthesis of Three Studies. Report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005; U. S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Air Mercury Rule: Final Report. March 2005. 133 U. S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Air Mercury Rule: Final Report. March 2005. 134 This is a lower bound estimate that assumes all other sources will implement 112( d)( 4) and will not move to reduce TCl emissions from current baseline levels. 140 for people in close proximity to hazardous waste combustion facilities, and are therefore likely to reduce the risk of all associated health effects. Ecological Benefits  We examined ecological benefits through a comparison of the 1999 Assessment and today's final standards. Ecological benefits in the 1999 Assessment were based on reductions of approximately 100 tons per year in dioxin/ furans and selected metals. Lead was the only pollutant of concern for aquatic ecosystems, while mercury appeared to be of greatest concern for terrestrial ecosystems. Dioxin/ furan and lead emission reductions also provided some potential benefits for terrestrial ecosystems. The final standards are expected to reduce dioxin/ furan and selected metal emissions by about 12 percent to 13 percent of the 1999 estimate, resulting in fewer incremental benefits than those estimated for the 1999 Assessment ( and later, for the 2002 Interim Standards). However, the 1999 Assessment did not estimate the ecological benefits of MACT standards for hazardous waste burning industrial boilers and HCl production furnaces. These systems were excluded from the universe in 1999 but are part of the universe addressed by today's final standards. As a result, while the total ecological benefits of the final rule are likely to be modest, areas near facilities with boilers may enjoy more significant ecological benefits under the final standards than areas near facilities that have already complied with the 2002 Interim standards. Mercury, lead, and chlorides are among the HAPs that can cause damage to the health and visual appearance of plants. 135 While the total value of forest health is difficult to estimate, visible deterioration in the health of forests and plants can cause a measurable change in recreation behavior. Several studies that measure the change in outdoor recreation behavior according to forest health have attempted to place a value on aesthetic degradation of forests. 136 Although these studies are available, additional research is needed to fully understand the effects of these Haps on the forest ecosystem. Thus, these benefits are not quantified in this analysis. Emissions that are sufficient to cause structural and aesthetic damage to vegetation are likely to affect growth as well. Little research has been done on the effects of compounds such as chlorine, heavy metals ( as air pollutants), and PM on agricultural productivity. 137 Even though the potential for visible damage and production decline   135 Although the primary pollutants which are detrimental to vegetation aesthetics and growth are tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride ( three pollutants which are not regulated in the MACT standards), some literature exists on the relationship between metal deposition and vegetation health. ( Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume VI, 1997) ( Several studies are cited in this report.)   136 See, for example, Brown, T. C. et al. 1989, Scenic Beauty and Recreation Value: Assessing the Relationship, In J. Vining, ed., Social Science and Natural Resources Recreation Management, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado; this work studies the relationship between forest characteristics and the value of recreational participation. Also see Peterson, D. G. et al. 1987, Improving Accuracy and Reducing Cost of Environmental Benefit Assessments. Draft Report to the US EPA, by Energy and Resource Consultants, Boulder, Colorado; Walsh et al. 1990, Estimating the public benefits of protecting forest quality, Journal of Forest Management, 30: 175 189., and Homes et al. 1992, Economic Valuation of Spruce Fir Decline in the Southern Appalachian Mountains: A comparison of Value Elicitation Methods. Presented at the Forestry and the Environment: Economic Perspectives Conference, March 9 1, 1992 Jasper, Alberta, Canada for estimates of the WTP of visitors and residents to avoid forest damage.   137 MacKenzie, James J., and Mohamed T. El Ashry, Air Pollution's Toll on Forests and Crops ( New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989). 141 from metals and other pollutants suggests the final standards could increase agricultural productivity, we have not monetized the benefits of these changes. 3. Waste Minimization Benefits Facilities that burn hazardous waste and remain in operation following implementation of the final standards are expected to experience marginally increased costs as a result of these standards. This will result in an incentive to pass these increased costs on to their customers in the form of higher combustion prices. In the 1999 Assessment we conducted a waste minimization analysis to inform the expected price change. The analysis concluded that the demand for hazardous waste combustion is relatively inelastic. While a variety of waste minimization alternatives are available for managing hazardous waste streams that are currently combusted, the costs of these alternatives generally exceed the cost of combustion. When the additional costs of compliance with the MACT standards are taken into account, waste minimization alternatives still tend to exceed the higher combustion costs. This relative inelasticity suggests that, in the short term, large reductions in the amount of hazardous waste requiring combustion are not likely to occur. However, over the longer term ( i. e. as production systems are updated), companies may continue to seek alternatives to expensive hazardous waste management. This may include process adjustments that result, to some degree in source reduction of hazardous waste and the increased generation of non hazardous waste. To the extent that increases in combustion prices provide additional incentive to adopt more efficient processes, the final standards may contribute to longer term process based hazardous waste minimization efforts. No hazardous waste minimization impacts are captured in our quantitative analysis of costs and benefits138. A quantitative assessment of the benefits associated with waste minimization may result in double counting of some of the benefits described earlier. For example, waste minimization may reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants and therefore have a positive effect on public health. Furthermore, emission reductions beyond those necessary for compliance with the final standards are not addressed in the benefits assessment. In addition, waste minimization is likely to result in specific types of benefits not captured in this Assessment. For example, waste generators that engage in waste minimization may experience a reduction in their waste handling costs and could also reduce the risk related to waste spills and waste management. Finally, waste minimization procedures potentially stimulated by today's action may result in additional costs to facilities that implement these technologies. These factors have not been assessed in our analysis but are likely to at least partially offset corresponding benefits. 4. Conclusion Total non discounted monetized human health benefits associated with the final standards are estimated at $ 6.31 million/ year. Annualized discounted benefits were found to range from $ 5.61 million to $ 5.95 million/ year. The range reflects an alternative discount rate of 3 percent and 7 percent for mortality benefits.

