[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34872-34874]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0593; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-238-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of burned contacts in a
certain production break plug and its corresponding receptacle. This
proposed AD would require modifying galley power supply wiring by
disconnecting it from the affected plug/receptacle and reconnecting the
power supply wiring through splices. We are proposing this AD to
prevent a high electrical load which may lead to overheating of the
galley power supply wiring and/or the electrical connector and
consequent smoke or fire in the galley area, which could result in
damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE
Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax +31
(0)252-627-211; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax: (425)<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0593;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-238-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the aviation
authority for the Member States of the European Community, has issued
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0183, dated September 23, 2011
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Reports have been received about burned contacts in production break
plug P4259B and corresponding receptacle J 4259A. After
investigation, it was concluded that the high electrical load on the
contacts M, L and X, in combination with the electrical loads on the
adjacent connections, may have resulted in these occurrences.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, can lead to
overheating of the galley power supply wiring and/or the electrical
connector and consequent smoke or fire in the galley area, possibly
resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the galley power supply wiring by disconnecting it
from the affected plug/receptacle and reconnecting the power supply
wiring through splices.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Fokker Services B.V has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-24-
044, dated July 14, 2011, which includes the following attachment:
     Fokker Manual Change Notification--Maintenance
Documentation MCNM-F100-148, dated July 14, 2011.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 4 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $210 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $2,200, or $550 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2012-0593; Directorate
Identifier 2011-NM-238-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 27, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and
0100 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial number (s/n)
11340 through 11343 inclusive, 11347, 11348, 11350 through 11356
inclusive, 11359, 11360, 11361, 11367 through 11371 inclusive, 11374
through 11378 inclusive, 11382 through 11385 inclusive, 11387
through 11390 inclusive, 11394 through 11397 inclusive, 11400
through 11423 inclusive, 11425 through 11432 inclusive, 11434
through 11439 inclusive, 11441 through 11453 inclusive, and 11456
through 11585 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of burned contacts in a certain
production break plug and its corresponding receptacle. We are
issuing this AD to prevent a high electrical load which may lead to
overheating of the galley power supply wiring and/or the electrical
connector and consequent smoke or fire in the galley area, which
could result in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the
galley power supply wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-24-044, dated July
14, 2011, which includes Fokker Manual Change Notification--
Maintenance Documentation MCNM-F100-148, dated July 14, 2011.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0183, dated
September 23, 2011; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF 100-24-044,
dated July 14, 2011, which includes Fokker Manual Change
Notification--Maintenance Documentation MCNM-F100-148, dated July
14, 2011; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 31, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-14211 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17543-17545]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06526]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0513; FRL-10021-41-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; New Mexico and Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Other
Solid Waste Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that we
have received CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declarations from New
Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for existing
incinerators subject to the Other Solid Waste Incineration units (OSWI)
emission guidelines (EG). These negative declarations from New Mexico
and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, certify that
incinerators subject to the OSWI EG and the requirements of sections
111(d) and 129 of the CAA do not exist within the jurisdictions of New
Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. The EPA is accepting the
negative declarations and amending the agency regulations in accordance
with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0513. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://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 electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6
Office, Air and Radiation Division--State Planning and Implementation
Branch, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Out of an abundance of caution for members
of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to
the public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    On January 15, 2020, we published a direct final rule and
accompanying proposed rule notifying the public that we had received
CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declarations from New Mexico and
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County for existing OSWI (85 FR 2316; 85 FR
2359). These negative declarations certify that existing OSWI subject
to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA do not exist
within the specified jurisdictions in New Mexico. In the January 15,
2020, rulemakings, we proposed and finalized to accept the negative
declarations and amend the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in
accordance with CAA requirements. The direct final rule was published
without prior proposal because we anticipated no adverse comments. We
stated in the direct final rule that if we received relevant adverse
comments by February 14, 2020, we would publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register. We received a relevant adverse comment on the
direct final rule, and we withdrew the direct final rule on March 23,
2020 (85 FR 16270).
    On September 28, 2020, we published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (85 FR 60746). The SNPRM supplemented the
proposal published on January 15, 2020, where we proposed to notify the
public that we received CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declarations
from New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for
existing OSWI; these negative declarations certify that existing OSWI
subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA do
not exist within the specified jurisdictions in New Mexico. In order to
reaffirm and clarify the prior negative declaration, New Mexico
submitted a revised negative declaration for incinerators subject to
the OSWI EG by letter dated June 15, 2020; this letter clarifies that
incinerators (including OSWI and air curtain incinerators (ACI))
subject to the OSWI EG do not exist within its air quality
jurisdiction. In the SNPRM, we appropriately expanded the inclusion of
the facilities addressed in the negative declarations from New Mexico
and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County from ``existing OSWI'' to
``incinerators subject to the OSWI EG''. The term ``incinerators
subject to the OSWI EG'' is more technically and legally accurate as
all facilities affected by the OSWI EG are required to be addressed in
state plans and negative declarations. The Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County negative declaration letter that was submitted on December 13,
2006, appropriately addressed the subject facilities. Details on CAA
sections 111(d) and 129, the OSWI EG, and the negative declarations
submitted by New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, can be found
in the September 28, 2020, supplemental proposal.
    All comments received on the original proposal and on the
supplemental proposal are addressed in this final rule. As detailed
below, we received one comment on the direct final rule and
accompanying proposed rule during the public comment period that closed
on February 14, 2020.\1\ No comments were received on the supplemental
proposal during the comment period that closed on October 28, 2020. Our
response to the comment received is presented below. After careful
consideration of the comments, we have decided to finalize our action
with no changes from the proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Document ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0513-0001 (direct final
rule) & EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0513-0002 (proposed rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comment

    Comment: The commenter stated that the EPA should not allow for
negative declarations and should ensure the State of New Mexico has a
regulation in place to control emissions from solid waste incineration
units throughout the State. The commenter adds that even though the
State says they do not have any units subject to this regulation, the
EPA should require the State to develop and implement a regulation in
case a new source is constructed in the State. The

