Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US

02/13/2008 02:18 PM

To

Jim Berlow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Grevatt/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Troy Strock/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Reimer/R10/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

Jim,

Please see below for information about manufacturing the standard.

Shen-yi Yang

Chemist

US EPA Office Of Solid Waste

Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (5307P)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Expressed Mail:

2733 Crystal Dr. (Two Potomac Yard),

5307P

Arlington, VA 22202

----- Forwarded by Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US on 02/13/2008 02:14 PM -----

Troy Strock/R5/USEPA/US

02/11/2008 09:41 AM

To

Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Joseph Ferrario/GMPO/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Reimer/R10/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

   Re: Fw: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate(4)

Shen-yi-

Anka Gelbin (spelling probably butchered) who is the head of
Accustandard's custom synthesis group contacted me today regarding a
message I left asking if they were willing to make this standard
available.  She said it would probably be a four figure (some multiple
of $10,000) project.  I would think that the companies ordering the
standard who would have to pay for it, but she said they might need
money to get the project off the ground.  Her phone # is<PHONE_NUMBER> ex
108.  I don't know how the standard manufacturers decide what should and
shouldn't be in a given standard mix, if they're in contact with someone
in EPA.  At any rate, it sounds like they'd be willing to make this
compound as a standard if we give them 4-6 weeks lead time and money.

Troy J Strock, chemist

US Environmental Protection Agency

Chicago Regional Lab

536 S. Clark St 10th Floor

Chicago IL 60605

office phone #<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax #<PHONE_NUMBER>

Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US

02/04/2008 02:47 PM

To

Troy Strock/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Joseph Ferrario/GMPO/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Reimer/R10/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Fw: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate(5)

Many thanks.

Shen-yi Yang

Chemist

US EPA Office Of Solid Waste

Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (5307P)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Expressed Mail:

2733 Crystal Dr. (Two Potomac Yard),

5307P

Arlington, VA 22202

Troy Strock/R5/USEPA/US

02/04/2008 02:07 PM

To

Joseph Ferrario/GMPO/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Steve Reimer/R10/USEPA/US@EPA, Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

Joe-

Hope you're doing fine on this fat tuesday eve.  OSW is looking for a
standards manufacturer to supply this carbamate pesticide as an
analytical standard.  Do you have an idea of where they might be able to
obtain it?  If not, do you have a standards supplier whose service you
would recommend for them to get a custom synthesis quotation from? The
commercial lab person who did some of the leg work to try to get a
standard of this compound already was told by Ultra, Chem Service, SPEX
Certiprep, O2SI, and Crescent Chemical that they wouldn't provide it as
a custom synthesis (details in the e-mail thread below).  I sent an
e-mail to Michele Schantz at NIST too to see if she could provide any
leads.

Troy J Strock, chemist

US Environmental Protection Agency

Chicago Regional Lab

536 S. Clark St 10th Floor

Chicago IL 60605

office phone #<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax #<PHONE_NUMBER>

----- Forwarded by Troy Strock/R5/USEPA/US on 02/04/2008 11:35 AM -----

Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US

02/04/2008 10:31 AM

To

Steve Reimer/R10/USEPA/US@EPA, Troy Strock/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Fw: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

Hi Steve and Troy:

Please see below for the email exchanges.  Is there other alternative?
Thanks.

Shen-yi Yang

Chemist

US EPA Office Of Solid Waste

Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (5307P)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Expressed Mail:

2733 Crystal Dr. (Two Potomac Yard),

5307P

Arlington, VA 22202

----- Forwarded by Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US on 02/04/2008 11:23 AM -----

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
02/04/2008 09:21 AM

To

Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Subject

Re: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

Shen-Yi,

Please see the following message thread regarding the analytical
standard we are looking for.  It seems that suppliers are unable to
provide a custom standard due to lack of raw material.  Do you have
other thoughts on how we can obtain data?

Thank you for your assistance!

