Inventory Update Rule Amendments Data Use Plan U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division August 23, 2002 Inventory Update Rule Amendments Data Use Plan This document provides an overview of uses of the data to be collected once the TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments ( IURA) are finalized. Specific examples, complete with sample mockup tables and reports, are included in the final section of this report.

I. Introduction The IURA will provide data on over 9,000 chemicals, including processing and use data for about 4,000 of those chemicals. The current IUR database is the backbone of almost all of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic's ( OPPT's) programs. It is the only broad scope database of chemical production available and, as mandated by law, is updated regularly to reflect changes in the dynamic chemical industry. The IUR Amendments ( IURA) will greatly enhance the utility of the IUR data by adding general exposure, processing, and use information to the bare bones production data currently collected. As with the Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) data EPA collects, it is impossible to predict all of the myriad uses for the IURA data. Just as the current IUR is used on a day to day basis within OPPT and the Agency at large, the improved IURA will be of even greater use, and will help EPA and others to make sound policy decisions regarding chemical safety.

EPA is authorized under TSCA to collect information on the chemical industry. EPA will use the IURA data to assist in prioritizing and assessing the potential risks presented by the use of thousands of chemicals in the United States. Not only will the IURA information enable the Agency to identify and begin to address potential risks faster, it will allow more effective and efficient use of Agency and other scarce public resources.

The need for EPA to properly allocate resources and set priorities for its programs has been widely recognized and documented. Reports by the Science Advisory Board (" Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection") and the National Academy of Public Administration (" Setting Priorities, Getting Results, A New Direction for EPA") recognize that EPA's ability to improve the way it sets priorities and allocates resources has been limited by the lack of current exposure data. The IURA data will improve the Agency's ability to identify chemical substances or industry sectors that may pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment.

In setting priorities for its programs, EPA utilizes a variety of paradigms. Most often, both the effects of the chemical substances on health and the magnitude of exposure to such chemical substances are factors in establishing priorities, assessing potential risks, and making risk management decisions. The IURA focuses on the exposure factor. 1Originally compiled in 1977, the TSCA Chemical Inventory is a comprehensive listing of chemicals in commerce in the United States. Chemicals are added to the Inventory when a Notice of Commencement ( NOC) is submitted to the Agency, after the chemical has been submitted to EPA's New Chemicals program.

2Manufacturers and importers of organic chemicals producing 10,000 lbs or more per site report under the current IUR. Chemicals excluded from the current IUR include polymers, inorganic substances, microorganisms, and naturally occurring chemical substances. Chemicals subject to reporting will be altered by the IURA to include inorganic chemicals but to exclude natural gas chemicals ( 6 specific substances). Additionally, the reporting threshold will be raised to 25,000 lbs or more per chemical per site.

3The Chemical Identifying number is required reporting for both the current IUR and the amended IUR; however, the IURA will limit the identifying number to only those three listed here. II. Description of Data IURA data will be submitted by manufacturers and importers of certain chemicals listed on the TSCA Chemical Inventory. 1 The TSCA Inventory does not include substances specifically excluded by statute or regulation, such as pesticides. Under the IURA, manufacturers and importers of subject chemicals will report the following for chemicals produced or imported in volumes of 25,000 lbs or greater per site ( not per company), to the extent that this information is known to or " reasonably ascertainable" by the submitter. ( data elements identified by an asterisk (*) are submitted through the current Inventory Update Rule2):

° * Parent company name ° Parent company Dun & Bradstreet number ° * Technical contact name, address, and phone number ° Technical contact e mail address ° * Plant site name, address, and Dun & Bradstreet number ° Plant site county ° * Chemical name and identifying number ( CAS registry number, accession number, or PMN case number) 3 ° * Site limited status ° * Activity ( is the chemical manufactured or imported?) ° * Production volume ° Number of workers reasonably likely to be exposed to the chemical ( reported in ranges) ° Maximum concentration of the chemical ( when leaving plant) ( reported in ranges) ° Physical form( s) and associated percent production volumes 4Certain multichemical petroleum streams and other specifically listed chemical substances are exempted from this part of the reporting, regardless of production volume. Subject inorganic chemicals will report this information beginning with the second reporting period following promulgation of the IURA. Manufacturers and importers of subject chemicals will also report the following for chemicals produced or imported in volumes of 300,000 lbs or greater per site ( not per company), to the extent that such information is " readily obtainable" by the submitter: 4 ° Industrial Processing and Use data S Type of Process or Use S North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) 5 digit code S Industrial Function Categories S Percent Production Volume S Number of Sites ( reported in ranges)

S Number of Workers ( reported in ranges)

° Commercial and Consumer End Use data S Commercial and Consumer Product Categories S Use in Children's Products S Percent Production Volume Associated with Each Category S Maximum Concentration Associated with Each Category ( reported in ranges)

Table 1 briefly discusses specific potential uses of each processing and use data element. The rest of this document discusses and provides examples of the overall use of the IURA data. 5 Table 1: Utility of IURA Processing and Use Data by Data Elements Data Elements Use of Data Element Consequence of Not Having Data Industrial Processing and Use Information Part III  Section I. Processing and Use Information Type of Process or Use ( code, CBI) The Type of Process or Use, along with NAICS and Industrial Function Category ( IFC) codes, provides basic information for EPA to develop potential exposure scenarios. This data element also affects EPA's decisionmaking during risk screening exercises. For example, a process and use code indicating repackaging ( PK: Processing   repackaging) would potentially indicate lower exposures than a process and use code indicating that a chemical is incorporated into a formulation or mixture ( PF: Processing   incorporating into formulation, mixture or reaction product.) Processing and use code descriptions contain basic TSCA statutory terms that are essential for characterizing exposures. Without these data, EPA must conservatively assume that chemicals are processed and used in the operations that result in potentially higher exposures and releases. The absence of these data may result in overly conservative characterizations of exposures.

NAICS ( code, CBI) NAICS information describes the industrial sectors associated with each industrial processing or use operation reported. Some EPA tools, such as EFAST ( Exposure, Fate Assessment Screening Tool), use industrial sector information to select streamflow distributions which are needed to estimate surface water concentrations and hence indirect human exposures and risks from ingestion of contaminated drinking water and contaminated fish as well as risk to aquatic organisms. Without this information, EPA must make assumptions and generalizations regarding industrial operations, which increases the opportunity for mischaracterization of industrial processes and releases and occupational, indirect human and environmental exposures associated with those processes.

Industrial Function Category ( code, CBI) The Industrial Function Category ( IFC) indicates the types of activities that workers may be involved in and, subsequently, the types of exposures they may encounter. EPA tools such as ChemSTEER ( Chemical Screening Tool for Exposures and Environmental Releases) use industrial function information to select specific scenarios for exposure and release estimates.

For example, a solvent that is used for cleaning and degreasing ( IFC U27   Solvents for cleaning and degreasing) would not have the same exposure and release assessment as a solvent used for chemical manufacture ( IFC U29   Solvents for chemical manufacture and processing). A cleaning and degreasing solvent may be used in a manner that directly exposes users to vapors, while a solvent used in manufacturing may be used in a closed system. Absence of the Industrial Function Category data will require EPA to make generic assumptions about how a chemical is processed and used. These assumptions may result in mischaracterized worker activities and occupational exposures to chemical substances,

which would lead to erroneous risk scenarios. Table 1: Utility of IURA Processing and Use Data by Data Elements Data Elements Use of Data Element Consequence of Not Having Data 6 % Production Volume (%, CBI) The Percent Production Volume (% PV) will enable EPA to allocate specific portions of a production volume to certain combinations of Processing and Use Categories, NAICS, and Industrial Function Categor codes. % PV is a direct input for the EPA ChemSTEER tool. For most chemicals, % PV is currently rarely available. EPA's new chemical PMN form does include this data element; however, the information is provided before the chemical is introduced to the market and is expected to change over time. ChemSTEER uses this data element to allocate exposures and releases to appropriate populations and media. Without Percent Production Volume, EPA will have to use a variety of other methods to estimate the production volume allocation,

resulting in conservative allocations to processing and use categories that could overestimate worker exposure, general population exposure, and environmental releases.

