UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES August 26, 2003 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review of Cypermethrin Incident Reports DP Barcode D293143, Chemical # 109702 FROM: Jerome Blondell, Ph. D., Health Statistician Chemistry and Exposure Branch Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Monica S. Hawkins, M. P. H., Environmental Health Scientist Chemistry and Exposure Branch Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THRU: Francis B. Suhre, Chief Chemistry and Exposure Branch Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Seyed Tadayan, Chemist Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

BACKGROUND The following data bases have been consulted for the poisoning incident data on the active ingredient benfluralin ( PC Code: 084301):

1) OPP Incident Data System ( IDS)  reports of incidents from various sources, including registrants, other federal and state health and environmental agencies and individual consumers, submitted to OPP since 1992. Reports submitted to the Incident Data System represent anecdotal reports or allegations only, unless otherwise stated. Typically no conclusions can be drawn implicating the pesticide as a cause of any of the reported health effects. Nevertheless, sometimes with enough cases and/ or enough documentation risk mitigation measures may be suggested. 2) Poison Control Centers  as the result of a data purchase by EPA, OPP received Poison Control Center data covering the years 1993 through 1998 for all pesticides. Most of the national 2 Poison Control Centers ( PCCs) participate in a national data collection system, the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System which obtains data from about 65 70 centers at hospitals and universities. PCCs provide telephone consultation for individuals and health care providers on suspected poisonings, involving drugs, household products, pesticides, etc.

3) California Department of Pesticide Regulation  California has collected uniform data on suspected pesticide poisonings since 1982. Physicians are required, by statute, to report to their local health officer all occurrences of illness suspected of being related to exposure to pesticides. The majority of the incidents involve workers. Information on exposure ( worker activity), type of illness ( systemic, eye, skin, eye/ skin and respiratory), likelihood of a causal relationship, and number of days off work and in the hospital are provided.

4) National Pesticide Telecommunications Network ( NPTN)  NPTN is a toll free information service supported by OPP. A ranking of the top 200 active ingredients for which telephone calls were received during calendar years 1984 1991, inclusive has been prepared. The total number of calls was tabulated for the categories human incidents, animal incidents, calls for information, and others.

I. Incident Data System I8046 8 A pesticide incident occurred in 1998, when a worker alleged muscle and nerve degeneration as part of a law suit. No further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

I10710 1 A pesticide incident occurred in 2000, when an obese 250 lb. male collapsed and died shortly after reentering a home treated with 6 foggers. He was an organ donor and the heart was not available to determine its role in the death.

I10819 1 A pesticide incident occurred in 2000, when fogger lit up like a flame which burnt the arms, leg and head of the woman using it.

I11161 10 A pesticide incident occurred in 1999, a man reported fumigating his duplex and that his wife developed asthma and has constant sinus problems ever since. Timing of exposures and symptom onset not clearly presented.

I11265 3 A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when the husband applied the product in the bedroom and the wife developed respiratory arrest and was treated in a critical care unit. She reportedly became ill after her husband applied the product in their living room and the following 3 day in the bedroom.

I11988 2 A pesticide incident occurred in 1999, when a man's apartment was treated by a PCO. Thirty minutes later the man reported feeling dizzy, nauseous and fainted. Apparently the fall due to the fainting led to other injuries for which he is pursing litigation.

I12080 28 A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when a 43 year old male set off a fogger which exploded. He sustained second and third degree burns on right arm, right side of face and right side of both legs. Explosion occurred because he was burning garbage which contained the can.

I12290 7 A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when a fogger was used in the kitchen and an explosion occurred causing third degree burns to the face, arms and back of an adult male.

At least three of the incidents described above involved serious burn injuries that resulted from foggers that exploded, likely due to nearby flame. Two cases ( I11161 10 and I11265 3 ) involved serious respiratory complaints, suggesting that cypermethrin products could induce or aggrevate asthma or asthma like illness in specially susceptible individuals.

II. Poison Control Center Data  1993 through 1998 Results for the years 1993 through 1998 are presented below for occupational cases, nonoccupational involving adults and older children, and for children under age six. Cases involving exposures to multiple products or cases with unrelated outcome are excluded. Tables 1 4 present the hazard information for cypermethrin compared with all other pesticides on six measures: percent with symptoms, percent with moderate, major, or fatal outcome, percent with major or fatal outcome, percent of exposed cases seen in a health care facility, and percent hospitalized and percent seen in a critical care facility. Table 1 reports the number of cases on which the data derived in Tables 2 4 are based. Table 2 presents this information for occupational cases, Table 3 for non occupational cases involving adults and older children ( six years or older), and Table 4 for children under age six.

Table 1. Number of cypermethrin exposures reported to the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System ( AAPCC), number with determined outcome, number seen in a health care facility for occupational and non occupational cases ( adults and children six years and older) and for children under six years of age only, 1993 1998 . 4 Subgroup Exposures Outcome determined Seen in Health Care Facility Occupational: adults and older children 95 57 39 Non occupational: adults and older children 609 332 153 Children under age six 341 208 84 Table 2. Comparison between cypermethrin and all pesticides for percent cases with symptomatic outcome ( SYM), moderate or more severe outcome ( MOD), life threatening or fatal outcome ( LIFE TH), seen in a health care facility ( HCF), hospitalized ( HOSP), or seen in an intensive care unit ( ICU) reported to Poison Control Centers, 1993 1998 for occupational cases.

Pesticide SYM* MOD* LIFE TH* HCF* HOSP* ICU*

Cypermethrin 94.7% 33.3% 1.754% 41.0% 5.13% 2.56%

All Pesticides 86.0% 18.8% 0.621% 47.0% 6.08% 2.36%

Ratio 1.10 1.77 2.82 0.87 0.84 1.08 * Symptomatic cases based on those cases with a minor, moderate, major, or fatal medical outcome. Denominator for SYM, MOD, and LIFE TH is the total cases where medical outcome was determined. Denominator for HCF is all exposures. Denominator for HOSP and ICU is all cases seen in a health care facility.

Table 3. Comparison between cypermethrin and all pesticides for percent cases with symptomatic outcome ( SYM), moderate or more severe outcome ( MOD), life threatening or fatal outcome ( LIFE TH), seen in a health care facility ( HCF), hospitalized ( HOSP), or seen in an intensive care unit ( ICU) reported to Poison Control Centers, 1993 1998 for non occupational cases involving adults and older children.