138 Note that this rule does, in fact, consider hazardous waste feed control. Feed control can be implemented by each source through waste minimization procedures. See: Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume V   Emissions Estimates and Engineering Costs. 142 It is important to emphasize that monetized benefits represent only a portion of the total benefits associated with this rule. A significant portion of the benefits are not monetized, as discussed above, due to data and analytical limitations. Specifically, ecological benefits, and human health benefits associated with reductions in chlorine, mercury, and lead are not quantified or monetized. In some regions these benefits may be significant. In addition, specific sub populations near combustion facilities, including children and minority populations, may be disproportionately affected by environmental risks and may therefore enjoy more significant benefits. Visibility benefits associated with reduced PM are also expected from this final rule. For a complete discussion of the methodology, data, findings, and limitations associated with our benefits analysis the reader is encouraged to review the Assessment document140, and the Addendum to the Assessment.

Part Seven: How Does the Final Rule Meet the RCRA Protectiveness Mandate?

As discussed in more detail below, we believe today's final standards are generally protective of human health and the environment. We therefore finalize and apply these standards, in most instances, in lieu of the RCRA air emission standards applicable to these sources.

I. Background Section 3004( a) of RCRA requires the Agency to promulgate standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as necessary to protect human health and the environment. The standards for hazardous waste incinerators generally rest on this authority. In addition, § 3004( q) requires the Agency to promulgate standards for emissions from facilities that burn hazardous waste fuels ( e. g., cement and lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces) as necessary to protect human health and the environment. Using RCRA authority, the Agency has established emission ( and other) standards for hazardous waste combustors that are either entirely risk based ( e. g., site specific standards for metals under the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule), or are technology based but determined by a generic risk assessment to be protective ( e. g., the DRE standard for incinerators and BIFs). The MACT standards finalized today implement the technology based regime of CAA § 112( d). There is, however, a residual risk component to air toxics standards. Section 112( f) of the Clean Air Act requires the Agency to impose, within eight years after promulgation of the technology based standards promulgated under § 112( d) ( i. e., the authority for today's final standards), additional controls if needed to protect public health with an ample margin of safety or to prevent adverse environmental effect. RCRA § 1006( b) directs that EPA " integrate all provisions of [ RCRA] for purposes of administration and enforcement and ... avoid duplication, to the maximum extent possible, with the appropriate provisions of the Clean Air Act...." Thus, although considerations of risk are not ordinarily part of the MACT process, in order to avoid 140 Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Final Rule Standards. September 2005. 143 duplicative standards where possible, we have evaluated the protectiveness of the standards finalized today. As noted above, under RCRA, EPA must promulgate standards " as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment." RCRA § 3004( a) and ( q). Technology based standards developed under CAA § 112 do not automatically satisfy this requirement, but may do so in fact. See 59 FR at 29776 ( June 6, 1994) and 60 FR at 32593 ( June 23, 1995) ( RCRA regulation of secondary lead smelter emissions unnecessary at this time given stringency of technology based standard and pendency of § 112( f) determination). If the MACT standards, as a factual matter, are sufficiently protective to also satisfy the RCRA mandate, then no independent RCRA standards are required. Conversely, if MACT standards are inadequate, the RCRA authorities would have to be used to fill the gap.