commenter asserts that sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require
states to develop a regulation for the control of emissions from these
units and, therefore, the EPA must require states to develop and
implement a new regulation to control emissions from these units.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's statements that the EPA
should not allow for negative declarations. Federal regulations at 40
CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 specifically provide that if there are no
existing sources of the designated pollutants in the state, the state
may submit a letter of certification to that effect (i.e., a negative
declaration) in lieu of a plan, which exempts the state from the 40 CFR
part 60, subpart B, requirement to submit a CAA section 111(d)/129
plan.
    We also disagree with the commenter's statements that the EPA
should require the State to develop and implement a regulation in case
a new source is constructed in the State. State plans under CAA section
111(d)/129 apply only to existing facilities. The designated facilities
to which the OSWI EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF) apply are OSWI and
certain ACI \2\ that commenced construction on or before December 9,
2004, and were not modified or reconstructed on or after June 16, 2006,
as specified in 40 CFR 60.2991 and 60.2992, with limited exceptions as
provided under 40 CFR 60.2993. Any incinerator (OSWI or certain ACI)
\3\ that commenced construction after December 9, 2004, or that
commenced reconstruction or modification on or after June 16, 2006,
would be subject to the OSWI New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE.\4\ The negative declarations
for incinerators subject to the OSWI EG were submitted to the EPA by
the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the City of
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department (AEHD) on June 15, 2020,
and December 13, 2006, respectively. In addition, the EPA proposed
revisions to the OSWI EG and NSPS on August 31, 2020 (85 FR 54178).
When the EPA finalizes the revisions to the OSWI EG,\5\ each state (and
air quality control jurisdiction) will need to submit a negative
declaration or plan, as applicable, for those sources subject to the
requirements of the final revised OSWI EG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The air curtain incinerators (ACI) subject to the OSWI EG at
40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF, do not fit the definition of a
``OSWI,'' as defined in the OSWI EG. See 40 CFR 60.2994(b) and
60.3078.
    \3\ These OSWI and ACI are those incinerators described under
the OSWI NSPS, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE, at 40 CFR
60.2977 and 60.2888(b). The incinerators to which the OSWI NSPS
apply are specified in 40 CFR 60.2885 and 60.2886, with limited
exceptions as provided under 40 CFR 60.2887.
    \4\ The NSPS are developed and implemented by the EPA and are
delegated to the states. The OSWI NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
EEEE) are incorporated by reference in the New Mexico State
regulations at 20.2.77 NMAC, New Source Performance Standards, and
in the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County regulations at 20.11.63 NMAC,
New Source Performance Standards for Stationary Sources (83 FR
46107, September 12, 2018; 80 FR 8799, February 19, 2015).
    \5\ The court ordered deadline to promulgate the final OSWI
review is May 31, 2021. Sierra Club v. Wheeler, 330 F. Supp. 3d 407.
(D.D.C. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    In this final action, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart
GG, to reflect receipt of the negative declaration letters from NMED
and AEHD received on June 15, 2020, and December 13, 2006,
respectively, certifying that there are no existing incinerators
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF, in their respective
jurisdictions in accordance with 40 CFR 60.23(b), 62.06, and 60.2982
and sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA
section 111(d)/129 submission that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C.
7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and FFFF; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart
A. With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities
received by the EPA from states, the EPA's role is to notify the public
of the receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62
accordingly. 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);
     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 the 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).
    This rule also does not have Tribal implications because it will
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, 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 June 4, 2021. 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 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: March 24, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 62 as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. Add an undesignated center heading and Sec.  62.7893 to read as
follows:

Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration Units

Sec.  62.7893  Identification of plan--negative declarations.

    Letters from the New Mexico Environment Department and the City of
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department dated June 15, 2020, and
December 13, 2006, respectively, certifying that there are no
incinerators subject to the Other Solid Waste Incineration units (OSWI)
Emission Guidelines, at 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF, within their
respective jurisdictions in the State of New Mexico.

[FR Doc. 2021-06526 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62584-62588]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26336]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76127; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, Amending Section 907.00 of the Listed
Company Manual (the ``Manual'') To (i) Amend the Suite of Complimentary
Products and Services That Are Offered to Certain Current and Newly
Listed Companies, (ii) Update the Value of Complimentary Products and
Services Offered to Listed Companies, and (iii) Provide That
Complimentary Products and Services Would Also Be Offered to Companies
That Transfer Their Listing to the Exchange From Another National
Securities Exchange

October 9, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On August 11, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend section 907.00 of the listed company
manual (``Manual'') to amend the suite of complimentary products and
services that are offered to certain current and newly listed companies
and update the value of complimentary products and services offered to
listed companies. In addition, the proposal would separate companies
that transfer their listing to the Exchange from another national
securities exchange to a new category and expand the complimentary
products and services offered to such transfer companies. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August
25, 2015.\3\ No comment letters were received in response to the
Notice. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75740 (August 19,
2015), 80 FR 51617 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    In December 2013, the Exchange adopted a rule to expand the suite
of complimentary products and services that it offers to certain
current and newly listed companies on the Exchange.\4\ Under this rule,
certain

companies currently listed on the Exchange (``Eligible Current
Listings'') are offered a suite of complimentary products and services
that vary depending on the number of shares of common stock or other
equity security that a company has outstanding. The Exchange presently
offers a suite of complimentary products and services to (i) any U.S.
company that lists common stock on the Exchange for the first time and
any non-U.S. company that lists an equity security on the Exchange
under Section 102.01 or 103.00 of the Manual for the first time,
regardless of whether such U.S. or non-U.S. company conducts an
offering and (ii) any U.S. or non-U.S. company emerging from a
bankruptcy, spinoff (where a company lists new shares in the absence of
a public offering), or carve-out (where a company carves out a business
line or division, which then conducts a separate initial public
offering) (collectively, ``Eligible New Listings''). Currently,
companies that transfer their listing to the Exchange are offered
complimentary products and services on the same terms as Eligible
Current Listings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70971 (Dec. 3,
2013), 78 FR 73905 (Dec. 9, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-68) (``December 2013
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 907.00 of the Manual to (i)
amend the suite of complimentary products and services that are offered
to Eligible Current Listings and Eligible New Listings, (ii) update the
value of complimentary products and services offered to such companies,
and (iii) provide that any U.S. or non-U.S. company that transfers its
listing of common stock or equity securities, respectively, to the
Exchange from another national securities exchange (``Eligible Transfer
Companies'') would be eligible to receive an enhanced package of
complimentary products and services comparable to the package offered
to Eligible New Listings, with the exception of corporate governance
tools.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Eligible transfers currently receive complimentary products
and services, if eligible, under the ``currently listed issuers''
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to update the approximate commercial value of
the following offerings to Eligible Current Listings, Eligible New
Listings, and Eligible Transfer Companies: Market surveillance products
and services from $45,000 to $55,000 per annum, corporate governance
tools from $20,000 to $50,000 per annum, web-hosting products and
services from a range of $12,000-16,000 to $16,000 per annum, market
analytics products and services from $20,000 to $30,000 per annum, and
news distribution products and services from $10,000 to $20,000 per
annum. The Exchange also proposes to include web-casting services (with
a commercial value of approximately $6,500 annually) as a separate
category of complimentary products and services offered to certain
issuers.\6\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to add whistleblower
hotline services (with a commercial value of approximately $4,000
annually) to the list of services that it offers to all listed
companies for a period of 24 months. The whistleblower hotline services
will replace data room services and virtual investor relation tools
(with a commercial value of $15,000-$20,000) as complimentary products
offered to all listed issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The web-hosting product offered by the Exchange provides
eligible issuers with a Web site containing business content that
can be viewed by investors. Web-casting services enable companies to
host interactive web-casts to communicate with investors. Eligible
companies will receive four interactive web-casts each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, all listed issuers receive some complimentary products
and services through NYSE Market Access Center. The Exchange also
offers Eligible Current Listings a suite of products and services,
varying based on the number of shares such companies have issued and
outstanding. Eligible Current Listings that have at least 270 million
shares issued and outstanding (``Tier One Eligible Current Listing'')
are presently offered (i) a choice of market surveillance, corporate
governance tools and advisory services or market analytics products and
services and (ii) web-hosting products and services, on a complimentary
basis. Eligible Current Listings that have between 160 million and up
to 270 million shares issued and outstanding (``Tier Two Eligible
Current Listing'') are presently offered a choice of market analytics,
corporate governance tools, or web-hosting products and services. The
Exchange proposes to amend Section 907.00 to delete corporate
governance tools and advisory services from the suite of products
offered to a Tier One Eligible Current Listing and corporate governance
tools from the suite of products offered to a Tier Two Eligible Current
Listing. In both cases, the proposed rule replaces the deleted service
with web-casting products and services.
    The Exchange currently offers Eligible New Listings different
products and services based on such companies' global market value.
Eligible New Listings with a global market value of $400 million or
more (each a ``Tier A Eligible New Listing'') are presently offered
web-hosting and news distribution products and services for a period of
24 months and either (i) market surveillance products and services for
a period of 12 calendar months from the date of listing or (ii) a
choice of market analytics products and services or corporate
governance tools for a period of 24 calendar months from the date of
listing. Eligible New Listings with a global market value of less than
$400 million (each a ``Tier B Eligible New Listing'') are presently
offered web-hosting and news distribution products and services for a
period of 24 months from the date of listing. The Exchange proposes to
amend Section 907.00 to offer 24 months each of market analytics,
market surveillance products, web-hosting, web-casting, corporate
governance tools, and news distribution products and services to Tier A
Eligible New Listings. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete
text from Section 907.00 that discusses providing market surveillance
products and services for only 12 months, as well as the option for
continuing such services at the end of the initial 12 month period. The
proposed rule further amends Section 907.00 to offer 24 months of web-
casting, market analytics, and corporate governance tools to Tier B
Eligible New Listings, in addition to the currently-offered web-hosting
and news distribution products.
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, Eligible Transfer Companies
would be offered a package of complimentary products and services that
are similar to Eligible New Listings, with one exception.\7\ The one
difference between the packages is that the Exchange will not offer
corporate governance tools to Eligible Transfer Companies, while
Eligible New Listings will receive this service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted above, the Exchange proposes to offer Eligible
Transfer Companies a package of complimentary products and services
comparable to the package that it offers to Eligible New Listings.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to utilize the same metric, i.e.,
global market value, to determine eligibility for each designation
so as to avoid confusion. Currently, transfer companies may receive
complimentary products and services if they qualify to be designated
as an Eligible Current Listing, such designation being based on the
number of outstanding shares of a company's equity securities. Under
the proposed rule change, Eligible Transfer Companies with a global
market value of $400 million or more will be eligible to receive a
suite of complimentary products and services valued at $127,500 per
year for two years and Eligible Transfer Companies with a global
market value of less than $400 million will be eligible to receive a
suite of complimentary products and services valued at $72,500 per
year for two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the timing of complimentary products and services, the
proposed rule amends Section 907.00 to specify that if an Eligible New
Listing or Eligible Transfer Company