Pesticide SYM* MOD* LIFE TH* HCF* HOSP* ICU*

Cypermethrin 80.7% 16.3% 0.0% 25.1% 3.92% 0.65%

All Pesticides 68.5% 10.5% 0.359% 16.5% 6.24% 2.67%

Ratio 1.18 1.55 0.0 1.52 0.63 0.24 * Symptomatic cases based on those cases with a minor, moderate, major, or fatal medical outcome. Denominator for SYM, MOD, and LIFE TH is the total cases where medical outcome was determined. Denominator for HCF is all exposures. Denominator for HOSP and ICU is all cases seen in a health care facility. 5 Table 4. Comparison between cypermethrin and all pesticides for percent cases with symptomatic outcome ( SYM), moderate or more severe outcome ( MOD), life threatening or fatal outcome ( LIFE TH), seen in a health care facility ( HCF), hospitalized ( HOSP), or seen in an intensive care unit ( ICU) for adults and children six years and older reported to Poison Control Centers, 1993 1998 for children under six years old..

Pesticide SYM* MOD* LIFE TH* HCF* HOSP* ICU*

Cypermethrin 42.3% 5.29% 0.481% 24.6% 7.14% 1.19%

All Pesticides 21.8% 1.40% 0.120% 16.4% 4.78% 1.36%

Ratio 1.94 3.78 4.01 1.50 1.49 0.88 * Symptomatic cases based on those cases with a minor, moderate, major, or fatal medical outcome. Denominator for SYM, MOD, and LIFE TH is the total cases where medical outcome was determined. Denominator for HCF is all exposures. Denominator for HOSP and ICU is all cases seen in a health care facility.

There was some indication of excess risk for those with occupational exposure to cypermethrin. This was true for medical outcome where the more severe effects were more common for cypermethrin when compared to all pesticides. However, health care data were not supportive of this finding. Workers exposed to cypermethrin had about the same likelihood of requiring health care, hospitalization and critical care as persons exposed to all pesticides.

Ratios for older children and adults exposed non occupationally were not consistent either. Persons reportedly exposed to cypermethrin were 1.5 times more likely to exhibit moderate effects and to be seen in a health care facility than those exposed to other pesticides. But the same group was much less likely to be hospitalized or require critical care. There were no cases with major or life threatening medical outcome.

Children under six years of age showed a more consistent pattern of increased hazard when compared to all pesticides. They were about four times as likely to have moderate or major medical outcome ( based on 11 and 1 report, respectively) and 1.5 times more likely to be seen in a health care facility and to be hospitalized. However, once seen in a health care facility, they were somewhat less likely to require critical care.

Review of symptoms reported for all groups revealed a preponderance of dermal, ocular and gastrointestinal symptoms among the minor cases ( e. g., skin or eye irritation, nausea) and dermal and respiratory effects in the moderate cases. Of the dermal and ocular symptoms, irritation or pain to the eye or skin were the most commonly reported symptoms ( 80 reported eye irritation and 51 reported skin irritation). Nine of the 80 eye irritation cases and 6 of the 51 skin irritation cases occurred among cases with a moderate medical outcome, which would usually require medical attention. Gastrointestinal symptoms ( with numbers reporting symptoms in parentheses after the symptom) most commonly reported were vomiting ( 66), nausea ( 61), throat 6 irritation ( 46), oral irritation ( 23), abdominal pain ( 19), and diarrhea ( 17). Respiratory symptoms most commonly reported included cough/ choke ( 66), difficulty breathing ( 51), and bronchospasm ( 17). There was one case of respiratory depression combined with bronchospasm, difficulty breathing, and abdominal pain that was considered a major medical outcome or life threatening. This case involved a 24 year old male worker admitted for critical care who apparently ingested the product.

The respiratory symptoms, especially bronchospasm, difficulty breathing, and the one case of respiratory depression were the most common moderate or major symptoms usually requiring medical attention. There were 43 subjects reporting such symptoms suggesting that cypermethrin can be a cause of respiratory problems or asthma like symptoms in susceptible persons.

III. California Data  1982 through 1999 Detailed descriptions of 179 cases submitted to the California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program ( 1982 1999) were reviewed. In 91 of these cases, cypermethrin was used alone or was judged to be responsible for the health effects. Only cases with a definite, probable or possible relationship were reviewed. Cypermethrin ranked 24th as a cause of systemic poisoning in California based on data for 1982 through 1994. Table 5 presents the types of illnesses reported by year. Table 6 gives the total number of workers that took time off work as a result of their illness and how many were hospitalized and for how long.

Table 5. Cases Due to Cypermethrin in California Reported by Type of Illness and Year, 1982 2000.

Year Illness Type Systemica Eye Skin Respiratoryb Combinationc Total 1982 1985      0 1986   1   1 1987 1 1    2 1988 12  1   13 1989   1  1 2 1990 21   1 3 25 1991   1   1 1992 2 1    3 7 Year Illness Type Systemica Eye Skin Respiratoryb Combinationc Total 1993 10  1 3  14 1994 5 2 2   9 1995 3  1  1 5 1996 2     2 1997 1 2 2   5 1998  1    1 1999 6   1 1 8 Total 63 7 10 5 6 91 a Category includes cases where skin, eye, or respiratory effects were also reported. b Category not used until 1990. Prior respiratory cases classified as systemic. c Category includes combined irritative effects to eye, skin, and respiratory system.

Table 6. Number of Persons Disabled ( taking time off work) or Hospitalized for Indicated Number of Days After Cypermethrin Exposure in California, 1982 2000.

Time period Number of Persons Disabled Number of Persons Hospitalized One day 7

Two days 5

3 5 days 6 1 ( intentional exposure)

6 10 days 2

more than 10 days 2

Unknown 6

Indefinite 1

A variety of worker activities were associated with exposure to cypermethrin as illustrated in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Illnesses by Activity Categories for Cypermethrin Exposure in California, 1982 2000 8 Activity Category Illness Category Systemica Eye Skin Respiratoryb Combinationc Total Applicator 1 3 1 1  6 Mixer/ Loader  3 1 1 2 7 Field Residue 1  1   2 Outdoor Drift 1  1   2 Building Residue 49 1 5 2 3 60 Indoor Drift/ spray 6  1 1  8 Other 5    1 6 Total 63 7 10 5 6 91 a Category includes cases where skin, eye, or respiratory effects were also reported. b Category not used until 1990. Prior respiratory cases classified as systemic. c Category includes combined irritative effects to eye, skin, and respiratory system.

The majority, 75% of the California illnesses were due to structural use of cypermethrin in a building where occupants were exposed to drift, reside, and in two cases direct spray. Forty of these 68 cases were due to just four incidents described below:

In 1988 nine clothing store employees and two video store employees became ill over 9 days after the clothing store was treated by a structural pest control operator. Symptoms reported include nausea, headache, dizziness, vomiting, tightness in chest, burning nose, and eyes.

