[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 34338]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15410]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81159; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed
Rule Change To Adopt Rule 4.17, Consolidated Audit Trail--Fee Dispute
Resolution

July 18, 2017.
    On May 23, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt Rule 4.17 (Consolidated
Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 7, 2017.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80833 (June 1, 2017), 82
FR 26529 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The
proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving
potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates September 5, 2017, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-BatsEDGX-2017-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15410 Filed 7-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58504-58506]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-1014]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of LNG GOLAR TUNDRA while the
vessel transits within the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta
Channel. A temporary security zone of the receiving facility's mooring
basin will also remain in effect while LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is moored at
the facility. The security zones are needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
LNG cargo aboard the vessel. Entry of vessels or persons into these
zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of
the Port Corpus Christi.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from November 20,
2018 through November 21, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from November 11, 2018 through November 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-1014 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Margaret Brown, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. LNG
GOLAR TUNDRA is scheduled to be transit inbound on November 11, 2018
and anticipated to depart on November 21, 2018, and it is impracticable
to publish an NPRM because we must establish this security zone by
November 11, 2018. The security zone must be in effect through those
dates in order to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety and security
of the public and marine environment from hazards associated with the
LNG cargo.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
establish the security zone to ensure the safety and security of the
public and marine environment from hazards associated with the LNG
cargo.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the transit and
mooring of LNG GOLAR TUNDRA from November 11, 2018 through November 21,
2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of
the vessel, and while LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is moored within the mooring
basin, bound by 27[deg]52'53.38'' N, 097[deg]16'20.66'' W on the
northern shoreline; thence to 27[deg]52'45.58'' N, 097[deg]16'19.60''
W; thence to 27[deg]52'38.55'' N, 097[deg]15'45.56'' W; thence to
27[deg]52'49.30'' N, 097[deg]15'45.44'' W; thence west along the
shoreline to 27[deg]52'53.38'' N, 097[deg]16'20.66'' W. This rule is
needed to protect the public and marine environment while the vessel is
transiting and moored within the COTP zone.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from the time LNG GOLAR
TUNDRA enters the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on November 11, 2018
until departure on or about November 21, 2018. The moving security zone
will cover all navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of LNG GOLAR
TUNDRA while transiting inbound and outbound through the Corpus Christi
Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel, and the fixed security zone will
cover all waters bound by 27[deg]52'53.38'' N, 097[deg]16'20.66'' W; on
the northern shoreline; thence to 27[deg]52'45.58'' N,
097[deg]16'19.60'' W; thence to 27[deg]52'38.55'' N, 097[deg]15'45.56''
W; thence to 27[deg]52'49.30'' N, 097[deg]15'45.44'' W; thence west
along the shoreline to 27[deg]52'53.38'' N, 097[deg]16'20.66'' W, while
LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is moored at the facility. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the security zones without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.
    Entry into the security zones is prohibited unless authorized by
the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is
a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Corpus
Christi. Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through the zones
must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on
VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated
representative

will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate of the enforcement times and dates for
the security zones.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the security zones. Vessel traffic will only
be impacted for a short duration of time in the immediate area of the
LNG GOLAR TUNDRA during its transit and in the area of the facility
while the vessel is moored. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the
zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have
a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
security zones around navigable waters within a 500-foot radius of the
transiting LNG GOLAR TUNDRA and within the mooring basin. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-1014 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-1014  Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Corpus
Christi, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone:
    (1) For LNG GOLAR TUNDRA transiting shoreward of the seaward
extremity of the Aransas Pass Jetties in the Corpus Christi Ship
Channel and La Quinta Channel, the waters within a 500 yards of LNG
GOLAR TUNDRA while transiting until moored.
    (2) The mooring basin bound by 27[deg]52'53.38'' N,
097[deg]16'20.66'' W on the northern shoreline; thence to
27[deg]52'45.58'' N, 097[deg]16'19.60'' W; thence to 27[deg]52'38.55''
N, 097[deg]15'45.56'' W; thence to 27[deg]52'49.30'' N,
097[deg]15'45.44'' W; thence west along the shoreline to
27[deg]52'53.38'' N, 097[deg]16'20.66'' W, while LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is
moored.
    (b) Effective/enforcement period. This section is effective without
actual notice from November 20, 2018 until November 21, 2018. For the
purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 11,
2018 through November 20, 2018. Enforcement of this section began from
the time LNG GOLAR TUNDRA entered the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on
November 11, 2018 and will continue until LNG GOLAR TUNDRA's departure
on or about November 21, 2018.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in Sec.  165.33 of
this part apply. Entry into these zones are prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a
designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Corpus
Christi.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through the zones
must request permission from the COTP Sector Corpus Christi on VHF-FM
channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate of the enforcement times and date for
these security zones.

    Dated: November 9, 2018.
J.E. Smith,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector Corpus
Christi.
[FR Doc. 2018-25251 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Occupational Exposures and Environmental Releases of Lead Wheel Balancing Weights August 1, 2005 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Chemical Engineering Branch TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Lead Wheel Balancing Weights on Automobiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 RELEASES AND EXPOSURES FROM LEAD WHEEL BALANCING WEIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Lead Wheel Balancing Weight Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Automobile Manufacturing ( OEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Installation of Wheel Balancing Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4 Automobile Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.5 End of Life Vehicle Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.5.1 Salvage Yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5.2 Automobile Shredding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5.3 Automobile Metal Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.0 DATA GAPS/ UNCERTAINTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 APPENDICES A Steel Plants with Electric Arc Furnaces in the U. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 LIST OF TABLES 2.0 U. S. Manufacturers of Lead Wheel Balancing Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Employees Involved In Manufacture of Lead Wheel Balancing Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Pounds of lead released ( including on site and off site transfers) by tire weight manufacturers according to TRI data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.0 Summary of Estimates, Uncertainties and Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Potential flow of lead tire weights during end of life vehicle ( ELV) processing . . . . . . . 12 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION Wheel balancing weights are installed on motor vehicle wheels to correct for imbalances in wheel and tire assembly. Lead has been preferred for wheel balancing weights because it is inexpensive, dense, ductile and corrosion resistant ( EPAB, 2005).

Pursuant to Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (" TSCA"), 15 U. S. C. § 2620, the Ecology Center has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") to establish regulations prohibiting the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and improper disposal of lead wheel balancing weights " wheel weights" ( Ecology Center, 2005). In support of the EPA's review of this Section 21 petition, this report presents a screening level assessment of environmental releases and occupational exposures to lead resulting from the manufacture, processing, distribution, use and disposal of lead wheel balancing weights. A limited literature search for readily available information and data was conducted to complete this assessment.

1.1 Lead Wheel Balancing Weights on Automobiles Lead has traditionally been the preferred metal for wheel balancing weights because it is corrosion resistant, dense, malleable, and ductile. Wheels which require maintenance, repair or replacement require balancing. Wheel balancing weights are installed on vehicle wheels to balance them during vehicle operation. Typically, wheels mounted with tires are placed on machinery to determine the amount and placement of the weights to balance the wheel.

Balanced wheels may be installed on vehicles by the automobile manufacturers at their plants.

1.2 Literature Review The literature search for this assessment resulted in limited information. Estimating occupational exposures and environmental releases of lead from lead wheel balancing weights was not always possible due to a lack of information. A complete and accurate mass balance, based on reliable data, may be helpful in addressing some data gaps. 4 2.0 RELEASES AND EXPOSURES FROM LEAD WHEEL BALANCING WEIGHTS 2.1 Lead Wheel Balancing Weight Manufacturing Lead ingots received from primary and secondary smelters are melted and re cast into wheel weights ( BADA, 2005). These lead wheel balancing weights are then sold to automobile manufacturers ( original equipment manufacturers or OEM), tire weight distributers, tire manufacturers, and tire retailers. OEM utilize these wheel weights to balance wheels installed on new vehicles. Wheel balancing weights are installed on new and repaired wheels on vehicles. These lead wheel balancing weights are applied to the rim of wheels during balancing.

In the U. S., an estimated 50 to 60 million pounds of lead are used to make lead wheel balancing weights ( Gust, 2004 & BADA, 2005).