II. Evaluation of Protectiveness For the purpose of satisfying the RCRA statutory mandates, the Agency has conducted an evaluation of the degree of protection afforded by the MACT standards being finalized today. We have not conducted a comprehensive risk assessment for this rulemaking as was done for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns in the 1999 MACT rule where we concluded that the promulgated standards were generally protective and therefore, the RCRA standards need not be retained. However, we noted that in certain instances, permit authorities may invoke the omnibus authority ( RCRA § 3005( c)( 3) and its implementing regulations at § § 270.10( k)) if there is some reason to believe that additional controls beyond those required pursuant to 40 CFR parts 63, 264, 265, and 266 may be needed to ensure protection of human health and the environment under RCRA. For this final rule, we instead compared the risk related characteristics of the sources covered by the 1999 rule to the sources covered by today's rule ( e. g., estimated emissions, stack characteristics, meteorology, and population). For a description of the methodology and technical discussion of its application, see " Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of Standards for Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors," in the docket for today's rule. We performed a large array of statistical comparisons and from these we attempted to make inferences about whether risks would be expected to be about the same, less than, or greater than the risks estimated for 1999 rule. We think the comparative analysis lends additional support to our view that today's final standards are generally protective. We received no comments either in support of or in opposition to our use of the comparative analysis to evaluate the protectiveness of the standards being finalized today or our view that the standards are generally protective. While we regard the final standards as generally protective, the comparative analysis suggests some concern for solid fuel fired boilers ( SFBs) with regard to the particulate matter standard ( and certain metals such as antimony and thallium), mercury, and total chlorine standards ( other than the alternative risk based chlorine standards). The analysis also suggests some concern for hydrochloric acid ( HCl) production furnaces with regard to the dioxin/ furan standard, where carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon serve as surrogate control. However, because both SFBs and HCl production furnaces comprise such small source categories ( 4 SFB facilities and 8 HCl production facilities), it is difficult to reach firm conclusions. For example, for SFBs it was not possible to 144 conduct hypothesis tests that could be considered valid involving correlations among variables for a number of variables in the analysis because of the small number of data points and the power of the tests to detect differences for those that were conducted was very low, which greatly diminishes the value of the results. ( Indeed, no differences in correlations were found for SFBs at the 0.1 significance level  the level of significance that was used in the analysis.) Similarly, for HCl production furnaces the power of the tests to detect differences in correlations was quite low. It must be noted that the comparative analysis methodology was not intended for comparisons that involve relatively few facilities because it is grounded in tests of hypotheses and levels of statistical significance which generally require substantial amounts of data to produce firm conclusions. Nevertheless, in consideration of the indications of possible risks for the aforementioned standards, permit authorities may want to consider site specific factors in determining whether or not the MACT standards are sufficiently protective for facilities that fall into these categories. The comparative analysis may also raise possible concerns for lightweight aggregate kilns ( LWAKs) and liquid fuel fired boilers ( LFBs) with dry APCDs with regard to the dioxin/ furan standards, in view of the ongoing uncertainty in cancer and other health effects levels for chlorinated dioxins and furans. In particular, some recent estimates of the carcinogenicity of these compounds that consider both human and animal data, are higher than earlier estimates derived from animal data alone. However, like SFBs and HCl production furnaces, LWAKs and LFBs with dry APCDs both comprise small source categories ( 3 LWAK facilities and 7 dry APCD LFB facilities). This makes it very difficult to reach firm conclusions and suggests the need to consider site specific factors in determining whether the MACT standards are sufficiently protective in these instances. Except as noted, we believe today's final standards provide a substantial degree of protection to human health and the environment. We therefore do not believe that we need to retain the existing RCRA standards for boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces ( just as we found that existing RCRA standards for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns were no longer needed after the 1999 rule). However, as previously discussed in more detail in Part Four, Section IX, site specific risk assessments may be warranted on an individual source basis to ensure that the MACT standards provide adequate protection in accordance with RCRA.

Part Eight: Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 [ 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993)] the Agency, in conjunction with OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ( OIRA), must determine whether a regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; 145 ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order." Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a " significant regulatory action" because this action may raise novel legal or policy issues due to the methodology applied in development of the final standards. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record. The total social costs for this rule are estimated at $ 22.6 million per year141. This figure is significantly below the $ 100 million threshold established under point number one above. Thus, this rule is not considered to be an economically significant action. However, in an effort to comply with the spirit of the Order, we have prepared an economic assessment in support of today's final rule. This document is entitled: Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Final Rule Standards, September 2005. We have also prepared an Addendum to this Assessment entitled: Addendum to the Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Final Rule Standards, September 2005. This Addendum captures changes made to the rulemaking following completion of the full Assessment document. The Assessment and Addendum were designed to adhere to analytical requirements established under Executive Order 12866, and corresponding Agency and OMB guidance; subject to data, analytical, and resource limitations. Findings presented under Part Six of this Preamble were developed in accordance with this guidance. The RCRA docket established for today's rulemaking maintains a copy of the Assessment and Addendum for public review. Interested persons are encouraged to read both documents to gain a full understanding of the analytical methodology, findings, and limitations associated with this report.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act We have prepared an Information Collection Request ( ICR) document ( ICR No. 1773.08) listing the information collection requirements of this final rule, and have submitted it for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, U. S. C. 3501 et seq. OMB has assigned a control number 2050 0171 for this ICR. This ICR is available for public viewing in the EPA Docket Center, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC. Copy may also be obtained from the EDOCKET on the EPA web site, or by calling ( 202) 566 1744. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The public burden associated with this final rule is projected to affect 238 HWC units and is estimated to average 211 hours per respondent annually. The reporting and   141 This figure includes approximately $ 0.5 million/ year in total government costs. Total social costs would increase to approximately $ 28.6 million per year if we were to assume all sources were to comply with technology based TCl standards. 146 recordkeeping cost burden is estimated to average $ 5,640 per respondent annually. Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. That includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final rule. The EPA requested comments ( see 70 FR 20748, Apr. 21, 2005) on the need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency is able to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not for profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. Small entities are defined as: ( 1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's ( SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that hazardous waste combustion facilities are not owned by small governmental jurisdiction or nonprofit organizations. Therefore, only small businesses were analyzed for small entity impacts. For the purposes of the impact analyses, small entity is defined either by the number of employees or by the dollar amount of sales. The level at which a business is considered small is determined for each North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) code by the Small Business Administration. 147 Affected individual waste combustors ( incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, solid and liquid fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces) will bear the impacts of today's rule. These units will incur direct economic impacts ( positive or negative) as a result of today's rule. Few of the hazardous waste combustion facilities affected by this rule were found to be owned by small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA). From our universe of 145 facilities, we identified eight facilities that are currently owned by small businesses. Four of these facilities are liquid boilers, two are on site incinerators, one is a cement kiln, and one is a lightweight aggregate kiln ( LWAK). Our analysis indicates that none of these facilities are likely to incur annualized compliance costs greater than one percent of gross annual corporate revenues. Cost impacts of the final standards were found to range from less than 0.01 percent to 0.46 percent of annual gross corporate revenues. The reader is encouraged to review our regulatory flexibility screening analysis prepared in support of this determination. This analysis is incorporated as Appendix H of the Assessment document, and updated in the Addendum.