Nancy Paddock

Environmental Engineering Specialist

Veolia ES Technical Solutions

618.271.2804 ext. 115

----- Forwarded by Nancy Paddock/OES/ONYX on 02/04/2008 09:20 AM -----

"Renee Patterson"

                      <rpatterson@appli        To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                      nc.com>                  cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                              Subject:  Re: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

               02/01/2008 10:04 AM

Nancy,

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.  Our LC supervisor
made additional inquiries about obtaining a custom standard for
m-cumenyl methylcarbamate.  Please see her reply which follows.

Renée

Hi Renee,

I called Donna at Ultra, as your 1-29-08 email indicated for

m-cumenyl-methylcarbamate.  They can not supply the standard as a
custom. See email below. I also called Chem Service, SPEX Certiprep,
O2SI and Crescent Chemical and none of them can supply a custom for
m-cumenyl methylcarbamate.

Sharon Dehmlow, LC Supervisor

4203 W. Swift

Fresno, CA 93722

ph<PHONE_NUMBER>

----- Original Message -----

From: "Avery Dickinson"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:54 PM

Subject: Custom request

 Dear Sharon:

 Thank you for you request for a custom quotation.  Unfortunately, we

 cannot find a source for the raw material you requested.  Thanks for
thinking of ULTRA Scientific for your standards needs.

 ULTRA Custom Quotations Dept.

----- Original Message -----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 4:44 AM

Subject: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

 Dear Renee,

   I have been in contact w/ USEPA over the past several months
regarding the unavailability of m-cumenyl methylcarbamate as an
analytical standard.

   Please see the following e-mail which gives details on purchasing a

custom made standard from ULTRA.  Will you please contact ULTRA
Scientific regarding this custom order and provide a quote for me which
details the additional cost of this individual compound being analyzed
as part of our usual panel of compounds?

  The ARF for our most recent sample set is 55057 and the APPL ID is

AX71710. If you need additional information to help identify the data
package we receive from APPL, feel free to call.

 Thank you in advance for your assistance.

 Nancy Paddock

 Environmental Engineering Specialist

 Veolia ES Technical Solutions

<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 115

----- Forwarded by Nancy Paddock/OES/ONYX on 01/21/2008 07:31 AM -----

 Yang.Shen-Yi@epamail

  .epa.gov              To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                     01/15/2008 02:04 PM
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                      Subject:  Re: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

 Dear Ms. Paddock:

 Thanks for your inquiry.

 As we discussed via phone on January 10, I agree with you that the

 compound Mr. Barry Lesnik suggested, promecarb (C12H17NO2, RCRA waste

 code P201, molecular weight 207.2718) has a different molecular formula
and molecular structure than the reference standard you are searching
for, m-cumenyl methylcarbamate (CAS Number: 64-00-6, RCRA waste code
P202, C11H15NO2, molecular weight 193.245).  Even though Promecarb is a
very similar carbamate in chemical structure, but it would be an
inappropriate standard for the quantitation of m-cumenyl

methylcarbamate.

 I did check with a number of large chemical standard suppliers and it

 appears at one point this was a commonly stocked standard.  However, I

 suspect that the demand has dwindled to the point that it is no longer

 feasible for them to keep it as part of their common catalog standards

 All of the suppliers I checked do have the ability to prepare custom

 standards, and this would probably be the best option for m-cumenyl

 methylcarbamate.  Here are the links to the suppliers I checked:

 http://www.o2si.com/

 http://www.alfa.com/alf/index.htm

 http://www.accustandard.com/

 http://www.isotope.com/cil/products/index.cfm

 http://www.rt-corp.com/default.aspx

 http://www.eraqc.com/

 Also, m-cumenyl methylcarbamate is a RCRA target analyte listed in

 Method 8318 and many of the standard suppliers do offer calibration

 mixes for Method 8318, however, m-cumenyl methylcarbamate is not

 included.  This is further indication that the monitoring demand and

 analysis for this compound has decreased such that it is no longer

 routinely analyzed.

 To place a custom standard order for m-cumenyl methylcarbamate, you may
contact Ms. Donna Theroux of Customer Service of ULTRA Scientific at
1-800-338-1754 ext. 520 or 1-401-294-7670 Fax, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 Hope this helps you to located the standard.

