[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22363-22366]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08782]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 28, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0340; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01638-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Eurocopter France) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2003-25-01 which applies to certain Eurocopter France (now Airbus
Helicopters) Models AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS350B, AS350BA,
AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
and AS355N helicopters. AD 2003-25-01 requires modifying and re-
identifying the hoist operator control unit and replacing certain
fuses. Since the FAA issued AD 2003-25-01, Airbus Helicopters has
identified multiple errors in the applicable service information for
the AS350-series and AS355-series helicopters. This proposed AD would
retain certain requirements of AD 2003-25-01, revise the applicability,
and propose to require using the corrected service information. This
proposed AD would also require reporting certain information and
prohibit the installation of an affected hoist until the required
actions are accomplished. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 14,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
(972) 641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0340; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC) AD, the European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer,
Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA,
950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-
9167; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0340; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01638-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Hal
Jensen, Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2003-25-01, Amendment 39-13384 (68 FR 69596,
December 15, 2003) (AD 2003-25-01), for Eurocopter France (now Airbus
Helicopters) Model AS332C, C1, L, and L1, AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, and
D, and AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters with a Breeze 300 pound
electric hoist (hoist) and hoist operator control unit 26M part number
(P/N) 350A63-1136-00 or 350A63-1136-01, and hoist electric box 91M P/N
332A67-2875-00,

installed. AD 2003-25-01 requires modifying and re-identifying the
hoist operator control unit, replacing the fuses, and functionally
testing the hoist operation and emergency jettison controls. AD 2003-
25-01 was prompted by French AD 2002-584(A) and 2002-585(A), each dated
November 27, 2002 (AD 2002-584(A) and AD 2002-585(A)), issued by DGAC,
which is the aviation authority for France. AD 2002-584(A) corrects an
unsafe condition for Eurocopter France Model AS332C, C1, L, and L1
helicopters with a certain hoist and hoist box installed. AD 2002-
585(A) corrected an unsafe condition for Eurocopter France Model
AS350B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3, and D, and AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N
helicopters with a certain hoist and hoist box installed and without a
certain modification (MOD) installed. DGAC advised of the discovery of
a failure of a rescue hoist emergency release control system to operate
due to an anomaly in the electrical control circuit. This condition, if
not addressed, could result in an inability of the pilot to cut the
rescue hoist cable in the event of cable entanglement or other
emergency, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    Accordingly, AD 2002-584(A) requires compliance with Eurocopter
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 25.01.18, dated November 12, 2002, to
install MOD 332PCS 78 288. AD 2002-585(A) required compliance with
Eurocopter ASB No. 25.00.71 or 25.00.79, each dated November 12, 2002,
as applicable to your model helicopter, to install MOD 07 3190.

Actions Since AD 2003-25-01 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2003-25-01, EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD 2019-
0228, dated September 12, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0228) to supersede DGAC AD
2002-585(A). EASA AD 2019-0228 corrects an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale
Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 B3,
AS 350 D, AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, and AS 355 N
helicopters. EASA advises that Airbus Helicopters identified
translation errors in the service information required for compliance
by DGAC AD 2002-585(A). Airbus Helicopters was also informed that there
could be helicopters modified by that service information with
incorrect installations. Prompted by these findings, Airbus Helicopters
revised the related service information. Therefore, EASA issued EASA AD
2019-0228 to accomplish the MOD as intended by DGAC AD 2002-585(A) with
the revised service information. EASA AD 2019-0228 also requires
reporting certain information to Airbus Helicopters and prohibits the
installation of an affected part on any helicopter unless it has been
modified.
    Since the FAA issued AD 2003-25-01, the FAA discovered that the
applicability needed to be revised. This NPRM revises the applicability
by distinguishing the hoist box installations by P/N, clarifying that
Airbus Helicopters service information refers to a hoist box as a hoist
operator's control unit, adding TRW, Lucas, and Air Equipement hoists
for affected Model AS350-series and AS355-series helicopters, and
adding an exception for affected helicopters to exclude those with a
certain MOD installed.
    Lastly, since the FAA issued AD 2003-25-01, Eurocopter France
changed its name to Airbus Helicopters. This AD reflects that change
and updates the contact information to obtain service documentation.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by both the authority of
France and EASA and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, DGAC
and EASA have notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in
their ADs. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known
relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters
of these same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. 25.00.71, Revision 2,
dated May 14, 2019 (ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2), Airbus Helicopters ASB No.
25.00.79, Revision 3, dated September 24, 2019 (ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3),
and Eurocopter ASB No. 25.01.18, dated November 12, 2002 (ASB
25.01.18). ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 applies to Model AS355-series
helicopters, ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3 applies to Model AS350-series
helicopters, and ASB 25.01.18 applies AS332-series helicopters.
    ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 and ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3 specify procedures to
install MOD 07 3190, which consists of eliminating resistor 27M in the
hoist operator's control unit 26M and replacing the 2.5A quick-response
fuses on the Honeywell unit at 30 alpha or 21 delta for Model AS350-
series helicopters or on the distribution panel 10 alpha for Model 355-
series helicopters. ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 and ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3 also
specify reporting certain information to Airbus Helicopters. ASB
25.01.18 specifies procedures to install MOD 332PCS 78 288, which
consists of eliminating resistor 81M in hoist box 91M and re-
identifying the hoist box as 332P67-2894-01, -02, -03, or -04,
depending on which electrical wiring assembly is installed in the
helicopter.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. 25.00.71, Revision
1, dated May 21, 2014 (ASB 25.00.71 Rev 1), and ASB No. 25.00.79,
Revision 1, dated May 21, 2014 (ASB 25.00.79 Rev 1) and Revision 2 (ASB
25.00.79 Rev 2), dated May 14, 2019.
    ASB 25.00.71 Rev 1 specifies the same actions as ASB 25.00.71 Rev
2, except ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 provides a reminder that MOD 07 3190 is
mandatory and adds a reporting response form. ASB 25.00.79 Rev 1 and
ASB 25.00.79 Rev 2 specify the same actions as ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3,
except ASB 25.00.79 Rev 2 provides a reminder that MOD 07 3190 is
mandatory and adds a reporting response form and ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3
adds Model AS350L1 to the effectivity.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2003-25-
01. This proposed AD would continue to require modifying and re-
identifying the hoist operator control unit, replacing the fuses, and
functionally testing the hoist operation and emergency jettison
controls; however, this proposed AD would require accomplishing those
actions by following revised service information for affected Model
AS350-series and AS355-series helicopters. For affected Model AS350-
series and AS355-series helicopters, this proposed AD would also
require sending certain information to the Technical Support Department
of Airbus Helicopters. Lastly, this proposed AD would prohibit
installing an affected hoist unless the proposed actions are
accomplished.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2019-0228 applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, whereas
this proposed AD would not because that model is not FAA type-
certificated. EASA AD 2019-0228 requires