2.1 Number of Workers, Facilities and Operating Days A literature search resulted in information about three ( 3) wheel balancing weight manufacturers in the U. S. ( Dun & Bradstreet, 2005). These manufacturers produce wheel balancing weights at five ( 5) facilities ( EPAB, 2005) ( see Table 2.0).

Table 2.0: U. S. Manufacturers of Lead Wheel Balancing Weights Manufacturer Perfect Equipment Company, LLC ( a subsidiary of Berwind Corporation) BADA a division of Hennessy Industries, Inc. ( a subsidiary of Danaher Corporation) Halko Manufacturing, Company ( a. k. a. New Products Inc.)

Facilities Murfressboro, TN Sparks, NV Bowling Green, Ky Clayton, DE Woodbury, TN There are three major lead tire weight manufactures in the United States: Halko Manufacturing, Hennessy Industries, and Perfect Equipment ( EPAB, 2005). Preliminary research has indicated one lead tire weight facility for Hennessy, and two facilities for both Halko Manufacturing and Perfect Equipment. No publicly available information from the U. S. Census Bureau pertaining to these specific facilities nor for this industry sector was located; however, EPA has obtained data from Halko, Hennessy and Perfect Equipment. The Hennessy facility employs 85 workers, 90% of those working in the manufacturing area ( Rice1, 2005). Therefore, the number of workers potentially exposed during manufacturing at the Hennessy facility is:

( 85 workers)( 90% working in manufacturing area) = 77 workers/ exposed to lead at the Hennessy facility. 5 The workers operate on one 10 hour shift per day, 4 days/ week schedule ( Rice1, 2005). Each worker has the potential to be exposed up to a total of 208 days/ yr, based on 4 days/ week. A search of Dun and Bradstreet indicates Perfect Equipment employs 175 at the Murfreesboro, TN site, and 20 at the Sparks, NV site ( Rice2, 2005). Thus, the number of employees potentially exposed during manufacture at the two Perfect Equipment facilities, is:

( 175 + 20 workers) = 195 workers exposed to lead at the two Perfect Equipment facilities.

Dun and Bradstreet also indicates Halko Manufacturing employs 18 workers at their facility ( Rice2, 2005). Correspondence with Halko Manufacturing reports 35 employees total. The Halko facility could have up to 35 employees exposed to lead.

Therefore, the total number of workers with potential lead exposure is:

( 77 + 195 + 35) workers = 307 total workers with potential lead exposure.

Table 2.1: Employees Involved In Manufacture of Lead Wheel Balancing Weights Facility Employees ( reported in Dunn & Bradstreet) Total Number of Employees ( from company estimates)

Hennessy ( KY) 65 85 ( 77 exposed workers)

Perfect ( TN) ( NV) 175 20 CBI Halko ( DE) ( TN) 18 NR 35 ( total)

NR = not reported; Total number of employees reported via correspondence with Cody Rice ( EPAB); CBI = claimed as Confidential Business Information 2.1.2 Workplace Exposures A literature search produced no monitoring data for lead exposures from wheel balancing weight production. A conservative estimate of occupational exposure was made assuming compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's permissible exposure limit ( OSHA PEL) for lead of 0.05 mg/ m3 time weighted average ( TWA). This TWA is based on exposure during an 8 hour shift. Contact information from one of the wheel weight manufacturers ( Hennessy) noted that heir workers are on a 10 hour work day ( Rice1, 2005). Thus, 8 hour TWA PEL may not be appropriate. OSHA states that an adjustment factor is necessary if workers are exposed longer than an 8 hour period. Specifically, OSHA regulations for lead 6 exposure ( standard number 1910.1025( c)( 2)) state:

" If an employee is exposed to lead for more than 8 hours in any work day, the permissible exposure limit, as a time weighted average ( TWA) for that day, shall be reduced according to the following formula:

Maximum permissible limit (

g/ m3) = ( 400

g/ m3)/( hrs worked in the day)."

Therefore, the maximum permissible limit in mg/ m3 is:

Maximum permissible limit = ( 400

g/ m3)/( 10 hrs)/( 1,000

g/ mg) = 0.04 mg/ m3.

A possible inhalation exposure may be calculated once the following assumptions are made:

1. inhalation rate = 1.25 m3/ hr ( CEB's standard assumption for occupational ( NIOSH, 1976)); 2. 10 hours per work day estimate ( Hennessy Industries's estimate); and 3. maximum permissible exposure limit = 0.04 mg/ m3 ( calculated above).

Using these assumptions, the potential inhalation exposure to the 307 workers is:

( 0.04 mg/ m3)( 1.25 m3/ hr)( 10 hr/ day) = 0.5 mg/ day.

Actual exposure may be lower than this conservative estimate ( 0.5 mg/ day), particularly if workers wear appropriate personal protective equipment ( PPE) in process areas. Additionally, when actual monitoring data is not available, exposures are sometimes estimated based on monitoring data of other similarly handled operations. A 1994 OSHA study reports an average inhalation exposure of 49

g/ m3 ( 2 samples) for lead pot tenders ( SIC 3949: Fishing Lure and sinker manufacturers) ( OSHA, 1994). This exposure results in potential exposure dose rates of 0.49 mg/ day, assuming a breathing rate of 1.25 m3/ hr and 8 hr/ day. This estimate assumes that the exposures of lead pot tenders would be comparable to the exposures for workers involved in manufacturing lead tire weights.

Dermal exposure from routine contact is not expected during remelting and casting operations because workers are not likely to be in contact with molten lead due to the high temperature ( the melting point of lead is 327.5 degrees C ( 621.5 degrees F)).

Routine contact with lead from the tire weights is expected during washing and product packaging operations, where workers may or may not wear gloves. Also, no data was available to estimate lead exposures from handling solid lead wheel weights.

2.1.3 Workplace Releases 7 Lead from wheel balancing weights may result in environmental releases during manufacturing. TRI data ( see Table 2 1) has some reported lead releases from lead wheel weight manufacture. Not all the identified lead wheel weight manufacturing sites have TRI reports ( see Table 2.2 ).

Table 2.2: Pounds of lead released ( including on site and off site transfers) by tire weight manufacturers according to TRI data.

Company ( facility location) Year Fugitive Air ( Pounds) Transfer On Site for Further Waste Management ( Pounds) Transfer Off Site for Further Waste Management ( Pounds) Total ( Pounds)

Halko ( DE) 2001 0 0 0 0 2002 0 4,000 208,000 212,000 2003 0 5,000 18,775 23,775 Perfect ( NV) 2001 5 0 455,551 455,556 2002 0 0 382,551 382,551 2003 0 0 455,929 455,929 Perfect ( TN) 2001 5 0 588,835 588,840 2002 0 0 417,015 471,015 2003 0 0 391,746 391,746 Hennessy 2001 NA NA NA NA 2002 NA NA NA NA 2003 NA NA NA NA NA  No data was found in TRI The majority of lead release reported is transferred Off Site for further waste management ( or recycled off site to metal recovery). 8 2.2 Automobile Manufacturing ( OEM)

This sector is under NAICS 336111: Automobile Manufacturing and NAICS 336112: Light Truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing. The automobile sector consists of facilities primarily engaged in manufacturing complete automobiles ( i. e., body and chassis or unibody) or manufacturing automobile chassis only while the light truck sector consists of facilities engaged in manufacturing complete light trucks and utility vehicles ( i. e., body and chassis) or manufacturing light truck and utility vehicle chassis only. Vehicles made include light duty vans, pick up trucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles.

There are three predominant U. S. automobile manufacturers with assembly plants in the United States, as well as German and Japanese manufacturer assembly plants located in the United States. Automobile manufacturing consists of automobile parts manufacturing, assembly, and finishing. Once the various automotive parts are produced, they are ready to be brought together for assembly. Automotive assembly is a complex process that involves many different steps ( U. S. EPA, 1995a). Installation of lead wheel balancing weights may be a step in the assembly process.