Number of Sites ( code, CBI) The Number of Sites enables EPA to estimate the extent of general population exposures, as well as to allocate releases to land, air, and water.

This data element is a direct input for the ChemSTEER and E FAST tools,

which were developed for EPA's new chemicals program but are also used to evaluate existing chemicals. The number of sites is a data element in the PMN submissions, but is not consistently provided. In instances where it is not provided and for existing chemicals, EPA must rely on Generic Scenarios and/ or past PMN cases that may not be good " use" analogs for a chemical currently under review ( see attached example 3 for a further discussion of generic scenarios). The number of sites directly affects the distribution of general population exposures as well as environmental releases. This data element, along with Number of Workers, would also provide exposure data for the Use Cluster Scoring System ( UCSS), a priority setting tool used to rank clusters of chemicals. [ A chemical cluster is a group of chemicals that perform a similar function ( e. g. surfactant).] The absence of the Number of Sites handicaps EPA's ability to provide the public with general population exposure information, as well as potential environmental release information. Table 1: Utility of IURA Processing and Use Data by Data Elements Data Elements Use of Data Element Consequence of Not Having Data 7 Number of Workers ( code, CBI) The Number of Workers provides an indication of the size of the potentially exposed working population. This data element is vital to chemical exposure screening since, in many cases, the highest potential for exposure occurs during the processing and use of a chemical. The Number of Workers is a primary input for the ChemSTEER tool and is used in conjunction with estimated chemical dose, a valuable input to screening chemicals for exposure risk. This data element would also provide much needed exposure data to the UCCS, which has been criticized in the past for the absence of such data. The Number of Workers is useful to make test rule exposure findings. Without these data,

EPA at times cannot proceed with a needed test rule, and may not be able to determine if a test rule is even needed. This information is also essential for evaluating occupational exposures. However, it is not typically available and is difficult to estimate. The best data available are the NOES data, which are limited due to age ( 20 years old) and scope.

EPA has been criticized by industry for using NOES data.

Commercial and Consumer End Use Exposure Related Data Part III  Section II. Commercial and Consumer End Use Exposure Related Data Commercial and Consumer Product Category ( code, CBI) The Commercial and Consumer Product Category indicates the types of products to which consumers and nonindustrial workers may be exposed.

The Commercial and Consumer Product Category is a direct input for EFAST ( E FAST Consumer Exposure Module). This information may also be useful in updating the Indoor Air Source Ranking Database ( SRD), a prioritysetting tool used by EPA in identifying potential chemicals used in products. The absence of these data would require EPA to make generic assumptions about how a chemical is used and what types of products contain certain chemical substances. This element is important in characterizing whether a chemical is used in consumer and commercial applications. Some of the most vulnerable populations such as the elderly and children could be exposed to chemicals of concern that have primarily commercial and consumer uses. Table 1: Utility of IURA Processing and Use Data by Data Elements Data Elements Use of Data Element Consequence of Not Having Data 8 Use in Children's Product ( y/ n/?, CBI) Identifying the presence of a chemical in products intended for use by children furthers the Agency's commitment to children's protection. Through collection of these data, EPA will obtain needed information regarding the use of inventory chemicals in children's products. Additionally, the Agency will be able to track changes from one reporting period to the next. Eliminating these data will deny EPA the opportunity to track changes in the use of various chemicals in children's products and will put the Agency in a serious information deficit in instances where concerns are raised about the use of specific chemicals in children's products. Children, an especially vulnerable subpopulation, may not be afforded protection from chemical exposures.

Percent Production Volume Associated with Each Category (%, CBI) This data element will enable EPA to allocate specific portions of a production volume among commercial and consumer end use categories.

This will allow EPA to input more accurate use volume information into the E FAST tool, which evaluates general population risks. Without these data, EPA will have to resort to conservative allocations of the production volume to consumer and commercial use categories that could overestimate general population exposure.

Maximum Concentration Associated with Each Category ( code, CBI) Chemical Concentration is an essential element of occupational exposure models used for screening chemicals. This data element also establishes upper limits for exposure and releases and is a direct input to the ChemSTEER and E FAST tools. Absence of chemical concentration would require EPA to use worst case chemical concentration estimates and would potentially generate overestimates of exposure. Errors in chemical concentration directly impact hazard rankings and cause relative risks to be misperceived. 9 III. Data Management OPPT's Information Management Division is responsible for receiving and managing the IURA data. When received, IURA reports will be quickly reviewed for completeness and entered into the IUR database. Both Agency staff and contractor support will be dedicated to IURA processing activities. Based on EPA experience with the 1998 IUR collection, a very high percentage of forms ( perhaps as high as 95%) will be submitted electronically, using IURA software. The use of electronic reporting will ensure that IURA data will be readily available and not subject to subsequent data entry errors. Additionally, the database will provide the IURA data in a form suitable for the OPPT analytical databases and tools.

EPA will begin processing upon receipt of the first IURA form. The agency expects to complete all data management activities, such as providing quality control for manually processed forms, ensuring that all chemicals reported are on the TSCA Inventory, investigating CBI claims, and identifying and combining joint submissions, within 5 months of the end of the reporting period. Any issues that arise after the completion date ( such as IUR corrections filed by industry) will be handled as expeditiously as possible.

IV. Discussion and Examples of Data Uses The IURA database will be a fairly shallow but broad collection of exposure related information from a small portion of the over 76,000 chemicals on the TSCA Chemical Inventory. Only TSCA provides the authority for EPA to collect this type of information  and to collect it regularly so that information remains current and trends can be identified. EPA will use this use and exposurerelated information database to:

° Support priority setting and risk based screening of chemicals ( e. g., IURA data can be used to provide a risk based context for hazard information being submitted under the HPV Challenge Program); ° Empower resource allocation decisions by enabling EPA to make science based decisions about which chemicals to focus its limited resources on for further review; ° Provide a first place to look when a new concern is identified; ° Provide an overview of chemical use and exposure, over time, in a unique database; ° Inform a variety of Agency and other programs, such as the TSCA testing program, OSW programs, and NIOSH, OSHA, and CPSC programs; ° Provide initial exposure information for the development of government, industry, and public programs, such as EPA's voluntary programs ( e. g., the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program ( VCCEP) or Design for the Environment ( DfE)); and ° Enhance EPA's ability to meet statutory obligations under the Government Performance and Results Act ( GPRA).

These are discussed in more detail below. 10 Supporting Risk Based Screening of Chemicals Data obtained through the IURA will provide EPA with general information on exposure to chemicals during their manufacture, processing, and use. Used in conjunction with hazard information from the HPV Challenge Program, the Voluntary Children's Chemical Exposure Program, and other sources, EPA will use the IURA data to identify priorities and make risk management decisions ( based upon appropriate additional information and/ or analyses). If the additional analysis indicates that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the Agency can take action to mitigate the risk.

To assess and rank relative risks, EPA will use tools such as the Use Cluster Scoring System ( UCSS), a flexible tool that groups chemical substances by relative risk and suggests alternative chemicals that can be used to minimize risk. Incorporating exposure data from the IURA and hazard data from other sources, EPA can use the UCSS to develop relative risk based rankings of chemicals and industries which may potentially expose workers, the general population, and the environment. Example 4, attached, further explains how the UCSS works. Priority setting using the IURA information in the UCSS will provide Agency decision makers with the information needed to determine where more detailed assessments are needed. These assessments could lead to regulatory actions, cooperative investigations with other agencies of the Federal Government, or other nonregulatory actions. IURA data will provide necessary information to initially screen chemicals, helping to prioritize and direct Agency actions to chemicals posing higher potential risks to workers, vulnerable subgroups, and the general population of the United States and will further the goal of creating a chemically safe America.

