[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44456-44459]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0097; Product Identifier 2019-NM-208-AD; Amendment
39-21157; AD 2020-14-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This
AD was prompted by a report that a crack indication consistent with
fatigue cracking was found on the left nacelle support overwing fitting
flange fastener hole during teardown of a Model 737-300 series
airplane. This AD requires a general visual inspection of the strut to
wing diagonal brace at a certain location for cracking. For certain
airplanes, this AD also requires an ultrasonic inspection of the
nacelle support overwing fitting at certain fastener locations for
cracking. For certain other airplanes, this AD requires a magnetic
check of the nacelle support overwing fitting at a certain location to
determine the material composition. This AD requires applicable on-
condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 27, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 27,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0097.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0097; 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 final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Ha, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on February 18, 2020 (85 FR 8776). The NPRM was
prompted by a report that a crack indication consistent with fatigue
cracking was found on the left nacelle support overwing fitting flange
fastener hole during teardown of a Model 737-300 series airplane. The
NPRM proposed to require a general visual inspection of the strut to
wing diagonal brace at a certain location for cracking. For certain
airplanes, the NPRM also proposed to require an ultrasonic inspection
of the nacelle support overwing fitting at certain fastener locations
for cracking. For certain other airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require
a magnetic check of the nacelle support overwing fitting at a certain
location to determine the material composition. The NPRM also proposed
to require applicable on-condition actions.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential for undetected
cracks in the nacelle support overwing fittings or strut to wing
diagonal brace, which could result in the inability of the structure to
carry limit load and could adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Bridget Powell, Herbert Dickens, Terrance Tveit, and an anonymous
commenter expressed support for the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified
in the proposed AD.
    The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and
added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC
ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request To Clarify the Focus of the Ultrasonic Inspection

    Boeing requested that the FAA clarify the focus of the ultrasonic
inspection in the SUMMARY of the NPRM. Whereas the NPRM described the
ultrasonic inspection of ``certain fasteners of the nacelle support
overwing fitting at a certain location for cracking,'' Boeing stated
that the ultrasonic inspection is ``of the nacelle support overwing
fitting at certain fastener locations for cracking.'' Boeing explained
that the ultrasonic inspections require an inspection of the nacelle
support overwing fitting at certain fastener holes rather than the
fasteners themselves.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request because the revision
provides more clarification for the inspection of the nacelle support
overwing fitting. The FAA has revised the SUMMARY and Discussion
section of this final rule accordingly.

Requests To Clarify Inspection Opportunities

    Boeing requested that the FAA modify the description of the
opportunities for maintenance planning document (MPD) inspections to
detect a failed nacelle support overwing fitting in the Discussion
section of the NPRM. Boeing requested that the FAA change the following
sentence in the Discussion section of the NPRM from ``Existing
maintenance planning document (MPD) inspections do not provide
opportunities to detect a failed nacelle support overwing fitting at
wing buttock line (WBL) 191,'' to ``Existing maintenance planning
document (MPD) inspections do not provide adequate opportunities to
detect a failed nacelle support overwing fitting at wing buttock line
(WBL) 191.'' Boeing explained that the MPD does provide some inspection
opportunities, but Boeing determined they were not adequate to maintain
safety.
    The FAA agrees that the description provided by Boeing is more
accurate. However, since that portion of the Discussion section does
not reappear in the final rule, this final rule has not been changed
regarding this issue.
    Additionally, Melanie Sturgeon noted that the Discussion section of
the proposed AD stated that existing MPD inspections ``do not provide
opportunities to detect a failed nacelle support overwing fitting at
wing buttock line (WBL) 191.'' Melanie Sturgeon supposed that Boeing
would not have quickly issued Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
57A1345 RB, dated December 17, 2019, if the inspection findings were
not important. Melanie Sturgeon went on to cite that, of the 158
airplanes affected by the proposed AD, many of them are at or near 30
years old. Melanie Sturgeon questioned why such a vital part of the
airplane was not properly inspected throughout the course of its
service life, presuming that the unsafe condition could have been
easily detected. Further, Melanie Sturgeon questioned why the FAA
continued to issue airworthiness certificates for this airplane model
when, as she stated, inspection teams seemed to be unaware of the parts
they are charged with approving.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. The airplane model was in compliance
with regulatory safety standards when it was designed. The design loads
at the failed nacelle support overwing fitting at WBL 191 might have
been considered low from testing and analysis and was not considered
critical structure. While the airplane model operates in-service, the
loading encountered by in-service conditions could be higher than
designed. Therefore, once aware of the possibility of a failed part,
Boeing reanalyzed the part and collaborated with the FAA to determine
an inspection plan and corrective action to ensure that the failure is
found and repaired before the residual strength capability of the part
is lost. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for Clarification of Accountability