modifying affected parts within 100 flight hours or 2 months, whichever
occurs first, whereas this proposed AD would require those actions
before next flight involving a hoist operation for Model AS350-series
and AS355-series helicopters instead.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects up to 977 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.
    Modifying and re-identifying the hoist operator control unit,
replacing the fuses, and functionally testing the hoist operation and
the emergency jettison controls would take about 4 work hours and parts
would cost about $20 for an estimated cost of $360 per helicopter and
up to $351,720 for the U.S. fleet.
    For Model AS350-series and AS355-series helicopters, reporting
information would take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85
per helicopter and up to $82,195 for the U.S. fleet.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2003-25-01, Amendment 39-13384 (68
FR 69596, December 15, 2003); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by Eurocopter
France): Docket No. FAA-2021-0340; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-
01638-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by June 14, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2003-25-01, Amendment 39-13384 (68 FR 69596,
December 15, 2003) (AD 2003-25-01).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to:
    (1) Airbus Helicopters (type certificate previously held by
Eurocopter France) Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1
helicopters, certificated in any category, as follows:
    (i) With a Breeze 300 pound electric hoist (hoist) installed,
    (ii) Hoist box 91M part number (P/N) 332A67-2875-00 installed,
and
    (iii) Without Eurocopter modification (MOD) 332PCS 78 288,
specified in Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 25.01.18
dated November 12, 2002 (ASB No. 25.01.18) installed.
    (2) Airbus Helicopters (type certificate previously held by
Eurocopter France) Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,
AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N helicopters,
certificated in any category, as follows:
    Note 1 to paragraph (c)(2): Airbus Helicopters service
information refers to a hoist box as a hoist operator's control
unit.
    (i) With a Breeze, TRW, Lucas, or Air Equipement 300 pound hoist
installed,
    (ii) With a hoist box 26M P/N 350A63-1136-00 (AS350-series) or
350A63-1136-01 (AS355-series) installed, and
    (iii) Without Airbus Helicopters (Eurocopter) MOD 07 3190
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2500, Cabin
Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a test of a hoist that revealed an
anomaly in the electrical control circuit. The FAA is issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the hoist pyrotechnic squib electrical
control unit. Lack of adequate current to activate the hoist
pyrotechnic squib prohibits the ability of the pilot to cut the
rescue hoist cable in the event of cable entanglement or other
emergency. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters
identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, within 100 hours time-in-
service or within 2 months, whichever occurs first from January 20,
2004 (the effective date of AD 2003-25-01), modify and re-identify
the hoist operator control unit, replace the fuses, and functionally
test the hoist operation and the emergency jettison controls in
accordance

with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B., Operational
Procedure, of Eurocopter ASB No. 25.01.18.
    (2) For Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,
AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N helicopters
identified in paragraph (c) of this AD:
    (i) Before next flight involving a hoist operation after the
effective date of this AD, modify and re-identify the hoist operator
control unit, replace the fuses, and functionally test the hoist
operation and the emergency jettison controls in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B., Operational Procedure,
of Airbus Helicopters ASB No. 25.00.71, Revision 2, dated May 14,
2019 (ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2), or Airbus Helicopters ASB No. 25.00.79,
Revision 3, dated September 24, 2019 (ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3), as
applicable to your model helicopter.
    (ii) Within 30 days after accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, report the information in Appendix
4.A. of ASB 25.00.71 Rev 2 or ASB 25.00.79 Rev 3, as applicable to
your model helicopter, by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a
Breeze, TRW, Lucas, or Air Equipement 300 pound hoist identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this AD unless the actions required by
paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) have been accomplished, as applicable to
your model helicopter.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD by
following the procedures in Airbus Helicopters ASB No. 25.00.71,
Revision 1, dated May 21, 2014, or ASB No. 25.00.79, Revision 1,
dated May 21, 2014 or Revision 2, dated May 14, 2019, as applicable
to your model helicopter, are considered acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding actions required in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of
this AD. Accomplish the actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of
this AD within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited for use of a Breeze, TRW,
Lucas, or Air Equipement 300 pound hoist identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) or (2) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen,
Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-
5110.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in Direction Generale De
L'Aviation Civile (DGAC) AD 2002-584(A), dated November 27, 2002,
and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0228, dated
September 12, 2019. You may view the DGAC and EASA ADs on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2021-0340.