Empowering Resource Allocation Decisions Information is key to making good resource allocation decisions. The Agency needs more information on chemicals to determine where its programs should focus, and to determine which programs should get a greater emphasis, which programs are less effective, or which chemicals are of lesser concern. The IURA will provide information vital to these decisions. For example, the Agency could use potential exposure data for workers and children to identify EPA programs that may warrant a greater emphasis and perhaps higher budget considerations.

Providing a First Place to Look When a New Concern is Identified New human health and environmental concerns arise from many sources: the presence of persistent chemicals in species used for human consumption, the occurrence of unanticipated chemicals in human biological samples, association of environmental effects with untoward outcomes in fauna, and the occurrence of deleterious health effects in workers in selected occupations. The IURA will provide a readily available database that can be used to rapidly evaluate the existence of potential exposures. 11 Providing an Overview of Chemical Use and Exposure, over Time, in a Unique Database The IURA will require industry to assess the potential of worker, general population, and children's exposure to chemical substances. By highlighting these potential exposures, the IURA may motivate chemical producers to minimize exposure of workers, select alternative chemical substances that are less persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, and to carefully consider the use of chemical substances in products used by sensitive subpopulations, such as children. Quadrennial reporting of the IURA information allows the Agency and others to identify changes over time and to evaluate the effect of those changes.

The IURA data will also allow for trend analyses of chemicals, such as measuring success of a regulatory or voluntary program ( e. g., lead or DfE). The increasing or declining volumes of chemicals in certain use categories can be used as a measure of the effect of a program or focus. This is especially important in voluntary programs, where it can be difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of programs.

Informing a Variety of Agency and Other Programs The chemical industry is dynamic, as demonstrated by the 30% change in chemicals reported to the IUR from one reporting period to the next. The Agency needs updated information to allow its programs to be relevant and current. However, EPA's efforts to collect information on a variety of chemical substances have been hindered by a lack of resources and a disparity of methods and objectives. For example, NIOSH's National Occupational Exposure Survey ( NOES) data, which characterize worker exposure to chemicals and other hazards in the workplace, are over two decades old. EPA, as well as NIOSH, OSHA, and other concerned parties, requires a database that is current and able to readily provide data when a potential occupational hazard is identified. In addition to providing a rapid response, the IURA database will allow the Agency more effective and efficient use of limited resources in determining which occupational and environmental hazards of concern to investigate.

Providing Initial Exposure Information for the Development of Agency and Public Programs The IURA information will provide a starting point for the development of programs to identify chemicals and groups of chemicals based upon use or other exposure criteria. A broad based reservoir of information is needed to rank and compare all chemical substances. Data to be collected under the IURA will inform decision makers about alternative chemical exposures, and therefore potential risks, that should be considered before committing resources to more in depth study. This is anticipated to be especially true for subpopulations likely to be exposed to greater amounts of hazardous chemical substances, such as workers, or those likely to be more affected by exposures, such as children ( due to their smaller body mass). 12 Encouraging the Development of Information Needed for Industry Product Stewardship Programs IURA information can be used to start or improve industry product stewardship programs. By requiring industry to collect and report on the exposures of workers and others, this information will be brought to the attention of the chemical industry and may encourage companies to reduce potential exposures, possibly improving their public image.

Enhancing EPA's Ability to Meet Statutory Obligations Under GPRA Under the GPRA, EPA is accountable for using resources wisely and achieving program results. GPRA requires agencies to develop plans for what they intend to accomplish, measure how well they are doing, make appropriate decisions based on the information they have gathered, and communicate information about their performance to Congress and to the public. The IURA data, especially the new data on the potential exposure of workers and on the uses of the chemicals, will allow EPA to better allocate resources. As a result, EPA can meet GPRA goals in a more cost effective way.

Other Uses of IURA Data 1) The IURA will provide data needed to develop proactive strategies to identify and manage high risk chemicals and use activities. The IURA data can provide real data confirmation of assumed trends and practices.

2) The IURA data will improve analyses conducted under TSCA for both the existing chemicals program ( e. g., SIDS) and the new chemicals program ( e. g., evaluation of PMN submissions). For instance, the data will enhance industry specific occupational exposure and release estimate documents. These documents contain generic approaches used to develop screening level environmental release and occupational exposure estimates for new chemicals when actual data are not available.

3) IURA data will help build a more complete industry profile. A more complete profile would improve the accuracy of impact assessments of proposed rulemakings ( e. g., which chemicals are used in which industries, how many facilities in each sector may be affected by regulation pertaining to specific chemicals.)

4) EPA's sector based programs will benefit from access to a much broader set of chemical use data that can be characterized by type of process and industrial sector. Improvement will come from an enhanced ability to prioritize future efforts and more accurate analyses due to improved raw data. For example:

° The Design for the Environment ( DfE) program can access IURA data to decide where to focus future resources and effort for maximum positive effect. 13 ° The TRI program can use the IURA data to assess the need for future rulemaking with respect to chemicals and industries. IURA data will be useful in evaluating program scope and when considering either expansions or reductions. ° IURA data could help maximize the effectiveness of compliance assistance efforts, by guiding effort toward those sectors with the greatest potential for significant environmental releases or occupational and consumer exposures.

5) The IURA data will provide a broad framework to support exposure assessments. For example, it is essential to have broad and current exposure information to combine with the toxicity data generated under the High Production Volume ( HPV) Chemical initiative. In the absence of other information, the IURA will supply the initial information to help put the HPV hazard data into context, allowing the Agency to begin to prioritize and screen those chemicals for potential risk.

6) The IURA data will help identify potential pollutants of concern during sector based regulatory development efforts conducted under the Clean Water Act.

7) Over time, the IURA data will provide a broad set of chemical use and exposure related data for environmental performance tracking and measurement.

8) IURA data could be used to help shape green programs to target the sectors, processes, and chemicals with the greatest potential for exposure or risk reduction.

9) The IURA will provide broader, more up to date data on chemical use and potential exposure than other Federal programs such as the NIOSH National Occupational Exposure Survey ( NOES).

10) The production volume and NAICS code information can be used to estimate typical use rates for each industry sector when more detailed information is not available. Use rates are an estimation of the rate of use or consumption of a chemical ( typically) on a per site basis   different exposures are expected at sites with larger volumes than at sites with smaller volumes. These rates can be used by any program office to enhance an industry profile.

11) The production volume and NAICS code information can also be used in combination with release data from the TRI program to calculate emission factors. When actual use or emission data are not available, emission factors serve as surrogate estimates of rates of release that are based on the rate of chemical feed ( e. g., 1 pound of chemical X fed into Process A yields 5 pounds of process waste. Therefore, 10 pounds of chemical X feed would yield 50 pounds of waste.). 14 V. Sample Reports of IURA Data Attached are sample reports that can be prepared from the IURA data submitted by industry. The reports illustrate a diversity of uses for IURA data such as priority setting, initial risk screening, trend analysis, identification of chemical substitutes, and regulatory efforts such as the TSCA testing program. It should be noted that, as with other data collection efforts such as TRI, it is difficult to identify all possible uses for the data. The discussion above and the sample reports demonstrate the usefulness and importance of the IURA data.

All of the data used in these examples are made up.