 Shen-yi Yang

 Chemist

 US EPA Office Of Solid Waste

 Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division

 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (5307P)

 Washington, DC 20460

 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 Expressed Mail:

 2733 Crystal Dr. (Two Potomac Yard),

 5307P

 Arlington, VA 22202

 Jan Young/DC/USEPA/US

                                 To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  12/20/2007 01:56 PM                                       cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      Shen-Yi Yang/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Peter Grevatt/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Jim Berlow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
                                                       Subject

                                      Re: m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

                                      (Document link: Shen-Yi Yang

 Thank you for your email, Nancy.

 As I explained in our conversation, Shen-yi may be able to help with
general pointers or insights regarding standard development working with
 NIST, and perhaps suggestions in addition to what Barry has already
provided.  Also she can then better advise the division director and me
concerning the scope of this issue and any options there may be for
moving forward.  FYI, the suggestion you made to Barry of documenting
for your compliance files that procarbemar would be an equivalent
standard is not necessarily a straightforward or quick thing to
accomplish; as I explained Shen-yi currently has numerous competing

demands on her time due to Barry's retirement.

(I will also forward to Shen-yi the information that Barry left you on

 your voice mail.)

 Most of us will also be out until Jan. 2 or 3, so we can resume

 discussion at that time.

 Best wishes for a happy holiday.

  Jan Young, Associate Director

 Economics, Methods and Risk Analysis Division

 U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste

 1200 PA Ave., NW

 Mail Code 5307-P

 Washington, DC 20460

<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                     To

    12/20/2007 01:11 PM              Jan Young/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

         cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                  Subject     m-cumenyl methylcarbamate

 Jan,

 Thank you for taking the time to discuss my issue this morning.  To

 summarize, I work for a hazardous waste incineration facility and am

 responsible for LDR compliance.  Incineration residues are periodically
sampled and analyzed to verify that all UTS are met.  I was recently
contacted by the outside laboratory we use to provide data for the
carbamate compounds and was told that a standard for the compound
m-cumenyl methylcarbamate (waste code P202) can no longer be found.  I
checked with all of the other outside labs that we use and they in turn,
checked with their suppliers; the standard is not available, not even in
Europe.

 Barry Lesnik stated that we should use promecarb as the standard for

 m-cumenyl methylcarbamate.  I would be happy to do that, but since

 promecarb represents a different waste code (P201,) has a different

 molecular formula and molecular structure, I requested something in

 writing from Barry to document this choice for our compliance files.
Barry has not yet replied to the December 13th request I made via
e-mail.

   I understand that Shen-Yi Yang will likely be taking over this aspect
of Barry's work upon his retirement.  If she can discuss this issue with
me and verify his guidance or provide an alternative, that would be
greatly appreciated.

 After today, I will be out of the office until January 2nd.  I look

 forward to discussing the situation with Shen-Yi at her earliest
convenience. My contact information can be found below.

 Thank you again for your time this morning and I hope that you enjoy

 this> Holiday Season!

 Sincerely,

 Nancy Paddock

 Environmental Engineering Specialist

 Veolia ES Technical Solutions

<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 115

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

(1) -   HYPERLINK
"Notes:///8525686500767184/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/D0ADB20B28CF
97CF85257404005E25C1"
Notes:///8525686500767184/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/D0ADB20B28CF9
7CF85257404005E25C1

(2) -   HYPERLINK
"Notes:///8525685E007E78A6/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/4E54523D043C
87F6852573F00058D308"
Notes:///8525685E007E78A6/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/4E54523D043C8
7F6852573F00058D308

(3) -   HYPERLINK
"Notes:///8525685E007E78A6/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/DF01E5C2D989
3DDA852573EE0069D0BB"
Notes:///8525685E007E78A6/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/DF01E5C2D9893
DDA852573EE0069D0BB

(4) -   HYPERLINK
"Notes:///8525685F000219F8/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/3CD263A73358
EBF2852573E5007240C9"
Notes:///8525685F000219F8/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/3CD263A73358E
BF2852573E5007240C9

(5) -   HYPERLINK
"Notes:///86256EF50066E4A2/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/A0ABA8FBDDED
20B2862573E50060962B"
Notes:///86256EF50066E4A2/38D46BF5E8F08834852564B500129B2C/A0ABA8FBDDED2
0B2862573E50060962B