begins using a particular service within 30 days after the date of
listing, the complimentary period begins on such date of first use. In
all other instances, the complimentary period begins on the listing
date.
    In addition to the foregoing, the Exchange proposes making several
changes to its rule to reflect a change in terminology. The proposed
rule change amends Section 907.00 to change the terms ``newly listed
issuer'' and ``currently listed issuers'' to ``Eligible New Listing''
and ``Eligible Current Listings,'' respectively. The Exchange also
proposes to amend Section 907.00 to include a definition of Eligible
Transfer Companies.\8\ Accordingly, since Eligible Transfer Companies
would be a separate category of issuer under the proposed rule, the
Exchange stated in its filing that it does not believe there could be
any inference that a transfer company would be included in the
definition of an Eligible New Listing. Therefore, the Exchange proposes
to delete the exception for companies that are transferring their
listing from another national securities exchange from the current
definition of newly listed issuers, which would be renamed Eligible New
Listing under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes of this Section 907.00, the term ``Eligible
Transfer Company'' means any U.S. or non-U.S. company that transfers
its listing of common stock or equity securities, respectively, to
the Exchange from another national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the first paragraph of Section
907.00 of the Manual to specify that it will offer certain
complimentary products and services, and access to discounted third-
party products and services through the NYSE Market Access Center to
both currently and newly listed issuers, whereas previously it stated
such services were only offered to currently listed issuers.
    While the Exchange will implement the proposed rule upon approval,
any Eligible New Listing that listed on the Exchange prior to approval
of the proposed rule will continue to receive services under the terms
of the current rule. Therefore, for as long as any Eligible New Listing
is receiving services under the terms of Section 907.00 of the Manual
as currently in effect, the Exchange will maintain a link to such
section in the Introductory Note to Section 907.00.
    With respect to Eligible Current Listings, to the extent that the
Exchange has already paid a third-party provider (prior to approval)
for corporate governance services to an Eligible Current Listing, such
complimentary service will continue until the payments run out. Once
any pre-approval payments run out, such services will be discontinued.
The Exchange expects all corporate governance services to Eligible
Current Listings to be completely discontinued no later than early
2016.
    The specific products and services offered by the Exchange will be
developed by the Exchange or by third-party vendors. In its filing, the
Exchange represented that NYSE Governance Services \9\ will offer and
develop the corporate governance tools, but will not provide any other
service related to the proposed rule. NYSE Governance Services is an
entity that is owned by the Exchange's parent company that provides
corporate governance, risk and compliance services to its clients,
including companies listed on the Exchange. According to the Exchange,
companies that are offered these products are under no obligation to
accept them and a company's listing on the Exchange is not conditioned
upon acceptance of any product or service. Moreover, the Exchange
represents that, from time to time, companies elect to purchase
products and services from other vendors at their own expense rather
than accepting comparable products and services offered by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In its filing, NYSE stated its belief that NYSE Governance
Services is not a ``facility'' of the Exchange as defined in 15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(2), and noted that its proposed rule change is being
filed with the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act because
it relates to services offered in connection with a listing on the
Exchange. See Notice supra note 3. The Commission notes that the
definition of a ``facility'' of an exchange is broad under the Act,
and ``includes its premises, tangible or intangible property whether
on the premises or not, any right to the use of such premises or
property or any service thereof for the purpose of effecting or
reporting a transaction on an exchange . . . and any right of the
exchange to the use of any property or service.'' The Commission
further notes that any determination as to whether a service or
other product is a facility of an exchange requires an analysis of
the particular facts and circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act.\10\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) \11\ and (5) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that the proposed rule is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
Exchange members, issuers, and other persons using the Exchange's
facilities, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. Moreover, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with 6(b)(8) of
the Act \13\ in that it does not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange proposes to alter the
complimentary products and services it offers companies. Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to (i) remove corporate governance tools and
advisory services for Tier One companies, (ii) remove corporate
governance tools for Tier Two companies, (iii) expand the services
provided to Tier A Eligible New Listings to include all of the services
listed, as described above, for a period of 24 months, not just provide
a choice of services, (iv) expand the services provided to Tier B
Eligible New Listings to include market analytics and corporate
governance tools, (v) offer Eligible Transfer Companies the same
products and services offered to Eligible New Listings, except for
corporate governance tools,\14\ (vi) provide web-casting to Tier One,
Tier Two, Tier A, and Tier B companies, and (vii) replace data room
services and virtual investor relation tools available to all issuers
annually with a whistleblower hotline for a period of 24 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Because the Exchange is proposing to offer Eligible
Transfer Companies a package of complimentary benefits similar to
the benefits offered to Eligible New Listings, the Exchange also
proposes using the same metric, i.e., global market value, to
determine eligibility for certain products and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for the
Exchange to revise the products and services it offers to companies.
The Exchange has represented that the corporate governance services are
not as helpful to more established companies as they are to newly
listed companies and that web-casting may be more useful to them.\15\
According to the Exchange, the corporate governance products currently
offered to Eligible Current Listings are in low demand. The Exchange
believes replacing such offerings with web-casting would be more
beneficial to listed companies who utilize this service in connection
with quarterly earnings releases. The Commission believes that, based
on NYSE's representations, replacing a little-

