1 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Texas ; Agreed Orders in the Beaumont / Port Arthur Ozone Nonattainment Area Technical Support Document R06 OAR 2005 TX 0019 February 14,2005 The TCEQ entered into eight Agreed Orders with six companies at seven sites to make sure activities and emission reductions could become federally enforceable. This proposed SIP revision is site specific. There are a variety of projects contained with in the Agreed Orders, some will result in quantifiable emission reductions and others will improve the operations, maintenance, and reliability of systems. TCEQ calculated the emission reductions in terms of allowable emissions. As delineated in the Agreed Orders with each company the reductions stipulated in each order will not be used for future offsets or banking. Due to this stipulation, some of the companies have reserved some of the reductions gained by the submitted projects for their own future offsets and banking. The modeling, attainment demonstration SIP, and the rate of progress plan submitted on November 16, 2004, for the Beaumont Port Arthur Ozone nonattainment area do not take credit for these emission reductions whether they are delineated in the Orders as required reductions or are reserved by the companies for future use.

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Jefferson County Agreed Order; Docket No. 2004 0846 SIP TCEQ Account number JE 0067 I, Customer No. 601470214, Regulated Entity No. 102450756 ExxonMobil installed a wet gas scrubber on the fluid catalytic cracking unit in order to reduce sulfur dioxide ( SO 2) emissions. The previous permit allowable for Emission Point Number ( EPN) 06STK_ 001 was 12,833.75 tons per year ( TPY), established in TCEQ Permit # 19566. This allowable was established for the grandfathered FCCU CO ( carbon monoxide) boiler stack in order to assure that any expansion projects elsewhere in the plant would not cause emission increases from the unit. This project was originally submitted as a voluntary emissions reduction permit ( VERP). The new allowable rate for EPN 06ST_ 003, the FCCU Scrubber Stack, is 2,849.19 TPY SO 2. The new allowable is reported to be based upon an outlet concentration of 200 ppmv. The emission reductions from this project is 9,984.6 TPY SO 2 ( 12,833.75 TPY  2,849.19 TPY). These reductions are enforceable through TCEQ Permit #: 46534. The Company reserved 300 TPY SO 2 to be allocated to other projects, and any SO2 emissions reductions above 9400. This left no more than 9,400 TPY and no less than 584 TPY in SO 2 reductions.

By December 31, 2004 ExxonMobil implemented improved practices and maintenance procedure for the two ketone units. These improved practices and procedures will help to reduce the fugitive emissions. The emissions are reported under EPN 41FUG_ 001, EPN 41FUG_ 002, EPN 42FUG_ 001, and EPN 41FUG_ 002. The company will prepare a written plan describing the detailed maintenance procedures. The company will keep a copy of the plan available for review on site for 2 inspection by TCEQ. These improved practices were submitted as part of VERP #: 47358, which is currently under review by TCEQ. The leak detection and repair program for fugitive emissions have also been changed. The program has been changed from 28 RCT to the more stringent 28 VHP. Leaks from pumps and compressors are repaired at a lower leak detection limit, 2,000 ppmv verses 10,000 ppmv. This project is estimated to provide a volatile organic compounds ( VOC) reduction of 4 TPY. The Company did not reserve any of the VOC emission reductions that would be achieved by these practices.

ExxonMobil is building a new cogeneration unit. This unit will allow for the shut down of six existing boilers by May 1, 2006. The following boilers will be shutdown EPN 56STK_ 015, EPN 56STK_ 016, EPN 56STK_ 017, EPN 56STK_ 018, EPN 56STK_ 019, and EPN 56STK_ 032. The Company did not reserve any of the emissions reductions that will be achieved by the shutdown of these six boilers.

The VOC emissions as reported in the Emissions Inventory ( EI) for 2001 2003 averaged approximately 37 TPY. The company assigned 29 TPY of the VOC reductions to the Agreed Order, they are reserving the remaining VOC and other emissions reduction for other projects which are not part of the Agreed Orders. The following table contains the VOC emissions from the 2001 2003 EIs for these boilers.

Year EPN F KVGS Total Tons RFR COMP1 Tons RFR COMP2 Tons RFR COMP3 Tons RFR FUGS Tons 1997 282.8 70.7 70.7 70.7 70.7 1998 366.5 91.62 91.62 91.62 91.62 1999 180 45.04 45.04 45.04 45.04 2000 36 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 2001 shutdown ExxonMobil will continue to operate two SO 2 monitors as described in Ordering Provision No. 2 of the Agreed Order between the Company and TCEQ, Docket No. 97 0827 AIR E. The company will continue to operate these SO 2 Monitoring Stations until EPA has determined that the BPA area has attained the 8 hour standard and redesignated the area to attainment or until December 31, 2008, which ever is later. SO 2 Monitoring Station 2, Site 1 is located inside the refinery left of the Buford gate in the scaffolding lay down area. The monitor at this location is a Thermo Electron Instruments Model Number 43A ( Serial #: 34876 249). SO 2 Monitoring Station 3, Site 3 is inside the plant a the B& P docks. The monitor at this location is a Thermo Electron Instruments Model Number 43C ( Serial #: 61673 333).

The Company has also installed new Vivicom Software and installed new NO x, CO, and O 2 emissions analyzers. This updated software will allow for more accurate and timely response to emission variations. The software allows for more efficient maintenance activities such as calibration and 3 validation of equipment. There are no quantifiable reductions associated with this project.

Mobil Chemical Company, Division of ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Jefferson County Agreed Order; Docket No. 2004 0841 SIP TCEQ Account number JE 0062S, Customer No. 601470214, Regulated Entity No. 102450756 The Mobil Chemical Company will shut down the grandfathered olfins and aromatics ( O& A) plant boiler, EPN EH34, on or before December 1, 2006. The Company stated the grandfathered emission level for NO x as 261 TPY, the 2002 2003 EI data showed an average level of 235 TPY. 75 tons per year of NO x were retained by the Company for future use. All of the NOx emissions reductions above 75 TPY that will be achieved by the shutdown of the boiler are required by the Order. This amounts to about 160 180 TPY NO x reductions. All of the other emissions reductions that will be achieved by the shutdown are required by the Agreed Order; the Company did not reserve them for future use. Estimated VOC reductions of 1.3 TPY were based upon the highest of the last four years of EI data ( 2002). The emissions reported for the olfins & aromatics plant boiler for the 2000 2003 EI are as follows:

Air Contaminant Determination Method 2003 TPY 2002 TPY 2001 TPY 2000 TPY VOC AP 42 emission factors 1.22 1.26 1.07 1.22 NO x Stack test 232.22 237.63 202.26 224.36 CO Stack test 0.747 0.768 0.709 4.17 By December 31, 2005 Mobil Chemical Company will remove components of the O& A Plant UDEX Unit which will result in a reduction of fugitive emissions of VOC from EPNs EF3, EF4, EF9, EF10, and EF11. The new configuration is represented in TCEQ Air Quality Permit #: 18838. EPN EF9 had also been listed in TCEQ Permit #: 7799 at an allowable emission rate of 68.61 TPY VOC. The emission reductions for this project is estimated to be 158.49 TPY VOC. The revised allowable emission rates are listed below. The total VOC reductions required by this Agreed Order are estimated to be 159.8 TPY ( 158.49 TPY + 1.3 TPY). All of the emissions reductions that will be achieved by the removal of the components are required by the Order. The Company did not reserve any of the emissions reductions for future use. 4 EPN Previous VOC TPY Revised VOC TPY VOC Reduction TPY EF3 38.60 2.56 36.04 EF4 6.10 0.68 5.42 EF9 35.30 + 68.61 5.90 98.01 EF10 10.70 1.12 9.58 EF11 9.70 0.26 9.44 TOTAL 100.4 10.52 158.49 Mobil Chemical Company, Division of ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Jefferson County Agreed Order Docket No. 2004 1654 SIP TCEQ Account number JE 0064O, Customer No. 601549660, Regulated Entity No. 101485738 The Chemical Specialties Plant sulfurized isobutylene unit authorized by TCEQ Air Quality Permit #: 3186 has been shutdown. The Company did not reserve for future use any of the emissions reductions that will be achieved by this shutdown. The permitted allowable emission rates for this unit were as follows: 13.8 TPY VOC, 0.8 TPY H 2 S ( hydrogen sulfide), and 0.1 TPY CO. TCEQ has estimated that there will be 5.7 TPY of VOC and 0.2 TPY H 2 S reductions .

ISP Elastomers, Jefferson County, Agreed Order Docket No. 2004 0842 SIP TCEQ Account number JE 0017 A, Customer No. 602296287, Regulated Entity No. 10224799 ISP Elastomers has shutdown a grandfathered ammonia refrigeration unit thereby eliminating the fugitive ammonia emissions from EPN F KVGS. The Company did not reserve for future use any of the emissions reductions that will be achieved by the shutdown. Since the unit was grandfathered there was not an allowable emission rate. The Company has reported the fugitive ammonia emissions under four facility identification numbers ( see below). The estimated emission reductions resulting from the shutdown are 280 TPY ammonia. During 2000, the shut down of the unit had begun therefore the emissions reported to the EI that year are not representative of the actual values. The average emission rate from 1997 1999 is about 280 TPY. According to the EI, the emissions were calculated based upon material balancing. The company assumed that all of the purchased ammonia was lost as fugitive emissions. Since there are four FINs associated with EPN F KVGS. The emissions were distributed evenly across all of them for simplicity. 5 Year EPN F KVGS Total Tons RFR COMP1 Tons RFR COMP2 Tons RFR COMP3 Tons RFR FUGS Tons 1997 282.8 70.7 70.7 70.7 70.7 1998 366.5 91.62 91.62 91.62 91.62 1999 180 45.04 45.04 45.04 45.04 2000 36 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 2001 shutdown Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation, Jefferson County, Port Neches Plant Agreed Order Docket No. 2004 0882 SIP TCEQ Account Number JE 0052 V, Customer No. 600632848, Regulated Entity No. 100219252 The Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation has installed and configured for use E! CEMS Software to improve the data and system reliability regarding electronic data gathered for compliance purposes. E! CEMS is an web enabled, electronic database information management system developed by Ellipsys. The system will improve tracking of emissions and allow for quicker response to potential problems. There are no quantifiable emission reductions from the implementation of this measure.

Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation, Jefferson County, Port Arthur Plant Agreed Order Docket No. 2004 0845 SIP TCEQ Account Number JE 0135 Q, Customer No. 600632848, Regulated Entity No. 1002192522 Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation is controlling emissions of benzene from Storage Tanks 4865, 4866, and 4867. The Company is not reserving for future use any of the emissions reductions that will be achieved by the benzene tank project. These tanks have internal floating roof which meet the best available control technology ( BACT) requirements. The emissions from these tanks were routed to a thermal oxidizer on December 31, 2003. Huntsman sumibitted a permit revision to TCEQ Permit # 16989 and the benzene emissions cap has been reduced. The reductions were included in an Emission Cap Compliance Plan dated May 15, 2002 and calculated by the EPA program TANKS. The reductions are reported as follows: 6 Tank 4865 0.83 TPY benzene Tank 4866 0.83 TPY benzene Tank 4867 1.50 TPY benzene Tank 4868 0.99 TPY benzene TOTAL: 4.15 TPY benzene Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation has also installed and configured E! CEMS Software at the Port Arthur Plant.

Premcor Refining Group, Jefferson County Agreed Order Docket No. 2004 0845 SIP TCEQ Account Number JE 0042B, Customer No. 601420748, Regulated Entity No. 102584026 Premcor Refining Group has replaced the fuel gas burners ( combined rated duty of approximately 600 million British Thermal Units per hour) in five of its process heaters in catalytic reforming unit # 1344 with low NO x burners. The Company did not reserve for future use any of the emissions reductions that would be achieved by this replacement. In issuing the revised permit, the TCEQ estimated that the replacement of the fuel gas burners with the low NOx burners would produce an estimated 400 TPY NO x emission reductions. The TCEQ's technology control requirements for the operation of the low NOx burners would result in 291 TPY of NOx reductions. The Company agreed in the permit to operate the low NOx burners even more stringently and thereby achieve an additional 109 TPY of NOx emissions reductions.

The Company has installed a sulfur degassing system designed to remove H 2 S from the sulfur prior to loading into trucks from all of the in ground storage tanks at Sulfur Recovery Units 543 and 544. The Company did not reserve for future use any of the emissions reductions that would be achieved by this installation. The TCEQ's technology control requirements for operation of the degassing system would require 3.1 TPY of H2S reductions. The Company agreed in the permit to more effective controls and thereby achieve an additional 1.6 TPY of H2S emissions reductions.

Premcor has installed and configured for use the Ops EnvironmentalTM Software. This system will integrate a multi media environmental data management system linked to 60 existing boiler and process heater continuous emissions monitoring systems ( CEMS) and the Refinery process information system. The software is designed to improve tracking of actual emissions, operator response times and corrective action by the Company. There are no quantifiable emission reductions from the implementation of this measure.