2.2.1 Numbers of Workers, Facilities, and Operating Days The 2002 Economic Census reports there are 176 automobile manufacturing facilities in the United States with 85,845 employees, of which there are 75,114 production employees ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2004a). The 2002 Economic Census also reports there are 95 facilities manufacturing light truck and utility vehicles in the United States with 107,237 employees, of which there are 96,856 production employees ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2005a). The identities and numbers of facilities installing lead wheel balancing weights in new automobiles cannot be determined. The number of workers exposed to lead due to the installation of lead wheelbalancing weights in these facilities may be subset of production workers within each facility. Large assembly line production facilities generally operate three shifts, 365 days per year.

2.2.2 Workplace Exposures No monitoring data directly pertaining to installation of lead wheel balancing weights could be found and no methods could be determined for quantifying lead exposures from lead wheel weight installation.

2.2.3 Workplace Releases No information or data were found regarding releases or wastes associated specifically with lead wheel weight installation. No methods could be determined for quantifying lead releases from lead wheel weight installation. Landfills may be contaminated with lead during clean up and improper disposal methods. Sometimes, used lead wheel weights may be sold and/ or given to customers for use in home smelting operations to make fishing weights and lures, ammunition and 9 other miscellaneous projects.

2.3 Installation of Wheel Balancing Weights All vehicles require wheel weights to ensure tire balance and prevent vibration at high speeds Wheel weights are applied to the rim of a vehicle's wheel to provide a smooth ride. Wheels are placed on a machine to determine the amount of weights and their location on the wheel's rim. These balanced wheels may be installed on new and exiting vehicles.

2.3.1 Numbers of Workers, Facilities, and Operating Days The number of workers can be estimated from a couple of different sources. The first source estimates that up to 22,000 workers install wheel weights at 5,500 aftermarket installation sites ( Tire Industry, 2005). Additionally, the Department of Labor Statistics worker data in an annual Occupational Employment Statistics Survey. 2001 through 2003 estimates approximately 81,500 to 86,000 workers for the " tire repairers and changers" occupational category ( Bureau of Labor, 2005). The worker estimates from the Department of Labor may be an overestimate, if all the workers are not directly involved in installing lead wheel weights.

2.3.2 Workplace Exposures No monitoring data directly pertaining to installation of lead wheel balancing weights was found and no methods could be determined for quantifying lead exposures from lead wheel weight installation.

2.2.3 Workplace Releases No information or data were found regarding releases or wastes associated specifically with lead wheel weight installation. No methods could be determined for quantifying lead releases from lead wheel weight installation. Landfills may be contaminated with lead during clean up and improper disposal methods. Sometimes, used lead wheel weights are sold and/ or given to customers for use in home smelting operations to make fishing weights and lures, ammunition and other miscellaneous projects. 10 2.4 Automobile Use Over a vehicle's lifetime, wheel weights may be lost when they fall off the wheel onto the road. The probability of a weight falling off can be influenced by a number of factors: traffic patterns ( stop and go, multiple stops for traffic control devises, etc.), road conditions ( pot holes, uneven pavement, etc.), driving conditions ( rural, highway or urban), and other possible conditions or hazards. Based on a study cited by the petitioner ( Root, 2000), up to 10 % of wheel balancing weights may be dislodged during vehicle operation and deposited on U. S. streets, roads, and highways. The petitioner reports 200 250 grams ( 0.44 0.55 lbs) of lead wheel weights per vehicle ( Lohse, 2001). Another estimate ( EPAB, 2005) assumes two 1 to 1.5 oz lead wheel weights per wheel and with 4 wheels per vehicle making contact with roadway. This would mean 8 to 12 oz ( 0.50 0.75 lbs) per vehicle. Additionally, EPA estimated there are approximately 200 million automobiles and light trucks on the nation's roadways. ( EPA Lead Tire, 2005). Thus, using Root's estimate of 10%, 8,800,000 to 11,000,000 lbs or 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 lbs of lead may be released in the form of lead wheel weights. Root further claims that these lead wheelbalancing weights are abraded ( ground up and pulverized by vehicle traffic) releasing lead to the surrounding environment and population.

Used lead wheel weights may be sold and/ or given to customers for use in home smelting operations to make fishing weights and lures, ammunition and other miscellaneous projects. The quantity of wheel weights distributed in this manner is unknown. 11 Figure 1.1 Potential flow of lead tire weights during endof life vehicle ( ELV) processing 2.5 End of Life Vehicle ( ELV) Recycling Vehicles reaching end of life, either through its normal life cycle or by accident, usually enter the recycling process. For end of life vehicles ( ELVs), annual recycling rates are nearly 100 percent ( Steel Recycling Institute, 2005). In the recycling of ELVs, fluids are first drained and all resalable parts are removed. Next the vehicle may be shredded, crushed or transported for further processing. The wheels containing the lead wheel weights may be removed during initial processing at salvage yards or may remain on the vehicle for shredding, crushing or may be sent to other facilities for further processing. Shredding may take place at the salvage yard or at steel mills where electric arc furnaces ( or basic oxygen furnaces) are used to recycle the steel. Vehicles sent to shredders of site are often crushed to reduce transport volume ( New Jersey DEP, 2004). No data was located that could state with certainty where the wheels and wheel weight s may go during vehicle recycling.

The petitioner estimates 200 250 grams ( 0.44 0.55 lb) per vehicle ( Lead Free Wheels, 2005). Another estimate assumes two 1 to 1.5 oz lead wheel balancing weights per wheel and five ( 5) wheels per vehicle ( including the spare). According to this estimate, a vehicle may have approximately 280 430 grams of lead wheel balancing weights with 200 340 grams on the operating wheels ( EPAB, 2005).

Automobile shredding will be discussed in Section 2.5.2 and the automobile metal recovery process in Section 2.5.3.

Fig. 1.1 illustrates the potential flow of lead wheel balancing weights during end of life vehicle ( ELV) processing. 12 2.5.1 Salvage Yards This sector is covered by NAICS 42114 : Motor Vehicle Parts ( Used) Wholesalers. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in wholesaling used motor vehicle parts ( except used tires and tubes) and establishments primarily engaged in dismantling motor vehicles for the purpose of selling the parts. Automobile salvage yards are used to store used automobiles as well as other metal scrap. Before shredding technology became available, automobiles were often stored in huge fields for their parts. An average automobile may be stored an average of 2 to 5 years before being processed ( Recycling Council of Ontario, 1999). Salvage yards may contain lead wheel weights on ELVs delivered to the salvage yards. Shredding or crushing at the salvage yards may release lead. Some salvage yards could remove some lead wheel balancing weights from ELVs.

<IP_ADDRESS> Numbers of Workers, Facilities, and Operating Days Based on data obtained from the 1997 U. S. Census Report, this sector contained 7,105 facilities and employed 45,807 employees ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2000). The 2002 data has not been released. The identities and numbers of facilities and workers affected by lead from wheel weights cannot be determined. The majority of companies in this sector are small businesses. Only 50 facilities employ more than 50 employees while 6,500 facilities have less than 20 employees. These types of businesses with a small number of employees tend to operate one shift, 5 days per week. Overall, it is assumed that salvage yards normally operate 250 days per year.

<IP_ADDRESS> Workplace Exposures Exposure could result from the work area becoming contaminated with lead from lead wheel weights, particularly for salvage yards that crush or shred ELVs. Worker exposures due to lead from lead wheel weights that are shredded or crush cannot be quantified. Exposures in facilities that shred ELVs is given additional discussion in Section 2.5.2.

<IP_ADDRESS> Workplace Releases In salvage yards, ELVs may release lead from shredded or crushed lead wheel weights into the soil, air ( from shredding), or water ( through storm water runoff). However, environmental releases due lead wheel weights cannot be quantified. Releases from facilities that shred ELVs are included in Section 2.5.2.