IV. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA) calls on all federal agencies to provide a statement supporting the need to issue any regulation containing an unfunded federal mandate and describing prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments. Today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 204 and 205 of UMRA. In general, a rule is subject to the requirements of these sections if it contains " Federal mandates" that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Today's final rule does not result in $ 100 million or more in expenditures for any of these categories. The aggregate annualized social cost for today's rule is estimated at $ 22.6 million.

V. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects 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." Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in the Order. The rule focuses on requirements for facilities 148 burning hazardous waste, without affecting the relationships between Federal and State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did include various State representatives on our Agency workgroup. These representatives participated in the development of this rule.

VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." Our Agency workgroup for this rule included Tribal representation. We have determined that this final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in the Order. No Tribal governments are known to own or operate hazardous waste combustors subject to the requirements of this final rule. Furthermore, this rule focuses on requirements for all regulated sources without affecting the relationships between tribal governments in its implementation, and applies to all regulated sources, without distinction of the surrounding populations affected. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

VII. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under E. O. 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. Today's final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined under point one of the Order, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

VIII. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 Fed. Reg. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)). This rule, as finalized, will not seriously disrupt energy supply, distribution patterns, prices, imports or exports. Furthermore, this rule is not an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866. 149 IX. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (" NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104 113, 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or measurement. Both Performance Based Measurement System ( PBMS) and specific measurement methods are finalized under this rule. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. Where allowed, EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified.

X. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations Executive Order 12898, " Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations" ( February 11, 1994) requires us to complete an analysis of today's rule with regard to equity considerations. The Order is designed to address the environmental and human health conditions of minority and lowincome populations. This section briefly discusses potential impacts ( direct or disproportional) today's rule may have in the area of environmental justice. We have recently analyzed demographic data from the U. S. Census, and have previously examined data from two other reports: " Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of the Populations Living Near Cement Plants in the United States" ( EPA, August 1994) and " Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of the Populations Living Near Hazardous Waste Incinerators in the United States" ( EPA, October 1994). These reports examine the number of low income and minority individuals living near a relatively large sample of cement kilns and hazardous waste incinerators and provide county, state, and national population percentages for various sub populations. The demographic data in these reports provide several important findings when examined in conjunction with the risk reductions projected from today's rule. We find that combustion facilities, in general, are not located in areas with disproportionately high minority and low income populations. However, there is evidence that hazardous waste burning cement kilns are somewhat more likely to be located in areas that have relatively higher low income populations. Furthermore, there are a small number of commercial hazardous waste incinerators located in highly urbanized areas where there is a disproportionately high concentration of minorities and low income populations within one and five mile radii. The reduced emissions at these facilities due to today's rule could represent meaningful environmental and health improvements for these populations. Overall, today's rule should not result in any adverse or disproportional health or safety effects on minority or low income populations. Any impacts on these populations are likely to be positive due to the 150 reduction in emissions from combustion facilities near minority and low income population groups. The Assessment document available in the RCRA docket established for today's rule discusses our Environmental Justice analysis.

XI. Congressional Review The Congressional Review Act ( CRA), 5 U. S. C. § 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, we will submit all necessary information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. Under the CRA, a major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. § 804( 2).


[Federal Register: April 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 66)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15896-15899]
[DOCID:fr08ap09-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0328; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-44-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF34-1A,
CF34-3A, and CF34-3B Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for GE CF34-1A, CF34-3A, and CF34-3B series turbofan engines. This
proposed AD would require: Removing from service certain part number
(P/N) and serial number (SN) fan blades within compliance times
specified in this proposed AD, inspecting the fan blade abradable rub
strip on certain engines for wear, inspecting the fan blades on certain
engines for cracks, and inspecting the aft actuator head hose fitting
for correct position, and if necessary repositioning. This proposed AD
results from a report of an under-cowl fire, and a failed fan blade. We
are proposing this AD to prevent failure of certain P/N and SN fan
blades and aft actuator head hoses, which could result in an under-cowl
fire and subsequent damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by June 8,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services,
10525 Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215, telephone (513)
672-8400, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0328; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NE-44-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