The Company has made equipment modifications to improve the regenerative thermal oxidizer ( RTO) for wastewater treatment unit # 8742. The following modifications are designed to improve the reliability of the unit and help prevent RTO shutdowns. Since the nature of these modifications are to prevent emission events associated with RTO shutdowns and not a reduction in allowable emissions, there are no quantifiable emission reductions from the implementation of these measures. 7 The modifications are listed below. ° Redundant flame detectors with 100% voting logic to minimize false signals that can cause unwarranted shutdowns and instrument air purge to flame scanner path. The improved flame detector design will also allow on stream cleaning. ° Fiber optics control communications wiring that will be less susceptible to lightning induced voltage spikes. ° New motor actuated combustion air and fuel flow control valves that do not use mechanical linkages which for combustion control. ° Modified deal drum level control design. ° Deletion of damper fauld shutdown ( kept alarm alive). ° Reduction of induced draft fan vibration and bearing temperature shutdowns ( kept alarm active). ° Replacement of all damper actuators. ° Replacement of both hydraulic pumps. ° Adjustment of burner minimum fire to lowest possible setting.

Premcor will also improve the RTO by upgrading the master electronic control system by June 30, 2005. As with the previously listed modifications to the RTO, there are no quantifiable emission reductions. The Company will be making the following modifications to the Master electronic control system to the RTO. ° Replace the new master Programmable Logic Controller. ° The logic programming will be reviewed and revised to simplify its function while maintaining necessary fail sage operational integrity. ° Certain RTO control loops sill ve moved to the existing distributed Control System to allow for better control and tuning.

By April 30, 2005 Premcor will complete the installation of a wet gas scrubber at the outlet of the regenerator on the fluid catalytic cracking unit # 1241. The wet gas scrubber uses caustic and water solution sprays to remove sulfur and particulates from the generator flue gas. BACT requirements for flexible permit # 6825A require reduction of 3,300 TPY SO 2, the scrubber will reduce emissions by 4,400 TPY SO 2. The excess reductions of 1,100 TPY SO 2 are considered to be voluntary.

By April 30, 2005 Premcor will complete the installation of a wet gas scrubber at the outlet of the regenerator on the fluid catalytic cracking unit # 1241. The Company did not reserve for future use any of the emissions reductions that will be achieved by this installation. The wet gas scrubber uses caustic and water solution sprays to remove sulfur and particulates from the generator flue gas. The TCEQ's technology control requirements for the wet gas scrubber would require reductions of 3,300 TPY SO 2. The Company agreed in the permit to more stringent controls and thereby achieve an additional 1,100 TPY SO 2 emissions reductions. 8 Motiva Enterprises LLC, Jefferson County Agreed Order Docket No. 2004 0843 SIP TCEQ Account Number JE 0095D, Customer No. 600124051, Regulated Entity No. 1000209451 Motiva Enterprises LLC has shut down Boilers 26 and 27, EPN SPS2 6 and EPN SPS2 7 respectively. The Company did not reserve for future use any of the emissions reductions that will be achieved by the shutdown of these two boilers. The allowable emission rates from the shutdown of the boilers will be removed from TCEQ permit # 6056. The current allowable emission rates are as follows:

Air Contaminant Boiler 26 EPN SPS2 6 TPY Boiler 27 EPN SPS2 7 TPY Total Reduction from Shutdown TPY NO x 680.0 680.0 1360.0 SO 2 32.7 32.7 65.4 PM 10 6.2 6.2 12.4 CO 41.9 41.9 83.8 VOC 1.7 1.7 3.4 The Company will shutdown Boiler 31 ( EPN SPS3 1) and replace it with a new waste heat boiler ( EPN WHB37SCR) under TCEQ Standard Pollution Control Permit # 54322. The Company will also uncouple the Gas Turbine Generator 35 from Boiler 34 ( EPN SPS3 4 and Boiler 35 ( EPN SPS3 5) and route the exhaust gas to the new waste heat boiler. NO x emissions from the waste heat boiler will be controlled with selective catalytic reduction. The Company did not reserve for future use any of the emissions reductions that will be achieved by the shutdown of Boiler 31 and the uncoupling/ rerouting. Boiler 31 is permitted under TCEQ Air Quality Permit #: 6056 with an allowable NO x emission rate of 905.8 TPY. The new Waste Heat Boiler is authorized by TCEQ Air Quality Permit # 54322 with an allowable emission rate for NO x of 236.1 TPY. The emissions from this project are rounded to 670 TPY ( 905.8 TPY  236.1 TPY). No other emission reductions have be quantified.

Under a Consent Decree between the Untied States of America and the States of Delaware and Louisiana and Motiva Enterprises, Inc., Motiva Enterprises was required to comply with 40 CFR § 60.11 and ensure that New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) compliance at four flares. This requirement was to be met by meeting the emissions limitation, monitoring and other requirements for refinery fuel gas found in 40 CFR § 60.104 and 60.105, or alternative monitoring protocols approved pursuant to 40 CFR § 60.13( I). The Company has begun to comply with the NSPS requirements at the remaining three flares at the Plant, EPN FCCUNO3FS, EPN HCUNO1 FS, and 9 EPN VPSNO4FS. The nature of these modifications are to prevent emission events and not a reduction in allowable emissions, therefore there are no quantifiable emission reductions from the implementation of these measures Recommendation EPA has reviewed the submitted Agreed Orders. The emission reductions memorialized in the Agreed Orders between each of the companies and TCEQ represent actions that appear to be taken above and beyond the requirements of any State or Federal Agency. The emission reductions and other measures outlined in each of the Orders are permanent and can not be used for future banking, trading or offsets. Only emission reductions specifically identified in the Orders as being reserved for future use may be used for offsets, trading, etc. The Beaumont Port Arthur Attainment Demonstration Ozone SIP and the rate of progress plan do not take credit for any of these emission reductions required by the Agreed Orders. The reduction in emissions required by these Orders will aid in the improvement of the air quality in the Beaumont Port Arthur Ozone Nonattainment Area, will contribute to maintenance of the standards in northeast Texas, and strengthen the existing Texas SIP; therefore these Agreed Orders should be approved and adopted into the Texas SIP.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43962-43963]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Meeting: Cancellation of RTCA Program Management Committee

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

ACTION: Cancellation of the Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing a CANCELLATION to the notice submitted on
July 9th to the public of a meeting of RTCA Program Management
Committee.

DATES: The meeting was to be held July 25, 2013, from 9:00 a.m.-1:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting is cancelled.

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 to cancel a Program Management Committee meeting under the
RTCA Federal Advisory Board.
    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 July 12, 2013.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-17562 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39572-39574]
[DOCID:fr13jy06-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R03-OAR-2005-PA-0007; FRL-8192-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; NOX RACT Determination for Koppers Industry,
Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The revision was
submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for Koppers Industry, Inc. located in Lycoming
County. EPA is approving this revision to establish RACT requirements
in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Regional
Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-PA-0007. All documents
in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.

Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public

inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are

available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia N. Robertson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 30, 2004, the PADEP submitted formal SIP revisions to
establish RACT for 15 sources located in Pennsylvania. On March 31,
2005 (70 FR 16423), EPA published a direct final rule (DFR) approving
revisions to PADEP issued operating permits (OP) and plan approvals
(PA) for these 15 sources. A description of these revisions and EPA's
rationale for approving them were provided in the March 31, 2005
rulemaking and will not be restated herein. In accordance with direct
final rulemaking procedures, on March 31, 2005 (70 FR 16471), EPA also
published a companion notice of proposed rulemaking for these SIP
revisions, inviting interested parties to comment on the DFR. On April
29, 2005, EPA received an adverse comment on its approval of the
nitrogen oxides (NOX) RACT determination for Koppers
Industry, Inc (OP-41-0008). Due to the receipt of the adverse comment
on the Koppers Industry, Inc. RACT determination, EPA published a
partial withdrawal of the direct final rule on May 26, 2005 (70 FR
30377). This withdrawal applied to the Koppers facility only.
    EPA received no adverse comments on its approval of RACT
determination for the remaining 14 sources, and, therefore, EPA's March
31, 2005 DFR approving PADEP's RACT determination for the other 14
sources became effective on May 31, 2005.

II. Final Action

    On May 18, 2006, Koppers, Inc. sent an e-mail requesting the
withdrawal of the adverse comment submitted on April 29, 2005. EPA is
now approving PADEP's RACT determination for Koppers Inc., located in
Lycoming County.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-
specific requirements for one named source.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 11, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.
    This action, pertaining to RACT for Koppers Industry, Lycoming
County may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirement. (See section 307 (b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 26, 2006.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding
the entry for Koppers Industries, Inc. at the end of the table to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State                               Additional explanation/Sec.
           Name of source                  Permit No.                County         effective date     EPA approval date           52.2063 citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Koppers Industry, Inc..............  OP-41-0008............  Lycoming.............         3/30/99  7/13/06...............  52.2020(d)(1)(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-6189 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22187]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Amendment No. 33-32]

Technical Amendment; Airworthiness Standards--Aircraft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment corrects a number of errors in the
airworthiness standards for aircraft engine endurance tests. None of
the changes are substantive in nature, and none will impose any
additional burden on any person.

DATE: Effective Date: This amendment becomes effective April 13, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Dorina Mihail, Federal Aviation Administration,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5229; (781)
238-7153; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Vincent
Bennett, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Regional Counsel,
ANE-7, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-
5299; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A number of inadvertent editing errors in the airworthiness
standards of Sec.  33.87 have been identified by the FAA. Some errors
apply to the standards for one engine inoperative (OEI) ratings for
rotorcraft turbine engines. Others are simply plain language errors.
This technical amendment corrects those errors in Sec.  33.87. None of
the corrections are substantive in nature, and none will impose any
additional burden on any person.

List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the following, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations,
as follows:

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

Sec.  33.87  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  33.87 as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``Administrator'' from paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1)
and add the word ``FAA'' in its place.
0
b. Remove the word ``manufacturer'' from paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1),
(d)(1), and (e)(1) wherever it appears and add the word ``applicant''
in its place.
0
c. Remove the phrase ``power and thrust'' from paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2) heading, (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (b)(5)
wherever it appears and add the phrase ``power or thrust'' in its
place.
0
d. Remove the phrase ``rotor speed, power, and thrust'' from paragraph
(b)(1) and add the phrase ``rotor speed and power or thrust'' in its
place.
0
e. Remove the word ``poition'' from paragraph (b)(5) and add the word
``position'' in its place.
0
f. Remove the phrase ``(c)(5)'' from paragraph (c)(1) and add the
phrase ``(c)(6)'' in its place.
0
g. Remove the phrase ``(c)(5)'' from paragraph (d)(1) and add the
phrase ``(d)(6)'' in its place.
0
h. Remove the phrase ``(d)(6) of this section'' from paragraph (e)(1)
and add the phrase ``(b)(5), (c)(6), or (d)(6) of this section, as
applicable'' in its place.
0
i. Remove the phrase ``(c)(2) through (c)(6)'' from paragraph (e)(2)
and add the phrase ``(c)(2) through (c)(7)'' in its place.
0
j. Remove the phrase ``paragraph (c)(2)'' from paragraph (e)(2) and add
the phrase ``paragraph (c)(4)'' in its place.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2012.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-8984 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52925-52926]
[DOCID:fr12se08-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-0908]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, Hempstead, NY,
Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Wantagh State Parkway Bridge across Sloop Channel at mile 15.4, at
Jones Beach, New York. Under this temporary deviation the bridge may
operate on a limited operating schedule for three months to facilitate
the completion of bridge construction.

DATES: This deviation is effective from September 5, 2008 through
November 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0908 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the First
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
deviation, call Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Wantagh State Parkway Bridge has a
vertical clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high
water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.5.
    The New York State Department of Transportation, requested a
temporary deviation to facilitate the completion of bridge
construction.
    The waterway has seasonal recreational vessels and fishing vessels
of various sizes.
    We contacted the New York Marine Trades Association and Station
Jones Beach. No objection to the proposed temporary deviation schedule
was received.
    Under this temporary deviation, in effect from September 5, 2008
through November 30, 2008, the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge at mile
15.4, across Sloop Channel, shall operate as follows:
    From Monday through Friday between 5 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. and at 12
noon, the bridge shall open on signal after at least a 30-minute
advance notice is given.
    On Saturdays the Bridge shall open on signal after at least a 30-
minute advance notice is given between 12:01 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., 10:30
a.m. and 1:30 p.m.
    From 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays through 6:30 a.m. on Mondays the bridge
shall open on signal every hour on the half-hour after at least a 30-
minute advance notice is given.
    All other times the bridge need not open for the passage of vessel
traffic.
    Advance notice may be given by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 31, 2008.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-21361 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22036-22038]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09531]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80615; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending Rule
6.80 To Make Permanent a Program That Allows Cabinet Trade Transactions
To Take Place at a Price Below $1 Per Option Contract