In 1990 a structural pest control operator treated about 9 square feet of a waiting room of a medical clinic. Only a few workers detected an odor. Eight employees became ill and sought medical attention when their symptoms became worse the next day and after discussing symptoms. Symptoms included headache, nausea, cough, chest pain, throat irritation, nausea, shortness of breath and irritated eyes.

In 1990, a structural pest control operator performed drill and treat application to an office building. The ventilation system became contaminated apparently because the location of all air ducts was not identified. Two days later employees returned and noticed a strong odor, prompting 16 to seek medical care, 14 with symptoms. Symptoms included watery eyes, cough, chest tightness, burning eyes and throat, headache, nausea, diarrhea, itching, and difficulty breathing. 9 In 1993, a structural pest control operator treated an office, including the exterior, bath and break rooms. Occupants of the treated office developed symptoms 15 60 minutes after entry. Symptoms included headache, nausea, irritated throat and eyes, difficulty breathing, tingling, and numbness. Three of these seven cases had a history of asthma.

The above case reports suggest that sensitivity to odors is often a significant factor with cypermethrin related illness. In addition to the cases described above, two cases reported allergy, one reported hives, and a fourth reported an asthmatic reaction triggered by the spray. Less than 25% of incidents occurred outdoors, primarily among those directly handling the product. There were no more than two cases each related to outdoor spray drift or field residue.

IV. Incident reported to EPA physician consultant In August 2003, a woman reported using a 36% cypermethrin product at her residence. She stated that she followed label directions and diluted the product according to instructions. She applied the aerosol throughout her residence including floors and corners in the room where her 19 month old daughter was sleeping. About two hours after the application her daughter awoke wheezing. She had no prior history of asthma, allergies, or lung problems. The mother took the daughter outside for fresh air, however wheezing persisted. She then called the Poison Control Center and her pediatrician, who advised examination if symptoms continued. The daughter did have an elevated temperature of 101 degrees Fahrenheit. The next morning, symptoms persisted and the mother took the child to an urgent care facility, where she was admitted for 24 hours of observation. Although some fever was noted, no specific infectious cause was found. The child was discharged with an inhaler and a tapering dose of prednisone.

Dr. Sudakin, EPA's physician consultant, reviewed this case with the mother and reported that high levels of inhalation exposure to cypermethrin could trigger inflammation of the airways, producing asthma type symptoms. Dr. Sudakin concluded: This case is of importance because of the acute onset of wheezing symptoms in a child, which were temporally related to the aerosol application of a product containing a relatively high concentration of cypermethrin. Although the fever suggests the possibility of an infectious etiology, elevated temperature has also been described after high levels of exposure to cypermethrin. The case is also of relevance because of the mother's report of the labeling instructions, which do not appear to provide directions as to whether it would be appropriate to apply the concentrated product in an area where people ( a child, in this case) may be sleeping. V. Scientific literature Very few incidents involving cypermethrin alone have been reported in the literature. Lessenger ( 1992) reported on the five of the eight cases which occurred in a business office in California. The contractor used 2.75 gallons of the chemical mixed with 275 gallons of water. The active ingredient was about 25% of the chemical mixture, so the resulting dilution was 0.25%. Lessenger reported that other ingredients included an aromatic petroleum solvent based 10 on xylene and trimethylbenzene and paraffinic oils. This incident appears to be the same as that which is reported in 1990 in an office building under California data. Lessenger's report appears to cover only 5 of the 14 cases which sought medical treatment for symptoms.

The treated building was an accounting office with one common room, four offices, and a conference room, consisting of about 1000 square feet. Inside treatment involved drilling into the slab and injecting the chemical underneath. Two days after treatment employees entered the building and experienced dizziness, headaches, nausea, and vertigo. Turning on the airconditioning worsened these symptoms and the building was vacated after about five minutes. Some employees returned inside to retrieve personal items and working papers. Six days after treatment fans were placed inside to ventilate. Then, 13 days after treatment cypermethrin levels were below the level of detection, 0.02 ppm. At this time employees were allowed to reenter, however, they experienced a return of their symptoms which was exacerbated by turning on the air conditioning system.

Six weeks after treatment air sampling agin demonstrated levels below the analytical detection limit. The highest measurable concentrations were found in wipe samples with up to 4,240 micrograms per square foot in the hallway carpet. Studies found that the applicator inadvertantly drilled into the air ducts, which accounted for the increased exposure of employees when the air conditioning was turned on. Of the nine cases reviewed by Lessenger ( 1992), five were examined for symptoms, three were asymptomatic, and one could not travel for examination due to unrelated health problems.

The five cases reported by Lessenger are summarized below:

Case1: 29 year old female: itching of the eyes, nausea, sore throat, and shortness of breath. Two weeks later when returning to the office she experienced nausea, dizziness, numbness, and tingling. A month later she reported abdominal discomfort, fatigue and a sore throat which were not clearly related to the cypermethrin exposure.

Case 2: 57 year old female: blurred vision, itching of eyes, shortness of breath, congestion, cough, tightness in chest, headache, and nausea. Symptoms completely went away within one week, but she subsequently reported joint aches and pain. She also reported experiencing nausea, dizziness, and tingling when she returned to the office and handled material or papers there.

Case 3: 53 year old female: shortness of breath, wheezing, burning eyes, cough, congestion, and sinus pain and drainage. Her private physician diagnosed " an allergic reaction to pesticide spray". Upon returning to the office she experienced wheezing, numbness, and tingling when handling papers. The patient subsequently developed shortness of breath which was treated with bronchodilators and steroids. This patient had a history and was a current smoker, but did not report any respiratory complaints prior to the cypermethrin exposure.

Case 4: 46 year old female: shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, wheezing, cough, congestion, burning eyes, and copious nasal discharge. Four weeks later she was seen by her 11 private physician for dyspnea ( difficulty beathing) and wheezing and was treated with bronchodilators and steroids. Both this case and the one above ( Case 3) reported cough, congestion, and wheezing, seven months after the initial exposure. Case 4 also reported dyspnea upon exertion and shortness of breath.

Case 5: 30 year old female: shortness of breath, dyspnea on exertion, sinus burning, and itching of eyes. Several days after the incident she was diagnosed as having " allergic reation to spray" at an industrial medicine clinic. She, also, was treated with bronchodilators and steroids. Seven months later she was still a chronic cigarette smoker and complaining of shortness of breath and wheezing.

Dr. Lessenger reported common problems among these five patients. All experienced shortness of breath, cough congestion, burning eyes, and itching at their initial exposure. All left immediately but returned repeatedly. There was a delay before seeing their own physicians and during this time they " developed fears about their problems, and extreme anxiety that magnified their symptoms." Dr. Lessenger recommended that workers exposed to such contamination should not be allowed to return to the area until full decontamination, which was delayed until months after the initial exposure in this incident. He also recommended rapid referral to specialists which could have help alleviate the anxieties these patients experienced.