    Issued on April 22, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-08782 Filed 4-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


11103 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2003 / Notices B. Product Identity and Chemistry The Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 genes were isolated from Bacillus thuringiensis strain PS149B1 and modified before insertion into corn plants. The Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP has been adequately characterized. Several safety studies were conducted using microbially produced test substances that contained 54% of the Cry34Ab1 ( 14 kDa) protein and 37% of the Cry35Ab1 ( 44 kDa) protein. Studies conducted to establish the equivalence of the Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP obtained from corn or from a microbial source demonstrate that the materials are similar with respect to molecular weight, immunoreactivity, lack of post translational modification ( glycosylation) N terminal amino acid sequence, and spectrum of bioactivity. A qualitative analytical method ( lateral flow immunoassay) for the detection of the Cry34Ab1 ( 14 kDa) protein has been submitted ( MRID # 45383401).

C. Mammalian Toxicity Profile Cry proteins have been deployed as safe and effective pest control agents in microbial Bacillus thuringiensis formulations for almost 40 years. There are currently 180 registered microbial Bacillus thuringiensis products in the United States for use in agriculture, forestry, and vector control. The numerous toxicology studies conducted with these microbial products show no significant adverse effects, and demonstrate that the products are practically non toxic to mammals. An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance has been in place for these products since at least 1971 ( 40 CFR 180.1011). Toxicology studies conducted to determine the toxicity of Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP demonstrated that the proteins have very low toxicity. The acute oral LD50 of Cry34Ab1 ( 14 kDa) is greater than 5,000 milligrams/ kilogram ( mg/ kg), and at 54% purity, the acute LD50 for pure protein is greater than 2,700 mg/ kg. The acute oral LD50 of Cry35Ab1 ( 44 kDa) is greater than 5,000 mg/ kg, and at 37% purity, the acute LD50 for pure protein is greater than 1,850 mg/ kg in male mice when the proteins were tested individually. When tested as a mixture ( 1: 3 molar ratio of Cry34Ab1: Cry35Ab1 proteins), the acute oral LD50 of PS149B1 Cry34/ 35Ab1 proteins in male and female mice is greater than 5,000 mg/ kg, and greater than 2,000 mg/ kg of an equimolar ( 1: 3) mixture of pure proteins. In in vitro studies, Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP exhibited a high rate of digestibility under simulated gastric conditions ( referred to as SGF) in the presence of pepsin. The Cry34Ab1( 14 kDa protein) was greater than 90% digested in SGF 6.2 minutes. The Cry35Ab1 ( 44 kDa protein) was greater than 97% digested in less than 5 minutes. Also, thermolability testing results showed that the ICP was deactivated following exposure to 60 ° C, 75 ° C, and 90 ° C for 30 minutes. A search of relevant data bases indicated that the amino acid sequences of the Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP exhibit no significant homology to the sequences of known protein allergens. Thus, Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP is highly unlikely to exhibit an allergic response. The genetic material necessary for the production of the Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP is nucleic acid ( DNA) which is common to all forms of plant and animal life. There are no known instances where nucleic acids have caused toxic effects as a result of dietary exposure. Collectively, the available data on Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP along with the safe use history of microbial Bacillus thuringiensis products establishes the safety of the plant incorporated protectant B. t. Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP and the genetic material necessary for its production in all raw agricultural commodities.

D. Aggregate Exposure Because B. t. Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP is expressed in minute quantities and is retained within the plant, there is virtually no potential for dermal or inhalation exposure to the protein. Significant dietary exposure to Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP is unlikely to occur. Dietary exposures at very low levels, via ingestion of processed commodities, although, they may occur, are unlikely to be problematic because of the low toxicity and the high degree of digestibility of the protein. In addition, the protein is not likely to be present in drinking water because the protein is deployed in minute quantities within the plant, and studies demonstrate that Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP is rapidly degraded in soil. In summary, the potential for significant aggregate exposure to Cry34/ 35Ab1 is highly unlikely.

E. Cumulative Exposure Common modes of toxicity are not relevant to consideration of the cumulative exposure to B. t. Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP. The product has demonstrated low toxicity, and these effects do not appear to be cumulative with any other known compounds.

F. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. The deployment of the product in minute quantities within the plant, the very low toxicity of the product, the lack of allergenic potential, and the high degree of digestibility of the proteins, are all factors in support of Mycogen/ Dow AgroSciences' assertion that no significant risk is posed by exposure of the U. S. population to B. t. Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP. 2. Infants and children. Non dietary exposure to infants and children is not anticipated, due to the proposed use pattern of the product. Due to the very low toxicity of the product, the lack of allergenic potential, and the high degree of digestibility of the proteins, dietary exposure is anticipated to be at very low levels and is not anticipated to pose any harm to infants and children.

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine System Given the high degree of digestibility of the Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP, no chronic effects are expected. Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP, or metabolites of the ICP are not known to, or are expected to have any effect on the immune or endocrine systems. Proteins in general are not carcinogenic, therefore, no carcinogenic risk is associated with the Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP.