May 5, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On March 2, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change amending the Exchange's rules to make permanent a
program that allows transactions to take place in open outcry trading
at prices of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract (``sub-
dollar cabinet trades''). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 23, 2017.\3\ On April 25,
2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change. This order provides notice of filing of Amendment No. 1
and approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80271 (March 17,
2017), 82 FR 14934 (March 23, 2017) (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange provided supplemental
background detail on its proposal, including a summary of why it
initially put the program on a pilot, a description of the systems
enhancements it made to be able to process cabinet trades in the
regular course, an example of how a cabinet trade is done on the
trading floor, and a representation that, to its knowledge, neither
the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') nor the Exchange's
members have reported any operational issues in connection with
cabinet trades. To promote transparency of its proposed amendment,
when NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 with the Commission, it also
submitted Amendment No. 1 as a comment letter to the file, which the
Commission posted on its Web site and placed in the public comment
file for SR-NYSEArca-2017-24 (available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-24/nysearca201724.htm). The Exchange also
posted a copy of its Amendment No. 1 on its Web site (https://www.nyse.com/regulation/rule-filings) when it filed it with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Prior to 2010, Exchange Rule 6.80 (Accommodation Transactions
(Cabinet Trades)) allowed cabinet trade transactions at a price of $1
per option contract to occur in open outcry trading for certain
classes.\5\ In 2010, the Exchange amended Rule 6.80 on a pilot basis to
allow sub-dollar cabinet trades to take place at prices of at least $0
but less than $1 per option contract.\6\ The Exchange now proposes to
amend Rule 6.80 to make permanent its sub-dollar cabinet trade pilot
program, which currently is scheduled to expire on July 5, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 6.80. See also Notice, supra note 3, at 14935
(discussing Rule 6.80).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63476 (December 8,
2010), 75 FR 77930 (December 14, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-109).
    \7\ See Commentary .01 to Rule 6.80. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 79565 (December 15, 2016), 81 FR 93723
(December 21, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-163).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange permits sub-dollar cabinet trade transactions to be
traded pursuant to the same procedures applicable to $1 cabinet trades,
except that for sub-dollar cabinet trades (i) bids and offers for
opening transactions are permitted only to accommodate closing
transactions, and (ii) transactions in option classes participating in
the Penny Pilot Program are permitted.\8\ As it explained in the
Notice, the Exchange believes that ``allowing trading at a price of at
least $0 but less than $1 better accommodates the closing of options
positions in series that are worthless or not actively traded,
particularly when there has been a significant move in the price of the
underlying security, resulting in a large number of series being out-
of-the-money.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Commentary .01 to Rule 6.80. See also Notice, supra note
3, at 14935 (discussing the pilot).
    \9\ Notice, supra note 3, at 14935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act \10\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the Notice, as amended, the Exchange explains that it initially
put the sub-dollar cabinet trade rule on a pilot so that it could
``evaluate the efficacy of the change and to address any operational
issues that might arise in processing [c]abinet trades.'' \13\ During
the course of the pilot, the Exchange made enhancements to its system
to accommodate cabinet trades at a price as small as $0.00000001.\14\
With that systems change, and based on its experience with these types
of trades, the Exchange notes that its systems now ``allow it to
process [c]abinet trades in a manner similar to how all other trades
are processed by the Exchange.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ Id. See also Notice, supra note 3, at 14935 (noting that
``in 2016, there were a total of 558 cabinet trades'' on the
Exchange. ``Of these, 50 trades comprising 47,106 contracts were
executed at a price of $0.01, while the remaining 508 trades
comprising 208,078 contracts were executed for a premium of less
than $0.01'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of making the pilot program permanent, the Exchange
represents that ``there are no operational issues in processing and
clearing [c]abinet trades in penny and sub-penny increments.'' \16\ The
Exchange also represents that ``OTP Holders and OTP Firms have not
raised any concerns with the current method of processing of [c]abinet
trades.'' \17\ Finally, the Exchange represents that it is ``not aware
of the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') having operational issues
with processing [c]abinet trades submitted by the Exchange.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Notice, supra note 3, at 14935.
    \17\ Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the representations of the Exchange, the Commission
believes that permanent approval of the sub-dollar cabinet trade pilot
is consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission notes that
the Exchange has made the necessary systems changes to accommodate sub-
dollar cabinet trades into its regular trading infrastructure, and thus
is able to process such trades in the normal course. Further, the
Exchange has not observed any issues or concerns with sub-dollar
cabinet trades at the Exchange level or with and among its members or
in processing the trades through OCC. Accordingly, the Exchange's rule
appears reasonably designed to remove impediments, prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, and foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities. Further, permanent approval will continue to provide
investors with choice when considering a cabinet trade, including the
ability to price such trades below $1 per contract.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-24. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-24, and should
be submitted on or before June 1, 2017.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the amended proposal in the
Federal Register. In Amendment No. 1, NYSE Arca provided supplemental
background detail on why the sub-dollar cabinet trade provision was put
on a pilot initially, described the systems changes that the Exchange
made to be able to process cabinet trades, and represented its
understanding that neither OCC nor the Exchange's members have reported
any operational issues in connection with cabinet trades.\19\ The
additional information contained in Amendment No. 1 provides further
support for the Exchange's proposal, is consistent with the proposal as
initially filed, and does not introduce any new provisions or novel
arguments in support of the proposal. Further, the Commission notes
that it did not receive any comment letters on the Exchange's proposal.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\20\ to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4. See also supra note 4
(noting that the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 as a comment
letter to the file, which the Commission posted on its Web site and
placed in the public comment file).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2017-24), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09531 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4206-4208]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-73]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417; FRL-8520-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Generator
Standards (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 0820.10, OMB Control Number 2050-
0035

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31,
2008.
    Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and
its expected burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 25,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket number EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2007-0417, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim O'Leary, Office of Solid Waste,
Mail Code 5304P, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703)
308-8827; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51437), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments on this
ICR.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives

them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 820.10, OMB Control No. 2050-0035.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
as amended, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to implement a comprehensive program for the safe management of
hazardous waste. The core of the national waste management program is
the regulation of hazardous waste from generation to transport to
treatment and eventual disposal, or from ``cradle to grave.''
    This ICR addresses the following categories of informational
requirements in part 262: pre-transport requirements for both large
(LQG) and small (SQG) quantity generators; storage requirements in
tanks, containment buildings and drip pads; air emission standards
requirements for LQGs (referenced in 40 CFR Part 265, Subparts AA and
BB); recordkeeping and reporting requirements for LQGs and SQGs; and
export requirements for LQGs and SQGs (i.e., notification of intent to
export and annual reporting).
    This collection of information is necessary to help generators and
EPA: (1) Identify and understand the waste streams being generated and
the hazards associated with them; (2) determine whether employees have
acquired the necessary expertise to perform their jobs; and (3)
determine whether LQGs have developed adequate procedures to respond to
unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents to air, soil, or surface water. This information is also
needed to help EPA determine whether tank systems are operated in a
manner that is fully protective of human health and the environment and
to ensure that releases to the environment are managed quickly and
efficiently.
    Additionally, this information contributes to EPA's goal of
preventing contamination of the environment from hazardous waste
accumulation practices, including contamination from equipment leaks
and process vents. Export information is needed to ensure that:(1)
Foreign governments consent to U.S. exported wastes; (2) exported waste
is actually managed at facilities listed in the original notifications;
and (3) documents are available for compliance audits and enforcement
actions. In general, these requirements contribute to EPA's goal of
preventing contamination of the environment.
    Burden Statement: The average public reporting under this
collection of information is estimated to be 2.78 hours per respondent.
The average public recordkeeping burden under this collection of
information is estimated to be 0.05 hours. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Private Sector.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 101,500.
    Frequency of Response: Occasionally and biennially.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 286,866.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $11,321,660. This includes $22,770 in
annualized capital costs, $15,473 in O&M costs, and $11,283,417 in
Respondent Labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 166,217 annual
hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved ICR Burden of 453,083 hours. This change
primarily results from a decrease of 22,882 facilities, as well as

a change in assumptions associated with such categories as containment
buildings, and contingency planning resulting in the reduction of
additional burden hours.

    Dated: January 17, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-1184 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11711-11713]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04441]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0418, FRL-9907-30-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially
approving the May 9, 2013, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
from Idaho to revise the SIP to update the incorporation by reference
of Federal air quality regulations into the SIP and make minor edits
and clarifications. The EPA is granting limited approval, as SIP
strengthening, to a portion of the submittal that incorporates by
reference updates to the Federal nonattainment new source review
(nonattainment NSR) requirements that have been recently remanded to
the EPA by a court. In addition, the EPA is partially disapproving
Idaho's incorporation by reference of two provisions of the Federal
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting rules that
have been recently vacated in a separate decision by a court. Finally
we are taking no action on Idaho's incorporation by reference of
another provision of the Federal PSD permitting rules that has also
been the subject of a court action. Upon the effective date of this
action, the Idaho SIP will incorporate by reference certain Federal
regulations as of July 1, 2012.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0418. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although

listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies the general
requirements for states to submit SIPs to attain and maintain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the EPA's actions
regarding approval of those SIPs. On May 9, 2013, the State of Idaho
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA including regulatory changes
adopted by Idaho on several different dates. On January 10, 2014, the
EPA proposed action on the May 9, 2013, submittal (79 FR 1795). An
explanation of the CAA requirements and implementing regulations that
are met by this SIP revision, a detailed explanation of the revision,
and the EPA's reasons for the proposed action were provided in the
notice of proposed rulemaking on January 10, 2014, and will not be
restated here (79 FR 1795). The public comment period for the EPA's
proposed action ended on February 10, 2014 and we received no comments.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is partially approving the May 9, 2013, submittal from
Idaho to update the incorporation by reference of Federal air quality
regulations into the SIP and make minor edits and clarifications.
Specifically, we are approving the revisions to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03
``Incorporations by Reference,'' except as noted below; IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> ``General Definitions;'' IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> ``General
Exemption Criteria for Permit to Construct Exemptions;'' and IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> ``Category II Exemption.'' The EPA is granting limited
approval, as SIP strengthening, to a portion of the submittal that
incorporates by reference updates to the Federal nonattainment NSR
requirements at 40 CFR 51.165 that have been recently remanded to the
EPA by a court.
    We are partially disapproving the revision to IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.03(c) as it relates to the incorporation by reference of
specific vacated provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 (namely, 40 CFR
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)). We are taking no action on
the revision to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03(c) as it relates to the
incorporation by reference of the vacated revision to 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). As of the effective date of this rule, the Idaho
SIP will incorporate by reference specific Federal regulations as of
July 1, 2012.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address,
as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 2, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: February 11, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising entries 006, 107,
220, and 222.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry at the end
of the table for ``Idaho Department of Environmental Quality letter
dated October 18, 2013 supplementing the May 9, 2013 SIP Submittal.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   EPA-Approved Idaho Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State citation          Title/subject       State effective date    EPA approval date       Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01--Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
006...................  General Definitions..  4/4/13, /30/07, 4/11/  3/3/14, [Insert page  Except Section
                                                06, 7/1/02, 4/5/00,    number where the      006.49, 006.50,
                                                3/20/97, 5/1/94.       document begins].     006.51, 006.66,
                                                                                006.67, and
                                                                                006.68(b), 006.114,
                                                                                and 006.116.

                                                  * * * * * * *
107...................  Incorporations by      4/4/13, 10/6/10, 5/8/  3/3/14, [Insert page  Except Section
                         Reference.             09, 3/30/07, 3/20/     number where the      107.03(f) through
                                                04, 7/1/97, 5/1/94.    document begins].     (m), and with
                                                                                respect to
                                                                                107.03(c), its
                                                                                incorporation by
                                                                                reference of 40 CFR
                                                                                52.21(i)(5)(i)(c),
                                                                                (k)(2), and the
                                                                                second sentence of
                                                                                (b)(49)(ii)(a).

                                                  * * * * * * *
220...................  General Exemption      4/4/13, 4/5/00.......  3/3/14, [Insert page  ....................
                         Criteria For Permit                           number where the
                         To Construct                                  document begins].
                         Exemptions.

                                                  * * * * * * *
222...................  Category II Exemption  4/4/13, 4/11/06, 4/5/  3/3/14, [Insert page  ....................
                                                00, 5/1/94, 7/1/97.    number where the
                                                                       document begins].

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
      Name of SIP provision        geographic or non-  State submittal   EPA approval date         Comments
                                    attainment area          date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Idaho Department of               State-wide.........        10/24/13   3/3/14, [Insert      ...................
 Environmental Quality letter                                            page number where
 dated October 18, 2013                                                  the document
 supplementing the May 9, 2013                                           begins].
 SIP Submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.683 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.683  Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (a) The State of Idaho Rules for Control of Air Pollution in Idaho,
specifically, IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> through 007 (definitions), IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.03(a), (b), (c) (incorporations by reference) (except,
with respect to Section 107.03(c), its incorporation by reference of 40
CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), (k)(2), and the second sentence of
(b)(49)(ii)(a)), IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> through 222 (permit to construct
rules); IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0 through 516 (stack height rules); and IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>5 through 581 (standards, increments and area designations)
(except Section 577), are approved as meeting the requirements of title
I, part C, subpart 1 of the Clean Air Act for preventing significant
deterioration of air quality.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-04441 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

July 17 - 19, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2007-0186

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

Guidance on Test Methods for Demonstrating the Efficacy of Antimicrobial
Products for Inactivating Bacillus anthracis Spores on Environmental
Surfaces

