[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77603-77609]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27439]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741; FRL-9944-02-OCSPP]

1-Bromopropane (1-BP); Revision to Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Risk Determination; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of the final revision to the risk determination for the 1-
bromopropane (1-BP) risk evaluation issued under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). The revision to the 1-BP risk determination
reflects the announced policy changes to ensure the public is protected
from unreasonable risks from chemicals in a way that is supported by
science and the law. EPA determined that 1-BP, as a whole chemical
substance, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health when
evaluated under its conditions of use. In addition, this revised risk
determination does not reflect an assumption that workers always
appropriately wear personal protective equipment (PPE). EPA understands
that there could be adequate occupational safety protections in place
at certain workplace locations; however, not assuming use of PPE
reflects EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for
subpopulations of workers that may be highly exposed because they are
not covered by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
standards, or their employers are out of compliance with OSHA
standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-specific permissible
exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are described by OSHA as
being ``outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker
health,'' or because OSHA has not issued a chemical-specific
permissible exposure limit (PEL) (as is the case for 1-BP), or because
EPA finds unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA
requirements. This revision supersedes the condition of use-specific no
unreasonable risk

determinations in the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation and withdraws
the associated TSCA order included in the August 2020 1-BP Risk
Evaluation.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741, is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
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>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional instructions on visiting the
docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Amy Shuman Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (7404M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-2978; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing,
distribution, use, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks involving
chemical substances and mixtures. You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture (defined under TSCA to include import),
process (including recycling), distribute in commerce, use or dispose
of 1-BP, including 1-BP in products. Since other entities may also be
interested in this revision to the risk determination, EPA has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action.

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
(PESS) identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the
Administrator, under the conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A).
TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and
minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions
that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo
evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the
timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation.
TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with
the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the
scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available information. 15
U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k).
    The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical
substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish
a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be
conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use,
and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA
expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further
provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) integrate and assess
available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of
use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant
to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and
information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures
were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into
account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and
number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the
weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and
exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through
(v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other nonrisk
factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    EPA has inherent authority to reconsider previous decisions and to
revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law
and supported by reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations,
Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). Pursuant to
such authority, EPA has reconsidered and is now finalizing a revised
risk determination for 1-BP.

C. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of the final revision to the
risk determination for the 1-BP risk evaluation issued under TSCA that
published in August 2020 (Ref. 1). In July 2022, EPA sought public
comment on the draft revisions (87 FR 43265, July 20, 2022). EPA
appreciates the public comments received on the draft revision to the
1-BP risk determination. After review of these comments and
consideration of the specific circumstances of 1-BP, EPA concludes that
the Agency's risk determination for 1-BP is better characterized as a
whole chemical risk determination rather than condition-of-use-specific
risk determinations. Accordingly, EPA is revising and replacing Section
5 of the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) where the findings
of unreasonable risk to health were previously made for the individual
conditions of use evaluated. EPA is also withdrawing the previously
issued TSCA section 6(i)(l) order for nine conditions of use previously
determined not to present unreasonable risk which was included in
Section 5.4.1 of the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).
    This final revision to the 1-BP risk determination is consistent
with EPA's plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten TSCA
chemical risk evaluations to ensure that the risk evaluations better
align with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment.
As a result of this revision, removing the assumption that workers
always and appropriately wear PPE (see Unit II.C.) means that: seven
conditions of use in addition to the original 16 conditions of use
drive the unreasonable risk for 1-BP; additional risks of cancer from
dermal exposures are also identified as driving the unreasonable risk
to workers in six conditions of use; additional risks for acute and
chronic non-cancer effects from inhalation exposures drive the
unreasonable risk to workers in two conditions of use; and additional
risks for acute and chronic non-cancer effects and cancer from
inhalation and dermal exposures to workers drive the unreasonable risk
in one condition of use (where previously this condition of use was
identified as presenting unreasonable risk only to ONUs). However, EPA
is not making condition-of-use-specific risk determinations for those
conditions of use, and for purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is not
issuing a final order under TSCA section 6(i)(1) for the conditions of
use that do not drive the unreasonable risk,

and does not consider the revised risk determination to constitute a
final agency action at this point in time. Overall, 23 conditions of
use out of 25 EPA evaluated drive the 1-BP whole chemical unreasonable
risk determination due to risks identified for human health. The full
list of the conditions of use evaluated for the 1-BP TSCA risk
evaluation is in Table 4-58 and Table 4-59 of the August 2020 1-BP Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 2).