VI. Conclusion Pyrethroids, like cypermethrin, have relatively low toxicity. Skin and eye irritation, nausea, vomiting, coughing and difficulty breathing were the most commonly reported symptoms. As with other pyrethroids, burning or tingling sensations are often reported by applicators ( World Health Organization 1989). The occurrence of moderate and more serious symptoms was generally more prevalent among those exposed to cypermethrin than those exposed to other pesticides. A few reports suggest that cypermethrin can cause asthma or asthma like symptoms in certain susceptible individuals.

VII. Recommendations Skin and eye protection should be recommended for users of cypermethrin that are likely to experience extensive exposure ( other than spot applications). Bystanders should vacate indoor areas receiving widespread treatment ( e. g., termite or area treatments rather than spot applications) and the area should be appropriately ventilated afterwards before persons reenter the premises. Further study is needed to determine whether labels should advise of potential allergy or asthma like problems among sensitive individuals.

References 12 Lessenger JE. 1992. Five office workers inadvertently exposed to cypermethrin. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 35: 261 267.

World Health Organization. 1989. Cypermethrin ( see especially pages 107 110). Environmental Health Criteria 82.

cc: cypermethrin file ( 109702) Donna Davis HED ( 7509C)


From:
Green, Joseph J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, June 18, 2020 11:06 AM
Cc:
D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Stuart, Eric<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: count of new EAF in progress?

Hi Dr. Jones  -  Following up on Wayne's message on behalf of SSINA, we are not aware of any new stainless EAFs planned to come on line within the next 5 years.  As Wayne mentioned, we only are aware of "publically announced plans" for antitrust another reasons.

Regards
Joe

JOSEPH J. GREEN
Special Counsel
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
(202) 342-8849
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow my blog: www.kelleygreenlawblog.com

From: D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:15 AM
To: 'Jones, DonnaLee'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Stuart, Eric<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Green, Joseph J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: count of new EAF in progress?

Hello Dr. Jones.    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.  SMA does not have a strong basis for estimating the number of new EAFs that might be starting on the next 5 years.  For lots of reasons (including antitrust compliance), SMA and its members refrain from discussing any companies' long-range capital planning or any capital plans that have not been publically announced.   However, we are aware of the following publically announced plans to construct new EAF facilities in the next 18-24 months:
      1.           Nucor  -  Brandenburg (KY) Plate Mill;
      2.           Nucor - Frostproof (FL) long product mill;
      3.           Nucor - Sedalia (MO) long product mill; and,
      4.           SDI - Stinton TX long product mill.

I believe each of these projects was announced pre-pandemic, and I have no idea whether the current state of the economy has any impacts on these plans.  I suspect, however, that companies make planning decisions about large capital expenditures such as these do so on fairly long time horizons.  I should also note that these 4 plans are all carbon steel EAFs.   I am not aware of any stainless steel mills planning new EAFs but I am double checking with my colleague, Joe Green, who handles the environmental matters for the Specialty Steel Industry of North America ("SSINA").  I will also let you know if I become aware of any addition construction plans in the carbon steel EAF industry.

I hope this is helpful to you.  As I've mentioned previously, we would like to be helpful in any way we can.  We know the EAF industry very well and have done significant work in both the carbon and stainless sectors.  If you are amenable, perhaps we can convene a call or web-meeting in July or August.  I can pull in the representatives from the key trades and we can talk through the type of information you'll need as you conduct this analysis.  Please let me know if you think that would be helpful.   And please let me know if you need anything else on this present question or otherwise.

Thanks for the outreach and be well!
Wayne

WAYNE D'ANGELO
Partner
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:38 AM
To: Stuart, Eric<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: count of new EAF in progress?

Hi. Im working on the paperwork for the NSPS and I need to estimate how many new EAF might be starting in next 5 years. I thought maybe it was zero/0 because of current economics. What do/can you estimate?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35756-35757]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2013-0464]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Charles River, Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary

deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Metropolitan District Commission (Craigie) Bridge across the Charles
River, mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts. Under this temporary
deviation the bridge may remain in the closed position for two hours on
July 4, 2013, to facilitate the Fourth of July Concert and Fireworks.
This deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety during a public
event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 11 p.m. on July 4, 2013 through
1 a.m. on July 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0464] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast
Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metropolitan District Commission
(Craigie) Bridge, across the Charles River, mile 1.0, at Boston,
Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 13.5
feet at normal pool elevation above the Charles River Dam. The existing
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR Sec.  117.591(e).
    The waterway is predominantly a recreational waterway supporting
various size vessels.
    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate public
safety during a public event, the 2012 Fourth of July Concert and
Fireworks.
    Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 11 p.m. on July 4,
2013 through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2013, the Metropolitan District
Commission (Craigie) Bridge, mile 1.0, across the Charles River at
Boston, Massachusetts, may remain in the closed position.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may
do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 4, 2013.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-14120 Filed 6-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58536-58537]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23198]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL--9901-26-OA]

Notification of a Public Meeting of the Science Advisory Board
Panel for the Review of the EPA Water Body Connectivity Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a
public meeting of the SAB Panel to conduct a review of the EPA draft
report, Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A
Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence (September, 2013
External Review Draft, EPA/600/R-11/098B).

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Monday December 16, 2013 from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Tuesday December 17, 2013 from 8:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., and Wednesday December 18, 2013 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
(Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Washington Plaza
Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the public meeting may contact Dr.
Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory
Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone at (202)
564-2155 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information
concerning the SAB can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established pursuant to the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization
Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent
scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical
basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal
Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of
FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant
to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB Panel for
the Review of the EPA Water Body Connectivity Report will hold a public
meeting to conduct a review of the EPA's draft report, Connectivity of
Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of
the Scientific Evidence (September, 2013 External Review Draft, EPA/
600/R-11/098B). This SAB panel will provide advice to the Administrator
through the chartered SAB.