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

Discussion

    We have received reports of certain P/N and SN fan blades failing
on CF34 series engines. The first failure also included an under-cowl
fire that caused extensive damage to the engine. Although we haven't
been able to determine the exact cause of the under-cowl fire because
of the thermal damage, the investigation revealed two problems; a fan
blade failed at the platform tang and the aft actuator head hose
failed. The investigation also revealed that the accessory gearbox had
separated from the engine, possibly contributing to the actuator hose
failure.
    We traced the failed fan blades to a specific supplier and their
billet material. The investigation found that the billet alloy material
met specifications and the supplier's approved processes were different
from other suppliers' approved processes. The differences allowed a
larger area of aligned alpha colonies to form in the tang region of the
fan blade. If the alpha colonies align, they can cause cracks in the
blade tang. Although the material was within specification, and the
processes and billet size conformed to the engineering drawings for the
blades, GE determined that the material, process, and billet size
combined to allow the alpha colonies to align. The investigation also
found that although the aft actuator hose is designed to include enough
slack to prevent its failure if the gearbox separates from the engine,
the incorrect orientation of the aft actuator head hose fitting at the
main fuel control removed that slack. The incorrect position of the
fitting might have caused the hose to fail and contribute to fire.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of
certain P/N and SN fan blades and aft actuator head hoses, which could
result in an under-cowl fire and subsequent damage to the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of the
following GE Aircraft Engines Service Bulletins (SBs):
     CF34-AL S/B 73-0046, Revision 02, dated August 27, 2008,
and CF34-BJ S/B 73-0062, Revision 02, dated August 27, 2008, that
provide instructions for inspecting the orientation of the aft actuator
hose assembly and the main fuel control.
     CF34-AL S/B 72-0245, Revision 01, dated July 3, 2008,
CF34-BJ S/B 72-0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008, and CF34-BJ S/B
72-0230, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008, that provide instructions
for replacing certain existing blades, P/Ns 6018T30P14 and 4923T56G08,
that have a SN listed in Appendix A of those SBs.
     CF34-AL S/B 72-0250, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2008,
and CF34-BJ S/B 72-0231, Revision 02, dated November 26, 2008, that
provide instructions for inspecting the fan case abradable rub strip
and fan blade tangs.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Manufacturer's Service
Information

     Service Bulletin CF34-AL S/B 73-0046, Revision 02, dated
August 27, 2008 recommends performing the inspection at the next ``A''
check, but no later than 750 hours time-in-service (TIS). This proposed
AD would require performing the inspection within 750 hours TIS after
the effective date of the proposed AD.
     Service Bulletin CF34-BJ S/B 73-0062, Revision 02, dated
August 27, 2008, recommends performing the inspection of the CF34-3A1
engines at the next scheduled 300 hour check, but no later than 600
hours. This proposed AD would require performing the inspection within
300 hours TIS after the effective date of the proposed AD.
     Service Bulletin CF34-BJ S/B 73-0062, Revision 02, dated
August 27, 2008, recommends performing the inspection of the CF34-3B
engines at the next scheduled 400 hour check but no later than 800
hours TIS. This proposed AD would require performing the inspection
within 400 hours TIS after the effective date of the proposed AD.
     Service Bulletin CF34-AL S/B 72-0250, Revision 01, dated
November 26, 2008, recommends inspection of the fan blades if there is
a continuous 360 degree rub indication. This proposed AD would require
the inspection of the fan blades if there is a continuous 360 degree
rub indication. The service bulletin also contains an alternate
compliance method using GE's remote diagnostics trend monitoring
program. This proposed AD does not include that alternate method.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would
require:
     Removing from service certain P/N and SN blades within
compliance times specified in this proposed AD.
     Inspecting the fan blade abradable rub strip on certain
engines for wear.
     Inspecting the fan blades on certain engines for cracks.
     Inspecting the aft actuator head hose fitting for correct
position, and if necessary, repositioning.
    The proposed AD would require you to use the service information
described previously to perform these actions.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,966 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that the fan blade
inspection and replacement requirement would affect 300 of these
engines, and the actuator head hose inspection would affect 1,662
engines. We also estimate that it would take 0.5 work-hour per engine
to inspect the fan blade abradable rub strip, 6 work-hours per engine
to visually inspect the fan blades, 11 work-hours per engine to perform
an eddy current inspection of the fan blades, and 0.25 work-hour per
engine to inspect the actuator head hose fitting, and that the average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost $51,106,600.
Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD
to U.S. operators to be $51,184,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this 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 that the proposed AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2009-0328; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NE-44-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by June 8,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF34-1A,
CF34-3A, CF34-3A1, CF34-3A2, CF34-3B, and CF34-3B1 turbofan engines.
These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Bombardier
Canadair Models CL-600-2A12, CL-600-2B16, and CL-600-2B19 airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of an under-cowl fire, and a
failed fan blade. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
certain part number (P/N) and serial number (SN) fan blades and aft
actuator head hoses, which could result in an under-cowl fire and
subsequent damage to the airplane.

Compliance

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

CF34-3A1 and CF34-3B1 Engines

    (f) For CF34-3A1 engines with fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02,
and airworthiness limitation section life limit of 22,000 CSN, and
CF34-3B1 engines with fan blades, P/Ns 6018T30P14 or 4923T56G08,
that have a fan

blade SN listed in Appendix A of GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) Service
Bulletin (SB) CF34-AL S/B 72-0245, Revision 01, dated July 3, 2008,
do the following:
    (1) Remove fan blades from service within 4,000 cycles-in-
service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD or by December 31,
2010, whichever occurs first.