utilized service by companies already listed with one that could help
companies communicate better with shareholders is reasonable and
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to expand
the suite of complimentary products and services it offers to Tier A
and Tier B Eligible New Listings, because such companies are listing on
the Exchange for the first time and frequently have greater needs with
respect to developing their corporate governance and shareholder
outreach capabilities.\16\ Moreover, the Exchange has represented that
it faces competition in the market for listing services.\17\ As part of
this competition, the Exchange seeks to entice Nasdaq-listed companies
to transfer their listing to the Exchange. The Exchange competes in
part by improving the quality of the services that it offers to listed
companies. NYSE believes that offering transfers from Nasdaq a similar
package to that currently offered to NYSE listed companies transferring
to Nasdaq, as well as new listings on Nasdaq, should enhance its
ability to compete for listings. According to the Exchange, by offering
products and services on a complimentary basis and ensuring that it is
offering the services most valued by its listed issuers, it improves
the quality of the services that listed companies receive.\18\
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed rule reflects
the current competitive environment for exchange listings among
national securities exchanges, and is appropriate and consistent with
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.\19\ Further, by extending the provision of
certain complementary services (as listed above) to Tier A and Tier B
Eligible New Listings to 24 months and by entitling Eligible Transfer
Companies to receive these products and services, other than corporate
governance tools, on similar terms as Eligible New Listings, the
proposed change enables the Exchange to better compete for new
listings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission believes that it is appropriate for the
Exchange to offer varying services to different categories of issuers.
The Commission has previously found that the tiers originally
established under the corporate products and services rule was
consistent with the Act.\20\ The Commission further found that the
changes approved in the December 2013 Approval Order expanding the
complimentary products and services offered to some tiers but not
others was also justified, in part, based on the different-sized
companies within each tier and the amount of services they needed.\21\
According to the Exchange, the current proposal to expand the products
and services available to Tier A and Tier B Eligible New Listings
should ease the transition of companies becoming public for the first
time.\22\ In addition, as stated by the Exchange, it competes with
Nasdaq for listings and further, that Nasdaq offers similar products
and services to new listings, including transfers.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65127 (Aug. 12,
2011), 76 FR 51449 (Aug. 18, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-20) (``Approval
Order''). In particular, the Approval Order states that while not
all issuers receive the same level of services, NYSE has stated that
trading volume and market activity are related to the level of
services that the listed companies would use in the absence of
complimentary arrangements. The Commission found, among other
things, that ``. . . the products and services and their commercial
value are equitably allocated among issuers consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act, and the rule does not unfairly discriminate
between issuers consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.'' See
Approval Order, 76 FR at 51452.
    \21\ See December 2013 Approval Order, supra note 4.
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, under the proposal, while newly listed companies
and transfers will receive similar services there is one exception
involving corporate governance tools (valued at $50,000) which newly
listed companies will receive but not transfers. NYSE argues that this
approach is consistent with the changes being proposed for currently
listed companies in that in the Exchange's experience these tools are
not as useful for already established companies and as a result are in
low demand by such listed companies. Based on these representations,
the Commission does not believe that the exception for transfers
violates the unfair discrimination standard under Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act and appears to provide equal treatment among established
companies, whether currently listed or transferring. The Commission
notes that all listed companies will continue to receive some level of
free services, including the addition of the whistleblower hotline
services being approved in this order. The Commission also notes that
within each tier all issuers receive the exact same package of
services. The approval of this proposal, including the updated dollar
values and specific services provided within each tier, will therefore
help to ensure that individual listed companies are not given specially
negotiated packages of products and services to list or remain listed
which would raise unfair discrimination issues under the Act. The
Commission also believes that it is reasonable, and in fact required by
Section 19(b) of the Act, that the Exchange amend its rule to update
the commercial values of the products it offers to Eligible Current
Listings, Eligible Transfer Companies, and Eligible New Listings.\24\
This provides greater transparency to Exchange's rules and the fees,
and the value of free products and services, applicable to listed
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ We would expect the Exchange, consistent with Section 19(b)
of the Act, to periodically update the value of products and
services offered should they change. This would help to provide
transparency to listed companies on the value of the free services
they receive and the actual costs associated with listing on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that it is consistent with the Act for
the Exchange to allow the complimentary period for a particular service
offered to Eligible New Listings and Eligible Transfer Companies to
begin on the date of first use if a company begins to use the service
within 30 days after the date of listing. According to the Exchange,
companies listing on the Exchange for the first time often require a
period of time after listing to complete the contracting and training
process with vendors providing the complimentary products and
services.\25\ Therefore, many companies are not able to begin using the
suite of products offered to them immediately on the date of
listing.\26\ The Commission notes that this proposed change is
substantially similar to Nasdaq Rule IM-5900-7, which also allows a
company to begin using services within 30 days of listing.\27\ As noted
in the Nasdaq Order, the Commission believes that this change would
provide only a short window of additional time to allow companies to
finalize their contracts for the complimentary products and services,
and that this additional time would only be available to companies that
have already determined to list on the Exchange.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72669 (July 24,
2014), 79 FR 44234 (July 30, 2014) (approving Nasdaq-2014-058)
(``Nasdaq Order'').
    \28\ The Commission expects the Exchange to track the start (and
end) date of each free service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the factors noted above, the Commission continues to
believe that NYSE's products and services, and their commercial value,
are equitably allocated among issuers, consistent with Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act.\29\ The

Commission also continues to believe that the rule does not unfairly
discriminate between issuers, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.\30\ Finally, the Commission believes that the proposal does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, consistent with Section 6(b)(8)
of the Act.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\32\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2015-36), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26336 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1200 New York Avenue, N. W, Suite 400, Washington D. C. 20005 ( 202) 289 6868 November 21, 2003 Information Quality Guidelines Staff Mail Code 28220T, U. S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Re: Comments of Natural Resources Defense Council on 1986 EPA " Gold Book" ( Guidance for preventing asbestos related disease among auto mechanics) Request for correction: http:// www. epa. gov/ oei/ qualityguidelines/ af_ req_ correction_ sub. htm # 12.