2.5.2 Automobile Shredding Automobile shredders may be located at salvage yards, scrap recycling facilities, steel mills, or independent facilities. However, the distribution of shredders among various types of facilities could not be determined, nor could shredders be linked to a particular NAICS or SIC code. The shredding facility uses hammer mills to first break down the ELV hulk into small chunks. During 13 the process, automobile scrap is pneumatically and magnetically separated into three fractions: ferrous; nonferrous; and lightweight waste. The ferrous metals are sent for recycling to steel smelters. Historically, the ferrous fraction has accounted for about 70 percent of the weight of the car, but this proportion is decreasing as more and more plastics are used ( Ecology Center et al, 2001). Most of the lightweight waste material known as auto shredder residue ( ASR) or " fluff" is comprised of foam, textiles, plastics, glass, metal fines ( which may include lead from lead wheel weights), residual fluids, and dirt. ASR is removed during the shredding process by air cyclone separation and then landfilled. Historically, the ASR has accounted for about 23 percent of the weight of the car. The non ferrous metals may be sent to a non ferrous metal separation facility, where metals like lead, aluminum, copper, and zinc are recovered. Historically, the nonferrous fraction has accounted for about 7 percent of the weight of the car.

<IP_ADDRESS> Numbers of Workers, Facilities, and Operating Days There are approximately 200 auto shredding facilities operating in the United States ( ISRI, 2005). The locations of these facilities are not readily available. The identities and numbers of facilities and workers affected by lead wheel balancing weights from automobiles cannot be determined. Small, privately owned facilities usually operate five days per week, 50 weeks per year. It is assumed that these types of facilities generally operate 250 days per year. Some of the shredders are co located at steel mills with EAFs and are operated 364 days per year ( Ecology Center et al, 2001). Overall, it is assumed that shredding facilities normally operate 250 days per year.

The reference sources did not have information on the numbers of employees per facility. Many automobile shredder operations tend to be small, independently owned operations. It is expected that such facilities have less than 10 employees per facility. This type of operation requires the use of heavy equipment rather than significant amounts of manual labor. Some fraction of the workers have potential to receive incremental lead exposure from lead wheel weights during ELV processing.

<IP_ADDRESS> Workplace Exposures Occupational inhalation exposures during the shredding of automobiles may occur due to inhalation of lead contaminated dust or volatilized lead ( Ecology Center et al, 2001).

Workers may be exposed to fugitive emissions resulting from lead contaminated dust. Lead dust may be vented through an exhaust stack. No monitoring data was found for workers exposures to lead during shredding operations. Inhalation exposures to lead could be expected to be below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) maximum Permissible Exposure Limit ( PEL) for lead of 0.04 mg/ m3 time weighted average ( TWA).

Most of the ASR is separated from the metal streams by air cyclone separation. This separation process generates airborne dust, and workers can be exposed to lead in this dust. Workers may also be exposed to lead in dust during scrap loading activities. 14 The OSHA 8 hour Permissible Exposure Level ( PEL) for total particulate not otherwise regulated is 15 mg dust/ m3 air time weighted average ( TWA). It is expected that worker exposures to dust would be below this OSHA PEL. The lead content of the ASR was estimated between 4,000 and 25,000 mg/ kg ( Lohse, 2001). The fraction of this lead which comes from tire weights is unknown.

It is assumed that workers may be exposed to lead from lead wheel weights in these facilities for up to 250 days/ yr.

Vehicle, scrap, and residue handling at shredding facilities is usually carried out using heavy lifting and separations equipment. Therefore, dermal exposures to lead at these sites are not expected under routine conditions.

<IP_ADDRESS> Workplace Releases No data were found to estimate either the fraction of lead wheel balancing weights removed prior to ELV hulk recycling or the fraction of ELVs shredded.

Lead may be released as dust during the shredding process if the wheel balancing weights are shredded or crushed. Otherwise, the wheel weights may be released as solid lead. Amount of releases are not known.

The shredding process is generally a dry process, but there are several opportunities for water releases. Since the shredders are located outdoors and exposed to the environment, rain water could potentially wash away some residual lead contained on the shredder surface. Another possibility is that plastics from the shredder are separated in a flotation device. Some residual lead contamination on the plastic could enter the separation system. Cleaning the separation system and water recharging could result in a lead release to water. Most of the ASR is sent to landfills ( Ecology Center et al, 2001). Although water releases of lead are possible, the amounts could not be quantified.

2.5.3 Automobile Metal Recovery Facilities that recover metals from ELVs include steel mills with either electric arc furnaces ( EAFs) or basic oxygen furnaces ( BOFs) and nonferrous separation facilities and smelters ( e. g., lead, aluminum, zinc, copper, etc.). The types of facilities reviewed are: steel mills with EAFs, steel mills with BOFs, and nonferrous metal recovery facilities.

The ferrous scrap stream from facilities shredding ELVs is sent to steel mills with EAFs or BOFs. Some fraction of ELVs may be flattened but not shredded, and ELVs that are not shredded are sent directly to steel mills. No data were available for this fraction. 15 Facilities with EAFs are covered by NAICS 3311114  Iron and Steel Mills  Nonintegrated. EAFs utilize electricity to melt and refine scrap in a batch process to make steel products. To aid in scrap processing in EAFs, fluxes and other additives such as fluorspar, dolomite, and alloying agents such as aluminum and manganese are added ( U. S. EPA, 1995). During melting, impurities in the scrap such as carbon, manganese, phosphorus, silicon, and other materials are oxidized. This results in the formation of a slag containing these oxidized materials on top of the molten metal. Other byproducts of the EAF process include metal dusts and gases. Since EAFs use scrap metal instead of molten iron, there are no coke making or iron making processes associated with this form of steel production.

Facilities with BOFs are covered by NAICS 3311111  Steel Mills with Blast Furnaces, Coke oven and blast furnace products, made in steel mills. BOFs combine molten iron from blast furnaces with scrap steel to produce steel. BOFs utilize 25 percent to 35 percent steel scrap on average while EAFs utilize over 90 percent steel scrap on average. In addition, data indicate EAFs processed approximately 70 percent of total post consumer scrap steel while BOFs processed approximately 30 percent of total post consumer scrap steel ( Steel Recycling Institute, 2004).

Gases and particulate matter from EAFs are conveyed into either a wet or dry gas cleaning system. Particulate matter removed from the gas cleaning system is a listed hazardous waste ( RCRA K061) called EAF dust if it is from a dry system or EAF sludge if it is from a wet system. The composition of EAF dust or sludge varies greatly, depending on the scrap composition and furnace additives. A pollutant found in the dust/ sludge is lead. Some EAFs use briquettes made from EAF dust to charge the furnace, and this practice may further increase lead stack emissions from these EAFs. ( Ecology Center et al, 2001)

The nonferrous metal separation and recovery facilities covered are Secondary Smelting, refining and alloying of non ferrous metal ( except copper and aluminum) NAICS 331492. The nonferrous streams from facilities shredding ELVs are sent to nonferrous metal separation and recovery facilities. The nonferrous stream is between 6 to 8 percent of the dismantled weight of the ELV and primarily includes lead, aluminum, stainless steel, copper, brass, bronze, magnesium, nickel, and zinc ( Ecology Center et al, 2001). This nonferrous stream may be contaminated with lead wheel weights released from the shredding process. Because lead tends to form amalgams with many nonferrous metals, it is likely that some lead from ELVs is contained in the nonferrous fraction during shredding and subsequently released into the environment during nonferrous metal separation and recovery. Approximately 50 percent of the nonferrous fraction received by recovery facilities is a nonmetallic residue which is currently landfilled in the United States ( Ecology Center et al, 2001). Like steel mills, nonferrous smelting facilities use high temperature processes to melt nonferrous scrap, and some lead may be volatilized from these processes and emitted to air. Some lead may also be in nonferrous facilities' waste streams.

<IP_ADDRESS> Numbers of Workers, Facilities, and Operating Days 16 There are 95 facilities utilizing EAFs in the United States ( U. S. EPA, 2005a). Regarding facilities with BOFs, the 2002 Economic Census reports there are 16 facilities in the United States with 4,933 employees, of which there are 4,167 production employees ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2004b).

Regarding nonferrous recovery facilities, several key metal types are included to demonstrate potential numbers of facilities and workers. For secondary smelting, the 2002 Economic Census reports there are 236 facilities in the United States with 9,939 employees, of which there are 6,987 production employees ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2004c). Another source reported 23 lead smelting facilities ( Rice, 2005). Another source reported 26 secondary lead smelting facilities in the U. S. ( Kirk Othmer, 1996).