Initial Visual Inspection of the Fan Blade Abradable Rub Strip for Wear

    (2) For fan blades with 1,200 or more cycles-since-new (CSN) on
the effective date of this AD, within 20 CIS after the effective
date of this AD, perform an initial visual inspection of the fan
blade abradable rub strip for wear. Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) through
3.A.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-AL S/B
72-0250, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2008, to perform the
inspection.
    (3) For fan blades with fewer than 1,200 CSN on the effective
date of this AD, within 1,220 CSN, perform an initial visual
inspection of the fan blade abradable rub strip for wear. Use
paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(2) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0250, Revision 01, dated
November 26, 2008, to perform the inspection.
    (4) If you find a continuous 360 degree rub indication, before
further flight, visually inspect the fan blades using paragraphs
3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions of
GEAE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0250, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2008,
to perform the inspection.
    (5) If you find a crack in the retaining pin holes of the fan
blade, remove the blade from service.

Repetitive Visual Inspection of the Fan Blade Abradable Rub Strip for
Wear

    (6) Within 75 cycles-since-last inspection (CSLI) or 100 hours-
since-last-inspection (HSLI), whichever occurs later, perform a
visual inspection of the fan blade abradable rub strip for wear. Use
paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(2) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0250, Revision 01, dated
November 26, 2008, to perform the inspection.
    (i) If you find a continuous 360 degree rub indication, before
further flight, visually inspect the fan blades using paragraphs
3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions of
GEAE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0250, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2008,
to perform the inspection.
    (ii) If you find a crack in the retaining pin holes of the fan
blade, remove the blade from service.

Inspection of the Aft Actuator Head Hose Fitting on CF34-3A1 and CF34-
3B1 Engines

    (7) Within 750 hours time in service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD, visually inspect and, if necessary, reposition the
aft actuator head hose fitting. Use paragraph 3.A of the
Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-AL S/B 73-0046, Revision
02, dated August 27, 2008, to perform the inspection.

CF34-1A, CF34-3A, CF34-3A2, CF34-3B, and CF34-3A1 Engines

    (g) For CF34-3A1 engines with fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02,
and airworthiness limitation section life limit of 15,000 CSN, and
CF34-1A, CF34-3A, CF34-3A2, and CF34-3B engines with fan blades, P/N
6018T30P14 or P/N 4923T56G08, that have a fan blade SN listed in
Appendix A of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0229, Revision 01, dated July
30, 2008, do the following:
    (1) Remove fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, from service within 2,400
CSN.
    (2) Remove fan blades, P/N 4923T56G08, from service within 1,200
CIS since the bushing repair of the fan blade hole.

Initial Eddy Current Inspection of the Fan Blades

    (3) For fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, with more than 850 CSN, but
fewer than 1,200 CSN on the effective date of this AD, within 350
CIS after the effective date of this AD, perform an initial eddy
current inspection (ECI) of the fan blades for cracks. Use
paragraphs 3.A. or 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE
SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008, to perform
the inspection.
    (4) For fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, with 850 or fewer CSN on the
effective date of this AD, within 1,200 CSN, perform an initial ECI
of the fan blades for cracks. Use paragraphs 3.A. or 3.B. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0229, Revision
01, dated July 30, 2008, to perform the inspection.
    (5) If you find a crack in the retaining pin holes of the fan
blade, remove the blade from service.

Repetitive ECI of the Fan Blades

    (6) For fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, installed, within 600 CSLI,
perform an ECI of the fan blades for cracks. Use paragraphs 3.A. or
3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-
0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008, to perform the inspection.
    (7) If you find a crack in the retaining pin holes of the fan
blade, remove the blade from service.

Initial Visual Inspection of the Fan Blade Abradable Rub Strip for Wear

    (8) For engines with fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, installed that
have a fan blade SN listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-
0229, Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008, with 1,200 or more CSN on
the effective date of this AD, that haven't had an ECI of the fan
blades for cracks, do the following:
    (i) Perform an initial inspection of the fan blade abradable rub
strip for wear within 20 CIS after the effective date of this AD.
Use paragraph 3.A.(1) of the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB
CF34-BJ S/B 72-0231, Revision 02, dated November 26, 2008, to
perform the inspection.
    (ii) If you find a continuous 360 degree rub indication, before
further flight, perform a visual inspection of the fan blades for
cracks. Use paragraphs 3.A(2)(a) or 3.A(2)(b) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0231, Revision 02, dated
November 26, 2008, to perform the inspection.
    (iii) If you find a crack in the retaining pin holes of the fan
blade, remove the blade from service.

Repetitive Inspection of the Fan Blade Abradable Rub Strip for Wear

    (9) For engines with fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, installed, if
you have performed an ECI of the fan blade, you don't need to
inspect the fan blade abradable rub strip for wear.
    (10) For engines with fan blades, P/N 6018T30P14, installed,
within 75 CSLI or 100 HSLI, whichever occurs later, do the
following:
    (i) Perform a visual inspection of the fan blade abradable rub
strip for wear. Use paragraph 3.A.(1) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0231, Revision 02, dated
November 26, 2008, to perform the inspection.
    (ii) If you find a continuous 360 degree rub indication, before
further flight, visually inspect the fan blades using paragraphs
3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions of
GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0231, Revision 02, dated November 26, 2008.
    (iii) If you find a crack in the retaining pin holes of the fan
blade, remove the blade from service.

Inspection of the Aft Actuator Head Hose Fitting on CF34-3A1 and CF34-
3B Engines

    (11) For CF34-3A1 engines, within 300 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD, visually inspect and, if necessary,
reposition the aft actuator head hose fitting. Use paragraph 3.A of
the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 73-0062,
Revision 02, dated August 27, 2008, to perform the inspection.
    (12) For CF34-3B engines, within 400 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD, visually inspect and if necessary,
reposition the aft actuator head hose fitting. Use paragraph 3.A of
the Accomplishment Instructions of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 73-0062,
Revision 02, dated August 27, 2008, to perform the inspection.