To Whom This May Concern:

The Natural Resources Defense Council urges EPA to reject the " request for correction" made by attorneys at Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, asking that the agency withdraw the EPA report, Guidance for preventing asbestos related disease among auto mechanics ( the " Gold Book"). This letter urges EPA to take an action that would amount to a serious abuse of the Data Quality Act ( DQA) and applicable law. The information that Morgan, Lewis' lawyers seek to have EPA disavow   a warning to brake mechanics about the health hazards presented by asbestos in brake linings   is well documented and fully supported by published peer reviewed literature, EPA scientific review, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH) documents.

If EPA decides for any reason to revise the Gold Book, nothing should be done to weaken the warnings in it, which correctly state that mechanics face the risks of occupational cancer and asbestosis as a result of asbestos exposure from brake repair. NRDC also requests that EPA immediately identify who the clients of Morgan Lewis are. It is wholly inappropriate to count lawyers at a law firm with no record of working on automobile brakes as " affected parties" in the matter of warning brake mechanics about environmental cancer hazards, under EPA's rules for accepting requests for correction under the Data Quality Act.

There are numerous reports that have been published showing that brake friction product repair workers are at risk of occupational diseases from their asbestos exposure. Independent research announced by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH) in its alert issued on brake mechanics' asbestos hazards showed that very high exposures to asbestos, well above the peak exposure limit ( 10 fibers/ cc) of the 1972 OSHA asbestos standard, arose from beveling truck brake linings ( 37.3 fibers/ cc) and blow out of brakes ( 10.5 f/ cc). Exposures from 2 grinding used truck brake linings ( 3.75 f/ cc) were also well above the peak exposure limit of the current OSHA asbestos standard ( 1 f/ cc).

A report in the St. Louis Post Dispatch (" EPA warning on asbestos is under attack", St. Louis Post Dispatch Oct. 26, 2003 http:// www. stltoday. com/ stltoday/ news/ stories. nsf/ News/ 8D5A91107334195086256DCA0054D 4CA? OpenDocument& Headline= EPA+ warning+ on+ asbestos+ is+ under+ attack) ( hereby incorporated by reference) showed that OSHA inspections for asbestos exposure in workplaces where brake repair is done are virtually nonexistent. Unenforced OSHA standards in small, nonunionized workplaces are of no value in protecting mechanics. This situation will persist as long as asbestos containing friction products are used in this country. EPA's laudable efforts to ban asbestos in brakes and to get voluntary agreement among automakers came to naught in the early 1990s. The US Commerce Department reports that asbestos containing brake friction materials are still manufactured in the US. And the U. S. importation of friction materials, most of it from asbestos mining and manufacturing countries, has doubled from 1996 to 2002 to $ 125 million in total value.

EPA has received comments on this matter from Dr. Richard Lemen and Dr. James Leigh, explaining that the medical and scientific literature, and the records of the Mesothelioma Register of Australia confirm that mechanics have the occupational hazards of the characteristic asbestos diseases asbestosis and mesothelioma. Dr. Lemen is a former Director of NIOSH, consultant to the World Health Organization, and author of numerous scientific reports on the epidemiology of asbestos disease. He is one of the leading authorities on asbestos in the world. Dr. Leigh is also a leading authority on asbestos and mesothelioma, having served in managing the Australian Mesothelioma Register, the best systematic accounting of mesothelioma incidence and causation in the world. Dr. Leigh has published numerous articles on his findings in the peer reviewed medical literature, and has commented to EPA that his data overwhelmingly support the conclusion that brake mechanics have a much higher incidence of mesothelioma than persons unexposed to asbestos.

Dr. Barry Castleman has also written to EPA about this matter, urging that EPA strengthen its efforts to warn mechanics about their asbestos risks and means to reduce them. Castleman's book, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, was cited as an authority by EPA in the opening statement of the U. S. government, in the case before the World Trade Organization in 1999, in which the US filed a third party brief opposing Canada's effort to strike down the ban on asbestos by France. Castleman's book has a lengthy chapter on the hazards of asbestos to brake mechanics ( pp. 539 580). In the following chapter, Company Knowledge, Castleman refers to internal ( 1976 and 1978) memos of a major U. S. brake manufacturer, Raymark, expressing concern over the hazard to consumers from surface dust, just from unpackaging asbestoscontaining friction materials ( pp. 591 592).

Finally we urge EPA to give appropriate weight to the concerns expressed by Congressmen Waxman, Miller, Tierney, Owens, and Kucinich in their letter to EPA of October 16, 2003. The Members of Congress strongly opposed the request to withdraw and disaffirm the Gold Book. This view was supported by reference to the report by Lorimer and others ( including Selikoff), finding asbestosis in mechanics. The Members of Congress further noted the importance of 3 medical testimony on the Australian Mesothelioma Register data, on mesothelioma in mechanics, in establishing that chrysotile asbestos causes mesothelioma in the WTO asbestos case. Both their letter and that of Dr. Lemen stressed that there is no scientific basis for claims that short chrysotile asbestos fibers, which are the preponderant type found in the pleurae of individuals exposed to even mixed forms of asbestos, do not cause cancer. They cited the latest report on this from Suzuki and others of the Mt. Sinai medical group assembled by the legendary Dr. Irving Selikoff. The Congressional letter further admonishes EPA to heed the advice of its consultants, Global Environment and Technology Foundation whose report, Asbestos Strategies ( May 16, 2003; http:// www. getf. org/ asbestosstrategies/) " confirms the concern over continuing use of asbestos in friction materials in the US and the need for ` coordinated effort to educate consumers, employers, and building owners about products with commercially added asbestos'."

We concur as well with the concerns implied in the Congressional letter under " Further Information" requested from EPA and OSHA. Far from withdrawing from warning mechanics about asbestos, EPA should be aggressively getting the word out on the hazards and how to reduce them, assuring that imported asbestos friction products carry required warning labels, and promoting the use of asbestos free friction materials by federal government agencies. EPA should also promoting the use of state of the art industrial hygiene measures in maintenance of government vehicles and substitution using asbestos free friction materials by federal government agencies.

Therefore, we respectfully urge EPA to reject the Morgan, Lewis DQA petition as inconsistent with the terms of the DQA, and as unfounded and contrary to the findings in published, peer reviewed literature, EPA reviews, NIOSH data, and available scientific information. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Erik D. Olson Senior Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council Jennifer Sass, Ph. D. Senior Scientist Natural Resources Defense Council


Report (Propiconazole): Lab Project Number: 943126: 800-97. Unpublished
study prepared by Novartis Crop Protection AG. 64 p. {OPPTS 870.4200}

93194035	Gillis, J.; Tisdel, M. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary
of MRID 00129918 and Related MRIDs 00074494, 00151502. Combined Chronic
Oncogenicity/ Toxicity Study in Rats: Study # 193/8284. Prepared by
Huntingdon Research Centre. 15 p.

93194037	Gillis, J.; Tisdel, M. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary
of MRID 00129570 and Related MRIDs 00084153, 00151503, 00130844.
Long-Term Feeding Study in Mice: Propiconazole: Study # 196/81827.
Prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 14 p.