II. Background

A. Why is EPA re-issuing the risk determination for the 1-BP risk
evaluation conducted under TSCA?

    In accordance with Executive Order 13990 (``Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis'') and other Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6),
EPA reviewed the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical
substances, including 1-BP, to ensure that they meet the requirements
of TSCA, including conducting decision-making in a manner that is
consistent with the best available science.
    As a result of this review, EPA announced plans to revise specific
aspects of the first ten risk evaluations in order to ensure that the
risk evaluations appropriately identify unreasonable risks and thereby
help ensure the protection of human health and the environment (Ref.
7). Following a review of specific aspects of the August 2020 1-BP Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 2) and after considering comments received on a draft
revised risk determination for 1-BP, EPA has determined that making an
unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP as a whole chemical substance,
rather than making unreasonable risk determinations separately on each
individual condition of use evaluated in the risk evaluation, is the
most appropriate approach for 1-BP under the statute and implementing
regulations. In addition, EPA's final risk determination is explicit
insofar as it does not rely on assumptions regarding the use of PPE in
making the unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6, even
though some facilities might be using PPE as one means to reduce worker
exposures; rather, the use of PPE as a means of addressing unreasonable
risk will be considered during risk management, as appropriate.
    Separately, EPA is conducting a screening approach to assess risks
from the air and water pathways for several of the first 10 chemicals,
including this chemical. For 1-BP, certain exposure pathways that were
or could be regulated under another EPA administered statute were
excluded from the final risk evaluation (see section 1.4.2 of the
August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation). This resulted in the air exposure
pathway for 1-BP not being fully assessed. The goal of the recently-
developed screening approach is to remedy this exclusion and to
determine if there may be risks that were unaccounted for in the 1-BP
risk evaluation. The screening-level approach has gone through public
comment and independent external peer review through the Science
Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). The Agency received the final
peer review report on May 18, 2022, and has reviewed public comments
and SACC comments. EPA expects to describe its findings regarding the
chemical-specific application of this screening-level approach in the
forthcoming proposed rule under TSCA section 6(a) for 1-BP.
    This action pertains only to the risk determination for 1-BP. While
EPA intends to consider and may take additional similar actions on
other of the first ten chemicals, EPA is taking a chemical-specific
approach to reviewing these risk evaluations and is incorporating new
policy direction in a surgical manner, while being mindful of
Congressional direction on the need to complete risk evaluations and
move toward any associated risk management activities in accordance
with statutory deadlines.

B. What is a whole chemical view of the unreasonable risk determination
for the 1-BP risk evaluation?

    TSCA section 6 repeatedly refers to determining whether a chemical
substance presents unreasonable risk under its conditions of use.
Stakeholders have disagreed over whether a chemical substance should
receive: A single determination that is comprehensive for the chemical
substance after considering the conditions of use, referred to as a
whole-chemical determination; or multiple determinations, each of which
is specific to a condition of use, referred to as condition-of-use-
specific determinations.
    As explained in the Federal Register document announcing the
availability of the draft revised risk determination for 1-BP (87 FR
43265, July 20, 2022 (FRL-9944-01-OCSPP)), the proposed Risk Evaluation
Procedural Rule (Ref. 8) was premised on the whole chemical approach to
making unreasonable risk determinations. In that proposed rule, EPA
acknowledged a lack of specificity in statutory text that might lead to
different views about whether the statute compelled EPA's risk
evaluations to address all conditions of use of a chemical substance or
whether EPA had discretion to evaluate some subset of conditions of use
(i.e., to scope out some manufacturing, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, or disposal activities), but also stated that ``EPA
believes the word `the' [in TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A)] is best
interpreted as calling for evaluation that considers all conditions of
use.'' The proposed rule, however, was unambiguous on the point that
unreasonable risk determinations would be for the chemical substance as
a whole, even if based on a subset of uses. See Ref. 8 at pages 7565-66
(``TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) specifies that a risk evaluation must
determine whether `a chemical substance' presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment `under the conditions of use.'
The evaluation is on the chemical substance--not individual conditions
of use--and it must be based on `the conditions of use.' In this
context, EPA believes the word `the' is best interpreted as calling for
evaluation that considers all conditions of use.''). In the proposed
regulatory text, EPA proposed to determine whether the chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment under the conditions of use. (Ref. 8 at 7480.)
    The final Risk Evaluation Procedural Rule stated (82 FR 33726, July
20, 2017 (FRL-9964-38)) (Ref. 9): ``As part of the risk evaluation, EPA
will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of
uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single
decision document or in multiple decision documents'' (40 CFR 702.47).
For the unreasonable risk determinations in the first ten risk
evaluations, EPA applied this provision by making individual risk
determinations for each condition of use evaluated as part of each risk
evaluation document (i.e., the condition-of-use-specific approach to
risk determinations). That approach was based on one particular passage
in the preamble to the final Risk Evaluation Rule which stated that EPA
will make individual risk determinations for all conditions of use
identified in the scope. (Ref. 9 at 33744).
    In contrast to this portion of the preamble of the final Risk
Evaluation Rule, the regulatory text itself and other statements in the
preamble reference a risk determination for the chemical substance
under its conditions of use, rather than separate risk determinations