The number of workers exposed to lead originating from wheel weights in ELVs in these facilities cannot be determined. Operating days for these industrial facilities could be expected to range up to 365 days/ yr. Appendix A contains a list of facilities that have EAFs, along with their locations and capacities.

<IP_ADDRESS> Workplace Exposures Occupational exposures to lead from wheel weights in ELVs at metal separation and recovery facilities may include primarily lead from the furnaces and the presence and handling of leadcontaminated dusts or sludges.

Workers may be exposed to fugitive emissions of lead particles from lead wheel weights. The lead may be vented through exhaust stacks. Inhalation exposures to lead would be expected to be below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) 8 hour Permissible Exposure Limit ( PEL) for lead of 0.04 mg/ m3 time weighted average ( TWA). No monitoring data was found for workers exposures to lead in metal separation and recovery facilities.

Exposure to lead in dust may be due to dust from exhaust stacks and from handling dusts. The OSHA 8 hour Permissible Exposure Level ( PEL) for total particulate not otherwise regulated is 15 mg dust/ m3 air time weighted average ( TWA). It is possible that worker exposures to dust would be kept below this OSHA PEL. The percent of lead contained in the dust will vary depending on the process, the type of control equipment used, and the scrap processed. No monitoring data were available for lead in dusts in nonferrous recovery or in facilities with BOFs and EAFs.

Additionally, in the absence of actual monitoring data, exposures are sometimes estimated based on monitoring data of other similarly handled operations. A 1994 study reports an average inhalation exposure of 49

g/ m3 ( 2 samples) for lead pot tenders ( SIC 3949: Fishing Lure and sinker manufacturers). This exposure results in potential exposure dose rates of 0.49 mg/ day, assuming a breathing rate of 1.25 m3/ hr and 8 hr/ day. This estimate assumes that the exposures of lead pot tenders would be comparable to the exposures for workers at metal separation and recovery facilities. Another study on worker exposure to lead in Korea ( Donguk & Namwon, 17 2004) reported geometric mean values for total airborne lead concentrations of 758

g/ m3 in secondary smelting furnace operations and 436

g/ m3 in scrap and furnace operations. This may produce lead exposures of 7.58 mg/ day and 4.36 mg/ day respectively ( assuming an inhalation rate of 1.25 mg/ m3 and an 8 hour shift).

Workers may be exposed to lead in these facilities for up to 250 days/ yr.

Workers handling dusts or sludges in these metal recovery facilities may be exposed to lead during processing and cleanup activities. Dermal exposure to solids ( dust) and liquids containing lead could occur but cannot be quantified. Workers wearing appropriate gloves and protective clothing when handling lead or lead containing materials may have reduced potential for dermal exposure to lead.

<IP_ADDRESS> Workplace Releases There are no data to determine the distribution of lead between ferrous and non ferrous scrap.

There was 2003 TRI data reported for SIC 3341 ( Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals) includes releases from operations other than secondary lead smelting and other sources of lead other than lead wheel weights. The releases reported covers more than secondary lead smelting. There was no data available to segment the data to just secondary lead smelters. The air releases for SIC 3341 were 2,791,163 lbs ( fugitive) and 5,590,402 lbs ( stack). The reported water releases were 278,304 lbs ( surface water) and 101,281 lbs ( POTW). Land releases were 1,612,807,619 lbs. There were 1,945,230,974 lbs transfers off site for further waste management. 18 3.0 Data Gaps/ Uncertainties In general, there is limited data for estimating occupational exposures and environmental releases during various stages of the lifecycle of lead wheel balancing weights. The table that follows list the data gaps and uncertainties in estimating occupational exposures and environmental releases for lead wheel balancing weights.

TABLE 3.0 Summary of Estimates, Uncertainties and Data Gaps INDUSTRY SECTOR ASSESSMENT TYPE ESTIMATED QUANTITY SOURCE UNCERTAINTIES AND DATA GAPS Tire Weight Manufacturing [ 5 facilities]:

Halko ( Clayton, DE & Woodbury, TN); Perfect ( Spraks, NV & Murfreesboro, TN) Hennesy ( Bowling Green, KY) Air Release None for 3 sites reporting None for 3 sites reporting 5 lbs ( Perfect NV) 5 lbs ( Perfect TN) NA ( Hennesy and Halko TN) TRI ( 2003) TRI ( 2002) TRI ( 2001) TRI ( 2001) No TRI data was found for the Hennesy site and the Halko site in Woodbury, TN.

Not known where the off site transfers ( reported in TRI) go. Water Release None for 3 sites reporting None for 3 sites reporting None for 3 sites reporting NA ( Hennesy and Halko TN) TRI ( 2003) TRI ( 2002) TRI ( 2001)

Land Release None for 3 sites reporting None for 3 sites reporting None for 3 sites reporting NA ( Hennesy and Halko TN) TRI ( 2003) TRI ( 2002) TRI ( 2001)

Transfers Off site for Further Waste Management 18,775 lbs ( Halko DE) 455,929 lbs ( Perfect NV) 391,746 lbs ( Perfect TN) NA ( Hennesy and Halko TN) TRI ( 2003)

Number of Workers 307 ( Total for 5 facilities) Dun & Bradstreet Industry contacts Dun & Bradstreet reporting of number of employees may include workers not exposed during lead wheel weight manufacturing. Hours per day workers may be exposed to lead wheel weights. Number of days per year workers may be exposed to lead wheel weights. INDUSTRY SECTOR ASSESSMENT TYPE ESTIMATED QUANTITY SOURCE UNCERTAINTIES AND DATA GAPS 19 Inhalation Exposure 0.5 mg/ day ( fume and dust)

0.49 mg/ day ( 8 hr TWA personal breathing zone sample) OSHA PEL ( lead) = 400 µ m/ m3 ( max permissible limit)

OSHA ( 1994) Avg = 49 µ m/ m3 ( 2 samples) for lead pot tenders of fishing lure and sinker manufacturers ( SIC 3949) No monitoring data was found. Estimate based on assumption of compliance with OSHA PEL.

The OSHA data from pot tenders of fishing lure and sinker manufacturers may or may not be applicable to the manufacture of lead wheel balancing weights.

Dermal Exposure Unknown NA No data was found.

Assumptions that no contact will occur with molten lead.

Specific information pertaining to worker activity is needed to needed to assess dermal exposures.

Installation onto Wheels OEM: 176 auto facilities 95 light truck & utility vehicle facilities Aftermarket: 5,500 facilities Air Release Unknown NA Loss fraction due to disposal of off spec or damaged tire weights is unknown.

Media of release.

Amount of lead wheel weights used ( the quantities reported are inconsistent). Water Release Unknown NA Land Release Unknown NA Transfers Off site for Further Waste Management Unknown Tire Industry Association survey Number of Workers OEM: Automobile 85,845 ( total) 75,114 ( production) Light truck & utility: 107,237 ( total) 96,856 ( production) Aftermarket: 22,000 ( total at 5,500 facilities) 81,500 to 86,000 2002 Economic Census Tire Industry, 2005 Dept. of Labor Number of workers directly installing lead wheel weights. Hours per day workers may be exposed to lead wheel weights. Number of days per year workers may be exposed to lead wheel weights.

Inhalation Exposure Unknown NA No monitoring data was found.

Dermal Exposure Unknown NA No data was found.

Specific information pertaining to worker activity is needed to needed to assess dermal exposures. INDUSTRY SECTOR ASSESSMENT TYPE ESTIMATED QUANTITY SOURCE UNCERTAINTIES AND DATA GAPS 20 Automobile Use Air Release 8,800,000 11,000,000 lbs 10,000,0008 15,000,000 lbs ( specific media of release are known) ( Lohse, 2001) and Root study ( 2000)

( EPAB, 2005) and Root study ( 2000) Validity of extrapolating Root study to the entire United States is unknown.

Initial releases from automobiles is to land; however, environmental fate and partitioning to other media is unknown.