83-3       Teratogenicity -- 2 Species

58604	Fritz, H.; Becker, H. (1979) Report on CGA 64'250 Tech.:
Teratology Study (Seg. II) in Rats: Project No. 790011. (Unpublished
study received Jan 28, 1981 under 100-618; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd.,
Switzerland, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.;
CDL:244271-O)

58605	Fritz, H.; Becker, H. (1979) Report on CGA 64'250 Tech.:
Teratology Study (Seg. II) in Rabbits: Project No. 790009. (Unpublished
study received Jan 28, 1981 under 100-618; prepared by Ciba- Geigy Ltd.,
Switzerland, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greens- boro, N.C.;
CDL:244271-P)

132915	Clapp, M.; Killick, K.; Hollis, K.; et al. (1983) Triazole
Alanine: Teratogenicity Study in the Rat: Report No. CTL/P/875. (Unpub-
lished study received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by Imperial
Chemical Industries Plc., U.K., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp.,
Greensboro, NC; CDL:072208-H)

143454	Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1984) Response by Ciba-Geigy to the April 12,
1984 Letter Regarding Rat and Rabbit Teratology Studies with CGA-64250
Technical. Unpublished compilation. 467 p.

163322	Conn, R. (1986) Letter sent to H. Jacoby dated Sep 4, 1986: Tilt
Fungicide ...: Additional teratology information. Prepared by Ciba-Geigy
Corp. 3 p.

164800	Raab, D.; Youreneff, M.; Giknis, L.; et al. (1986) CGA-64250
Tech- nical: A Teratology Study in New Zealand White Rabbits: Toxico-
logy/Pathology Report 86043 (MIN 852172). Unpublished study prepared by
Ciba-Geigy Corp. 437 p.

40425001	Giknis, M. (1987) CGA-64250 Technical: Teratology (Segment II)
Study in Rats: Laboratory Project ID 86004. Unpublished study prepared
by Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Pharmaceuticals Div.. 425 p.

40425002	Mallows, S.; Levy, E.; Goknis, M.; et al. (1987) CGA-64250: A
Modified Teratology (Segment II) Study in Albino Rats ...: Laboratory
Project ID 86189. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corporation.
408 p.

40425004	Raab, D.; Youreneff, M.; Giknis, M.; et al. (1987)
Propiconazole: A Teratology Study in New Zealand Rabbits: Final Report
Amendment No. 1: Laboratory Project ID 86043. Unpublished study prepared
by Ciba-Geigy Corporation. 125 p.

93194038	Gillis, J.; Tisdel, M. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary
of MRID 40425001. Teratology Study in Rats: Propiconazole: Study # MIN
852148. Prepared by CIBA-GEIGY Corp. 12 p.

93194039	Gillis, J.; Tisdel, M. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary
of MRID 40425002. Modified Teratology Study in Rats: Propiconazole:
Study # MIN 862244. Prepared by CIBA-GEIGY Corp. 12 p.

93194040	Gillis, J.; Tisdel, M. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary
of MRID 00164800 and Related MRIDs 40425004. Teratology Study in
Rabbits: Propiconazole: Study # MIN 852172. Prepared by CIBA-GEIGY Corp.
12 p.

83-4       2-generation repro.-rat

132916	Birtley, R. (1983) Triazole Alanine: Preliminary Reproduction
Study in the Rat: Report No. CTL/L/470. (Unpublished study received Dec
12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by Imperial Chemical In- dustries Plc.,
U.K., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:072208-I)

132917	Birtley, R.; Milburn, G.; Corrigan, M.; et al. (1983) Triazole
Alanine: Rat Multigeneration Study: CTL Study No. RR0255/F0, Parental
Generation and RR0255/F1, Subsequent Generation. Prog- ress rept., Jun
21, 1983. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617;
prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries Plc., U.K., submitted by
Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL: 072208-J)

133350	Fritz, H.; Giese, K.; Zak, F. (1981) Report on CGA 64250 Tech.:
2- Generation Study in Rats: Test No. 79 0010. (Unpublished study
received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd.,
Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:072206-K)

138167	Salamon, C.; Place, M.; Mayhew, D.; et al. (1984) Two-generation
Reproduction Study in Albino Rats with CGA-64250 Technical: Study No.
450-1202. Interim rept. (Unpublished study received Feb 8, 1984 under
100-617; prepared by Toxigenics, Inc., submit- ted by Ciba-Geigy Corp.,
Greensboro, NC; CDL:252368-A; 252369)

151514	Borders, C.; Salamon, C. (1985) Two-Generation Reproduction Study
in Albino Rats with CGA-64250 Technical: Toxigenics Study 450- 1202.
Unpublished study prepared by Toxigenics, Inc. 1886 p.

163164	Salamon, C. (1983) Two-generation Reproduction Study in Albino
Rats Using CGA-64250 Technical: Study No. 450-1202. Unpublished study
prepared by ToxiGenics, Inc. 20 p.

93194041	Tisdel, M. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary of MRID
00138167 and Related MRIDs 00151514, 00163164. Two-Generation
Reproduction Study in Rats: Study # 450-1202. Prepared by Toxigenics,
Inc. 12 p.

84-2       Interaction with Gonadal DNA

58601	Arni, P.; Muller, D. (1979) Salmonella/Mammalian-Microsome Muta-
genicity Test with CGA 64 250: No. of Experiment: 78/2577. (Un-
published study received Jan 28, 1981 under 100-618; prepared by
Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switzerland, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro,
N.C.; CDL:244271-L)

58602	Hool, G. (1979) Dominant Lethal Study: CGA 64 250: Mouse: No. of
Experiment: 790034. (Unpublished study received Jan 28, 1981 under
100-618; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switzerland, submit- ted by
Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:244271-M)

58603	Hool, G.; Langauer, M. (1979) Nucleus Anomaly Test in Somatic In-
terphase Nuclei: CGA 64 250: Chinese Hamster: No. of Experiment:
79-0805. (Unpublished study received Jan 28, 1981 under 100- 618;
prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switzerland, submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp.,
Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:244271-N)

132911	Herbold, B.; Lorke, D. (1983) THS 2212 Triazolylalanine:
Salmonella/Microsome Test for Point Mutagenic Effect: Report No. 11388.
(Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by
Bayer AG, W. Ger., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC;
CDL:072208-B)

132912	Herbold, B.; Lorke, D. (1982) THS 2212 (Triazolylalanine): Micro-
nucleus Test for Mutagenic Effect on Mice: Report No. 11054.
(Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by
Bayer AG, W. Ger., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC;
CDL:072208-D)

132913	Herbold, B. (1983) THS 2212 (Triazolylalanine): Pol A1 Test on E.
coli during Testing for Effects Harmful to DNA: Report No. 11390.
(Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under 100- 617; prepared by
Bayer AG, W. Ger., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC;
CDL:072208-E)

132914	Richold, M.; Allen, J.; Williams, A.; et al. (1981) Cell Trans-
formation Test for Potential Carcinogenicity of R152056: ICI 394A/81153;
CTL/C/1085. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617;
prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Eng., submitted by Ciba-Geigy
Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL: 072208-F)

133342	Strasser, F. (1982) L5178Y/TK +/- Mouse Lymphoma Mutagenicity
Test: CGA 64 250 (in vitro Test for Mutagenic Properties of Chemical
Substances in Mammilian Cells): Experiment # 811516. (Unpub- lished
study received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd.,
Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greens- boro, NC; CDL:072206-B)