for each of the conditions of use of a chemical substance. In the key
regulatory provision excerpted previously from 40 CFR 702.47, the text
explains that ``[a]s part of the risk evaluation, EPA will determine
whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment under each condition of uses [sic] within
the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single decision document
or in multiple decision documents'' (Ref. 9, emphasis added). Other
language reiterates this perspective. For example, 40 CFR 702.31(a)
states that the purpose of the rule is to establish the EPA process for
conducting a risk evaluation to determine whether a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment as
required under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(B). Likewise, there are recurring
references to whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk in 40 CFR 702.41(a). See, for example, 40 CFR 702.41(a)(6), which
explains that the extent to which EPA will refine its evaluations for
one or more condition of use in any risk evaluation will vary as
necessary to determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk. Notwithstanding the one preambular statement about
condition-of-use-specific risk determinations, the preamble to the
final rule also contains support for a risk determination on the
chemical substance as a whole. In discussing the identification of the
conditions of use of a chemical substance, the preamble notes that this
task inevitably involves the exercise of discretion on EPA's part, and
``as EPA interprets the statute, the Agency is to exercise that
discretion consistent with the objective of conducting a technically
sound, manageable evaluation to determine whether a chemical
substance--not just individual uses or activities--presents an
unreasonable risk'' (Ref. 9 at 33729).
    Therefore, notwithstanding EPA's choice to issue condition-of-use-
specific risk determinations to date, EPA interprets its risk
evaluation regulation to also allow the Agency to issue whole-chemical
risk determinations. Either approach is permissible under the
regulation. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also
recognized the ambiguity of the regulation on this point. Safer
Chemicals v. EPA, 943 F.3d. 397, 413 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding a
challenge about ``use-by-use risk evaluations [was] not justiciable
because it is not clear, due to the ambiguous text of the Risk
Evaluation Rule, whether the Agency will actually conduct risk
evaluations in the manner Petitioners fear'').
    EPA plans to consider the appropriate approach for each chemical
substance risk evaluation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
considerations relevant to the specific chemical substance in light of
the Agency's obligations under TSCA. The Agency expects that this case-
by-case approach will provide greater flexibility in the Agency's
ability to evaluate and manage unreasonable risk from individual
chemical substances. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach under
TSCA and the Agency's implementing regulations.
    With regard to the specific circumstances of 1-BP, EPA has
determined that a whole chemical approach is appropriate for 1-BP in
order to protect health and the environment. The whole chemical
approach is appropriate for 1-BP because there are benchmark
exceedances for a substantial number of conditions of use (spanning
across most aspects of the chemical lifecycle--from manufacturing
(including import), processing, industrial and commercial use, consumer
use, and disposal) for workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and
bystanders and risk of irreversible health effects (specifically
developmental toxicity and cancer) associated with 1-BP exposures.
Because these chemical-specific properties cut across the conditions of
use within the scope of the risk evaluation, a substantial amount of
the conditions of use drive the unreasonable risk; therefore, it is
appropriate for the Agency to make a determination for 1-BP that the
whole chemical presents an unreasonable risk.
    As explained later in this document, the revisions to the
unreasonable risk determination (Section 5 of the August 2020 1-BP Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 2)) follow the issuance of a draft revision to the
TSCA 1-BP unreasonable risk determination (87 FR 43265, July 20, 2022)
and the receipt of public comment. A response to comments document is
also being issued with the final revised unreasonable risk
determination for 1-BP (Ref. 10). The revisions to the unreasonable
risk determination are based on the existing risk characterization
section of the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) (Section 4)
and do not involve additional technical or scientific analysis. The
discussion of the issues in this Federal Register document and in the
accompanying final revised risk determination for 1-BP supersede any
conflicting statements in the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2)
and the earlier response to comments document (Ref. 11). EPA views the
peer reviewed hazard and exposure assessments and associated risk
characterization as robust and upholding the standards of best
available science and weight of the scientific evidence per TSCA
sections 26(h) and (i).
    For purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is making a risk
determination on 1-BP as a whole chemical. Under the revised approach,
the ``whole chemical'' risk determination for 1-BP supersedes the no
unreasonable risk determinations for 1-BP that were premised on a
condition-of-use-specific approach to determining unreasonable risk and
also contains an order withdrawing the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order in
Section 5.4.1 of the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).

C. What revision is EPA now making final about the use of PPE for the
1-BP risk evaluation?

    In the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, as
part of the unreasonable risk determination, EPA assumed for several
conditions of use that workers were provided and always used PPE in a
manner that achieves the stated assigned protection factor (APF) for
respiratory protection, or used impervious gloves for dermal
protection. In support of this assumption, EPA used reasonably
available information such as public comments indicating that some
employers, particularly in the industrial setting, provide PPE to their
employees and follow established worker protection standards (e.g.,
OSHA requirements for protection of workers).
    For the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2), EPA assumed,
based on reasonably available information that workers use PPE--
specifically, respirators with an APF of 10 or 50, or gloves with a
protection factor (PF) of 5--for 15 of 16 occupational conditions of
use. In the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation, EPA determined that there
is unreasonable risk for nine of these occupational conditions of use
even with this assumed PPE use.
    EPA is revising the assumption for 1-BP that workers always and
properly use PPE. However, this does not mean that EPA questions the
veracity of public comments which describe occupational safety
practices often followed by industry. EPA believes it is appropriate
when conducting risk evaluations under TSCA to evaluate the levels of
risk present in baseline scenarios where PPE is not assumed to be used
by workers. This approach of not assuming PPE use by workers