Background

    The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has developed a
draft report reviewing and synthesizing the peer-reviewed scientific
literature on the connectivity or isolation of streams and wetlands
relative to large water bodies such as rivers, lakes, estuaries and
oceans. The purpose of the report, Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands
to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence
(September, 2013 External Review Draft, EPA/600/R-11/098B), is to
summarize the current understanding about these connections, the
factors that influence them, and the mechanisms by which connected
waters singly or in aggregate, affect the function of downstream
waters.
    The SAB Staff Office announced to the public through a Federal
Register notice published on March 8, 2013 (78 FR 15012--15013) that it
was soliciting nominations of scientific experts to serve on the SAB
Panel for the Review of the EPA Water Body Connectivity Report.
Information about the formation of this SAB Panel can be found on the
SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Watershed%20Connectivity%20Report?OpenDocument.
    Technical Contact for EPA's Draft Report: Any technical questions
concerning EPA's draft report should be directed to Dr. Laurie
Alexander, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail
Code 8623P, Washington, DC 20460, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Availability of Meeting Materials: The draft EPA report,
Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and
Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence (September, 2013 External Review
Draft, EPA/600/R-11/098B), and the charge to the SAB Panel are
available on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Watershed%20Connectivity%20Report?OpenDocument. The agenda and other
meeting materials will be available on the SAB Web site at the URL
listed above prior to the meeting.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
The intended use of comments submitted to the SAB is different from the
purpose of comments submitted to the EPA's program offices. Federal
advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory
committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Interested members of
the public may submit relevant comments for the SAB Panel to consider
pertaining to the review materials, including the charge to the Panel.
Input from the public to the SAB Panel will have the most impact if it
provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for
the SAB Panel to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy
of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide
written comments may submit them to the EPA Docket electronically via
www.regulations.gov, by email, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand
delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in
the written statements section of this notice.
    Members of the public wishing to provide oral statements to the SAB
Panel should contact the DFO directly. Oral Statements: In general,
individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public
meeting will be limited to five minutes. Interested

parties should contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, in writing (preferably
via email) at the contact information noted above by December 9, 2013
to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting. Written
Statements: Written statements for the December 16-18, 2013 meeting
should be received in the EPA Docket by November 6, 2013 so that the
information may be made available to the SAB Panel for its
consideration. Written statements should be identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0582 and submitted to the Docket at www.regulations.gov
by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number in
the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 28221T), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0582, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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 Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0582. Please
ensure that your comments are submitted by November 6, 2013. Comments
received after that date will be marked late and may not be provided to
the SAB Panel for consideration before the December 16-18 meeting. It
is EPA's policy to include all comments received in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available on-line at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email directly
to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comments due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
SAB Panel may not be able to consider your comments. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption
and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Thomas Armitage at
the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten
days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

    Dated: September 17, 2013.
Thomas H. Brennan,
 Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-23198 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 25715]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10402]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No., 13010-002; Project No., 14272-000]

Mississippi 8 Hydro, LLC; FFP Project 98, LLC, ; Notice
Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit Applications

    On April 23, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine
priority between competing preliminary permit applications with
identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that
neither of the applicants' plans is better adapted than the other to
develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water
resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this
drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order
of priority is as follows:

1. Mississippi 8 Hydro, LLC--Project No. 13010-002.
2. FFP Project 98, LLC--Project No. 14272-000.

    Dated: April 24, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10402 Filed 4-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59328-59333]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0140]
RIN 2126-AB61

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Definition of Tank Vehicle
Used for Determining the License Endorsement Requirement

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to revise its definition of ``tank vehicle.''
Commercial driver's license (CDL) holders who operate such vehicles are
required to obtain a tank vehicle endorsement. On May 9, 2011, FMCSA
published a final rule on ``Commercial Driver's License Testing and
Commercial Learner's Permit Standards'' that included a new definition
of tank vehicle which required additional drivers to obtain tank
vehicle endorsements on their commercial learners' permits (CLPs) and
CDLs. FMCSA received numerous petitions regarding the new definition.
On May 24, 2012, the Agency published guidance in the Federal Register
to clarify the ``tank vehicle'' definition. This NPRM would revise the
definition by incorporating the 2012 regulatory guidance. FMCSA seeks
comment on the proposal and information on the impact that the revised
definition would have on the industry.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2013-0140 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. Comments received after the comment closing date
will be included in the docket, and we will consider late comments to
the extent practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any
time after the close of the comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Redmond, Office of Safety
Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
II. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions
    B. Benefits and Costs
III. Abbreviations
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
V. Background
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
VII. Regulatory Analyses

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.

A. Submitting Comments

    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 and
in the search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2013-0140'' and
click the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8[frac12] 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.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, or to submit your comments online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2013-0140'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking. 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 Department of Transportation
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

    Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the U.S.
Department of Transportation's (DOT) Privacy Act Statement for the
Federal Docket Management System published in the Federal Register on
January17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-01-17/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Executive Summary

A. Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    FMCSA proposes to revise the definition of ``tank vehicle'' in 49
CFR 383.5. The revised version makes changes to clarify two points:
that the quantity amounts apply regardless of the method of tank
securement, and that the transportation of tanks that are manifested as
empty or as residue (and that are actually empty or contain only
residue) does not require the driver to have a tank vehicle
endorsement.

B. Benefits and Costs

    Although the Agency does not know the precise number of additional
drivers that would be required to obtain a tank endorsement due to this
proposed rule, we estimate that even if every existing less than
truckload (LTL) driver were to get an endorsement the total cost would
be $5.82 million, far below the $100 million threshold for economic
significance. The safety benefit of this rule, like the 2011 final
rule, derives from the added training and knowledge (which may be
accomplished through self-study) that drivers of tank vehicles will
need in order to pass the test for the tank vehicle endorsement,
thereby reducing the risk of rollover crashes.

III. Abbreviations

ATA American Trucking Associations
CE Categorical Exclusion
CDL Commercial Driver's License
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP Commercial Learner's Permit
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
CMVSA Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DGAC Dangerous Goods Advisory Council
E.O. Executive Order
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
IBC Intermediate Bulk Container
HM Hazardous Material
HMRs Hazardous Materials Regulations
LTL Less Than Truckload
MCA Motor Carrier Act of 1935
MCSA Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
Secretary Secretary of Transportation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the broad authority of the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII,
100 Stat. 3207-170, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313); the Motor Carrier Safety
Act of 1984 (MCSA) (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, 49 U.S.C.
31136); and the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) (Chapter 498, 49 Stat.
543, 49 U.S.C. 31502). It is also based on section 4019 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and section
4122 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat.
1144, at 1734, 49 U.S.C. 31302, 31308, and 31309).
    The CDL program was established by the CMVSA of 1986. Parts 383 and
384 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), implement the CMVSA
requirements. The CMVSA prohibits any person who does not hold a valid
CDL or CLP issued by his/her State of domicile from operating a CMV
that requires a driver with a CDL. The CMVSA also authorized the
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to adopt regulations for a CLP
[49 U.S.C. 31305(b)(2)]. This NPRM would revise the definition of
``tank vehicle'' which would impact commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers operating certain types and sizes of tank vehicles.
    The authority for this rulemaking is also based in part on the MCA.
The MCA authorizes the Secretary to prescribe requirements for the
``qualifications . . . of employees'' of for-hire and private motor
carriers [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)]. This rule, like the CDL regulations, is
based in part on that authority and is intended to enhance the
qualifications of CMV drivers by ensuring that they obtain the proper
endorsements before operating a CMV.
    Section 4019 of TEA-21 required the DOT to complete a review of the
CDL testing system to determine if the current CDL system is an
accurate measure of an individual's knowledge and skills as an operator
of a CMV. It also authorized the Agency to issue regulations reflecting
the results of its review. This rule includes new or enhanced
requirements adopted in response to the Agency's review.
    Section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU required the DOT to prescribe
regulations on minimum uniform standards for the issuance of CLPs, as
it has already done for CDLs [49 U.S.C. 31308(2)]. More specifically,
section 4122 provided that an applicant for a CLP must first pass a
knowledge test which complies with minimum standards prescribed by the
Secretary; that the CLP document must have the same information and
security features as the CDL; and that a driver's record must be
created for each CLP holder in

the Commercial Driver's License Information System.