EPA Examples Example 1: Overall screening of full data set  Example Report Example 2: Using IURA Data for Prioritization Example 3: Using IURA Data for TSCA Pre Manufacturing Notice ( PMN) Review Example 4: Use of IURA Data by OPPT to Prioritize Chemicals and Industry Sectors, and to Identify Potential Substitutes Example 5: Using IURA Data for Trend Analysis Example 6: Using IURA Data to Meet GPRA Requirements Example 7: Using IURA Data to Meet GPRA Requirements Example 8: IUR Data Use and Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Example 9: Using IURA Data by Office of Water to Identify Pollutants of Concern for Regulatory Development Other Examples Example 10: OSHA Use of IURA Data Example 11: CPSC Use of IURA Data 15 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 1: Overall screening of full data set  Example Report ( please note  this example is several pages long and is in the form of a report)

Summary of Chemical Screening Using IURA Data HYPOTHETICAL REPORT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Washington, DC Examples are for explanatory purposes only and do not use actual TSCA CBI data. All data used in this report are made up. 16 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Executive Summary This hypothetical report presents mock up results using chemical screening data from the first Inventory Update Rule Amendments ( IURA) collection. These results were developed using mocked up data from several possible data sources, and hypothetically using this data in several models and scenarios developed for screening evaluations. The IURA data included processing and use data on nearly 4,000 organic chemicals produced in higher volumes. Use data on inorganic chemicals will be available beginning with the second IURA collection, as use information on inorganic chemicals will not be reported during the first collection. While these processing and use data will be used to support many OPPT programs, as well as many other programs in the Agency, one primary purpose of the data collection is to enable screening of these chemicals for signs of potential risks to workers, the public, and the environment. Identifying potential risks is just the first step in analyzing the situation; once the screening is completed, EPA can perform more detailed analyses on the chemicals that raised a possible concern. The hypothetical results of OPPT's risk screening using IURA data are presented below, and in Table 1. Table 2 presents the hypothetical results of the risk screening process for a representative chemical. The remainder of this report is presented as an actual report, as if the analyses were really completed.

Risk Screening Results Concerns for Potential Occupational Risk EPA used several models and scenarios developed over the past three decades to screen 4,000 chemicals to identify potential risks to workers, both at the manufacturing site and downstream sites. EPA used IURA exposure information such as the physical form of the chemical, the number of workers potentially exposed, and the maximum concentration of the chemical, combined with hazard data from the HPV challenge program and elsewhere, to identify the following levels of concern:

 3,836 chemicals without immediate concerns due to low hazard and very low exposure.

 102 chemicals with moderate exposure and hazard concerns. EPA is conducting additional analyses to evaluate these scenarios further.

 34 chemicals with immediate concerns for potential exposure and hazard. EPA is engaging stakeholders in meetings about these chemicals, to determine if more data are available regarding specific use patterns, and to share our information.

Example: Trimethyl ziptone ( CAS # 987 65 4), or TMZ, is a solvent that IURA data indicate is widely used in plastics product manufacturing ( NAICS code 3261). Hazard data ( e. g. HPV program data) suggest TMZ may cause neurological problems at dermal exposure levels believed to be typical. IURA data further indicate that TMZ is a dry powder and, when used in an industrialized setting, is incorporated into a formulation or mixture. These data help identify TMZ as a 17 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA potential high risk chemical. EPA has contacted industry representatives to determine the extent of personal protective equipment ( PPE) use ( such as to determine whether protective procedures such as the wearing of gloves are typically in place) and to highlight Agency concerns.

 28 chemicals that may pose a risk, but for which more hazard data are needed. Exposure levels are expected to be quite high based on production, processing, or industrial/ commercial use information gathered through the IURA. EPA is collecting more hazard data, as related chemicals suggest hazards may be present.

Concerns for Risks to the Public While consumer behavior is difficult to define, EPA has developed several models, databases, and scenarios, enabling the Agency to screen chemicals for potential risk to the general public. Information from the IURA on commercial and consumer product categories, the amount of chemicals used in each category, and the potential for use by children was used to screen the 4,000 IURA chemicals. Of the 4,000 chemicals screened:

 2,333 chemicals had no reported consumer use  1,512 chemicals were without immediate concerns due to low hazard and very low expected exposure, as indicated by the reported product categories and volumes used in those categories.

 72 chemicals with moderate exposure and hazard concerns. EPA is conducting more modeling and may collect additional data to analyze these scenarios further.

 38 chemicals with immediate concerns for potential exposure and hazard. EPA is engaging stakeholders in meetings about these chemicals to share Agency findings and exchange information on specific use patterns.

Example: IURA data indicate that p alkyl nehi is a commonly used fragrance in soaps and detergents. Hazard data suggest it may cause respiratory problems at potential exposure levels. EPA has met with industry to determine the extent of consumer use, and to gather additional information.

 28 chemicals that may pose a risk, but for which more hazard data are needed. Exposure levels are expected to be quite high based on production, processing, or industrial/ commercial use information gathered through the IURA. EPA is collecting more hazard data, as related chemicals suggest hazards may be present.

 12 chemicals with concerns specific to children, from either developmental toxicity, or higher exposure to children. EPA is investigating these scenarios aggressively, and is coordinating with ongoing activities related to children ( such as the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program ( VCCEP)) 18 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Concerns for Environmental Risk

EPA used several models, databases ( including IURA data), and scenarios developed over the past three decades to screen 4,000 chemicals for potential risks, which could be resulted from releases at the manufacturing site, downstream industrial/ commercial sites, and possible consumer use. For instance, IURA manufacturing and use data were used to generate environmental release estimates to water. These estimates, NAICS code data from the IURA ( to identify streamflow distributions by industry sector), and hazard dose response data were input into EPA's E FAST model, which estimated the chemicals' surface water concentrations and risks to aquatic organisms. The results were used to screen and initially prioritize chemicals based on concerns for environmental risks.

EPA identified the following levels of concern:

 3,748 chemicals without immediate concerns due to low hazard and very low exposure.

 91 chemicals with possible persistent bio accumulative toxic ( PBT) concerns. PBTs remain in the environment for extended periods, and can cause damage to human health and the ecosystem. The IURA has shown that some chemicals that have been previously identified as PBT also have high occupational exposure ( through data elements like Number of Workers, Number of Sites). EPA is conducting more analyses to evaluate these chemicals in more detail.

 34 chemicals with immediate concerns for potential exposure and ecological hazard. EPA is holding stakeholder meetings about these chemicals, to identify additional data regarding specific use and disposal patterns, and to share our information.

Example: Nitronitrile ( CAS # 5551 21 2) is a dispersant that IURA data indicate is widely used in production of printing inks ( NAICS code 32591). Hazard data suggest it may be toxic to aquatic ecosystems in concentrations believed to be common in industrial wastewater. Standard industry practice does not require pretreatment or disposal to POTWs. EPA met with industry to determine which disposal methods are actually used, and the extent of pretreatment or POTW discharge. At this time it appears firms are aware of the potential risk, and most have taken appropriate steps to mitigate water releases.

 99 chemicals that may pose an ecological risk, but for which more data are needed. Hazard data may be unavailable, and use patterns must be examined more closely, but release levels are expected to be quite high in production, processing, industrial/ commercial use, or consumer use. EPA is collecting for more detailed data, as analogues suggest hazards may be present.