Credit for Previous Actions

    (h) Inspections previously performed using the following GEAE
SBs meet the requirements specified in the indicated paragraphs:
    (1) CF34-AL S/B 72-0250, dated August 15, 2008, meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(4) of this
AD.
    (2) CF34-AL S/B 73-0046, Revision 01, dated July 1, 2008, or
earlier issue, meet the requirements specified in paragraph (f)(7)
of this AD.
    (3) CF34-BJ S/B 72-0229, dated April 10, 2008, meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) of this AD.
    (4) CF34-BJ S/B 72-0231, Revision 01, dated October 1, 2008, or
earlier issue, meet the requirements specified in paragraphs
(g)(10)(i) and (g)(10)(ii) of this AD.
    (5) CF34-BJ S/B 73-0062, Revision 01, dated July 1, 2008, or
earlier issue, meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(11)
and (g)(12) of this AD.

Installation Prohibitions

    (i) After the effective date of this AD:
    (1) Do not install any fan blade into any CF34-3A1 engine with
fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02, with an airworthiness limitation
section life limit of 22,000 CSN if that fan blade:
    (i) Was installed in a CF34-3A1 engine with fan drive shaft, P/N
6036T78P02, with an airworthiness limitation section life limit of
15,000 CSN; and
    (ii) Is listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0229,
Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008; or
    (iii) Is listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0230,
Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008.
    (2) Do not install any fan blade into any CF34-3A1 engine with
fan drive shaft, P/N 6036T78P02, with an airworthiness limitation
section life limit of 15,000 CSN if that fan blade:
    (i) Was installed in any CF34-3A1 engine with fan drive shaft,
P/N 6036T78P02, with an airworthiness limitation section life limit
of 22,000 CSN and,
    (ii) Is listed in Appendix A of GEAE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0245,
Revision 01, dated July 3, 2008.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (k) Contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.
    (l) GE Aircraft Engines SBs CF34-AL S/B 73-0046, Revision 02,
dated August 27, 2008; CF34-AL S/B 72-0245, Revision 01, dated July
3, 2008; CF34-AL S/B 72-0250, dated August 15, 2008; CF34-BJ S/B 73-
0062, Revision 02, dated August 27, 2008; CF34-BJ S/B 72-0229,
Revision 01, dated July 30, 2008; CF34-BJ S/B 72-0230, Revision 01,
dated July 30, 2008; and CF34-BJ S/B 72-0231, Revision 01, dated
October 1, 2008; pertain to the subject of this AD. Contact General
Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services, 10525
Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215; telephone (513) 672-
8400; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for a copy of this service information.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 4, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-8070 Filed 4-6-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 54730]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Joint Meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee
and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Amendment
of Notice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
amendment to the notice of meeting of the Joint Meeting of the
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and
Risk Management Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the
Federal Register of April 25, 2014 (79 FR 22995). The amendment is
being made to reflect a change in the Agenda portion of the document.
There are no other changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 25, 2014,
FDA announced that a meeting of the Joint Meeting of the
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and
Risk Management Advisory Committee would be held on October 16, 2014.
On page 22996, in the first column, the Agenda portion of the document
is changed to read as follows:
    Agenda: The committees will discuss safety data from observational
studies and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials
that have been conducted since the original signal of serious
neuropsychiatric adverse events with CHANTIX (varenicline tartrate
tablets, NDA 21928, Pfizer, Inc.) emerged. The committees will also
discuss whether any action needs to be taken with regard to how this
risk is described in product labeling.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: September 9, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-21780 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47561-47562]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18425]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34-92727; FOIA-194]

Freedom of Information Act Regulations

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
making an amendment to the Commission's Freedom of Information Act
(``FOIA'') regulations to remove a provision stating that records that
the FOIA requires to be made available for public inspection in an
electronic format will be available to persons who do not have access
to the internet in the Commission's Public Reference Room. The
Commission's FOIA regulations will continue to provide that persons who
do not have access to the internet can obtain the documents required to
be made available for public inspection by telephone or email request
to the Office of FOIA Services.

DATES:  Effective date: August 26, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray McInerney, FOIA/PA Officer, Office
of FOIA Services,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-5041.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is adopting an amendment to
its FOIA regulations at 17 CFR 200.80(a)(2)(ii).

I. Background

    The Freedom of Information Act requires each agency, in accordance
with published rules, to make certain records available for public
inspection in an electronic format.\1\ The Commission's regulation at
17 CFR 200.80(a)(2)(ii) provides that records that the FOIA requires to
be made available for public inspection in an electronic format are
accessible through the Commission's website. In addition, under the
existing regulation, persons without access to the internet may obtain
these records by telephone or email request or by visiting the Public
Reference Room at the Commission's headquarters in Washington, DC. The
FOIA itself does not require that agencies provide access to documents
that are available for public inspection in an electronic format in a
public reference room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Public Reference Room, which is housed within the Commission's
Library, contains a computer terminal that members of the public may
use to access records that the SEC is required to make publicly
available under the FOIA. The Commission's visitor logs and information
from the Commission Library staff indicate that no one has used the
computer terminal in the Public Reference Room to access records that
the FOIA requires to be made available for public inspection in an
electronic format from 2018 through the date of this document.\2\ In
light of the lack of use of the computer terminal in the Public
Reference Room as a means of accessing the records, we are adopting
technical amendments to our FOIA rules to remove the reference to
obtaining access in the Public Reference Room. The Commission's
regulation will continue to provide that persons who do not have access
to the internet will be able to obtain the documents required to be
made available for public inspection via telephone or email request to
the Commission's Office of FOIA Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Due to the COVID pandemic, the public has not been allowed
access to the Public Reference Room since April 13, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Administrative Law Matters