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -  Steven G.
Heeringa, Ph.D. (FIFRA SAP Chair)

8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official - Mr.
Joseph E. Bailey, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:45 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Debbie Edwards, Ph.D.,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

8:50 A.M.	Introduction and Background - Jeff Kempter, Antimicrobials
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:15 A.M	Sporicidal Activity of Disinfectants (AOAC Method 966.04)  -
Stephen Tomasino, Ph.D., Microbiology Laboratory Branch, Biological and
Economic Analysis Division, EPA

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M	Overview of Lab-Scale Quantitative Test Methods for Sporicidal
Decontamination Agents - Stephen Tomasino, Ph.D., Microbiology
Laboratory Branch, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, EPA

11:00 A.M	Quantitative Test Methods for Evaluation of Sporicidal
Fumigants in Relation to Military-relevant Material Surfaces – Vipin
Rastogi, Ph.D., Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC),
Department of Defense

11:30 A.M.	EPA's Proposed Measure of Success for Quantitative Sporicidal
Efficacy Test Results - Marty Hamilton, Ph.D., University of Montana

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Coupon Materials for Lab-Scale Quantitative Test Methods for
Sporicidal Decontamination Agents - Stephen Tomasino, Ph.D.,
Microbiology Laboratory Branch, Biological and Economic Analysis
Division, EPA

2:00 P.M.	Surrogate Selection and Attributes for Bacillus anthracis
Spores- Stephen Tomasino, Ph.D., Microbiology Laboratory Branch,
Biological and Economic Analysis Division, EPA

2:45 P.M.	Break

3:00 P.M.	Molecular Differentiation of Virulent Bacillus anthracis from
Avirulent  Related Surrogate Strains - Vipin Rastogi, Ph.D., Edgewood
Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC), Department of Defense

3:30 P.M.	NHSRC Research on Decontamination of Bacillus anthracis and
Surrogate Spores on Building Material Surfaces - Joe Wood, M.S., P.E.,
and Shawn Ryan, Ph.D., National Homeland Security Research Center, EPA

4:30 P.M.	Simulated Use Test - Michele Wingfield, Antimicrobials
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

5:00 P.M. 	Adjournment

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

July 17 - 19, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2007-0186

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

Guidance on Test Methods for Demonstrating the Efficacy of Antimicrobial
Products for Inactivating Bacillus anthracis Spores on Environmental
Surfaces

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -

		Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D. (FIFRA SAP Chair)

8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official -

		Mr. Joseph E. Bailey, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:45 A.M.	Public Comments

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 1

Whether a sterilant or sporicide product may claim that it inactivates
B. anthracis spores on inanimate surfaces.

EPA’s existing efficacy testing guidance specifies that a product that
passes the AOAC Sporicidal Activity of Disinfectants test (AOAC Official
Method 966.04) may be registered as a sterilant/sporicide.  The Agency
is now proposing that a sterilant/sporicide may also bear a claim that
it inactivates B. anthracis spores if it passes confirmatory testing
using the AOAC 966.04 with virulent B. anthracis spores on carriers made
of porcelain penicylinders and silk loops, which represent nonporous and
porous surfaces, respectively.

The rationale for EPA’s position is that the AOAC Method and
associated EPA performance criteria (e.g., no growth from any carriers
tested) have been required historically by EPA for evaluating the
performance of sporicidal chemicals for regulatory purposes.  The AOAC
Method specifies the use of two spore-forming microbes, B. subtilis and
Clostridium sporogenes; however, the Agency believes that the method is
also suitable for testing spores of other spore-forming bacteria such as
B. anthracis.  The Agency has recognized deficiencies in the AOAC 966.04
Method and has improved the procedure through the official AOAC
modification process – the modifications appear in AOAC 966.04 Method
II. The Agency strongly prefers the use of the Method II to support the
registration of sterilants/sporicides and for confirmatory testing of B.
anthracis.  In addition, the Agency has successfully revised the method
editorially (see Method II), thus providing a more standardized protocol
for use by stakeholders.  The modifications are presented in AOAC 966.04
Method II.  See Reference 1 for the entire method; see References 2 and
3 for experimental details.

Charge Question 1:  Please comment on the scientific basis that
confirmatory testing of a sporicide/sterilant using AOAC Method 966.04
with virulent B. anthracis spores demonstrates that a product
inactivates B. anthracis spores on inanimate surfaces.

11:15 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 2

Whether a sporicidal decontaminant product may claim that it inactivates
B. anthracis spores on inanimate surfaces, when tested solely with AOAC
Method 966.04 using virulent B. anthracis spores.

The Agency is proposing that an antimicrobial product may be registered
as a “sporicidal decontaminant” if it is tested with the AOAC Method
966.04 using virulent Bacillus anthracis spores (instead of B. subtilis
or C. sporogenes), or using a surrogate acceptable to EPA, on porcelain
penicylinders and/or silk loops, which represent nonporous and porous
surfaces, respectively.  The Agency’s rationale is consistent with the
use of the AOAC 966.04 method for sterilant/sporicidal agents; however,
the Agency will not require registrants to conduct the entire AOAC
Method 966.04 to support a sporicidal decontaminant claim.  The Agency
believes that product efficacy against spores of C. sporogenes, an
anaerobic spore-forming species relevant to clinical environments, has
limited applicability to decontamination scenarios involving spores of
B. anthracis, and thus testing against C. sporogenes will not be
required.  Furthermore, the registrant will be allowed to test against
porcelain and/or silk loops (which represent nonporous and porous
surfaces, respectively) depending on the proposed claims.  Continued use
of EPA product performance criterion (e.g., no growth from any carriers
tested) is appropriate for testing the efficacy of sporicidal
decontaminants against spores of Bacillus anthracis.

Charge Question 2:  Please comment on the scientific basis that use of
the AOAC Method 966.04 with virulent B. anthracis spores demonstrates
that a sporicidal decontaminant product inactivates B. anthracis spores
on inanimate surfaces.

12:15 P.M.	Lunch

1:30 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 3

Whether a six (6) log (log10) reduction is an adequate measure of
success when employing a well developed, quantitative sporicidal
efficacy test.