considers the risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations
of workers who may not be covered by OSHA standards, such as self-
employed individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a
State Plan. It should be noted that, in some cases, baseline conditions
may reflect certain mitigation measures, such as engineering controls,
in instances where exposure estimates are based on monitoring data at
facilities that have engineering controls in place.
    In addition, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels
of risk present in scenarios considering applicable OSHA requirements
(e.g., chemical-specific permissible exposure limits (PELs) and/or
chemical-specific PELs with additional substance-specific standards),
as well as scenarios considering industry or sector best practices for
industrial hygiene that are clearly articulated to the Agency.
Consistent with this approach, the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation
(Ref. 2) characterized risk to workers both with and without the use of
PPE. By characterizing risks using scenarios that reflect different
levels of mitigation, EPA risk evaluations can help inform potential
risk management actions by providing information that could be used
during risk management to tailor risk mitigation appropriately to
address any unreasonable risk identified, or to ensure that applicable
OSHA requirements or industry or sector best practices that address the
unreasonable risk are required for all potentially exposed and
susceptible subpopulations (including self-employed individuals and
public sector workers who are not covered by an OSHA State Plan).
    When undertaking unreasonable risk determinations as part of TSCA
risk evaluations, however, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to
assume as a general matter that an applicable OSHA requirement or
industry practice related to PPE use is consistently and always
properly applied. Mitigation scenarios included in the EPA risk
evaluation (e.g., scenarios considering use of various PPE) likely
represent what is happening already in some facilities. However, the
Agency cannot assume that all facilities have adopted these practices
for the purposes of making the TSCA risk determination (Ref. 12).
    Therefore, EPA is making a determination of unreasonable risk for
1-BP from a baseline scenario that does not assume compliance with OSHA
standards, including any applicable exposure limits or requirements for
use of respiratory protection or other PPE. Making unreasonable risk
determinations based on the baseline scenario should not be viewed as
an indication that EPA believes there are no occupational safety
protections in place at any location, or that there is widespread non-
compliance with applicable OSHA standards. Rather, it reflects EPA's
recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for subpopulations of
workers that may be highly exposed because they are not covered by OSHA
standards, such as self-employed individuals and public sector workers
who are not covered by a State Plan, or because their employer is out
of compliance with OSHA standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-
specific permissible exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are
described by OSHA as being ``outdated and inadequate for ensuring
protection of worker health,'' (Ref. 13), or because OSHA has not
issued a chemical-specific permissible exposure limit (PEL) (as is the
case for 1-BP), or because EPA finds unreasonable risk for purposes of
TSCA notwithstanding OSHA requirements.
    In accordance with this approach, EPA is finalizing the revision to
the 1-BP risk determination without relying on assumptions regarding
the occupational use of PPE in making the unreasonable risk
determination under TSCA section 6; rather, information on the use of
PPE as a means of mitigating risk (including public comments received
from industry respondents about occupational safety practices in use)
will be considered during the risk management phase, as appropriate.
This represents a change from the approach taken in the August 2020 1-
BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). As a general matter, when undertaking risk
management actions, EPA intends to strive for consistency with
applicable OSHA requirements and industry best practices, including
appropriate application of the hierarchy of controls, to the extent
that applying those measures would address the identified unreasonable
risk, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations. Consistent with TSCA section 9(d), EPA will consult and
coordinate TSCA activities with OSHA and other relevant Federal
agencies for the purpose of achieving the maximum applicability of TSCA
while avoiding the imposition of duplicative requirements. Informed by
the mitigation scenarios and information gathered during the risk
evaluation and risk management process, the Agency might propose rules
that require risk management practices that may be already common
practice in many or most facilities. Adopting clear, comprehensive
regulatory standards will foster compliance across all facilities
(ensuring a level playing field) and assure protections for all
affected workers, especially in cases where current OSHA standards may
not apply or be sufficient to address the unreasonable risk.
    Removing the assumption that workers always and appropriately wear
PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for 1-BP means
that: seven conditions of use in addition to the original 16 conditions
of use drive the unreasonable risk for 1-BP; additional risk of cancer
from dermal exposures is also identified as driving the unreasonable
risk to workers in six conditions of use; additional risks for acute
and chronic non-cancer effects from inhalation exposures drive the
unreasonable risk to workers in two conditions of use; and additional
risks for acute and chronic non-cancer effects and cancer from
inhalation and dermal exposures to workers drive the unreasonable risk
in one condition of use (where previously this condition of use was
identified as presenting unreasonable risk only to ONUs). The finalized
revision to the 1-BP risk determination clarifies that EPA does not
rely on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination for
the whole substance; rather, the use of PPE as a means of addressing
unreasonable risk will be considered during risk management, as
appropriate.