V. Background

    FMCSA proposes a new definition of ``tank vehicle'' to clarify the
population required to secure a CDL tank vehicle endorsement.
    On April 9, 2008, FMCSA published an NPRM entitled ``Commercial
Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards''
(73 FR 19282) to revise the standards for CDL testing and to require
new standards for a CLP. The NPRM acknowledged that the definition of
``tank vehicle'' in Sec.  383.5 was confusing because of the reference
to the definition of ``cargo tank'' in 49 CFR part 171. The definition
in Part 383 could be misinterpreted to mean that a driver needed a tank
vehicle endorsement to operate a vehicle with a permanently attached
tank that had a rated capacity greater than 119 gallons. In the case of
a portable tank temporarily attached to the vehicle, a tank endorsement
was needed only if the portable tank had a rated capacity of 1,000
gallons or more.
    FMCSA recognized the disparity in minimum rated capacity between
permanently attached tanks (119 gallons) and temporarily attached
portable tanks (1000 gallons) for the tank vehicle endorsement. As
FMCSA had no reports of any problems with drivers transporting portable
tanks with a rated capacity of less than 1,000 gallons, the NPRM
proposed a rated capacity threshold of 1,000 or more gallons for all
tanks before a driver would need a tank endorsement. The proposed
change was also expected to eliminate the controversy over whether the
driver of a ready mix concrete truck equipped with a small water tank
to clean the mixer drum or a truck transporting generators with small
fuel tanks needed a tank vehicle endorsement.
    The NPRM proposed defining ``tank vehicle'' as any commercial motor
vehicle that is designed to transport any liquid or gaseous materials
within a tank having an aggregate rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or
more that is either permanently or temporarily attached to the vehicle
or the chassis. A commercial motor vehicle transporting an empty
storage container tank, not designed for transportation, with a rated
capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is temporarily attached to a
flatbed trailer is not considered a tank vehicle.
    In the final rule, ``Commercial Driver's License Testing and
Commercial Learner's Permit Standards'' (76 FR 26854), published on May
9, 2011, FMCSA responded to comments submitted to the NPRM docket and
stated that, while the proposed amendment setting a 1,000 gallon
aggregate capacity threshold was included in the final rule, there was
also a need to retain a minimum individual rated tank capacity of more
than 119 gallons for the purpose of determining the aggregate capacity
of a vehicle carrying multiple tanks. In the final rule, reference was
made to cargo tanks and portable tanks as defined in 49 CFR 171. Both
of these types of tanks are defined as ``bulk packaging'' which is
further defined in part 171 as having a capacity greater than 119
gallons. Therefore, only tanks with a rated capacity greater than 119
gallons were considered in determining the 1,000-gallon aggregate
capacity threshold for a tank vehicle endorsement.
    The definition of ``tank vehicle,'' adopted in the final rule is
any commercial motor vehicle that is designed to transport any liquid
or gaseous materials within a tank or tanks having an individual rated
capacity of more than 119 gallons and an aggregate rated capacity of
1,000 gallons or more that is either permanently or temporarily
attached to the vehicle or the chassis. A commercial motor vehicle
transporting an empty storage container tank, not designed for
transportation, with a rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is
temporarily attached to a flatbed trailer is not considered a tank
vehicle.
    After publication of the final rule, FMCSA received questions and
requests for clarification from the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council
(DGAC), American Trucking Associations (ATA), FedEx Corporation, and
Fremont Carriers, Inc. In response, FMCSA published guidance in the
Federal Register on May 24, 2012 [77 FR 30919]. The guidance explained
that the definition proposed by the NPRM would have included a single
tank with a capacity of 1,000 gallons. However, after reviewing the
public comments to the rulemaking docket, the Agency modified the
definition to include multiple tanks with an aggregate capacity of
1,000 gallons.
    FMCSA recognized that the revised definition meant that
intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) being delivered to a shipper meet
the ``tank vehicle'' definition, and that the driver would require a
tank vehicle endorsement. IBCs are commonly used as containers for
transporting liquid hazardous materials (HM). They are subject to the
DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). These packages commonly
move by less than truckload (LTL) carriers. While IBCs may have a
capacity of up to 3,000 liters, the sizes more commonly in use range up
to 1,000 liters (264 gallons).
    The guidance published on May 24, 2012, confirmed that the
transportation of IBCs is covered by the definition whether they are
temporarily or permanently attached--by bolts, straps, chains, or by
blocking and bracing--because the characteristics of tanks and their
liquid contents, and the driving skills needed to safely operate a tank
vehicle, are essentially identical, no matter how the tanks are secured
in or on the vehicle. The aggregate capacity of four or more 1,000
liter IBCs would exceed the 1,000 gallon threshold. To be qualified to
haul the range of cargo they normally handle, drivers for many LTL
carriers must obtain a CDL tank vehicle endorsement.
    The guidance also clarified that the definition of tank vehicle
does not cover the transportation of empty IBCs or other tanks when
these containers are cargo manifested on a bill of lading either as
empty or empty except for residue.
    Lastly, the guidance confirmed that the effective date of the final
rule was 60 days after publication, or July 9, 2011. While the rule
provided a compliance date of July 9, 2014 (3 years from the effective
date of the rule) for the State requirements under subpart B of Part
384 (49 CFR part 384), this compliance date was limited to the subpart
referenced.
    FMCSA recognizes that the States participating in the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program (currently all States) have different
timeframes for incorporating the Agency's definitional changes into
State law. However, States that automatically implement the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) are able to take immediate
action against drivers transporting HM in a tank vehicle without the
proper endorsement. As a result, FMCSA recommended that tank vehicle
drivers impacted by the final rule secure the needed endorsement as
quickly as possible or investigate the requirements of the States where
they travel to avoid violating an endorsement requirement already in
effect.
    FMCSA received petitions for reconsideration and rulemaking from
the ATA, FedEx Corporation, and Fremont Carriers, Inc. The Agency also
received letters of concern from the DGAC and others supporting the ATA
petition. Each of these documents is available in docket FMCSA-2013-
0140.
    The Agency appreciates that the 2011 final rule expanded the number
of vehicles requiring drivers with tank endorsements on their CDLs,
which