Quantity of weights collected ( recycled) for personal use is unknown ( fishing weights, lures, ammunition, etc). Water Release Land Release Transfers Off site for Further Waste Management Unknown NA Automobile Disposal ( Salvage Yards) Air Release Unknown NA Media of release uncertain.

Fate uncertain  amount of wheel weights in landfill and junkyards.

Number of cars in the US disposed of in US.

Fraction of wheel weights recycled. Water Release Unknown Land Release Unknown Transfers Off site for Further Waste Management Unknown NA Transfers off site is unknown. No data was found.

Number of Workers Unknown NA No data was located on number of workers.

No data was found on occupational exposures to lead from lead wheel weights in salvage yards. Inhalation Exposure Unknown NA Dermal Exposure Unknown NA Automobile Disposal (~ 200 shredders in US based on ISRI, 2005 & Great Lakes Institute, 1998) Air Release Unknown NA 1) Fraction of lead wheel weights removed during dismantling, prior to transfer to shredders; and 2) The amount of lead wheel weights that may be shredded; 3) The amount of lead from wheel weights in waste streams and in product streams. Water Release Unknown Land Release Unknown Transfers Off site for Further Waste Management Unknown Number of Workers Unknown NA Reference source did not have information on number of workers per facilities.

Inhalation Exposure Unknown NA No monitoring data was found. INDUSTRY SECTOR ASSESSMENT TYPE ESTIMATED QUANTITY SOURCE UNCERTAINTIES AND DATA GAPS 21 Dermal Exposure Unknown NA No data exist.

Automobile Disposal ( Steel Mills  EAFs or BOFs)

95 facilities utilizing EAFs ( EPA, 2005a)

16 facilities with BOFs ( 2002 Economic Census) Air Release ( stack & fugitive) 48,550 kg/ yr TRI ( 2003 data) for SIC 3312 1) TRI data could not be segregated to quantify the amount of lead from lead wheel weights.

2) Cannot directly separate emissions specifically associated with EAFs and BOFs containing lead from lead wheel weights.

3) Automobile scrap sent to steel mills with EAFs and BOFs containing lead wheel weights. Water Release ( surface water & POTW) 6,570 kg/ yr TRI ( 2003 data) for SIC 3312 Land Release 4,012,060 kg/ yr TRI ( 2003 data) for SIC 3312 Transfers Off site for Further Waste Management 6,659,870 kg/ yr TRI ( 2003 data) for SIC 3312 Number of Workers 4,933 ( employees) 4,167 ( production employees) 2002 Economic Census Manufacturing Industry Series: Iron and Steel Mills Number of workers exposed to lead from lead wheel weights is not known. Inhalation and dermal exposures attributed to lead wheel weights is not known.

Inhalation Exposure Unknown NA Dermal Exposure Unknown NA INDUSTRY SECTOR ASSESSMENT TYPE ESTIMATED QUANTITY SOURCE UNCERTAINTIES AND DATA GAPS 22 Secondary Smelting Potentially up to 236 secondary smelting facilities in US ( 2002 Economic Census, US Census Bureau, Dept. of Commerce)

Potentially 23 lead smelting facilities ( Rice, 2005)

Potentially 26 secondary lead smelting facilities in U. S. ( Kirk Othmer, 1996) Air Release 2,791,163 lbs ( fugitive) 5,590,402 lbs ( stack) TRI ( 2003 for SIC 3341) TRI data reported for SIC 3341 ( Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals) includes releases from operations other than secondary lead smelting and other sources of lead other than lead wheel weights.

Destination of off site transfers is unknown. The lead content in these transfers from lead wheel weights is unknown. Water Release 278,304 lbs ( surface) 101,281 lbs ( POTW) TRI ( 2003 for SIC 3341)

Land Release 1,612,807,619 lbs TRI ( 2003 for SIC 3341)

Transfers Off site for Further Waste Management 1,945,230,974 lbs TRI ( 2003 for SIC 3341)

Number of Workers 9,931 ( all employees) 6,987 ( production workers) ( NAICS 331492). 1,600 workers 2002 Economic Census ( US Dept of Commerce)

Rice, 2005 This data could not be partitioned to reflect actual number of workers exposed to lead from lead wheel weights. INDUSTRY SECTOR ASSESSMENT TYPE ESTIMATED QUANTITY SOURCE UNCERTAINTIES AND DATA GAPS 23 Inhalation Exposure 0.5 mg/ day ( fume and dust)

0.49 mg/ day ( 8 hr TWA personal breathing zone sample)

4.4  7.6 mg/ day OSHA PEL ( lead) = 400 µ m/ m3 max permissible limit OSHA ( 1994) Avg = 49 µ m/ m3 ( 2 samples) for lead pot tenders of fishing lure and sinker manufacturers ( SIC 3949)

Korean data in scrap and furnace operations ( 436

g/ m3) and in secondary smelting furnace operations ( 758

g/ m3 ) [ J. Occup. Health, 2004] No monitoring data exist. Estimate based on assumption of compliance with OSHA PEL.

The OSHA data may or may not be comparable to the potential workers exposures for operation being assessed.

This data from a Korean study may or may not be comparable to those for the operation being reviewed.

Dermal Exposure Unknown ( Worker contact to molten lead is not likely to occur) NA Dermal exposure data for workers in secondary lead smelting was not found. 24 4.0 REFERENCES BADA, 2005. General Contact Report. Telephone interview of Vincent Piacenti ( Present) and Tim Presley ( Director, Operations) of Hennessy Industries, Inc., BADA Division by Cody Rice of USEPA/ OPPT. July 1, 2005.

Donguk & Namwon, 2004. Exposure to Lead and its Particles Size Distribution, by Park Donguk and Paik Namwon. Received August 14, 2003. Accepted January 21, 2004. J Occup Health 200; 46: 225 229 Dun & Bradstreet, 2005. Dun & Bradstreet Market Spectrum. Accessed June 6, 2005.

Ecology Center et al, 2001. Ecology Center, Great Lakes United, and University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies. Toxics in Vehicles: Mercury. Located at web site: http:// www. cleancarcampaign. org/ pdfs/ toxicsinvehicles_ mercury. pdf. January 2001.

Ecology Center, 2005 European Union Countries to Get Lead free Weights This Year. Located at web site: http:// www. ecocenter. org/ 2003/ leadfreewheels200310. html EPAB, 2005. Use and Substitutes Analysis for Lead Wheel Balancing Weights in Response to TSCA Section 21 Petition. Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 20, 2005.

Gust, 2004. Letter to Richard Gust, President, Tire Industry Association, from James Barlow, US EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, regarding lead wheel weights. December 30, 2004.

ISRI, 2005. Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. End of Life Vehicles: A Proven Path to Recycling. Located at web site www. isri. org/ industryinfo/ elv. pdf. 2005.

Kirk Othmer, 1996. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Fourth Edition, Volume 20, pg. 1123. 1996.

Lead Free Wheels, 2005. Lead Free Wheels Program. Located at web site: http:// www. leadfreewheels. org/

Lohse, 2001. Heavy Metals in Vehicles II, by Dr. Joachin Lohse, Knit Sander, and Dr. Martin Wirts. Prepared for Directorate General Environment, nuclear Safety and Civil Protection of the Commission of the European Communities. Contract No B4 3040/ 2000/ 300649/ MAR/ E. 3 July 2001.

New Jersey DEP, 2004. Division of Science, Research, and Technology. Mercury Switch Data Collection Pilot Project: Final Report. March 2004.

NIOSH, 1976. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. A Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection. 1976 NIOSH # 76 189; GPO # 017 033 00153 7).

OSHA, 1994. U. S. Department of Labor/ OSHA Industry and Exposure Profiles and Assessment of Benefits of Reducing Occupational Exposures to Lead in 58 General Industry Sectors and Processes ( Final Report). Exhibit 2. February 28, 1994.

Recycling Council of Ontario, 1999. Management of End of Life Vehicles ( ELVs) in Ontario: Proceeding and Draft Recommendations of the RCO Forum. 1999.

Rice1, 2005. Email to Kurt Rindfusz, ERG, from Cody Rice, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, regarding lead wheel balancing weight manufacturers. June 1, 2005.