D. What is 1-BP?

    1-BP is a colorless liquid with a sweet odor. It is a brominated
hydrocarbon that is slightly soluble in water. 1-BP is a volatile
organic compound that exhibits high volatility, a low boiling point,
low flammability and no explosivity. 1-BP is produced and imported in
the United States and has a wide range of uses, including as a solvent
in degreasing operations, spray adhesives and dry cleaning; as a
reactant in the manufacturing of other chemical substances; and in
laboratory uses. There are also a variety of consumer and commercial
products that contain 1-BP, such as aerosol degreasers, spot cleaners,
stain removers, and insulation for building and construction materials.

E. What conclusions is EPA finalizing today in the revised TSCA risk
evaluation based on the whole chemical approach and not assuming the
use of PPE?

    EPA determined that 1-BP presents an unreasonable risk to health
under the conditions of use. EPA's unreasonable risk determination for
1-BP as a

chemical substance is driven by risks associated with the following
conditions of use, considered singularly or in combination with other
exposures:
     Manufacture (domestic manufacturing);
     Manufacture (import);
     Processing as a reactant;
     Processing for incorporation into formulation, mixture or
reaction product;
     Processing for incorporation into articles;
     Processing: Repackaging;
     Processing: Recycling;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and
degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--open-top, inline
vapor degreaser);
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and
degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--closed-loop);
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and
degreasing in cold cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent in aerosol spray
degreaser/cleaner;
     Industrial and commercial use in adhesives and sealants;
     Industrial and commercial use in dry cleaning solvents,
spot cleaners and stain removers;
     Industrial and commercial use in liquid cleaners (e.g.,
coin and scissor cleaner) and liquid spray/aerosol cleaners;
     Other industrial and commercial uses: arts, crafts, hobby
materials (adhesives accelerant); automotive care products (engine
degrease, brake cleaner, refrigerant flush); anti-adhesive agents (mold
cleaning and release product); electronic and electronic products and
metal products; functional fluids (close/open-systems)--refrigerant/
cutting oils; asphalt extraction; laboratory chemicals; and temperature
indicator--coatings;
     Consumer use as solvent in aerosol spray degreasers/
cleaners;
     Consumer use in spot cleaners and stain removers;
     Consumer use in liquid cleaners (e.g., coin and scissor
cleaners);
     Consumer use in liquid spray/aerosol cleaners;
     Consumer use in arts, crafts, hobby materials (adhesive
accelerant);
     Consumer use in automotive care products (refrigerant
flush);
     Consumer use in anti-adhesives agents (mold cleaning and
release product); and
     Disposal.
    The following conditions of use do not drive EPA's unreasonable
risk determination for 1-BP:
     Distribution in commerce;
     Commercial and consumer uses of building/construction
materials (insulation).
    EPA is not making condition of use-specific risk determinations for
these conditions of use, is not issuing a final order under TSCA
section 6(i)(1) for the conditions of use that do not drive the
unreasonable risk and does not consider the revised risk determination
for 1-BP to constitute a final agency action at this point in time.
    Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a),
EPA will propose a risk management regulatory action to the extent
necessary so that 1-BP no longer presents an unreasonable risk. EPA
expects to focus its risk management action on the conditions of use
that drive the unreasonable risk. However, it should be noted that,
under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is not limited to regulating the specific
activities found to drive unreasonable risk and may select from among a
suite of risk management requirements in section 6(a) related to
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce,
commercial use, and disposal as part of its regulatory options to
address the unreasonable risk. As a general example, EPA may regulate
upstream activities (e.g., processing, distribution in commerce) to
address downstream activities (e.g., consumer uses) driving
unreasonable risk, even if the upstream activities do not drive the
unreasonable risk.

III. Summary of Public Comments

    EPA received a total of seven public comments on the July 20, 2022,
draft revised risk determination for 1-BP during the comment period
that ended August 19, 2022. Commenters included trade organizations,
industry stakeholders, a union, and an environmental group. A separate
document that summarizes all comments submitted and EPA's responses to
those comments has been prepared and is available in the docket for
this notice (Ref. 10).

IV. Revision of the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation

A. Why is EPA revising the risk determination for the 1-BP risk
evaluation?

    EPA is finalizing the revised risk determination for the 1-BP risk
evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b) and consistent with Executive
Order 13990, (``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis'') and other
Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6). EPA is revising
specific aspects of the first ten TSCA existing chemical risk
evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align
with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. For the
1-BP risk evaluation, this includes: (1) Making the risk determination
in this instance based on the whole chemical substance instead of by
individual conditions of use and (2) Emphasizing that EPA does not rely
on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination.