resulted in increased costs for the drivers. As the tank vehicle
definition continues to be a source of questions and concern, the
Agency proposes a slightly revised version to improve understanding and
enforcement.
    The Agency offers this revised definition to clarify that vehicles
transporting multiple IBCs (over 119 gallons each) with an aggregate
capacity of 1,000-gallons or more are tank vehicles that would require
an endorsement; and that the endorsement is needed if one or more tanks
are on the vehicle, regardless of the method by which the tanks are
secured to the vehicle. In addition, this definition clearly explains
that tanks manifested as empty or as residue as part of the load
(assuming they are actually empty or contain only residue) do not make
the vehicle a ``tank vehicle'' provided the tanks are actually empty or
contain only residue. The revised definition incorporates the substance
of the regulatory guidance published on May 24, 2012.
    Because, DOT uses 119 gallons in the definition of bulk package in
the HMRs, that value is also used here to specify the minimum tank size
that can be aggregated to reach the 1,000-gallon threshold. The Agency
specifically seeks comments and data on whether or not a different
threshold should be used.

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

    This section includes a summary of the regulatory changes proposed
for 49 CFR part 383 organized by section number.

Proposed Changes to Part 383

    Part 383, Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements and
penalties, contains the requirements for CLPs and CDLs. With certain
exceptions, the rules in this part apply to every person who operates a
CMV in interstate, foreign or intrastate commerce, to all employers of
such persons, and to all States.
    Section 383.5, Definitions. FMCSA proposes to revise the definition
of ``tank vehicle.'' The revised version makes changes to clarify two
points: that the quantity amounts apply regardless of the method of
tank securement, and that the transportation of tanks manifested as
empty or as residue, provided they are actually empty or contain only
residue, does not require the driver to have a tank endorsement.
    In view of the revised definition of tank vehicle proposed in this
NPRM, FMCSA would withdraw previous regulatory guidance on this
subject, including the questions and answers published on May 24, 2012.
Specifically, the guidance to be withdrawn is question 33 to 49 CFR
383.3 and questions 13 and 14 to 49 CFR 383.5, as printed below.

Guidance to 49 CFR 383.3

    Question 33: Must the driver of an empty tank vehicle that is being
transported from the manufacturer to a local distributor or purchaser
have a tank endorsement on his or her commercial driver's license
(CDL)?
    Guidance: Yes. One of the primary objectives of the CDL program is
to ensure that drivers are qualified to safely operate the type of
vehicle they will be driving. To achieve this objective, the FMCSRs
require a driver to pass a knowledge and skills test for the CMV group
they intend to drive. In addition to this requirement, if the driver
will be operating double/triple trailers, a tank vehicle, or a CMV used
to transport passengers, they must also obtain an appropriate
endorsement on their CDL. The specific requirements for the knowledge
and skills tests an applicant must meet to obtain a CDL and the various
endorsements can be found in Subpart G of part 383 of the FMCSRs.

Guidance to 49 CFR 383.5

    Question 13: On May 9, 2011, FMCSA revised the definition of ``tank
vehicle'' to include any commercial motor vehicle that is designed to
transport any liquid or gaseous materials within a tank or tanks having
an individual rated capacity of more than 119 gallons and an aggregate
rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is either permanently or
temporarily attached to the vehicle or the chassis. Does the new
definition include loaded IBCs or other tanks temporarily attached to a
CMV?
    Guidance: Yes. The new definition is intended to cover (1) a
vehicle transporting an IBC or other tank used for any liquid or
gaseous materials, with an individual rated capacity of 1,000 gallons
or more that is either permanently or temporarily attached to the
vehicle or chassis; or (2) a vehicle used to transport multiple IBCs or
other tanks having an individual rated capacity of more than 119
gallons and an aggregate rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that
are permanently or temporarily attached to the vehicle or the chassis.
    Question 14: On May 9, 2011, FMCSA revised the definition of ``tank
vehicle.'' Does the new definition cover the transportation of empty
intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) or other tanks, or empty storage
tanks?
    Guidance: No. The definition of ``tank vehicle'' does not cover the
transportation of empty IBCs or other tanks when these containers are
manifested as either empty or as residue on a bill of lading.
Furthermore, the definition of tank vehicle does not cover the
transportation of empty storage tanks that are not designed for
transportation and have a rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more, that
are temporarily attached to a flatbed vehicle.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as
supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and not
significant within the meaning of the DOT regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). This rule may affect some
drivers who may need a tank endorsement and will thus be subject to
Sec. Sec.  383.71(b)(8), 383.121, and 383.141. The revised definition
in 49 CFR 383.5 clarifies that vehicles with a tank or multiple bulk
tanks (each over 119 gallons, including IBCs) with an aggregate
capacity of 1,000-gallons or more are tank vehicles; and that the
endorsement is needed if the tank(s) is (are) on the vehicle,
regardless of the method of tank securement. The modified definition
does not cover the transportation of empty IBCs, storage tanks not
designed for transportation of liquid or gaseous materials, or tanks
empty except for residue. FMCSA welcomes the submission of any relevant
comments, data, or other materials be submitted to the Docket Number
FMCSA-2013-0140.
    The total financial burden imposed on drivers to obtain a tank
endorsement depends on a number of factors. The average fee charged for
a tank endorsement by the States is about $20 (California $30, Georgia
$20, Maryland $20, Oregon $10 and Pennsylvania $23.50). That is a
minimal burden for an individual driver. FMCSA does not have data on
how many drivers currently have tank endorsements, as States are not
required to report on that information. Nor is the number of drivers
who would be required to obtain a tank endorsement precisely known, but
to be conservative, we have used the total number of LTL drivers:
291,045.\1\