 28 chemicals may contribute substantially to ozone depletion if discharged into the atmosphere. OPPT has referred these chemicals to the Office of Air and Radiation. 19 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Table 1: Summary of IURA Screening Results Type of Risk Concern Number of Chemicals Details ( see discussion in report text for more information) Action Occupational 3,836 Chemicals without immediate concerns due to potential low hazard and very low exposure None at this time Occupational 102 Chemicals with moderate potential exposure and hazard concerns Further Analysis Occupational 34 Chemicals with immediate concerns for potential exposure and hazard Immediate Outreach Occupational 28 Chemicals that may pose a potential risk, but for which more hazard data are needed Data Search Consumer/ Public 2,333 Chemicals with no consumer use at all, and no risk potential None at this time Consumer/ Public 1,512 Chemicals without immediate concerns due to low hazard and very low exposure None at this time Consumer/ Public 72 Chemicals with moderate potential exposure and hazard concerns Further Analysis Consumer/ Public 38 Chemicals with immediate concerns for potential exposure and hazard Outreach Consumer/ Public 12 Chemicals with concerns specific to children, from either developmental toxicity, or higher potential exposure to children Further Analysis/ Outreach Ecological 3,748 Chemicals without immediate concerns due to low hazard and very low exposure None at this time Ecological 91 Chemicals with possible persistent bioaccumulative toxic ( PBT) concerns Further Analysis Ecological 34 Chemicals with immediate concerns for exposure and ecological hazard Outreach Ecological 99 Chemicals that may pose a potential ecological risk, but for which more data are needed Data Search Ecological 28 Chemicals that may contribute substantially to ozone depletion if discharged into the atmosphere Referred to OAR 20 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Table 2 presents the results of the risk screening process for a representative chemical. As discussed earlier in this example, results were derived from IURA exposure data, hazard data from sources such as the HPV program, basic chemical property data, and estimates derived from EPA experience with other similar chemicals. A similar table could be produced for each chemical screened for this example report. Results from all of these chemicals were combined to produce the summary information above.

Table 2: Summary of Screening Results  Snorzone ( CAS # 0001 01 1)

Occupational Risk Screen Models Results Action UCSS ChemSTEER low relative risk based ranking low exposure/ low hazard No action at this time Consumer/ Public Risk Screen Models Results Actions UCSS SRD low relative risk based ranking low relative risk based ranking No action at this time Ecological Risk Screen Models Results Actions E FAST high releases/ hazard unknown Data search 21 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 2: Using IURA Data for Prioritization OPPT's Design for the Environment ( DfE) branch identifies candidate industry sectors for Stewardship Partnership programs. IUR data could be used to rank industry sectors and functional uses by the number of facilities that use certain chemicals and also by the number of workers that may be exposed. This information would be used to determine where to put Agency resources within this program.

This example illustrates the process of identifying the top industry sector among three candidate sectors. The top three chemicals for each of these sectors were identified using information from the amended IUR. Using the NAICS codes reported on the amended IUR, EPA could first determine the chemicals used in the industry, then rank those chemicals based on a variety of criteria  production volume, use volume in industry, number of potentially exposed workers, or number of use sites. The screening results can be used to show that the Textile Manufacturing industry may be the highest priority for further analysis, based on potential exposure, due to the number of facilities involved and the number of workers potentially exposed. The Agency's next steps would likely be to collect information on the chemicals used in textile manufacturing, the hazard characteristics of the chemicals, and the potential risk associated with those chemicals.

NAICS CODE + INDUSTRY SECTOR TOP 3 CHEMICALS IN SECTOR NAME ( CAS NUMBER) NUMBER OF PROCESSING SITES PRODUCTION VOL ( M LB) NUMBER OF WORKERS 32111 Wood Preserving Creosote ( 8001589) 25 100 10 50 500 100 Naphthalene ( 91203) 1 10 1 10 25 50 1,2,4 trimethyl benzene ( 95636) 1 10 1 10 25 50 31611 Leather Tanning and Finishing Formic Acid ( 64186) 25 100 10 50 100 500 N methyl 2pyrrolidone ( 872504) 1 10 1 10 50 100 Triethylamine ( 121448) 1 10 1 10 50 100 3132,3133, 3141,3151 Textile Manufactur ing Methanol ( 67561) 25 100 50 100 500 1000 Methyl Ethyl Ketone ( 78933) 25 100 10 50 500 1000 Toluene ( 108883) 25 100 10 50 500 1000 IURA Data Used: NAICS Codes/ Industry Sector Number of Processing Sites Production Volume Number of Workers associated with NAICS 22 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 3: Using IURA Data for TSCA Pre Manufacturing Notice ( PMN) Review Generic scenarios are tools routinely used in the preparation of Initial Review Engineering Reports within the Agency's PMN Review program. Generic scenarios are industry specific profiles developed by the Agency which contain assumptions based on industrial site surveys, historical data, and technical research ( e. g. use volume, concentration, # of sites, # of workers). These generic scenarios are routinely used by OPPT, in the absence of data, to estimate potential occupational exposure and releases of new chemicals ( those not currently on the TSCA Chemical Inventory and therefore are not eligible to be used in the United States). These profiles are needed because pre manufacture notifications ( or PMNS, submitted under section 5 of TSCA  part of the process necessary to have a chemical added to the TSCA Chemical Inventory) often lack information needed to perform a screening level analysis for the end uses.

Whenever possible, EPA uses real data instead of assumptions in the generic scenarios, part of OPPT's on going effort to improve and develop generic scenarios. The IURA contains crucial data elements ( e. g., production or use volume, concentration, # of sites, # of workers) that can be used to augment the existing generic scenarios as well as to develop new ones. Improved scenarios will enable the Agency to better screen new chemicals for potential risk, either eliminating situations where the Agency, because of conservative assumptions in the generic scenarios, would have required additional testing before agreeing to the substances' production, or identifying situations where the new chemicals may require further testing. Additionally, these generic scenarios are used for other projects on an as needed basis, and improved scenarios will make screening results for those projects more accurate as well.

An example report of the type of data useful for improving generic scenarios is:

NAICS Code Chemical Name Industrial Function Category Overall Chemical Production Volume ( M lbs) % of PV Number of Sites Number of Workers 32551 Titanium U08 1,000 + 50 1,000 10,000+

32551 Ethylene U28 100  500 25 1,000 10,000+

32551 Diethylene U28 500  1,000 10 1,000 10,000+

32551 Zinc oxide U08 1  10 50 1,000 10,000+

32551  Paint and Coating Manufacturing U08  Coloring agents, pigments U28  Solvents ( which become part of product formulation or mixture)

IURA Data used: NAICS code Number of Sites Industrial function Number of Workers % of Production Volume 23 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 4: Use of IURA Data by OPPT to Prioritize Chemicals and Industry Sectors, and to Identify Potential Substitutes The Use Cluster Scoring System ( UCSS) is a computer based risk screening system with information on nearly 3,200 chemicals and the 380 clusters  or families  into which these chemicals are grouped. Developed by EPA to systematically identify clusters of chemicals and to prioritize those chemicals and clusters within specific industry groups, each cluster contains a group of chemicals that can be substituted interchangeably for the same use or application. The UCSS allows comparisons among chemicals within a cluster and comparisons between different clusters for ranking and prioritization purposes. For instance, a cluster for chemicals that can be used as paint solvents may contain 10 chemicals ( e. g., A through J). Each one of these chemicals has its own potential risk score based on available hazard and exposure information. Using the individual risk scores, chemicals in this cluster can be compared to each other to determine the chemical of highest potential concern within the cluster. To compare clusters, the individual chemical scores are used to develop an overall score for each cluster. The cluster score ( in this case the Paint Solvent Cluster) can then be compared against scores for other clusters ( e. g., Metal Plating Chemicals Cluster, Chelating Agent Chemical Cluster, etc.). The relative score information can be used to prioritize clusters for purposes such as resource allocation.

The current risk based algorithm in the UCSS includes hazard information ( e. g., from EPA's HPV Program) and production volume, which serves as a proxy for exposure. The EPA Science Advisory Board ( SAB) reviewed the UCSS and concluded, in part, that there are no easily accessible exposure data and that the exposure component of the algorithm needs improvement. The exposure information in the UCSS is incomplete; what is there has been collected over many years from various scattered sources and can be outdated. The IURA data will be one of the few direct sources of exposure information and, with the IUR's quadrennial reporting, will be current information. IURA exposure data will thereby enhance the UCSS algorithm's exposure component, resulting in improved risk based comparison of chemicals and clusters by strengthening the exposure component of risk. Information obtained from the IURA will make the system more comprehensive, hence resulting in improved priority setting and identification of potential safer substitutes.