H. Existing Tolerances or Exemptions from Tolerance There are no existing tolerances or exemptions from tolerance for B. t. Cry34/ 35Ab1 ICP. [ FR Doc. 03   5620 Filed 3   7   03; 2: 17 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0016; FRL   7289   3]

Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application 68467   EUP   4 from Mycogen Seeds/ Dow Agrosciences LLC requesting an experimental use permit ( EUP) amendment/ extension for Bacillus thuringiensis moCry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production ( plasmid insert PHP 12537) in corn. The Agency has determined that the application may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 172.11( a), the Agency is soliciting comments on this application. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0016, must be received on or before April 7, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 00 Mar 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MRN1. SGM 07MRN1 11104 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2003 / Notices through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8715; e mail address: mendelsohn. mike@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are interested in agricultural biotechnology or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0016. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0016. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 55 Mar 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MRN1. SGM 07MRN1 11105 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2003 / Notices 2003   0016. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0016. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0016. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Background Mycogen Seeds/ Dow AgroSciences LLC has applied to amend/ extend 68467   EUP   4 for Bacillus thuringiensis moCry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production ( plasmid insert PHP 12537) in corn to allow the planting of 291 acres of field corn to conduct insect resistance management, agronomic observation, breeding and observation nursery, efficacy, maize demonstration, and herbicide tolerance study trials. The Mycogen Seeds' program is authorized in the States of California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The original notice of approval for this EUP published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2002 ( 67 FR 43115) ( FRL   7182   2).

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

Following the review of the Mycogen Seeds/ Dow Agrosciences LLC application and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request. Any issuance of the EUP will be announced in the Federal Register.

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? The specific legal authority for EPA to take this action is under FIFRA section 5.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

Dated: February 28, 2003. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   5619 Filed 3   5   03; 2: 17 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7459   6]

Proposed Administrative Peripheral Party, Inability To Pay, Cash out Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 Regarding the Meadowlands Plating & Finishing Site, East Rutherford, NJ AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative cash out agreement and opportunity for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (`` EPA'') is proposing to enter into an administrative settlement to resolve claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (`` CERCLA''), 42 U. S. C. '' 9601 et seq. In accordance with EPA guidance, notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement pursuant to section 122( h)( 1) of CERCLA concerning the Meadowlands Plating & Finishing Site, located in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Notice is being published to inform the public of the proposed settlement and of the opportunity to comment. This settlement is intended to resolve a responsible party's civil liability for response costs incurred by EPA at the Meadowlands Plating & Finishing Site. CERCLA provides EPA the authority to settle certain claims for response costs incurred by the United States with the approval of the Attorney General of the United States.

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 55 Mar 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MRN1. SGM 07MRN1


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 143 (Monday, July 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44418-44423]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0076]

Request for Comments

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) will forward the Information Collection Request
(ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
cost and burden hours. The OMB approved the form in 2009 with its
renewal required by September 30, 2012. Subsequently, DOT was given
approval of the form until August 31, 2014. The renewal period then
lapsed; therefore, the form expired. The Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting comments on the form renewal was
published on April 29, 2015, [FR Vol. 80, No. 82, page 23855]. No
comments were received. This notice includes corrections and updates to
the 60-day published notice.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by August 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal to the DOT/OST Desk Officer, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library,
Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, or by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tami L. Wright, Associate Director,
Compliance Operations Division (S-34), Departmental Office of Civil
Rights, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Form Title(s): Individual Complaint of Employment Discrimination
Form.
    Form Number: DOT F 1050-8.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0056.
    Abstract: The DOT will utilize the form to collect information
necessary to process Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) discrimination
complaints filed by employees, former employees, and applicants for
employment with the Department. These complaints are processed in
accordance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
regulations, 29 CFR part 1614, as amended. The DOT will use the form
to: (a) Request requisite information from the individual for
processing his or her EEO employment discrimination complaint; and (b)
obtain information to identify an individual or his or her attorney or
other representative, if appropriate. An individual's filing of an EEO
employment complaint is solely voluntary. The DOT estimates that it
takes an individual approximately one hour to complete the form.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Job applicants filing EEO employment
discrimination complaints.
    Total Annual Estimated Burden: 10 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: An individual's filing of an EEO complaint
is solely voluntary.
    Comments are Invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is reasonable for the proper performance of the EEO
functions of the Department; (b) the accuracy of the Department's
estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection,
including the validity of methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate,
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should
be addressed to the address in the preamble. All responses to this
notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget approval. All comments will also become a matter
of public record.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2015.
Patricia Lawton,
PRA Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JY15.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JY15.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JY15.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JY15.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JY15.040

[FR Doc. 2015-18398 Filed 7-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C


MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC MEETING                 x : In the Matter of: : : 40 CFR Part 312 : Standards and Practices for : All Appropriate Inquiries : and Notice of Public Meeting : to Discuss Standards and : Practices for All Appropriate : Inquiries; Proposed Rules : :                 x 1201 Constitution Avenue East Building, Northwest Washington, D. C.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 A public hearing in the above entitled matter was held, pursuant to Federal Register notice, beginning at 1: 05 p. m.

BEFORE:

BARRY BREEN, Chair Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response LINDA GARCZYNSKI, Director PATRICIA OVERMEYER, Technical Lead Office of Brownfields Clean Up and Redevelopment MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 2 C O N T E N T S PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Richard Young 13 Michael Mittelholzer 24 MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 3 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN BREEN: Good afternoon. We will let the meeting start a little later than planned because we wanted to make sure we got as many people through security as we could.

My name is Barry Breen. I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator here at EPA for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the part of EPA from which this program is housed.

This public meeting on the recently proposed standards and practices for All Appropriate Inquiry is our second public meeting on that proposed rule.

We held our first public meeting in St. Louis on September 22nd and we plan to hold one additional public meeting in San Francisco on November 18th.

These standards that we will discuss today will be applicable to property claiming protection from Super Fund liability as well as be applicable to our brownfields grantees.