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84458-84459]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-36]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On
September 29, 2020, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period
for public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
January 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular ICR by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open

for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, telephone: (202)
493-0440, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On September 29, 2020, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 85 FR 61085. FRA
received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety-Related
Railroad Employees.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0597.
    Abstract: In 2014, FRA published a final rule establishing minimum
training standards for all safety-related railroad employees, as
required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The final rule
requires each railroad or contractor that employs one or more safety-
related employees to develop and submit a training program to FRA for
approval and to designate the minimum training qualifications for each
occupational category of employee. Additionally, the rule requires most
employers to conduct periodic oversight of their own employees and
annual written reviews of their training programs to close performance
gaps.
    FRA will use the information collected to ensure each employer--
railroad or contractor--conducting operations subject to 49 CFR part
243 develops, adopts, submits, and complies with a training program for
each category and subcategory of safety-related railroad employee. Each
program must have training components identified so that FRA will
understand how the program works when it reviews the program for
approval. Further, FRA will review the required training programs to
ensure they include: Initial, ongoing, and on-the-job criteria; testing
and skills evaluation measures designed to foster continual compliance
with Federal standards; and the identification of critical safety
defects and plans for immediate remedial actions to correct them.
    In response to petitions for reconsideration, FRA extended the
effective date for developing the required training program under Sec.
243.101 for each Class I railroad, and each intercity or commuter
passenger railroad conducting operations with 400,000 or more total
annual employee work hours to January 1, 2020, and for all remaining
employers subject to this part to May 1, 2021.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 1,155 railroads/contractors/training
organizations/learning institutions.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 165,054.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 91,069 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$7,020,889.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-28471 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Date
October 19, 2021
Subject
Data collection
Stakeholder
Brigitte Miller
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(540) 636-7911
EPA in attendance
-
ERG in attendance
Liz Hubbard
Facility Contact with Coatings USA, LLC in Front Royal, VA - Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (NSPS Subpart TTT)

 Initially contacted facility on 10/13/2021 and was told that Brigitte Miller was busy and would call back when available.

 Had not heard back from facility by 10/18/2021 so called again and left a voicemail. Received a call back from the spouse of the co-owner (Brigitte) who said that they are a very small shop. He says they have converted most of their customers to either zero or low VOC emission coatings. Now they do a lot of carbon fiber finishing. Forwarded my contact information to Brigitte.

 Received a call back from Brigitte on 10/19/2021 and was able to ask survey questions.

Mission:
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to periodically review and revise its federal rules. We are asking for your help with this requirement for the NSPS Subpart TTT (Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines). Your facility was identified in an EPA database as subject to Subpart TTT. We collected your air permit and have confirmed this.
We have prepared a short telephone survey for facilities that are subject to this rule. We hope to learn more about the impact of the 1988 rule, ways it might be improved for future facilities, and to look for innovation in the control of air pollution (e.g., new add-on control technologies, new work practices or operational procedure).  After the call we can share with you a copy of the minutes and discuss any necessary changes.

 Ms. Miller responded to this information by saying that the facility eliminated plastic parts from their coating line a long time ago (did not know exact timeframe), and they essentially only coat metal parts now with few exceptions.
      They used to coat IBM computer monitor housing, keyboards, etc.; cleaned them up and repainted, but this was years ago. Used to do fog coating of their plastic parts but decided to eliminate those so that they could narrow the source categories that are applicable to their facility.
      Ms. Miller said that they worked with David Taylor at VADEQ during their last permit renewal to narrow the source categories that apply to this facility. Since they already were coating so few of these parts, they did not feel it was worth having to comply with another rule which is why they have mostly switched to metal parts only.
      Although they do not currently coat any plastic parts for business machines, they are still listed as subject to TTT in their most recent air permit (from 2015).
They do coat some different non-metal parts that are cosmetic (some are carbon fiber, not sure if this would be considered plastics) and small parts used for components, but not aware of any used for business machines. They also coat the grips for some firearms, and those might be plastic parts, but she wasn't sure.
 Based on the above information, only asked select questions from the survey that seemed like they might still apply.