Table 1 provides an example of how the IURA data can be used by the UCSS. IURA data can be fed directly into the UCSS to develop use clusters. In the Table 1 example, a use cluster is identified for four different IURA chemicals from the same NAICS sector. Table 2 shows how hazard data could be combined with additional IURA data elements to develop a relative risk ranking among chemicals in a single cluster ( NAICS 32XXX Sector). According to this screening, chemical H would be a top priority for further investigation or referral to an existing program. 24 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Table 1. IURA Information Used to Develop a Use Cluster IURA Inputs Output Chemical NAICS Functional Use Activity Use Cluster A 32599( All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing) U27( Solvents used as cleaner) Use Solvents used as cleaner B 32599( All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing) U27( Solvents used as cleaner) Use Solvents used as cleaner C 32599( All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing) U27( Solvents used as cleaner) Use Solvents used as cleaner D 32599( All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing) U27( Solvents used as cleaner) Use Solvents used as cleaner * Use Clusters  a set of chemicals used in a similar function for a given sector.

Table 2. Ranking of Chemicals within a Sector IURA Input Output Chemical NAICS No. of Sites Volume ( M lbs) % Production Volume No. of Workers Consumer Use HPV Hazard Relative Sector Ranking E 32513 1,000 10,000 10 50 30 1,000  10,000 None M L F 32221 100 250 1 10 75 1,000  10,000 None H M G 32619 250 1,000 10 50 15 10,000+ None M M H 32331 250 1,000 10 50 100 10,000+ None M H IURA Data used: NAICS code Functional use Activity Number of sites Percent production volume Number of workers Consumer use 25 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 5: Using IURA Data for Trend Analysis IURA data such as chemical identity, use information, and production volumes can be very useful for tracking how chemicals are used. The information can help to answer such questions as: Has the exposure to workers decreased over a certain time period? Is a chemical being phased out? What are the uses of a chemical? The trend analysis information below could be one component of measuring the success of regulatory or voluntary programs.

The information such as that outlined below can be used to measure success of a regulatory or voluntary program by demonstrating the decrease or increase in the number workers exposed to a chemical ( or chemicals) of concern in a regulatory or voluntary program, or by measuring the change in amount of chemical used for a specific use.

Chemical Use Number of Potentially Exposed Workers 2002 2006 2010 Inorgano Alpha U01  Adsorbent/ Absorbent 1,000  10,000 1,000  10,000 500  1,000 U25  Process Regulator 1,000 10,000 1,000  10,000 1,000  10,000 Inorgano Beta U01  Adsorbent/ Absorbent 10,000+ 10,000+ 10,000+

U25  Process Regulator 500 1000 500 1000 500 1000 Inorgano Gamma U01  Adsorbent/ Absorbent 10,000+ 10,000+ 500 1000 U25  Process Regulator 50 100 25 50 50 100 IURA Data used: Chemical Industrial use Production Volume in use Data over time 26 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 6: Using IURA Data to Meet GPRA Requirements EPA's GPRA Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems Under the Revised Strategic Plan goal ( Objective 4.5), EPA can commit to Voluntary Partnerships ( New 33/ 50 Program) for a 20% reduction in non recycled TRI wastes by 2005. EPA would identify a core group of TRI chemicals that are produced or used in high volumes for particular attention. Facilities would publicly set their emission and waste reduction targets and emphasize source reduction and avoidance of cross media pollutant transfers.

EPA needs to allocate resources to voluntary partnerships to reduce non recycled TRI wastes. The following industries are being considered ( data not from actual reports):

NAICS TRI Release of Chemicals Production Volume Number of Workers Most Frequent Processing/ Use Code 32111 100,000 lbs/ yr 50,000,000 100,000,00 lbs/ yr 1,000 10,000 PF 31611 100,000 lbs/ yr 50,000,000 100,000,000 lbs/ yr 1,000 10,000 PA 32511 100,000 lbs/ yr 50,000,000 100,000,000 lbs/ yr 10,000 plus PK Processing/ Use Codes: PF: Processing incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product PA: Processing incorporation into article PK: Processing repackaging Why the new IURA data elements are essential: EPA and its industrial partners have limited resources and must be very careful to use those resources wisely. In order to best meet its requirement under GRPA Goal # 4, it is crucial that EPA allocate its resources to partner with industry sectors of highest concern. Making this judgement solely on the basis of the volume of TRI releases or production volume will not best meet this requirement in the most cost effective way. TRI releases alone or combined with production volume do not translate directly to actual exposure. TRI releases and production volume give no indication of the number of potentially exposed workers ( essential for determining the extent of occupational risk) or chemical use ( essential for determining both occupational and consumer exposure and risk). 27 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA In this case, EPA could determine that the number of workers reported under NAICS code 32511 is higher than those reported under other NAICS codes. This could in turn prompt EPA to further investigate the possibility of creating a voluntary partnership with stakeholders of NAICS 32511 to reduce exposure and protect human health and the environment. In the absence of this data, each of the NAICS codes would have been equivalent and EPA would have had no way of making this determination quickly and cost effectively. The use of the new IURA data elements provide, in this case, the crucial elements that EPA and its industrial partners need to allocate their resources wisely. 28 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 7: Using IURA Data to Meet GPRA Requirements EPA's GPRA Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems According to EPA's strategic plan ( as of Sept. 2000), by 2005 EPA and its partners will increase recycling and decrease the quantity and toxicity of waste generated. EPA meets this GPRA goal using various voluntary partnership programs, such as the Design for the Environment ( DfE) Program. The DfE Program forms partnerships with industry, universities, research institutions, public interest groups, and other government agencies. This program ensures that the information developed through these voluntary efforts reaches the decision makers and promotes the incorporation of environmental considerations into the traditional business decisionmaking process.

The DfE program ( as well as other voluntary programs) needs broad use and exposurerelated information to make better decisions on which industries to partner with, taking into consideration both the relative concern for an industry and EPA's available resources. Current TRI data only covers a fraction of the chemicals in production and provides no data on chemical use. The following hypothetical table provides an example of how IURA data can be used to assist EPA in this regard.

Chemical Production Volume in lbs/ yr Process or Use Operation Industrial Function Number of Sites Commercial/ Consumer Use Chemical A 1,000,000 10,000,000 PA U12 ( flame retardant) 10 25 C18 ( Wood & wood furniture)

Chemical B 1,000,000 10,000,000 PF U31 ( surfactant) 25 100 C16 ( soaps & detergents)

Chemical C 1,000,000 10,000,000 PA U28 ( solvent as part of mixture) > 10,000 C12 ( Paints & coatings)

PA: Processing... incorporation into article Why the new IURA data elements are essential.

Examining this table, you would note that these chemicals appear similar in the sense that the production volumes are all within the same range. For many organic chemicals, production volume has been available through the IUR, and has been used as a proxy for exposure. However, production volume is no substitute for actual exposure or knowledge of industrial use. The new IURA data elements in this case provide information on where a chemical is used, how it 29 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA is used, the number of sites where it is used and whether there is any commercial or consumer use. Using this information, it would be possible to identify the most serious pollutants and give priority to, perhaps, chemical C which has the highest number of workers, consumer use in paints and coatings, and contains solvents as a part of the product. Without the new IURA data elements, no determination could have been made quickly and cost effectively. This saves both EPA and its industrial partners substantial resources and allows all parties to use their resources wisely. 30 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 8: IUR Data Use and Green Chemistry Challenge Awards The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, a program begun under George H. W. Bush, recognizes accomplishments and promotes the research, development, and implementation of innovative green chemical technologies that have been or can be utilized by industry in achieving pollution prevention goals. The annual Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program recognizes outstanding chemical technologies by inviting nominations that describe the technical benefits of a green chemistry technology as well as human health and environmental benefits. An independent panel, selected by the American Chemical Society, judges nominations for the Awards. Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards recipients receive national public recognition for their outstanding accomplishments in the research, development, and/ or implementation of green chemical technologies. Judges for the award nominations need to distinguish between many worthwhile entries. The additional information in a non confidential version of the IURA database would assist judges in determining which industrial areas would benefit most by the introduction of green chemical technologies. The IURA information can demonstrate which entries under consideration would have the highest impact with regard to human health and the environment. For instance, Entry # 3 affects a higher number of workers than the other entries.