We published the proposed rules for All Appropriate Inquiry in the " Federal Register" on August 26th and copies of the proposed rule are available in the back of the room. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 4 As you may know, we developed the proposed rule using a negotiated rulemaking process. The regulatory language that we published in the " Federal Register" as the proposed rule is the same language agreed to by the negotiated rulemaking committee at the end of last year.

Negotiated rulemaking is a collaborative process that allows the federal government to benefit from the knowledge and experience of affected stakeholders. The process allows us to take advantage of this knowledge and experience at the initial stages of the regulatory development process rather than waiting until the end of the proposed rule phase.

We appreciate the tremendous amount of time and effort that the 25 members of the All Appropriate Inquiries Regulatory Negotiation Committee dedicated to this rulemaking effort.

Now the regulatory negotiation phase of regulatory development is completed. We are here today to hear your comments and listen to any input you may want to provide us on our proposed standards. We recognize the value of public comment in the regulatory development process and we appreciate your input and we look forward to hearing your views. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 5 I'm here today with Linda Garczynski, immediately on my right. Linda is the Director of EPA's Office of Brownfields Clean Up and Redevelopment.

And on Linda's right is Patricia Overmeyer, also of the Brownfields Office. Patricia serves as EPA's technical lead for the proposed rule and was the designated federal official for the negotiated rulemaking process.

Linda will now give a few words and then Patricia will get us started.

MS. GARCZYNSKI: Good afternoon.

Thank you, Barry.

I want to thank the members of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, several of whom are here in attendance today, for their time and their valuable input and their diligent work with us on the development of this proposed rule. Many of those committee members were present also at the Brownfields Conference in St. Louis in September and participated in several sessions on the proposed rule. For those of you who attended that conference, you saw the lively dialogue that was engaged in at the conference. That was a taste of what we did during the regulatory development process. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 6 I want to thank all of you who are here today.

Public comments are a very important part of our regulatory development process and a necessary part to provide valuable input and insight to us as to how our proposed rule may affect you as stakeholders. It also helps us understand the potential ease or difficulties that could be associated with implementing the regulation and we're anxious to hear from you in that regard.

The Brownfields Program is posited around the fact that we build partnerships and provide incentives for revitalization of idle, abandoned or under used properties.

Those goals center on four basic tenants, many of those focus on sustainable redevelopment of those properties in manners that protect human health and the environment and contribute to community revitalization.

The results of the Brownfields Program to date are fairly well known. $ 6.6 billion now have been leveraged in clean up and redevelopment dollars towards the reuse of those properties. More than 29,000 jobs have been generated in association with those properties. We have assessed more than 6,000 of those properties. One of the little known facts is that for every acre of brownfield space, according MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 7 to a GW University study, that's used it saves 4.5 acres in green space for redevelopment purposes. So we think that's a vital part of any smart development process within any of our municipalities and suburban communities.

Every dollar of funding that the public entities put into brownfields redevelopment, according to a study by the Conference of Urban Economic Development, yields back $ 2.48 in private investments on these properties. So not only is All Appropriate Inquiries important in the context of CERCLA liability but it's also important in the context of protection of public health and the environment and the spurring of redevelopment on brownfields properties.

It's also important to understand that this is the federal standard for conduct of All Appropriate Inquiries.

There may be other standards established by other state programs, although we are noticing a trend on the part of the newer state programs to begin adoption of the rule in concert with EPA's use of that rule.

We hope that this will encourage additional cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields properties. One of the things that I want to point out, though, is that All Appropriate Inquiries is not the end but rather the MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 8 beginning of the steps necessary for CERCLA liability protection.

Property owners must comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries aspect of the new brownfields law prior to purchasing a property but after they purchase the property they must also comply with several ongoing obligations. These include things like stopping ongoing releases, taking reasonable steps to ensure that contamination is contained or does not get worse in order to ensure public safety, and compliance with all existing institutional controls or land use restrictions so the All Appropriate Inquiries regulation must be seen in the context of the total package of liability protections afforded by the statute.

Our meeting today is one of several opportunities to comment both electronically through our e docket process as well as through your testimony today at the public meeting.

As Barry mentioned, we had a public meeting in September at the Brownfields Conference. We had more than 300 people attending that public meeting. We're having this public meeting today here in Washington and our additional MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 9 public meeting in San Francisco will be held on November 18th.

Any member of the public can provide written comments on the proposed rule and they can be submitted to us today and will be submitted through our regulatory docket process or they can be provided to us through the internet.

We are electronic friendly in this day and age for regulatory development.

The preamble to the proposed rule that was published in the " Federal Register" and is posted on the web has detailed instructions for your submission of written comments.

Once again, I want to say how much we value your input. I want to hear all of your comments and insights and issues as we move forward to a final development of the rule.

Now I want to introduce Patricia Overmeyer, who will go over the ground rules for the meeting today before we get started.

MS. OVERMEYER: Thanks, Barry and Linda.

Just a couple of logistical things before we get started. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 10 Today's meeting is a public meeting and will be recorded by our court reporter and a transcript will be provided that will have the meeting in its entirety. We will provide copies of the transcript on our website and in the public docket. Because it's being recorded, everybody who speaks today has to speak into the microphone so that our court reporter can hear you with clarity and can record.

We'll begin the meeting today by first hearing from those individuals who signed up previously to provide comments. After we hear from those individuals who preregistered we'll open it up to the floor to anybody else who wants to make comment. We're asking that people try to limit your comments to seven minutes or less so if there are others here who want to make comment there will be sufficient time. We are scheduled to go to 3: 00. We'll use as much time as we need to, to make sure that everybody gets their chance to make their comments.