    The Commission finds, in accordance with the Administrative
Procedure Act (``APA''), that these revisions relate solely to agency
organization, procedures, or practice and do not constitute a
substantive rule. Accordingly, the APA's provisions regarding notice of
rulemaking, opportunity for public comment, and advance publication of
the amendments are not applicable.\3\ For the same reason, and because
these amendments do not substantially affect the rights or obligations
of non-agency parties, the provisions of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act are not applicable.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 553.
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
which apply only when notice and comment are required by the APA or
other law, are not applicable. These amendments do not contain any
collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.

III. Economic Analysis

    We are adopting an amendment to remove a provision that states that
documents that the FOIA requires to be made available for public
inspection in an electronic format will be available to persons who do
not have access to the internet in the Commission's Public Reference
Room. This amendment does not impose any substantive regulatory
obligations on any person. We do not believe the amendment will have
any substantial economic effect, including on efficiency, competition,
or capital formation. All documents that the FOIA requires to be
available will remain available to the public via the internet, mail,
email, or telephone request. Members of the public who wish to make use
of the Commission's Public Reference Room but who must now make use of
one of the alternatives could potentially incur net costs if the
alternatives are less accessible than using the computer available in
the Public Reference Room. However, since the documents at issue are
readily available through any computer connected to the internet and
can also be obtained by mail and since no person has used the
Commission's Public Reference Room for this purpose in at least two
years, we believe any such incremental costs will be small and incurred
infrequently. Because the amendment imposes no substantial new burdens
on private parties, the Commission believes that the amendment will not
have any impact on

competition for purposes of section 23(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory Authority

    The amendments contained herein have been made under the authority
set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552 and 15 U.S.C. 78w(a).

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information.

Text of Amendments

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission amends title
17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND
REQUESTS

Subpart D--Information and Requests

0
1. The authority citation for part 200, subpart D, continues to read in
part as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 77f(d), 77s,
77ggg(a), 77sss, 78m(F)(3), 78w, 80a-37, 80a-44(a), 80a-44(b), 80b-
10(a), and 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.

    Section 200.80 also issued under Public Law 114-185 sec. 3(a),
130 Stat. 538; 5 U.S.C. 552; 15 U.S.C. 77f(d), 77s, 77ggg(a), 78d-1,
78w(a), 80a-37(a), 80a-44(b), 80b-10(a), and 80b-11(a), unless
otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Amend Sec.  200.80 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  200.80  Securities and Exchange Commission records and
information.

    (a) * * *
    (2)(i) Records that the FOIA requires to be made available for
public inspection in an electronic format (pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(2)) are accessible through the Commission's website, http://www.sec.gov. Each division and office of the Commission is responsible
for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly
available in an electronic format, as well as identifying additional
records of interest to the public that are appropriate for public
disclosure, and for posting and indexing such records. Each division
and office shall ensure that its posted records and indexes are
reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis.
    (ii) Persons who do not have access to the internet may obtain
these records by contacting the Commission's Office of FOIA Services by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: August 23, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18425 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28899-28900]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11621]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 302; SEC File No. 270-453, OMB Control No. 3235-0510.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 302 (17 CFR
242.302) of Regulation ATS (17 CFR 242.300 et seq.) under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Regulation ATS sets forth a regulatory regime for ``alternative
trading systems'' (``ATSs''), which are entities that carry out
exchange functions but which are not required to register as national
securities exchanges under the Act. In lieu of exchange registration,
an ATS can instead opt to register with the Commission as a broker-
dealer and, as a condition to not having to register as an exchange,
must instead comply with Regulation ATS. Rule 302 of Regulation ATS (17
CFR 242.302) describes the recordkeeping requirements for ATSs. Under
Rule 302, ATSs are required to make a record of subscribers to the ATS,
daily summaries of trading in the ATS, and time-sequenced records of
order information in the ATS.
    The information required to be collected under Rule 302 should
increase the abilities of the Commission, state securities regulatory
authorities,

and the self-regulatory organizations to ensure that ATSs are in
compliance with Regulation ATS as well as other applicable rules and
regulations. If the information is not collected or collected less
frequently, the regulators would be limited in their ability to comply
with their statutory obligations, provide for the protection of
investors, and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.
    Respondents consist of ATSs that choose to register as broker-
dealers and comply with the requirements of Regulation ATS. There are
currently 92 respondents. These respondents will spend approximately
11,960 hours per year (92 respondents at 130 burden hours/respondent)
to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 302. At an
average cost per burden hour of $63, the resultant total related cost
of compliance for these respondents is $753,480 per year (11,960 burden
hours multiplied by $63/hour).
    Written comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 10, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11621 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P