B. What are the revisions?

    EPA is now finalizing the revised risk determination for the August
2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) pursuant to TSCA section 6(b). Under
the revised determination (Ref. 1), EPA concludes that 1-BP, as
evaluated in the risk evaluation as a whole, presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of use.
This revision replaces the previous unreasonable risk determinations
made for 1-BP by individual conditions of use, supersedes the
determinations (and withdraws the associated order) of no unreasonable
risk for the conditions of use identified in the TSCA section 6(i)(1)
no unreasonable risk order, and clarifies the lack of reliance on
assumed use of PPE as part of the risk determination.
    These revisions do not alter any of the underlying technical or
scientific information that informs the risk characterization, and as
such the hazard, exposure, and risk characterization sections are not
changed, except to statements about PPE assumptions in Section <IP_ADDRESS>
(Consideration of Engineering Controls and PPE) and Section 4.2.2
(Occupational Inhalation Exposure Summary and PPE Use Determinations by
OES). The discussion of the issues in this Notice and in the
accompanying final revision to the risk determination supersede any
conflicting statements in the prior executive summary, and Section
<IP_ADDRESS> and Section 4.2.2 from the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation
(Ref. 2) and the response to comments document (Ref. 11).
    The revised unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP includes
additional explanation of how the risk evaluation characterizes the
applicable OSHA requirements, or industry or sector best practices, and
also clarifies that no additional analysis was done, and the risk
determination is based on the risk characterization (Section 4) of the
August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).

C. Will the revised risk determination be peer reviewed?

    The risk determination (Section 5 of the August 2020 1-BP Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 2)) was not part of the scope of the Science Advisory
Committee on Chemicals (SACC) peer review of the 1-BP risk evaluation.
Thus, consistent with that approach, EPA did not conduct peer review of
the final revised unreasonable risk determination for the 1-BP risk
evaluation because no technical or scientific changes were made to the
hazard or exposure assessments or the risk characterization.

V. Order Withdrawing Previous Order Regarding Unreasonable Risk
Determinations for Certain Conditions of Use

    EPA is also issuing a new order to withdraw the TSCA Section
6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order issued in Section 5.4.1 of the
August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). This final revised risk
determination supersedes the condition of use-specific no unreasonable
risk determinations in the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).
The order contained in Section 5.5 of the revised risk determination
(Ref. 1) withdraws the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order contained in Section
5.4.1 of the August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). Consistent with
the statutory requirements of section 6(a), the Agency will propose
risk management action to address the unreasonable risk determined in
the 1-BP risk evaluation.