As Linda and Barry both indicated, in addition to providing public comment here today, which will go into the docket and into the official public record for the proposed rule, you can provide us with written comments either here today we'll make sure that they get into the docket for MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 11 you or you can provide your written comments over the internet and directly to the e docket system.

There are copies of the proposed rule in the back of the room. In the beginning of the preamble to the proposed rule there are instructions for how to submit your comments.

We will not be responding to your comments today.

We have to wait until we hear all comments and see all written comments that were submitted to the docket. EPA does intend and will respond to every comment that we receive here today and in writing. We will respond to all the comments in writing and our responses will be included into the docket for the final rule on All Appropriate Inquiries.

After we hear all comments from each of you today,

if there are questions at the end regarding the process or things that you'd like us to clarify, we'll try to do that but we can't respond to any individual comments until we've had a chance to read and consider all of the public comments. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 12 As Linda said, this is our second public meeting.

We'll be holding a third public meeting in San Francisco,

California, on November 18th.

So with that, I'll just call each of the people who have pre registered and then we'll open the meeting up to additional comments.

The first person is Matthew Grasper. Is Matthew here?

Okay. Mark Morrel?

Richard Young?

Once again, each person should try to keep their comments to seven minutes.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF RICHARD YOUNG MR. YOUNG: Thank you very much. My name is Richard Young. I'm the Executive Director of the National Registry of Environmental Professionals. We're located in Glenview, Illinois, and we are a professional certification organization.

I would like to bring to the attention of the committee that there are 787 colleges and universities that offer environmental science bachelor degrees. This is compared to 72 universities and colleges that offer MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 13 environmental engineering degrees. There are 33 disciplines 33 engineering disciplines in which people may obtain their professional engineer's license. And this includes I won't read the whole list but this includes agricultural engineering, ceramics engineering, ocean engineering, and many more that are not related at all to the environment but yet would be qualified to sit for the professional engineer's license, then have three years of work experience in the environmental field, and qualify as an environmental professional.

Likewise, there are 18 geology disciplines which include such things as petroleum geologists,

hydrogeologists geochemists, coal geologists. Again people who

 these are separate degrees that are available from universities. They would be able to take and qualify for their professional geologist license, come up with three years of some kind of environmental experience and be qualified to practice at a brownfield site.

Based on these disciplines, someone may obtain a PE or PG license and then be considered by EPA as being qualified to conduct environmental work with only three years of environmental experience. These are people, I'm MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 14 saying, that have no experience. They have had nothing in their school year or nothing in their work practice afterwards and they do not have to take any single question

 they do not have to pass any single question on their PE license or their PG license and yet they can be considered as qualified.

In 1987, or I should say since 1987, our organization, the National Registry of Environmental Professionals, has credentialed approximately 15,000 individuals to be environmental managers and environmental property assessors.

Our programs, depending on which one, the REPA,

the Registered Environmental Property Assessor, requires a bachelor's degree, requires four years of environmental property assessment.

An environmental manager, on the other hand, who manages environmental projects such as brownfields projects,

requires five years of environmental practice plus their bachelor's degree.

The Resolution Trust Corporation with its responsibility for billions of dollars in land value has recognized that requirement and to ensure that individuals MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 15 remain current with their changes in environmental technology and processes they have to maintain their proficiency by completing a minimum of 15 continuing education hours annually.

I'm asking the committee to level the playing field. There have been thousands of resumes that NREP has reviewed from people who want to be considered as qualified to practice and we have rejected a large number of them.

As the economy has shifted, major shifts in employment with engineers in aerospace, chemical, pulp and paper and other fields, understandably, have attempted to find work and shift their work, and most of them over to the environmental field.

The National Registry of Environmental Professionals, along with the Florida Environmental Assessors Association, and also in conjunction with the National Association of Environmental Risk Assessors or Risk Auditors, I should say, agree with the EPA there are too many people in the environmental field with inadequate environmental education and little or no practical field experience. This is the reason why certification programs MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 16 have been developed to credential people for conducting BSA,

Phase I/ Phase II work.

A state licensed engineer or geologist cannot be considered as being equivalent to a bachelor, master or doctorate degree in environmental education unless they've received comparable training in environmental science. It's a false conclusion that all professional engineers and geologists are knowledgeable about environmental matters.

It would be fair to state that engineers and geologists with three years of verified work experience would be comparable to somebody with an environmental science degree who also had three years of practical work experience and the same thing could be true, also, of five years work experience if EPA so decided to view it in that manner.

Because ASTM has created a list of procedures for conducting Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments, virtually anybody who is capable of following those procedures should be considered or could be considered as an environmental professional.

Today there are many small consulting firms whose business will be hurt by EPA's proposed rule because they MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 17 cannot meet the proposed experience and education requirements. Such firms, these small little firms, are the backbone. They really are the backbone of today's business in conducting Phase I and Phase II work for residential and commercial property.

More consulting firms are destined to be hurt financially by the AAI rule. While EPA does not believe that the definition of environmental professional will go beyond the AAI rule, it is destined and, as so many times before, that it will and it will go and be accepted as a definition of an environmental professional in other laws.

As proposed, the AAI rule will drive up the market for consulting engineers and geologists. It will place them on a pedestal of being a specialist who can and will command higher pay for their work. From an economic standpoint it can be viewed as that it can be expected that all salaries on a brownfields project will also rise. The other trades will ask for more money and it will cost more to complete the work.