 We found your facility in a database indicating it is subject to NSPS subpart TTT (i.e., Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines). Have you implemented any procedures or VOC control technologies to comply with that rule?

Facility uses low VOC coatings, and they have spray booths with filters that are 99.9% efficient (this is an estimate from what Ms. Miller could recollect during the call). They also use HVLP spray guns for spray coating.

Note: This question was asked more generally "If they have any procedures or VOC control technologies at the facility" since Ms. Miller stated that Subpart TTT does not apply to their facility.

 Have you made other accommodations to comply with Subpart TTT requirements and standards (e.g., VOC reporting requirements)? Are there business reasons for using paints with more than minimum VOC (e.g., because higher solvent contents are necessary for effective paint transfer for your product, or because the solvents preventing your coating from spoiling)?

Pretty much everything they coat (manufacturers are trending toward more environmentally friendly paints) uses low VOC coatings. A lot more water-based paints are available now. Between industry practices and paint that is now supplied, they tend to go the route of lower VOCs. They source a lot of their paints from Sherwin-Williams.

Note: As discussed above, this question was asked more generally since the facility is not currently an active Subpart TTT painter.
 Do you track either spray booths' transfer efficiency or VOC concentrations in booth exhaust?

No, it's not something that they track. If booth filters are not operating at peak performance then they will restrict air flow, so they aren't measured with a device, but they can tell based on their performance when it is time to replace filters. No monitoring device aside from air flow sensor that indicates when to change the filter.

 Do you have plans to expand your coating operation for plastic parts for business machines?

      No, and no plans to start coating them unless there is a big change in industry. Industry would have to pursue them in order to consider coating these parts again.

 Do you have other industry contacts that are knowledgeable about the rule and might have useful input in our review?

      Ms. Miller mentioned a few facilities and some directories that we might consider searching, but there were no facilities that she felt certain would be spray coating plastic parts for business machines:
 Sally Precision in Waynesboro, Virginia  -  manufacturing facility; believe they only do powder coating
 Frederick County Customs  -  don't think they do business machines
 Protype Industries in northern Virginia  -  manufacturing but also do CNC and may liquid coat
 Finishing.com is a resource used by some industries; anodizing, electroplating, may not even do spray coating, but we could check
 Thomas directory might have something (thomasnet.com)  -  might help us find some more facilities to contact


									Served: April 1, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

International Mail Rates

Docket 1996-1629

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REGARDING NEW DATA

PROVIDED BY DELTA AIRLINES

Order 2002-12-23 established retroactively adjustable interim
international mail rates effective January 1, 2003, and also proposed
to make those rates final from January 1 through December 31, 2003.
American and United objected to that order on January 17 and
January 29, 2003, respectively, stating that it appeared that Delta’s
data were incorrect.  On January 30, 2003, Delta acknowledged that its
data were indeed incorrect, and requested time to correct it and submit
revised data, which it did on March 19, 2003.

In footnote (1) of that submission, Delta states that it “expects that
further accounting corrections, if any, identified in the course of the
more comprehensive Form 41 review [it is conducting] would have only a
de minimis effect on mail rates.”

We direct all parties to provide comments by April 8, 2003, on the new
data provided by Delta Airlines, and our reliance on that data for
setting final rates from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003.
If no objections are received, we will issue a final order based on
Delta’s revised information submitted on March 19.  Comments should be
sent to: U.S. Department of Transportation, PL 401, Docket Operations,
400 7th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590, Docket 1996-1629.

We shall serve this notice on all persons on the service list in this
docket.

By:

	READ C. VAN DE WATER

							Assistant Secretary for Aviation

							    and International Affairs

Date: April 1, 2003

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web

http://dms.dot.gov

 The original submissions is to be unbound and without tabs on 81/2’ x
11” white paper using dark ink (not green) to facilitate use of the
Department’s docket imaging system.  In the alternative, filers are
encouraged to use the electronic submission capability available through
the Dockets/DMS Internet site (http:dms.dot.gov) by following the
instructions on the web site.