Green Chemistry Award Nominee PV of similar use chemicals in lbs/ yr Process or Use Operation Industrial Function Number of Workers Commercial & Consumer Use Entry # 1 1,000,000 10,000,000 PA U12 10,000  100,000 C18 Entry # 2 1,000,000 10,000,000 PF U31 10,000 100,000 C16 Entry # 3 1,000,000 10,000,000 PC U29 100,000 200,000 C12 PA: Incorporated into article PF: Processing incorporation into formulation, mixture or reaction product PC: Processing as a reactant U12: flame retardant U31: surfactant U29: solvents ( for chemical manufacture and processing and not part of product at greater than 1% by weight)

C18: Wood & Wood Furniture C16: Soaps & Detergents C12: Paints & Coatings 31 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 9: Using IURA Data by Office of Water to Identify Pollutants of Concern for Regulatory Development One step in the development of effluent guidelines by the Office of Water ( OW) is determining the pollutants of concern. This is typically accomplished through surveys of the industry and/ or wastewater sampling for the entire list of potential pollutants. OW could use this information to prioritize pollutants and industries with regard to their need for an Effluent Limitation Guideline. In the table below, chemicals and their production volumes within an industrial sector ( NAICS code 25199) are identified.

NAICS Chemical Name Production Volume ( LB) 25199 Methanol 100,000,000 500,000,000 25199 Ethanol 50,000,000 100,000,000 25199 Acetone 10,000,000 50,000,000 25199 Isopropanol 10,000,000 50,000,000 25199 Acetic acid 10,000,000 50,000,000 25199 Methylene chloride 10,000,000 50,000,000 Note: 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacture IURA Data used: NAICS 32 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 10: OSHA Use of IURA Data The IURA data could be used to identify the scope of potential worker exposure to specific chemicals. This could be used as either a prioritization tool, or to help facilitate alerts or outreach for specific chemicals by identifying the number of sites and workers immediately affected by the outreach effort. In general, this information is not available elsewhere.

For instance, OSHA may ask for information on specific chemicals, such as the type of data in the table below. Alternatively, OSHA may request a list of all chemicals with potential exposure to over 10,000 workers.

Chemical Name Number of Sites Number of Workers Methylene chloride 1,000 10,000 10,000+

Disodium 4 amino 3(( 4'(( 2,4 diaminophenyl) 10,000+ 10,000+

Disodium ( 5(( 4'(( 2,6 dihydroxy 3(( 2 hydroxy 1,000 10,000 1,000 10,000 IURA Data used: Number of sites Number of workers 33 NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE USING MADE UP IURA DATA Example 11: CPSC Use of IURA Data The Consumer Product Safety Commission ( CPSC) has expressed interest in the IURA data. Data of this type is not elsewhere available. CPSC may use the IURA data to track chemicals used in consumer and children's products. For instance, CPSC may have a list of chemicals they are interested in due to hazard issues. CPSC would ask EPA for a list of the IURA information for those chemicals, specifically identifying consumer uses and any use in children's products. Additionally, CPSC could use IURA data to look at trends over time, identifying if there are any chemicals that are being used more or less frequently in consumer products.

NAICS Code Chemical Name Commercial and Consumer Product Category Use in Children's Product 33993 DiA phthalate C12 Y 33993 TeBphthalic anhydride C01 Y 32561 1, TriCethane C16 32551 D oxide C01 32551 D oxide C12 33993  Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing 32561  Soap and Cleaning compound Manufacturing 32551  Paint and Coating Manufacturing C01  Artists' supplies C12  Paints and coatings C16  Soaps and detergents IURA Data Used: NAICS Consumer and Commercial Product Category Children's Use


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55903-55904]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0025]

Request for Comments on New Information Collection

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Julie Kang, Ph.D., Vehicle Safety
Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Dr. Kang's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before a Federal agency can collect certain
information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). In compliance with these requirements,
this notice announces that the following information collection request
has been forwarded to OMB. A Federal Register notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on March 13, 2014 (79 FR 14335).
    NHTSA received one comment from the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) on the proposed information collection. In NHTSA's
original proposed study, each driver would have experienced a one week
baseline period and two one week periods where each driver would use
each technology. IIHS stated a within-subject design may result in a
carryover effect in which changes in behavior resulting from exposure
to the first technology may influence behavioral responses to the
second technology in a subsequent week. IIHS's concern is that the
reinforcement contingencies drivers learn with the first technology may
carry over to a subsequent phase of study and potentially confound the
measurement of the second technology's effect on belt use. Based on
IIHS's suggestion, NHTSA has changed the experimental design from a
within-subjects design (32 participants, 3 weeks) to a between-subject
design (48 participants, 3 weeks). In this between-subject design
experiment, each participant will only experience one of the two seat
belt interlock technologies. This new design holds reasonable
statistical analysis power and clears out the concern of the behavior
carry-on effect.
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Title: Recruitment and Debriefing of Human Subjects for Field Test
of Vehicle Occupant Protection Technologies.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: New Information Collection.
    Background: NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. Increasing
seat belt use is one of the agency's highest priorities. Seat belt use
has shown an increasing trend since 1995, accompanied by a steady
decline in the percentage of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant
fatalities during daytime. In 2013, the nationwide seat belt use
reached 87 percent for drivers and front seat passengers.\1\ Despite
gains in seat belt usage, data from the 2011 Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) indicates that 52 percent of all passenger
vehicle crash fatalities \2\ were unbelted occupants.\3\ The age group
21 to 24 had the highest percentage of unrestrained occupants killed:
2,172 fatalities, of which 1,385 (64 percent) were unrestrained. The
second highest percentage of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant
fatalities was 63 percent among 25- to 34-year-olds.\3\ Use of lap/
shoulder seat belts reduces the risk of fatal injury to front-seat
passenger car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate-to-
critical injury by 50 percent. In 2011 alone, seat belts saved an
estimated 11,949 lives.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pickrell, T.M., & Liu, C. (2014, January). Seat Belt Use in
2013--Overall Results. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report
No. DOT HS 811 875). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
    \2\ The 2012 and 2013 data on the percent of unrestrained
passenger vehicle occupant fatalities during daytime is not yet
available.
    \3\ NHTSA. (2013, June) Occupant Protection (Traffic Safety
Facts 2011 Data. Report No.DOT HS 811 729). Washington, DC: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811729.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed study will examine seat belt use, users' acceptance of
emerging vehicle technologies designed to increase seat belt use, the
likelihood of and potential strategies to circumvent the system, and
unintended consequences. The study method consists of a field
operational test to collect objective and subjective data about two
prototype technologies developed by automakers to increase seat belt
use. In response to comments received during the 60-day comment period,
NHTSA has changed the experimental design, from a within-subjects
design (32 participants, 3-week) to a between-subject design (48
participants, 3-week). This new design holds reasonable statistical
analysis power and clears out the concern of the behavior carry-on
effect. A total of 48 drivers from two age groups would be recruited to
participate in the study, 24 non-seat belt users (12 young drivers; 12
middle-aged drivers), and 24 part-time users (12 young drivers; 12
middle-aged drivers). The study sample would have equal numbers of male
and female drivers from each age group. The research team acknowledges
that it may be difficult to recruit non-users given the high seat belt
use rate in Michigan (more than 90 percent). As a result, the research
team will also draw from the University of Michigan Transportation
Researh Institute's (UMTRI) previous field operational test study
participant pool of low seat belt users. This pool of previous
participants have indicated that they would be willing do other
studies; therefore, it is expected that this strategy will greatly
expedite the recruitment process. The estimated burden hours are shown
for a maximum of 391 respondents to respond to the recruitment
advertisements. The number of call-ins was calculated based on:

--A 93 percent seat belt use rate in Michigan, so it takes about 343
call-ins to find the 24 non-seat belt users for screening purposes;
--It is estimated at least 50 percent of the part-time seat belt users
from previous studies will participate in the current study (pulling
from those who have indicated that they would be interested in
participating in future studies), so it takes about 48 call-ins to find
24 part-time seat belt users.