VI. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Unreasonable Risk Determination for 1-Bromopropane (1-BP).
December 2022.
2. EPA. Risk Evaluation for 1-Bromopropane (1-BP). August 2020. EPA
Document #740-R1-8013. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0235-0085.
3. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.
Federal Register. 86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021.
4. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal
Register. 86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021.
5. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad. Federal Register. 86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021.
6. Presidential Memorandum. Memorandum on Restoring Trust in
Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based
Policymaking. Federal Register. 86 FR 8845, February 10, 2021.
7. EPA. Press Release; EPA Announces Path Forward for TSCA Chemical
Risk Evaluations. June 2021. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-path-forward-tsca-chemical-risk-evaluations.
8. EPA. Proposed Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
7562, January 19, 2017 (FRL-9957-75).
9. EPA. Final Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
33726, July 20, 2017 (FRL-9964-38).
10. EPA. Response to Public Comments to the Revised Unreasonable
Risk Determination; 1-Bromopropane (1-BP). December 2022.
11. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and
Disposition for 1-Bromopropane (1-BP). August 2020. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0235-0066.
12. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Top 10
Most Frequently Cited Standards for Fiscal Year 2021 (Oct. 1, 2020,
to Sept. 30, 2021). Accessed October 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/top10citedstandards.
13. OSHA. Permissible Exposure Limits--Annotated Tables. Accessed
June 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: December 13, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-27439 Filed 12-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3711-3712]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02212]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0147; FRL-9989-33-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Reasonable Further Progress Plan and
Other Plan Elements for the Chicago Nonattainment Area for the 2008
Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the
base year emissions inventory, reasonable further progress (RFP), RFP
contingency measure, nonattainment new source review (nonattainment
NSR), volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available control
technology (RACT), and motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the Indiana portion of the
Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin area (Chicago area) for
the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
standard). EPA is also approving the 2017 transportation conformity
motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Indiana portion of the
Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the state's
submission as a SIP revision pursuant to section 110 and part D of the
CAA and EPA's regulations because it satisfies the emission inventory,
RFP, RFP contingency measure, nonattainment NSR, VOC RACT, I/M, and
transportation conformity requirements for areas classified as moderate
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This final action permanently
stops the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clock triggered by EPA's
February 3, 2017 finding that Indiana failed to submit a marginal ozone
nonattainment NSR plan. EPA proposed to approve these provisions on
August 28, 2018 and received public comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0147. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    This rule addresses revisions to the Indiana SIP submitted by the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on February 28,
2017 and supplemented on January 9, 2018. EPA is approving a number of
nonattainment plan elements included in that submission, specifically a
revised 2011 base year emissions inventory for VOC and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), a 15% RFP plan, a 3% RFP contingency measure
plan, 2017 VOC and NOX motor vehicle emissions budgets, a
nonattainment NSR certification, a VOC RACT certification, and an
enhanced I/M certification. The background for this action is discussed
in detail in EPA's proposal, dated August 28, 2018 (83 FR 43825). As
discussed in the proposal, final approval of Indiana's nonattainment
NSR certification permanently stops the FIP clock triggered by EPA's
February 3, 2017 finding that Indiana failed to submit a marginal ozone
nonattainment NSR plan.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the August 28,
2018, proposed rule. The comment period ended on September 27, 2018. We
received a number of anonymous comments that address subjects outside
the scope of our proposed action, do not explain (or provide a legal
basis for) how the proposed action should differ in any way, and make
no specific mention of the substantive aspects of the proposed action.
Consequently, these comments are not germane to this rulemaking and
require no further response. In addition, one commenter submitted
several comments that do not suggest a change in or specific problems
with our proposed action. Therefore, these comments also require no
further response.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    Based on the above and the information contained in EPA's proposed
rule, EPA is approving revisions to Indiana's SIP pursuant to section
110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations because Indiana's
February 28, 2017 nonattainment plan submission and January 1, 2018,
supplement satisfy the emissions inventory, RFP, RFP contingency
measures, transportation conformity, VOC RACT, I/M, and nonattainment
moderate area NSR requirements of the CAA for the Indiana portion of
the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Final approval of Indiana's
SIP as meeting these nonattainment NSR requirements of the CAA for the
2008 ozone NAAQS permanently stops the and FIP clock triggered by EPA's
February 3, 2017 finding that Indiana failed to submit a marginal ozone
nonattainment NSR plan.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 15, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 21, 2018.
James O. Payne,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry in alphabetical order for ``Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-hour
Ozone Moderate Planning Elements'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Title                      Indiana date            EPA approval               Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Lake and Porter Counties 2008 8-     2/28/2017 and 1/9/2018  2/13/2019, [Insert      2011 base year emissions
 hour Ozone Moderate Planning                                 Federal Register        inventory, Reasonable
 Elements.                                                    citation].              Further Progress (RFP)
                                                                                plan, RFP contingency
                                                                                measure plan, 2017 VOC and
                                                                                NOX motor vehicle
                                                                                emissions budgets,
                                                                                nonattainment new source
                                                                                review certification, VOC
                                                                                reasonable further
                                                                                progress certification,
                                                                                and enhanced motor vehicle
                                                                                inspection and maintenance
                                                                                program certification.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-02212 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2131-2132]
[FR Doc No: 2011-427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0032]

Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee
(FRPCC) is holding a public meeting on January 20, 2011 in Arlington,
VA.

DATES: The meeting will take place on January 20, 2011. The session
open to the public will be from 9 a.m. EST to 10 a.m. EST. Send written
statements and requests to make oral statements to the contact person
listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption by close of
business January 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crystal City Marriott at
Reagan National Airport located at 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202, in Salon E & F.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Greten, FRPCC Executive
Secretary, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street--CC847, Mail Stop 3025,
Arlington, VA 20598-3025; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The role and functions of the Federal
Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FRPCC) are described
in 44

CFR 351.10(a) and 351.11(a). The FRPCC is holding a public meeting on
January 20, 2011, from 9 a.m. EST to 10 a.m. EST, at the Crystal City
Marriott at Reagan National Airport located at 1999 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, in Salon E & F. Please note that the
meeting may close early. This meeting is open to the public. Public
meeting participants must pre-register to be admitted to the meeting.
To pre-register, please provide your name and telephone number by close
of business on January 14, 2011, to the individual listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption.
    The tentative agenda for the FRPCC meeting includes: (1)
Introductions, (2) Old Business, and (3) Radiological Emergency
Preparedness (REP) Program Manual Implementation Update. The FRPCC
Chair shall conduct the meeting in a way that will facilitate the
orderly conduct of business. Reasonable provisions will be made, if
time permits, for oral statements from the public of not more than five
minutes in length. Any member of the public who wishes to make an oral
statement at the meeting should send a written request for time by
close of business on January 14, 2011, to the individual listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption. Any member of the public
who wishes to file a written statement with the FRPCC should provide
the statement by close of business on January 14, 2011, to the
individual listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
write or call the individual listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT caption as soon as possible.

    Authority:  44 CFR 351.10(a) and 351.11(a).