Very quickly and not boring you with all the details now because we will provide that in written testimony as I say, the total estimated number of MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 18 environmental professionals nationwide without engineering degrees but practicing in the environmental field is 1,120,584. The total estimated Black professionals in the environmental field not being engineers is 100,853. We go on through also the Hispanic, the Asian, the female and the total minorities who are non engineers practicing in the environmental field now today is 705,968. This will have an impact on them. A total impact on yearly wages which averaged on the way low side of being $ 39,505,223,188.00.

By the way, these total environmental professionals, these non engineers practicing in the environmental field, as a percentage of the nation's total employed, is 6.8 thousand. If we are to take and begin leaving them out and being recognized as equals in this field, this will have a dramatic effect on our nation's economy. These numbers, by the way, are not ones that I made up. They are there for you to see from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The law is too stringent. It forces everybody, in effect, to become a professional engineer or a geologist when they are not professional geologist, pardon me when it's not when it's an established standard for all other MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 19 EPA. Providing or establishing professional engineers and geologists as a standard for brownfields is not appropriate at this venue. A better venue for this issue is outside the brownfields law and in front of a U. S. EPA administrative law judge when the case arises.

The standard in its present form does not protect the public interest regarding professional engineers and geologists. There is no level of enforcement or back in qualification or back in qualification process delineated in the law. The law in its current form would give government's approval to a profession without enforcement or qualification to the public by restricting it to two professions, which harms the public good. It can be argued that U. S. EPA does not have the legal authority to decide who is an environmental professional. There is no regulation that provides U. S. EPA with authority to regulate a profession or endorse a profession.

The regulation in its current form violates states' rights to protect individuals to regulate professions at an individual level. There isn't a federally licensed engineer or geologist. It's all done by the state level. If the federal government provides a level of MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 20 enforcement they are effectively taking away power and funding from states to regulate their professions.

The law in its current form violates U. S.

antitrust laws. The regulation reduces the competition by providing preferred economic treatment of engineers and geologists.

As noted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, other environmental professionals compromise a total portion of the a significant portion of the economy and employment.

Because of economic preferential treatment, geologists and engineers could effectively create a monopoly over all brownfields projects and set unfair price controls that would impact the real estate market.

MS. OVERMEYER: Could you try to wrap it up within one minute?

MR. YOUNG: I'm sorry, one more?

MS. OVERMEYER: Could you try to wrap it up within one minute? One more minute.

MR. YOUNG: All right. In my closing remarks,

although it sounds like I may not be on EPA's side, we are.

We want to work with you folks directly as much as we can and as much as you'll let us. Therefore, as a public MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 21 service to EPA and the public because we have co sponsored in the past a number of events with you, EPA has moved forward and designed a self maintained on line registry for individuals meeting U. S. EPA published qualifications. This is a big program. This is mainframe we're talking about,

not desk top. And this program will allow EPA to have people enter their qualifications into this program where people can view, the public and EPA can view all of the qualifications of these individuals who claim to have the necessary knowledge and experience to work on a brownfield site.

And it does have a web site that is on line at the moment for you to view and this is fully manipulatable by EPA. You can go to http:// brownfields. infocritical. com.

So I emphasize to you again this is a free service to EPA. We want to know who is out there, too. The public deserves to know who is out there. Thank you very much.

MS. OVERMEYER: Thank you.

Michael Munson? Michael Mittelholzer?

PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL MITTELHOLZER MR. MITTELHOLZER: Thank you. I'll try to be brief. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 22 As an unabashed Red Sox fan, I've spent the last three days on a good combination of caffeine, fear and hope,

not necessarily in equal measure so I will make my remarks brief.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Mittelholzer.

I am a Director of Regulatory Affairs for the National Association of Home Builders. I am here today to comment on the proposed rule on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders. NAHB's membership consists of over 215,000 member firms who develop land, construct, design and supply the nation's residential and light commercial construction industry. NAHB's membership consists of over 850 state and local chapters in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and here in the District of Columbia. NAHB members have a direct interest in the outcome of this rulemaking since our members investigate, acquire and develop properties in both urban and rural settings that may have some level of environmental contamination due to the prior use.

NAHB supports the efforts by EPA, our nation's governors and mayors, community groups and nonprofits to promote the environmental sound re use of former brownfield sites. NAHB MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 23 views the proposed rule developed by EPA via a negotiated rulemaking process as a critical step in that process.

NAHB as a party to EPA's negotiated rulemaking,

which helped develop this rule, agreed, as all parties agreed, as all parties to this process agreed to participate with the understanding that all parties would support the consensus based outcome of this negotiated rulemaking.

Therefore, NAHB does support the proposed rule.

On behalf of NAHB, I would like to thank the staff of EPA who worked on this proposed rule along with other stakeholders, advisors and consultants, who all worked cooperatively throughout this process.

However, before I discuss some of the merits of the proposed rule for the land development and construction industry, it is important to remember the importance of today's proposed rule to the implementation of a significant environmental statute, the Small Business Liability and Brownfields Revitalization Act, commonly referred to as the Brownfields Law. NAHB supports the proposed rule for three main reasons:

First: The proposed rule implements a key provision of the recently passed brownfields law that MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 24 clarifies what specific actions a landowner must take prior to taking title to a property to determine the potential presence of environmental contamination.

Second: The proposed rule is consistent with the criteria established by Congress under the recently enacted brownfields law. I believe that's found in Section 223( d).

Three: Promulgation of the rule will provide landowners with the means to demonstrate they qualify for the important federal liability protections CERCLA Super Fund granted under the brownfields law.

Throughout the negotiated rulemaking process NAHB had four primary objectives:

One: To ensure the rule is consistent with congressional intent as defined in the brownfields law.