Rice2, 2005. Email to Daryl Hudson, ERG, from Cody Rice, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, regarding lead wheel balancing weight manufacturers. June 7, 2005.

Root, 2000. Robert Root, " Lead Loading of Urban Streets by Motor Vehicle Wheel Weights." Environmental Health Perspectives October 2000.

Sax, 1989. Sax NI & Lewis RJ. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 7th ed. 1989. 25 Steel Recycling Institute, 2004. 2003 The Inherent Recycled Content of Today's Steel. Located at web site http:// www. recycle steel. org/ PDFs/ Inherent03. pdf. April 2004.

Steel Recycling Institute, 2005. " STEEL: DRIVING AUTO RECYCLING SUCCESS" Located at web site http:// www. recycle steel. org/ cars. html. 2005.

Tire Industry, 2005. Summary of the Average Independent Tire Dealer's Automotive Service Operations. Retrieved March 8, 2005 from http:// www. tireindustry. org/ images/ 2003_ stat. gif U. S. Census Bureau, 2000. 1997 Economic Census Wholesale Trade Subject Series: Establishment and Firm Size ( Including Legal Form of Organization): 1997. September 2000.

U. S. Census Bureau, 2004a. 2002 Economic Census Manufacturing Industry Series: Automobile Manufacturing: 2002. December 2004.

U. S. Census Bureau, 2004b. 2002 Economic Census Manufacturing Industry Series: Iron and Steel Mills: 2002. EC02 31I 331111 ( RV). December 2004.

U. S. Census Bureau, 2004c. 2002 Economic Census Manufacturing Industry Series: Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum: 2002. EC02 31I 331314 ( RV). December 2004.

U. S. Census Bureau, 2005a. 2002 Economic Census Manufacturing Industry Series: Light truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing: 2002. January 2005.

U. S. EPA, 1995a. Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project. Profile of the Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry. EPA/ 310 R 95 009. September, 1995.

U. S. EPA, 1995b. Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project. Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry. EPA/ 310 R 95 005. September, 1995.

U. S. EPA 2005a. " Steel Plants with Electric Arc Furnaces" Received in email from Mary Kissell of U. S. EPA/ OAQPS to Scott Prothero of U. S. EPA/ OPPT. April, 2005. 26 Appendix A Steel Plants with Electric Arc Furnacesa Facility Name City State Number of Furnaces Type( s) of Steel Producedb Capacity ( 1,000 tpy)

AK Steel Corp/ Butler Operations Butler PA 3 S 960 AK Steel Corp/ Mansfield Operations Mansfield OH 2 S 700 Allegheny Technologies Inc. Brackenridge PA 4 S 496 Allegheny Technologies Inc./ Birmingham Birmingham AL 5 C 588 Arkansas Steel Associates Newport AR 1 C 130 Bayou Steel Corp./ LaPlace LaPlace LA 2 C 683 BetaSteel Corp. Portage IN 1 C 500 Border Steel Mills, Inc. El Paso TX 2 C 250 Carpenter Technology Corp./ Reading Plant Reading PA 6 H, S 450 Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc McMinnville OR 1 C 700 Champion Steel Co. Orwell OH 1 C, H, S 6 Charter Manufacturing Co., Inc/ Charter Steel Saukville WI 1 C 515 CitiSteel USA Inc. Claymont DE 1 C 400 CMC Steel Group/ SMI Steel South Carolina Cayce SC 1 C 1,089 CMC Steel Group/ SMI Steel, Inc. Birmingham AL 1 S, C 1,855 CMC Steel Group/ Structural Metals, Inc. Seguin TX 1 C 339 Corus Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa AL 1 C 870 Crucible Materials Corp Syracuse NY 1 H, S 50 Electralloy Oil City PA 1 C 90 Ellwood Quality Steels Co. New Castle PA 1 C, H, S 410 Erie Forge and Steel Inc. Erie PA 3 C, H, S 385 Finkl, A., & Sons Chicago IL 2 C 90 Gallatin Steel Co. Ghent KY 1 C 1,500 Gerdau Ameristeel  Cartersville Division Cartersville GA 1 C 658 Gerdau Ameristeel  Charlotte Steel Mill Charlotte NC 1 C 622 Gerdau Ameristeel  Jacksonville Steel Mill Baldwin FL 1 C 330 Gerdau Ameristeel  Knoxville Steel Mill Knoxville TN 1 C 515 Gerdau Ameristeel  Raritan Perth Amboy NJ 1 C 800 Gerdau Ameristeel  Sayreville Sayreville NJ 1 C 750 Gerdau Ameristeel  Tennessee Steel Mill Jackson TN 1 C 892 Haynes International, Inc. Kokomo IN 2 H, S 20 Hoeganeas Corp./ Gallatin Gallatin TN 1 C 500 Hoeganeas Corp./ Riverton Riverton NJ 1 C 112 Inmetco Ellwood City PA 1 S 28 Ipsco Inc./ Mobile Steel Works Axis AL 1 C 674 Ipsco Inc./ Montepelier Muscatine IA 1 H, C 317 International Steel Group ( ISG) Cleveland OH 2 C 396 27 ISG ( formerly Bethlehem Steel). Coatsville PA 1 C, H, S 880 ISG ( formerly Bethlehem Steel). Steelton PA 1 C 1,100 ISG ( formerly Georgetown Steel) Georgetown SC 2 C 1,000 Ispat Inland, Inc./ Ispat Inland Bar Prods. East Chicago IN 1 C 500 J& L Specialty Steel, Inc. Midland PA 2 S 400 K. O. Steel Foundry & Machine San Antonio TX 1 C 18 Keystone Steel & Wire Co Peoria IL 1 C 1,000 Kobelco Metal Powder of America, Inc. Seymore IN 1 C 63 LeTourneau Inc. Longview TX 2 C, H 124 Lone Star Steel Inc. Lone Star TX 2 C 265 MACSTEEL Arkansas Div. Fort Smith AR 2 C 607 MACSTEEL Michigan Div. Jackson MI 2 C 725 Marion Steel Co. Marion OH 1 C 400 National Forge Co. Irvine PA 1 C, H, S 58 North American Stainless Ghent KY 1 S 800 North Star BHP Steel L. L. P. Delta OH 1 C 1,800 North Star Steel/ Iowa Div. Wilton IA 1 C 917 North Star Steel/ Kingman Kingman AZ 1 500 North Star Steel/ Michigan Div. Monroe MI 1 C 600 North Star Steel/ Minnesota Div. St. Paul MN 1 C 843 North Star Steel/ Texas Div. Beaumont TX 1 C 1,002 Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. Sterling IL 2 C 2,070 NS Group Inc./ Koppel Steel Corp. Beaver Falls PA 1 C 550 Nucor Bar Mill Group Birmingham AL 1 C 500 Nucor Bar Mill Group Kankakee IL 1 C 800 Nucor Bar Mill Group/ Nucor Steel Jackson Inc. Jackson MS 1 C 500 Nucor Bar Mill Group/ Nucor Steel Seattle Inc. Seattle WA 1 C 840 Nucor Corp./ Berkeley County Plant Berkeley County SC 2 C 2,359 Nucor Corp./ Crawfordsville Plant Crawfordsville IN 2 H, C 224 Nucor Corp./ Darlington Plant Darlington SC 1 H, C 872 Nucor Corp./ Hertford Plant Cofield NC 1 H, C 171 Nucor Corp./ Hickman Plant Hickman AR 2 C, H, S 1,200 Nucor Corp./ Jewett Plant Jewett TX 3 C 460 Nucor Corp./ Norfolk Plant Norfolk NE 1 C 1,103 Nucor Corp./ Plymouth Plant Plymouth UT 2 C 1,111 Nucor Steel  Auburn Auburn NY 1 C 550 Nucor Steel  Decatur LLC Decatur AL 2 C 2,000 Nucor Yamato Steel Co. Blytheville AR 2 C 3,277 Oregon Steel Mills, Inc./ Portland Portland OR 1 C 499 Oregon Steel Mills/ Rocky Mountain Steel Mills Pueblo CO 2 C 1,200 Republic Engineered Steels, Inc./ Canton Plant Canton OH 1 C 1,050 Roanoke Electric Steel Corp. Roanoke VA 2 C 710 Sheffield Steel Corp. Sand Springs OK 2 C 600 28 Standard Steel/ Burnham Plant Burnham PA 3 C, H, S 231 Standard Steel/ Latrobe Plant Latrobe PA 1 C, H 59 Steel Dynamics Inc./ Butler Butler IN 2 C 3 Steel Dynamics Inc./ Whitley County Whitley County IN 2 C, H 800 Steel of West Virginia, Inc. Huntington WV 2 C 100 TAMCO Rancho CA 1 C 750 Timken Co., The/ Faircrest Plant Canton OH 1 C 415 Timken Co., The/ Harrison Plant Canton OH 3 S 358 Timken Co., The/ Latrobe Steel Co. Latrobe PA 2 C, H 60 TXI Chaparral Steel/ Dinwiddie Dinwiddie VA 1 C, H, S 1,200 TXI Chaparral Steel/ Midlothian Midlothian TX 2 C, H, S 2,000 Union Electric Steel Corp. Carnegie PA 1 C, H Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. Bridgeville PA 1 H, S 105 V& M Star Youngstown OH 1 C, H 650 Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Mingo Junction OH 1 C 500 TOTAL 144 63,149 Source: U. S. EPA 2005a. a Compiled from Roundup ( May 2003), an OAQPS survey of minimills in 2004, and news releases. Also updated to include ownership changes and recent shutdowns. Does not include EAFs used at iron and steel foundries ( some were listed in Roundup) b S = stainless, H = high alloy, C = carbon ( or low alloy)