133343	Arni, P. (1982) Saccharomyces cerevisiae D7/Mammalian-microsome
Mu- tagenicity Test in vitro with CGA 64 250 (Test for Mutagenic
Properties in Yeast Cells): Experiment No. 811558. (Unpublished study
received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by Ciba- Geigy Ltd.,
Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:072206-C)

133344	Strasser, F. (1982) Point Mutation Assay with Mouse Lymphoma
Cells Host-mediated Assay with CGA 64 250 (Test for Mutagenic Proper-
ties in Mammilian Cells): Experiment No. 811513. (Unpublished study
received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by Ciba- Geigy Ltd.,
Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:072206-D)

133345	Hool, G. (1982) Chromosome Studies in Male Germinal Epithelium:
CGA 64 250: Mouse (Test for Mutagenic Effects on Spermatogonia):
Experiment No. 811511. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under
100-617; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy
Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:072206-E)

133346	Hool, G. (1982) Chromosome Studies in Male Germinal Epithelium:
CGA 64 250: Mouse (Test for Mutagenic Effects on Spermatocytes): Ex-
periment No. 811512. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under
100-617; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy
Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:072206-F)

133347	Puri, E. (1982) Autoradiographic DNA Repair Test on Human Fibro-
blasts: CGA 64 250 (in vitro Test for DNA-damaging Properties):
Experiment No. 811655. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under
100-617; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy
Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:072206-G)

133348	Puri, E. (1982) Autoradiographic DNA Repair Test on Rat Hepato-
cytes: CGA 64 250 (in vitro Test for DNA-damaging Properties):
Experiment No. 811514. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under
100-617; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switz., submitted by Ciba-Geigy
Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:072206-H)

133349	Strasser, F. (1982) BALB/3T3 Cell Transformation Assay: CGA 64
250 (in vitro Test for Transformation-inducing Properties in Mammal- ian
Fibroblasts): Experiment No. 790806. (Unpublished study re- ceived Dec
12, 1983 under 100-617; prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switz., submitted
by Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL 072206-J)

133361	Watkins, P.; Rutty, D.; Topham, J.; et al. (1982) R152056:
3-(1,2, 4,-Triazol-1-yl) Alanine (ICI 156,342)--Micronucleus Test in CBC
Fl Mice: TOM/4. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1983 under 100-617;
prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries Plc., U.K., submitted by
Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL: 072208-C)

151504	Strasser, F. (1985) L5178Y+/- Mouse Lymphoma Mutagenicity Test:
CGA 64250: Supplement to the Report Dated August 10, 1982: Test No.
811516. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 8 p.

151505	Arni, P. (1985) Saccharomyces cerevisae D7/Mammalian-Microsome
Mutagenicity Test in vitro: CGA 64250: Supplement to the Re- port Dated
August 19, 1982: Test No. 811558. Unpublished study prepared by
Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 5 p.

151506	Hool, G. (1985) Chromosome Studies on the Germinal Epithelium of
Mouse Spermatogonia: CGA 64250: Supplement to the Report Dated August
31, 1982: Test No. 811511. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy
Corp. 4 p.

151507	Hool, G. (1985) Chromosome Studies on the Germinal Epithelium of
Mouse Spermatocytes: CGA 64250: Supplement to the Report Dated August
13, 1982: Test No. 811512: Test No. 811512. Unpublished study prepared
by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 3 p.

151508	Puri, E. (1985) Autoradiographic DNA Repair Test on Human Fibro-
blasts: CGA 64250: Supplement to the Report Dated August 12, 1985: Test
No. 811655. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba- Geigy Ltd. 10 p.

151509	Puri, E. (1985) Autoradiographic DNA Repair Test on Rat Hepato:
cytes: CGA 64250: Supplement to the Report Dated August 12, 1982: Test
No. 811514. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba- Geigy Ltd. 12 p.

151510	Hool, G. (1985) Sister Chromatid Exchange Study in Somatic Cells
of Chinese Hamster Bone Marrow: CGA 64250: Supplement to the Re- port
Dated October 18, 1982: Test No. 811515. Unpublished study prepared by
Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 2 p.

163163	Hool, G. (1982) Sister Chromatid Exchange Study: Test for Muta-
genic Effects on Bone Marrow Cells: CGA 64 250: Chinese Hamster:
Experiment No. 811515. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Limited.
8 p.

165468	Strasser, F. (1985) Point Mutation Assay with Mouse Lymphoma
Cells Host Mediated Assay: (Test for Mutagenic Properties in Mammalian
Cells): CGA 64250: Supplement to the Report Dated August 10, 1982: Test
No. 811513. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 4 p.

41594802	Deparade, E. (1983) CGA-64250 Technical:
Salmonella/Mammalian-Micro some Mutagenicity Test: Lab Project Number:
830121. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 31 p.

41594803	Strasser, F. (1987) CGA-64250 Technical: Micronucleus Test
(Chinese Hamster): Lab Project Number: 860359. Unpublished study
prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 28 p.

42050504	Ogorek, B. (1983) Intrasanguine Host-Mediated Assay with S.
typhim- urium: CGA-64250: Lab Project Number: 830120. Unpublished study
prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 21 p.

42050505	Strasser, F. (1984) Chromosome Studies on Human Lymphocytes in
vit- ro: CGA-64 250: Lab Project Number: 840025. Unpublished study
prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 19 p.

45215802	Weber, E. (1999) Assessment of Hepatic Cell Proliferation in
Male Mice (Propiconazole): Final Report: Lab Project Number: CB 97/23:
539-98. Unpublished study prepared by Novartis Crop Protection AG. 59 p.

93194042	Breckenridge, C. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary of
MRID 41594802. Salmonella/Mammalian-Microsome Mutagenicity Test:
Propiconazole: Study No. 830121. Prepared by Ciba-Geigy Limited. 12 p.

93194043	Breckenridge, C. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary of
MRID 41594803. Micronucleus Test - Chinese Hamster: Propiconazole: Study
No. 860359. Prepared by Ciba-Geigy Limited. 12 p.

93194044	Breckenridge, C. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary of
MRID 00133348 and Related MRIDs 00151509. DNA Repair Test, Rat
Hepatocytes: Propiconazole: Study # 811514. Prepared by CIBA-GEIGY
Limited. 12 p.

85-1       General metabolism

D

M

¢

¿

Â

Û

Ü

ô

ø

ù

ý

›

½

Ç

É

#

C

D

v

œ

À

Ü

ü

ý

š

›

×

 É

Ê

Ö

×

õ

ÿ

 h

  h

⸁ਝ萏֠␱币ꂄ愅̤摧㓙

ഀ׆Ā褐ༀ킄ᄂやㇽĤ葞ː葠ﴰ

萑ː葠ː摧㓙ఀ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

똀렍踚耤똆

耀Ȇ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

똀렍踚$똇

ȇ

옍

@

w

w

摧㓙

@

@

@

@

䀀Ȧ摧㓙

&

Ø	@

Ñ

Ò

C

Ñ

Ò

Ø

Ú

J

K

^

_

b

c

½

¾

F

L

S

Y

Z

`

a

b

½

&

&

 h

 h

 h

 h

옍

$

$

 h

옍

Ð@

&

¶

&

&

&

&

옍

옍

&

&

Ø	@

@

¤

$̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ĥ摧㓙$̀Ĥ옍)

&̀Ĥ옍)

摧㓙

š

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

騆

摧㓙

摧㓙

摧㓙

摧㓙

摧㓙

摧㓙

摧㓙

摧㓙

 h¢1

 h¢1

j

kdž

%

&

'

/

0

ý

þ

ÿ

ñ

ò

ó

. (1986) Propiconazole Animal Metabolism Update: Metabolism in Mice:
Dermal Absorption in the Rat: Report No. ABR-86071. Unpublished
compilation prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 10 p.