Multiplying this number of LTL drivers by $20 per endorsement will
result in an over-estimate of the total cost of the rule because some
unknown numbers of these LTL drivers already have tank endorsements. In
any case, 291,045 LTL drivers x $20 per endorsement produces a total
cost of the rule of $5.82 million. This action could not exceed the
$100 million threshold required for an economically significant
rule.\2\ The Agency does not expect the rule to generate substantial
congressional or public interest due to the fact that the NPRM would
not change the substance of the guidance published in the Federal
Register on May 24, 2012 (77 FR 30919). Therefore, a full regulatory
impact analysis has not been conducted, nor has this NPRM been reviewed
by Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau: 2007
Economic Census--Transportation and Warehousing available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=BP_2011_00A1&prodType=table.
    \2\ 5,000,000 drivers would have to seek a $20 tank vehicle
endorsement before the $100 million threshold was reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.\3\
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to
lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) see National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/regulatory-flexibility/601.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), the
proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on
the LTL driver population most likely to be affected. The current
number of LTL drivers with tank vehicle endorsements could not be
determined unless all 50 State Driver Licensing Agencies performed
computer searches of their databases, which they have never done.
However, FMCSA believes that, historically, the tank vehicle
endorsement has been closely tied to the HM endorsement, and that
nearly all drivers who transport HM have already obtained the tank
vehicle endorsement. In other words, the drivers likely to be affected
by this rule are only that small group which neither transported HM in
bulk nor hauled non-hazardous products like milk or orange juice in
tank vehicles large enough to require a tank endorsement. FMCSA
believes that number to be relatively small. As indicated above, the
number of drivers assumed for purposes of this analysis to need a tank
vehicle endorsement (291,045, at a total cost of $5.82 million) is
almost certainly an over-estimate.
    Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative.
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance; please consult the FMCSA point of
contact, Robert Redmond, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2010 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

E. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rulemaking has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of
E.O. 13132 if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on State or local governments. FMCSA analyzed
this action in accordance with E.O. 13132. This proposed rule does not
preempt or modify any provision of State law, impose substantial direct
unreimbursed compliance costs on any State, or diminish the power of
any State to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does
not have Federalism implications.

 F. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

G. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not
economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on
children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that
this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or
safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

H. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

I. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect
the privacy of individuals. FMCSA has determined that this proposed
rule does not require

the collection of personally identifiable information.

J. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
program.

K. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations.
There is no new information collections requirement associated with
this NPRM to pose an undue burden on drivers, their employers, States
or others in the motor carrier industry.

L. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under its environmental procedures Order 5610.1, published
March 1, 2004 in the Federal Register (69 FR 9680), that this action is
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation under
two categorical exclusions (CEs) in FMCSA's NEPA Order. The first CE in
Paragraph 6(b) applies to the editorial nature of this rule in aligning
the definitions. The second, found in Paragraph 6(s)(7) address
regulations concerning requirements for drivers to have a single CMV
driver's license. In addition, the Agency believes that the action
includes no extraordinary circumstances that will have any effect on
the quality of the environment. Thus, FMCSA determines action does not
require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement. FMCSA requests comments on this determination.
    FMCSA also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect
emissions of criteria pollutants.

M. E.O. 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA evaluated the environmental effects of this proposed rule in
accordance with E.O 12898 and determined that there are no
environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor any
collective environmental impact resulting from its promulgation.
Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were
``disproportionate'' and ``high and adverse impact'' on minority or
low-income populations.

N. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

O. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O.
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

P. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB,
with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of
voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend 49
CFR,part 383 as follows:

PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND
PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 383 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502;
secs. 214 and 215, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec.
1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 397; sec. 4140, Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  383.5 by revising the definition for ``tank vehicle'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  383.5  Definitions.

* * * * *

Tank vehicle:

* * * * *
    (1) Means any commercial motor vehicle transporting, or designed to
transport, any liquid or gaseous materials within:
    (i) A tank that is either permanently or temporarily attached or
secured to the vehicle or chassis and has a rated capacity of 1,000
gallons or more; or
    (ii) Multiple tanks either permanently or temporarily attached or
secured, when the aggregate rated capacity of those tanks is 1,000
gallons or more, as determined by adding the capacity of each
individual tank with a capacity of more than 119 gallons.
    (2) If a commercial motor vehicle transports one or more tanks that
are manifested either as empty or as residue and that are actually
empty or contain only residue, those tanks shall not be considered in
determining whether the vehicle is a tank vehicle.
* * * * *

     Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on August
15, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-23510 Filed 9-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10690-10691]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04350]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension: Rule 10b-10, SEC File No. 270-389, OMB Control No. 3235-
0444.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission

(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing collection of
information provided for in Rule 10b-10 (17 CFR 240.10b-10) under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (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.
    Rule 10b-10 requires broker-dealers to convey specified information
to customers regarding their securities transactions. This information
includes the date and time of the transaction, the identity and number
of shares bought or sold, and whether the broker-dealer acts as agent
for the customer or as principal for its own account. Depending on
whether the broker-dealer acts as agent or principal, Rule 10b-10
requires the disclosure of commissions, as well as mark-up and mark-
down information. For transactions in debt securities, Rule 10b-10
requires the disclosure of redemption and yield information. Rule 10b-
10 potentially applies to all of the approximately 4,183 firms
registered with the Commission that effect transactions for or with
customers.
    Based on information provided by registered broker-dealers to the
Commission in FOCUS Reports, the Commission staff estimates that on
average, registered broker-dealers process approximately 1,383,492,184
order tickets per month for transactions for or with customers. Each
order ticket representing a transaction effected for or with a customer
results in one confirmation. Therefore, the Commission staff estimates
that approximately 16,601,906,208 confirmations are sent to customers
annually. The confirmations required by Rule 10b-10 are generally
processed through automated systems. It takes approximately 30 seconds
to generate and send a confirmation. Accordingly, the Commission staff
estimates that broker-dealers spend approximately 138,349,218 hours per
year complying with Rule 10b-10.
    The amount of confirmations sent and the cost of sending each
confirmation varies from firm to firm. Smaller firms generally send
fewer confirmations than larger firms because they effect fewer
transactions. The Commission staff estimates the costs of producing and
sending a paper confirmation, including postage, to be approximately 57
cents. The Commission staff also estimates that the cost of producing
and sending a wholly electronic confirmation is approximately 39 cents.
Based on informal discussions with industry participants, as well as
representations made in requests for exemptive and no-action letters
relating to Rule 10b-10, the staff estimates that broker-dealers used
electronic confirmations for approximately 35 percent of transactions.
Based on these calculations, Commission staff estimates that
10,791,239,035 paper confirmations are mailed each year at a cost of
$6,151,006,250. Commission staff also estimates that 5,810,667,173
wholly electronic confirmations are sent each year at a cost of
$2,266,160,197. Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that the total
annual cost associated with generating and delivering to investors the
information required under Rule 10b-10 would be $8,417,166,447.
    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 subject to the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 24, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04350 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45939-45940]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2017-77]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities.
Neither publication of this

notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is
intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before October 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0849
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: 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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 26, 2017.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-0849.
    Petitioner: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.981(a)(3).
    Description of Relief Sought: Alternate requirements for lightning
protection of fuel tank structure and systems for the Lockheed Martin
Model 382J Type Design Update (TDU) 382J Series aircraft.

[FR Doc. 2017-21022 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P