The Agency is proposing that an antimicrobial product may be registered
as a “sporicidal decontaminant” if it is tested using a well
developed, quantitative sporicidal test method acceptable to EPA using
virulent  Bacillus anthracis spores  (or a surrogate acceptable to EPA)
on nonporous and/or porous inanimate surfaces and the testing of the
product achieves at least a six (6) log reduction (or a minimum 1 x 106
spores per carrier)  of virulent B. anthracis spores (or a surrogate
acceptable to EPA).  The use and adoption of standardized quantitative
methods for testing the performance of sporicidal decontaminants for
regulatory purposes is supported by EPA.  The AOAC Method 966.04 is a
qualitative procedure (i.e., provides only positive/negative or
pass/fail results).  Quantitative procedures provide an estimate of
actual spore kill, usually based on the log10 scale, and can be adapted
for multiple product formulations and carrier materials.  Several
well-developed quantitative procedures are available for use.  The
Agency believes that a performance standard for quantitative
laboratory-based assays is essential to establishing consistent product
efficacy under actual decontamination scenarios in the field.  The
proposed 6 log reduction performance standard is a scientifically valid
and rigorous standard.  The standard will give the Agency reassurance
that sporicidal decontaminants when applied per the product’s label
claims are effective against spores of B. anthracis.

The technical basis of the Agency’s selection of a minimum 6 log
performance standard includes the following:

(1) the target spore titer currently allowed in AOAC method 966.04
(Method II) is a minimum of 1 x 105 to approximately 1 x 106 spores per
carrier) (Reference 1);

(2) the quantitative methods currently available and published can
reliably generate control carrier spore titers necessary to measure a 6
log reduction (for examples of quantitative methods, please see the
following:  ASTM E 2111-05 (Reference 4); Standard Quantitative Disk
Carrier Test Method, ASTM E 2414-05: Standard Test Method for
Quantitative Sporicidal Three-Step Method (Reference 5); Standard
Quantitative Carrier Test Method, ASTM E 2197-02 (Reference 6); and also
References 7 and 8);

(3) a minimum 6 log reduction in viable spores has been measured for
commercially available sporicidal agents and technologies designed for
treating sites contaminated with B. anthracis (see References 9-13); and

(4) environmental sampling pre- and post-application of the sporicidal
decontaminant will determine the need for re-treatment.

Charge Question 3:  Please comment on the scientific basis that
achieving a six (6) log reduction using a well developed, quantitative
sporicidal test method demonstrates that a product inactivates B.
anthracis spores on inanimate surfaces.

2:30 P.M.	Break

2:45 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 3.1

What criteria should be used when selecting coupon materials for
quantitative sporicidal tests.

The Agency is proposing to allow only certain nonporous and porous
materials to be used in the quantitative sporicidal tests based on
specific criteria.  The rationale for EPA’s position is that in order
to achieve reproducible results across laboratories, and to ensure that
test materials are suitable to support a particular claim (i.e.,
material type to be treated), basic criteria should be established.  The
EPA also recognizes that the nature of the test material may impact
product performance.  The criteria that EPA intends to establish for the
selection of carriers and carrier materials  include the use of
standardized materials (e.g., quality, grade and consistency), relevancy
of materials to the use site, material availability, data on spore
recovery, ability to clean and sterilize prior to inoculation, and
potential for interaction with the product’s active ingredients.

Charge Question 3.1:  Please comment on the EPA’s criteria for
selecting coupon materials to represent nonporous and porous surfaces in
quantitative sporicidal efficacy tests.

3:45 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 4

Whether a surrogate Bacillus species of spores may be used in place of
Bacillus anthracis spores in sporicidal efficacy tests.

The Agency is proposing to allow certain surrogate, avirulent Bacillus
species to be used in place of virulent Bacillus anthracis spores for
either qualitative or quantitative sporicidal efficacy tests based on
specific criteria.  Surrogate spores should have certain desirable
attributes and be acceptable to EPA.  The use of safe-to-handle
surrogates of virulent B. anthracis spores is supported by the EPA.
Surrogates are frequently used as models or representatives for virulent
strains of pathogens such as B. anthracis Ames.  Federal restrictions
and bio-safety issues limit the number of labs capable of testing select
agents.  Cost, time and resources required for managing studies on
virulent B. anthracis spores are also limiting factors.  Certain
criteria should be met in order for a surrogate to be utilized in the
efficacy testing of sporicidal decontaminants.  To be an acceptable
surrogate, a Bacillus spore species should generally be as resistant or
more resistant to inactivation by a particular chemical on a particular
surface than B. anthracis spores.

To demonstrate equivalent resistance of the surrogate spore type to the
virulent agent, a comparative efficacy study should be performed using a
well-developed/validated quantitative methodology appropriate for the
test chemical and microbe to measure resistance.  Testing should be
conducted in accordance with the potential product claim.  Replicated
studies with adequate controls and with side-by-side, parallel test
designs are desirable.  It is also desirable to compare carriers with
comparable spore populations.  The same sporulation media should be
utilized for all test microbes.  Percent recovery of spores from
carriers should be determined in advance. The strain of B. anthracis
used in the study should be verified as a pathogenic strain.  Examples
of acceptable and relevant surrogate studies are provided in References
7 and 8.   Pre-existing data may be appropriate to support the use of a
surrogate as well.

Charge Question 4:  Please comment on the desirable attributes for
selecting surrogate Bacillus species for Bacillus anthracis in either
qualitative or quantitative sporicidal efficacy tests.

5:00 P.M.	Adjournment

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

July 17 - 19, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2007-0186

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

Guidance on Test Methods for Demonstrating the Efficacy of Antimicrobial
Products for Inactivating Bacillus anthracis Spores on Environmental
Surfaces

Thursday, July 19, 2007

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -

		Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D. (FIFRA SAP Chair)

8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official -

		Mr. Joseph E. Bailey, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:45 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 5

Whether gas or vapor products should be subjected to a “simulated use
test.”

The Agency is proposing that gas or vapor sterilants, sporicides and
sporicidal decontaminants be subjected to a “simulated use test” for
gas or vapor products intended for use in large, enclosed spaces.  The
rationale for EPA’s position is that efficacy testing performed in the
laboratory does not necessarily demonstrate that a product will perform
satisfactorily when applied in a large, enclosed space.   Many factors
can reduce the effectiveness of a gas or vapor product, such as
inadequate distribution, breakdown by light, and absorption/breakdown by
porous or reactive surfaces.  Accordingly, EPA believes that a simulated
use test is needed to demonstrate that a gas or vapor product will
perform successfully in a large volume of space (e.g, a typical office).
 In addition, such a test should include monitoring to assure that key
parameters (e.g., temperature, relative humidity, concentration) for an
effective fumigation will be met.

Charge Question 5:  Please comment on the scientific basis for
conducting a “simulated use test” for a gas or vapor product
intended for use in large, enclosed spaces.

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Continued Panel Discussion (as needed)

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Continued Panel Discussion (as needed)

2:45 P.M.	Break

3:00 P.M.	Continued Panel Discussion (as needed)

5:00 P.M.	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Mr. Joseph Bailey, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>