Timothy W. Manning,
Deputy Administrator, Protection and National Preparedness, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-427 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-21-P


The  primary  objective  of  the  data analysis is to estimate the overall (or `mean') level of bite protection and associated 95% confidence  interval  for  different  `treatments'  (i.e.,  different  combinations  of  fabric  type, number of washes, and mosquito species).  The statistical validity of the design and analysis after reviewing the statistical design, analysis methods and submitted SAS code are given below:
The numbers of blood-fed and total female mosquitoes found with treated and control fabric for each subject was analyzed as binomial distributed data in a generalized linear model using SAS GENMOD procedure using a log link.  Use of the log link makes it possible to obtain an estimate and confidence interval  for  the  ratio  of  the  treatment  and  control  bite-through  rates.
However, the subject term was treated as a fixed effect in the GENMOD model to adjust for subject-subject differences. If this treatment of fixed subjects is a valid assumption then the presented analysis is appropriate.
However, if the fixed subject treatment is not appropriate and the subjects used in this study should be treated as a random effect then the SAS procedure GLIMMIX is a better approach over GENMOD to accommodate mixed effects (both fixed and random effect).

Please see the SAS output below: (SAS GLIMMIX when treating subjects as RANDOM)

      Examination of T and GLiM CIs with 8 Subjects  - Using SAS GLIMMIX
             Subject-Subject Background Variation (Logit SD) = 0.3
              Subject-Subject Protection Variation (Logit SD) = 0
                        NrSims = 5000, Seed = 98135183

                                                             Overall
Bkg
Rate,%
                                                                   True
% Prot
                                                                 Mean
% Prot
T
                                                                HalfWidth
T CI
                                                                 Coverage
T CI
                                                              Mean
% Prot
GLiM
                                                             HalfWidth
GLiM CI
                                                              Coverage
GLiM CI
                                                                             10
                                                                             70
                                                                           68.3
                                                                           12.3
                                                                             95
                                                                           69.6
                                                                           14.0
                                                                             99

                                                                             85
                                                                           84.2
                                                                            8.2
                                                                             95
                                                                           84.7
                                                                            8.7
                                                                             98

                                                                             95
                                                                           94.8
                                                                            4.3
                                                                             94
                                                                           94.9
                                                                            4.6
                                                                             99

                                                                             98
                                                                           97.9
                                                                            4.2
                                                                             93
                                                                           97.9
                                                                            3.3
                                                                             98

                                                             Overall
Bkg
Rate,%
                                                                   True
% Prot
                                                                 Mean
% Prot
T
                                                                HalfWidth
T CI
                                                                 Coverage
T CI
                                                              Mean
% Prot
GLiM
                                                             HalfWidth
GLiM CI
                                                              Coverage
GLiM CI
                                                                             25
                                                                             70
                                                                           69.5
                                                                            7.0
                                                                             94
                                                                           69.8
                                                                            9.6
                                                                             99

                                                                             85
                                                                           84.7
                                                                            4.8
                                                                             95
                                                                           84.8
                                                                            5.8
                                                                             99

                                                                             95
                                                                           94.9
                                                                            2.7
                                                                             94
                                                                           94.9
                                                                            2.9
                                                                             99

                                                                             98
                                                                           98.0
                                                                            1.6
                                                                             94
                                                                           98.0
                                                                            1.8
                                                                             98

                                                             Overall
Bkg
Rate,%
                                                                   True
% Prot
                                                                 Mean
% Prot
T
                                                                HalfWidth
T CI
                                                                 Coverage
T CI
                                                              Mean
% Prot
GLiM
                                                             HalfWidth
GLiM CI
                                                              Coverage
GLiM CI
                                                                             50
                                                                             70
                                                                           69.9
                                                                            4.5
                                                                             95
                                                                           70.0
                                                                            6.3
                                                                            100

                                                                             85
                                                                           84.9
                                                                            3.2
                                                                             95
                                                                           84.9
                                                                            3.8
                                                                             99

                                                                             95
                                                                           95.0
                                                                            1.8
                                                                             95
                                                                           95.0
                                                                            1.9
                                                                             98

                                                                             98
                                                                           98.0
                                                                            1.2
                                                                             94
                                                                           98.0
                                                                            1.2
                                                                             98

                                                             Overall
Bkg
Rate,%
                                                                   True
% Prot
                                                                 Mean
% Prot
T
                                                                HalfWidth
T CI
                                                                 Coverage
T CI
                                                              Mean
% Prot
GLiM
                                                             HalfWidth
GLiM CI
                                                              Coverage
GLiM CI
                                                                             75
                                                                             70
                                                                           69.9
                                                                            3.4
                                                                             96
                                                                           70.0
                                                                            4.1
                                                                             99

                                                                             85
                                                                           85.0
                                                                            2.5
                                                                             95
                                                                           85.0
                                                                            2.7
                                                                             98

                                                                             95
                                                                           95.0
                                                                            1.5
                                                                             95
                                                                           95.0
                                                                            1.4
                                                                             98

                                                                             98
                                                                           98.0
                                                                            0.9
                                                                             94
                                                                           98.0
                                                                            0.9
                                                                             97