164795	Bissig, R. (1986) The Metabolism of [U-Carbon 14]-phenyl-CGA 64
250 in Mice after Pretreatment with Unlabelled CGA 64 250: Project
Report 6/86. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Limited. 52 p.

164796	Hamboeck, H. (1979) Distribution, Degradation and Excretion of
CGA 64 250 in the Rat: Project Report 24/79. Unpublished study pre-
pared by Ciba-Geigy Limited. 19 p.

164797	Muecke, W. (1981) The Major Metabolic Pathways of CGA 64 250 in
the Rat: Project Report 9/81. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba- Geigy
Limited. 13 p.

164798	Muecke, W. (1983) The Metabolism of CGA 64 250 in the Rats:
Project Report 24/83. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Limited.
145 p.

41326701	Cresswell, D. (1989) (U-carbon-14)-Phenyl CGA 64250:
Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion in the Rat: Lab
Project Number: 380/105. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton UK. 520
p.

41594804	Cresswell, D. (1989) U-?carbon 14|-phenyl CGA 64250:
Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion in the Rat: Lab
Project No. 380/105. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton UK. 520 p.

42403901	Mucke, W. (1983) The Metabolism of CGA-64250 in the Rat: Lab
Project Number: 24/83. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Ltd. 148
p.

93194045	Hochman, J. (1990) Ciba-Geigy Corp. Phase 3 Summary of MRID
41326701. Propiconazole - Rat Metabolism: Project 380/150. Prepared by
Hazleton UK. 17 p.

85-2       Dermal penetration

47154901	Schwartz, R. (2007) Studies of the Dermal Resorption of (Carbon
14)-Fenpropimorph. Project Number: WOL/07/2905. Unpublished study
prepared by Dr. Wolman GmbH. 125 p.

85-3       Dermal Penetration/Absorption

164469	Murphy, T.; Brown, K.; Doornheim, D.; et al. (1986) Dermal
Absorp- tion of [Carbon 14]-Propiconazole in Rats after a Ten-hour Ex-
posure Period: Report No. ABR-86053. Unpublished study prepared by
Ciba-Geigy Corp. 76 p.

164794	Ballantine, L. (1986) Propiconazole Animal Metabolism Update:
Metabolism in Mice: Dermal Absorption in the Rat: Report No. ABR-86071.
Unpublished compilation prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 10 p.

42415701	Murphy, T. (1986) Dermal Absorption of ?carbon
14|-Propiconazole: Addendum to ABR-86053: Lab Project Number: ABR-86064.
Unpublished study prepared by Ciba-Geigy Corp. 85 p.

45345901	Murphy, T. (2001) Dermal Absorption of (carbon
14)-Propiconazole: Addendum to ABR-86053: MRID 42415701: Lab Project
Number: 1596-01. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc. 7 p. {OPPTS 870.7600}

E. 	CHEMICAL NAMES AND STRUCTURES OF METABOLITES

Page  PAGE  58  of  NUMPAGES  58

         Acute RfD  =    30 mg/kg (NOAEL) = 0.30 mg/kg/day

  (Females 13-49)	           100 (UF)

                 Chronic RfD  =               (NOAEL) 10 mg/kg =  0.1

           (General Population)                    (UF) 100

         Acute RfD  =   	 30 mg/kg (NOAEL) =0.3 mg/kg/day

  (General Population)	           100 (UF)


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54478-54479]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1984-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

South Dakota; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-1984-DR), dated May 13, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 23, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota is hereby

amended to include the Individual Assistance program for the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 13, 2011.

    Charles Mix, Hughes, Stanley, and Union Counties for Individual
Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-22391 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60599-60601]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27520]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0011; FRL-9970-95]

Registration Review; Neonicotinoid Risk Assessments;
Neonicotinoid Benefits Assessments; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's (or Agency)
draft ecological non-pollinator risk assessment for the registration
review of imidacloprid, along with draft human health and non-
pollinator ecological risk assessments for the registration review of
clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, and opens a public comment
period on these assessments. This notice also announces the
availability of assessments of benefits of neonicotinoid insecticide
use in cotton and citrus. While EPA typically releases benefits
assessments along with the proposed interim decisions, EPA is releasing
and obtaining public comment on these two benefits assessments at an
earlier stage of the registration review process. These benefits
assessments will help EPA evaluate the impacts of potential measures to
reduce certain risks to pollinators identified in previously issued
preliminary pollinator risk assessments. EPA is not proposing any
mitigation at this stage, and anticipates that early input and
information from the public on the benefits of these compounds will be
helpful as EPA evaluates and considers the risks and the benefits of
the neonicotinoid insecticides. Finally, EPA is releasing a response to
public comments on the Agency's 2014 assessment of the benefits of
neonicotinoid seed treatments to soybean production. This assessment
and associated comments are available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0737.
Copies of all of the benefits assessments will be placed in the
individual chemical dockets for each of the four neonicotinoid
insecticides listed in Table 1 of Unit III.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest
provided in Table 1 of Unit III, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in Table 1 of Unit
III.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Dana Friedman, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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 a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Table 1 of Unit III.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in Table 1 of Unit III pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registration for the pesticides listed in Table 1 to ensure that they
continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration.

                          Table 1--Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Registration review  case name and                                                Chemical review manager and
                 No.                                  Docket ID No.                     contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothianidin, 7620...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0865                        Thomas Harty,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                347-0338.
Dinotefuran, 7441....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0920                        Steven Snyderman,
                                                                                [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Imidacloprid, 7605...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844                        Steven Snyderman,
                                                                                [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thiamethoxam, 7614...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0581                        Thomas Harty,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                347-0338.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or
ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table 1 in
Unit III. This Notice is announcing the availability of the human
health risk assessments and the ecological risk assessments for non-
pollinator species for clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran.
Preliminary pollinator-only ecological risk assessments for these
chemicals were previously issued in May 2017, and are available in the
individual chemical dockets. For imidacloprid, this Notice is
announcing the availability of the terrestrial non-pollinator
ecological assessment. A preliminary pollinator-only risk assessment
was issued in January 2016, an aquatic species-only ecological risk
assessment was issued in January 2017, and a human health risk
assessment was issued in September 2017. All of these assessments were
previously made available for comment and are available in the
imidacloprid docket.
    1. Other related information. Additional information on the
registration review status of the chemicals listed in Table 1, as well
as information on the Agency's registration review program and on its
implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.

     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: November 30, 2017.
Charles Smith,
Acting, Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-27520 Filed 12-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P