    Each driver will be presented with one baseline condition and one
vehicle occupant protection technology. Each condition will last one
week. Therefore, each participant will drive the research vehicles for
two weeks. A data acquisition system will record system state (i.e.,
door, ignition, driver seat belt buckle) and video inside the vehicle
cabin. The University of Michigan

Transportation Research Institute, in collaboration with the Virginia
Tech Transportation Institute and Montana State University, Western
Transportation Institute, will conduct this study under a research
contract with NHTSA.

    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The collection of information consists of: (1) An
eligibility questionnaire, (2) a demographic questionnaire; and (3)
post-study questionnaires. In the revised study design, minor changes
were also made to the three instruments to reflect the study changes.
Example changes include deleting the question asking for driver's
social security number in the demographic questionnaire, and adding
more open-end questions in the post-study questionnaires.
    The information to be collected will be used to:
     Eligibility questionnaire(s) will be used to obtain self-
reported driving history information. Individuals interested in
participating in the study will be asked to provide information about
their driving history. People who have been convicted of felony motor
convictions will be excluded. Individuals who pass the initial
screening will be asked to provide their driver's license number and
consent to review their driving records to confirm self-reported
driving history information. Drivers' consent and driving license
numbers will be used to obtain official driving records from the state
of Michigan. Individuals will be excluded from participating in the
study if they refuse to grant UMTRI permission to review their public
driving records or if they have been convicted of felony motor
convictions in the last 2 years. This exclusion criterion is used to
reduce the liability risk of providing participants with research
vehicles.
     Demographic questionnaire will be used to obtain
demographic information to confirm that the study group includes
participants from various groups (e.g., age; gender; part-time seat
belt users or those who sometimes wear their belts; non-users or those
who never wear a seat belt; etc. Other demographic information will be
collected to describe the study sample (e.g., annual travel distance).
     Post-study questionnaire(s) will be used to get
information about drivers' beliefs and attitude towards each occupant
protection technology tested, and to identify potential problems
associated with each system. These questionnaires will also be used to
assess perceived usability of the systems in terms of acceptance and
satisfaction, as well as willingness to have this technology in their
vehicle. Each driver will complete a post-study questionnaire once, at
the end of the second week.
    Respondents: Michigan drivers with a valid driver license.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50 to 391.
    Estimated Number of Responses: One to three responses per person,
17 to 85 questions total.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 10 to 45 minutes per respondent
(95.2 hours total).
    Estimated Frequency: One-time for the eligibility; demographic
questionnaire; and the post-study questionnaire.

                                                             Table 1--Estimated Burden Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Estimated                          Total
                                                            Number of     Frequency of      Number of      individual    Total estimated  annualize cost
                       Instrument                          respondents      responses       questions        burden        burden hours   to respondents
                                                               \4\                                          (minutes)                           \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility questionnaire..............................             391               1              17              10             65.2        $1377.60
Demographic questionnaire..............................              60               1              23               5              5            105.70
Post-study questionnaire...............................              50               1              45              30             25            528.50
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             95.2         2011.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The number of respondents in this table includes drop-out rates.
\5\ Estimated based on the mean hourly rate for Michigan (all occupations) is $21.14 as reported in the May 2011 Occupational Employment and Wage
  Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_dl.htm

    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44. U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; 5 CFR part 1320; and 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2015-23294 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 78915]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-23-000]

Inergy Pipeline East, LLC; Notice of Application for a Section
284.224 Blanket Certificate

    Take notice that on December 5, 2011, Inergy Pipeline East, LLC
(IPE), Two Brush Creek Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64112, filed
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application under
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Section 284.224 of the
Commission's Regulations for an order issuing a blanket certificate of
public convenience and necessity authorizing IPE to transport natural
gas in interstate commerce in accordance with Subparts C, D and G of
Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations. IPE further requests
Commission approval of its Statement of Operating Conditions governing
the firm and interruptible interstate transportation services IPE
proposes to provide and of IPE's cost-based rates for such services
pursuant to 18 CFR 284.123(b)(2). Questions concerning this Application
may be directed to James F. Bowe, Jr., Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, 1101 New
York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone) (202)
346-8102 (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 4, 2012.

    Dated: December 14, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32512 Filed 12-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6993-6995]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-
2011-0190; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0325]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
15 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective February 22, 2014. Comments must be
received on or before March 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-
0017; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0190; FMCSA-2011-
0298; FMCSA-2011-0325], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 15 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 15 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Bryant M. Adams (CA)
Brian K. Cline (NC)
Richard D. Hackney (MO)
Mickey Lawson (NC)
Robbey Nelson (NC)
John E. Nichols (PA)
Thomas M. Nubert (OH)
Richard E. Purvenas, Jr. (DE)
Michael C. Reese (GA)
Mark C. Reineke (NM)
Robert T. Reynolds (OH)
Glenn T. Riley (OH)
Lawrence D. Ventimiglia (NV)
Gary S. Warren (IA)
Chadwick L. Wyatt (NC)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 15 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (72 FR 67340; 73 FR 1395; 73 FR 75803; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR
65845; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 53710; 76 FR 64169; 76 FR 70213; 76 FR 75943;
76 FR 78728; 77 FR 10608; 77 FR 539; 77 FR 541). Each of these 15
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by March 7, 2014.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 15 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-
2008-0340; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0190; FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-
2011-0325 and click the search button. When the new screen appears,
click on the blue ``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the
page. On the new page, enter information required including the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2011-0141; FMCSA-2011-0190;
FMCSA-2011-0298; FMCSA-2011-0325 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to the proposed rulemaking.

    Dated: January 24, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-02462 Filed 2-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54953-54954]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0089]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated August 4, 2013, 1003 Operations LLP has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR Part 224, Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock. FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0089.
    The 1003 Operations LLP partnership located in Long Grove, IL, owns
Steam Locomotive SOO Line 1003, as well as historic freight cars and
cabooses. The partnership leases its equipment to the Steam Locomotive
Heritage Association (SLHA) based in Hartford, WI. The three cars that
1003 Operations LLP owns are: LLTX 10559 (insulated boxcar); LLTX 2012
(caboose); and LLTX 268 (caboose), which are not equipped with
reflectorization per 49 CFR Part 224. The 1003 Operations LLP
partnership requests that it be granted a waiver of compliance from 49
CFR Part 224, because the retroreflective sheeting applied would
detract from the equipment's historic preservation and appearance.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at http://www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 15, 2013, will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-21693 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46440-46441]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18825]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9915-01-Region-4; CERCLA-04-2014-3764]

J.J. Seifert Machine Shop Superfund Site; Sun City, Hillsborough
County, Florida; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with
Pamela S. Ahlen, J.J. Seifert Land Company and J.J. Seifert Machine
Co., Inc. concerning the J.J. Seifert Machine Shop Superfund Site
located in Sun City, Hillsborough County, Florida. The settlement is
based on a financial analysis and addresses liability for past and
future costs concerning work being performed at the Site and allows for
the sale of the property.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
September 8, 2014. The Agency will consider all comments received and
may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the
amended settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by
contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Environmental Protection Specialist
using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may
also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the
following methods:
     Internet: www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html
     U.S. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887

    Dated: July 29, 2014.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund
Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-18825 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P