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 25133]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10037]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: National
Flight Data Center Web Portal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on February 15, 2013, vol. 78, no. 32, pages 11264-11265.
NFDC Web Portal forms are used to collect aeronautical information,
detailing the physical description and operational status of all
components of the National Airspace System (NAS). This submission
includes the additional public burden for the Special Flight Area
processing tool.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 2120-0754.
    Title: National Flight Data Center Web Portal.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 7900-5, 7900-6, 7900-XX.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The National Flight Data Center (NFDC) is the
authoritative government source for collecting, validating, storing,
maintaining, and disseminating aeronautical data concerning the United
States and its territories to support real-time aviation activities.
The data ensures the safe and efficient navigation of the national
airspace. The data is maintained in the National Airspace System
Resources (NASR) database which serves as the official repository for
NAS data and is provided to government, military, and private producers
of aeronautical charts, publications, and flight management systems.
    Respondents: 7,318 representatives of U.S. public airports, U.S.
privately-owned instrument landing systems, and non-Federal weather
systems.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 25 minutes per response
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,296 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-10037 Filed 4-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44513-44515]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0794; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-04-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS350B3 and EC130B4 helicopters.
This proposed AD would require revising the Limitations section of the
Rotorcraft flight Manual (RFM) to reduce the starter generator
operating current to 180 amperes (amps) and installing a placard in the
instrument panel indicating the revised limitation. This proposed AD is
prompted by the determination that the manufacturer-installed Aircraft
Parts Corporation (APC) starter generator has exceeded the shaft horse
power extractions allowed for Turbomeca engines. The proposed actions
are intended to prevent the engine surge margin being reduced, which
can result in engine failure.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 28,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet

at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations
Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.eurocopter.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817)
222-5961, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No.
2006-0337, dated November 7, 2006, to correct an unsafe condition for
the Eurocopter Model AS350B3 and EC130B4 helicopters. EASA advises that
the power drawn by an APC 200 amps starter generator from the engine is
above the consumption capacity for the specified Eurocopter model
helicopters. Excessive power consumption of the starter generator
reduces the engine surge margin, which can result in engine failure.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletins (ASBs) No. 01.00.57
for the Model AS350B3 helicopters and No. 04A002 for the Model EC130B4
helicopters. Both ASBs are Revision 1 and both are dated September 14,
2006. The ASBs specify defining the limitation for the APC 200-amp
starter generator. EASA classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued
AD No. 2006-0337, dated November 7, 2006, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within the next 100 hours time-in-
service (TIS), revising the Limitations section of the RFM to reduce
the starter generator rating to 180 amps and installing a placard on
the instrument panel below the vehicle engine multifunction display
indicating the starter generator reduced limitation: ``MAXIMUM
CONTINUOUS GENERATOR LOAD 180A.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    We would require that this proposed AD be accomplished within 100
hours TIS, rather than 110 flight hours or 12 months as stated in the
EASA AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 363 helicopters of
U.S. registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD: It would cost $21.25, assuming it
takes 15 minutes to revise the RFM and install a placard on the
instrument panel of each helicopter at an average labor rate of $85 per
work hour, or $7,714 for the fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
Airworthiness Directive (AD):

Eurocopter France: Docket No. FAA-2012-0794; Directorate Identifier
2006-SW-04-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AS350B3 and EC130B4 helicopters with an
Aircraft Parts Corporation (APC) 200-ampere (amp) starter generator,
part number (P/N) 200SGL130Q, installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as excessive power
consumption of the starter generator, which reduces the engine surge
margin. This condition could result in engine failure and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    Within the next 100 hours time-in-service:
    (1) Revise Paragraph 2, Limitations, of the Rotorcraft Flight
Manual (RFM) Supplement 29 to reduce the maximum current of the
starter generator to 180 amps Max. continuous.
    (2) Install a placard, 125 millimeters long by 10 millimeters
wide, on the instrument panel below the vehicle engine multifunction
display indicating the starter generator reduced limitation:
``MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS GENERATOR LOAD = 180A.''

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal
to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft
Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletins No. 01.00.57 and No.
04A002, both Revision 1, and both dated September 14, 2006, which
are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information
about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in
this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive,
Grand Prairie, TX 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (972)
641-3710, or at http://www.eurocopter.com. You may review copies of
the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency AD No. 2006-0337, dated November 7, 2006.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: Starter-Generator
2435.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 20, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-18463 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33144-33145]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Meeting: RTCA Program Management Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Program Management Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 19, 2013, from 8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a Program Management Committee meeting. The agenda
will include the following:

June 19, 2013

     Welcome and Introductions.
     Review/Approve Meeting Summary.
     March 20, 2013, RTCA Paper No. 096-13/PMC-1083.
     Publication Consideration/Approval
     Final Draft, Revised DO-236B, Minimum Aviation System
Performance Standards (MASPS) for Required Navigation Performance for
Area Navigation, RTCA Paper No. 094-13/PMC-1081, prepared by SC-227.
     Final Draft, New Document, Operational and Functional
Requirements and Safety Objectives for Unmanned Aircraft System
Standards, RTCA Paper No. 102-13/PMC-1084, prepared by SC-203.
     Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)--Report
     Inter-Special Committee Requirements Agreement (ISRA)
Guidance--Process Review and Recommendations.
     Action Item Review
     SC-228--Minimum Performance Standards for Unmanned
Aircraft Systems and PMC UAS Steering Committee--Discussion--Status.
     Discussion
     SC-186--Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast--
Discussion--Revised Terms of Reference.
     SC-213--Enhanced Flight & Synthetic Vision Systems--
Discussion--Revised Terms of Reference.
     SC-214--Standards for Air Traffic Data Communications
Services--Discussion--Revised Terms of Reference.
     SC-216--Aeronautical Systems Security--Discussion--Revised
Terms of Reference.
     SC-225--Rechargeable Lithium Batteries--Discussion--
Revised Terms of Reference.
     SC-227--Standards of Navigation Performance--Discussion--
Revised Terms of Reference.
     Presentation--Part 23 ARC Report--Areas/Recommendations
for RTCA Support--Discussion.
     NAC--Status Update.
     FAA Actions Taken on Previously Published Documents--
Report.
     Special Committees--Chairmen's Reports and Active Inter-
Special Committee Requirements Agreements (ISRA)--Review.
     European/EUROCAE Coordination--Status Update.
     Other Business.
     Schedule for Committee Deliverables and Next Meeting Date.
     Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting.
    Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2013
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-13019 Filed 5-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P