Second: That the All Appropriate Inquiry regulation would be consistent to the extent allowed under the statute with accepted commercial practices such as the ASTM Phase I Site Assessment. Furthermore, the final rule must not result in significant disruptions either in the cost of conducting an environmental assessment or unnecessarily disrupt the market by removing capable MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 25 environmental consultants who are currently conducting environmental site assessments.

I'd also add as a side bar we have recently learned that EPA is working with ASTM staff on updating the current Phase I Site Assessment per changes in the rule.

NAHB fully supports that effort and will submit comments to that.

Three: Provide clarity to the regulated community on what specific steps constitute All Appropriate Inquiry.

And the final objective for NAHB was to ensure the concerns of the public, state and local governments,

nonprofits and the environmental community are addressed through this rulemaking, again to the extent their concerns are consistent with the criteria established by Congress for this rule.

NAHB believes EPA's proposed rule is consistent,

as I mentioned, with the criteria established by Congress and while, as I mentioned, NAHB supports the rule as a whole, NAHB does have concerns about specific elements within this proposed rule particularly as it relates to implementation. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 26 First: Under Section 312.23, " Interviews with past and present owners, operators and occupants," NAHB fully supports and recognizes the need to accurately assess the use of a property. NAHB is concerned that the additional requirements found under this section,

specifically 312.23( d), entitled " Additional Requirements for Abandoned Properties," which is specifically an obligation to locate and interview neighbors of abandoned properties in addition to all the other requirements found under 312.23, such as reviewing all historical sources,

reviewing all environmental means on the property, and reviewing all state and local records on the property.

Our concern specifically, though, is just with 312.23( d) in that we feel it is an additional administrative burden for perspective purchasers that could have the unintended impact of discouraging redevelopment of abandoned properties that, frankly, are already challenging properties to redevelop.

Number two: The definition of an environmental professional found under 312.10, and I'm specifically referring to subpart 2( i) and ( ii), and I apologize for the specificity there, this subsection of the proposed rule MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 27 creates two different standards regarding the numbers of years of direct working experience required for a professional engineer, PE, and that's three years, versus consultants with all other relevant environmental science backgrounds, which requires them to have five years of professional experience. Also, this category includes engineers who lack a PE's license. NAHB's concern is the proposed rule might have the unintended effect of preventing capable environmental consultants either now or in the future from qualifying as an environmental professional.

NAHB urges interested stakeholders, as we've heard here today, to provide information during the comment period on the potential impact of this provision to the environmental consulting industry.

Finally, I want to thank EPA for holding this public hearing today on this important rule and for allowing NAHB to participate in the negotiated rulemaking process.

As stated in above, NAHB does support the All Appropriate Inquiry Rule as proposed. Overall, NAHB views the proposed rule as a positive and important step towards implementing the recently enacted federal brownfields law.

NAHB looks forward to working with the EPA and all other MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 28 stakeholders interested in bringing former brownfield sites back to reproductive use productive use. Sorry. Thank you.

MS. OVERMEYER: Thank you.

I should ask whether Matthew Grasper is here.

Mark Morrel? That's a no. And Michael Munson? Okay.

With that, I'll ask if anybody else wishes to make a statement or a comment? Does anyone have any questions?

MR. MORREL: It was indicated that EPA is working with ASTM to revise the E1527 standard. Will EPA issue a revised proposed regulation or will that be a final regulation once the revisions are made?

MS. OVERMEYER: The ASTM E1527 standard, which is being developed by ASTM and which EPA is working with them to develop, is not a regulation. It's a voluntary consensus standard developed by ASTM. The effort that Michael Mittelholzer spoke to was that EPA staff are working with ASTM to revise the current E1527 standard to be compliant with the rule.

The effort at this point is to make it compliant with the proposed rule. As we go through the public comment period and review and consider public comments, ASTM remains MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 29 diligent in their efforts. They have told us that they will continue to work with us to see that the standard is then compliant with what we come up with as a final rule.

The idea there is not to disrupt the market but to allow people to continue to look to the ASTM standard as guidance and to comply with the standard and the rule.

Are there other questions or comments? Yes?

MR. THOMPSON: Do you have any idea when you're going to make a final of this rule?

MS. OVERMEYER: The question is does EPA now have any idea when we may go final with the rule. It's hard for us to estimate at this point in time without having seen all of the comments, the number and depth and breadth of comments that we could get on the proposed rule. The comment period is open until November 30th. We also have another public meeting to do. We're hopeful that within a year or so we will be able to get the final rule out but again it will depend on the extent and the number of public comments that we get on the proposed rule.

Other questions or comments?

MR. MORREL: The EPA rule uses the term in the performance standard of " reasonable time and cost" but that MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 30 terminology is not in the statute. Where did EPA develop or how do you decide that that term would be included in the statute and how does it define " reasonable time and cost?"

MS. OVERMEYER: The negotiated rule making committee thought it was important to develop a standard around performance factors to ensure that the proposed rule or the standard itself did not come out to be a mere checklist so that we could use the experience and the judgment of the environmental professionals in conducting the All Appropriate Inquiries requirement and so the phrase that you're referring to is part of the performance factors to allow for some judgment in the use of the experience of the environmental professionals. The proposed rule does not have a definition of that but allows for the environmental professional to use their judgment.

Other questions or comments?

Well, thank you, everyone, for coming out on a dreary day. And, as I said before, the public comment period for the proposed rule remains open until November 30th and we look forward to all of your written comments.

Thank you. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S. E. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003 2802 ( 202) 546 6666 31 [ Whereupon, at 1: 44 p. m., the proceedings were adjourned.]