    Melanie Sturgeon questioned if Boeing will be held accountable for
not providing the FAA with an accurate MPD, and, by extension, will the
FAA be held responsible for not ensuring that Boeing provided an
accurate MPD.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. The MPD provided by Boeing was based on
accurate information available at the time of writing the MPD and was
approved by the FAA under those circumstances. When new information
that necessitated an update to the MPD became available, the MPD was
updated to reflect that new information, which the FAA then reviewed
and approved as appropriate. The FAA has not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Clarify Inspection Requirements

    Melanie Sturgeon, stated that the proposed AD fails to provide
information about the compliance time that Boeing or operators would
have to comply with the requirements of the proposed AD. Melanie
Sturgeon also inquired if the proposed AD would require an inspection
on only the left nacelle support overwing fitting flange fastener hole,
or would the proposed AD require an inspection on the left and right
sides.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. Paragraph (g) of the proposed AD
references Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1345 RB, dated
December 17, 2019, in which the inspections shown in Tables 1 through 8
in Section 3., Compliance, provide inspection requirements and
compliance times for both left and right side nacelle support overwing
fittings. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for More Frequent Inspections as an Airplane Ages

    Melanie Sturgeon requested that the FAA put the airplanes within
the applicability of this AD on a rotating, graduated safety inspection
schedule, meaning that the plane would be inspected more often as it
got closer to its limit of validity (LOV). Melanie Sturgeon argued
that, if safety is the FAA's top priority, then the FAA should take
control of its responsibilities and rely less on the manufacturer's
ability to classify airplanes as safe.
    The FAA does not agree with the request because the inquiry mixes
technical criteria that are not compatible. The inspections required by
this final rule were developed using principles of damage tolerance.
Damage tolerance has been a regulatory requirement and the accepted
method of ensuring structural integrity for the last 42 years. The FAA
has a long track record of successfully managing similar structural
service difficulties by mandating inspections based on damage tolerance
principles. It is technically incorrect to associate repetitive
inspections based on damage tolerance principles with the airplane LOV.
The airplane LOV (which is measured in flight cycles, flight hours, or
both) ensures that the airplane is retired before many cracks initiate
concurrently which are not inspectable. The crack growth rate is tied
more closely to airplane usage than to the age of the airplane, and
thus changing the inspection interval as the airplane ages will not
contribute to safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Share Information With Another Governing Body

    Melanie Sturgeon requested that the FAA share the information from
the proposed rule with the governing bodies of other countries or the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Melanie Sturgeon
pointed out that countries around the world use this airplane model,
and in an effort to promote worldwide aviation safety, the

FAA should ensure that the information in the proposed AD is
distributed to other countries that operate these airplanes.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. The FAA does share the information from
the proposed rule with the governing bodies of other countries as
identified in ICAO Annex 8 (https://www.icao.int/safety/airnavigation/Pages/nationality.aspx). Furthermore, ICAO Annex 8, Airworthiness of
Aircraft requires that civil aviation authorities of other countries
take appropriate action in response to FAA ADs. Based on the FAA's
determination of the unsafe condition addressed by this AD, we expect
foreign authorities to adopt similar requirements. Typically, those
agencies post FAA ADs with no changes and notify their operators. The
operators will then comply with this AD per their CAA's requirements.
The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1345 RB,
dated December 17, 2019. This service information describes procedures
for a magnetic check to determine material composition of the nacelle
support overwing fitting at WBL 191; ultrasonic inspections of the
nacelle support overwing fitting at WBL 191 for cracking; general
visual inspections of the strut to wing diagonal brace at nacelle
station (STA) 278 for cracking; and applicable on-condition actions.
On-condition actions include repetitive ultrasonic inspections of the
nacelle support overwing fitting at WBL 191 for cracking, repetitive
general visual inspections of the strut to wing diagonal brace at
nacelle STA 278 for cracking, and repair. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 158 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic Check........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $13,430
                                         hour = $85.
Ultrasonic Inspection.................  5 work-hours x $85 per                 0             425          67,150
                                         hour = $425.
General Visual Inspection.............  1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85          13,430
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition inspections that would be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
inspections:

                                   Estimated Costs of On-Condition Inspections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultrasonic Inspections...........  5 work-hours x $85               $0  $425 per inspection  $67,150 per
                                    per hour = $425                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
General Visual Inspections.......  1 work-hour x $85                 0  $85 per inspection   $13,430 per
                                    per hour = $85 per                   cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this
AD.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-14-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21157; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0097; Product Identifier 2019-NM-208-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 27, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -
400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that a crack indication
consistent with fatigue cracking was found on the left nacelle
support overwing fitting flange fastener hole during teardown of a
Model 737-300 series airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the potential for undetected cracks in the nacelle support overwing
fittings or strut to wing diagonal brace, which could result in the
inability of the structure to carry limit load and could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1345 RB, dated December 17, 2019,
do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-57A1345 RB, dated December 17, 2019. Actions identified as
terminating actions in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
57A1345 RB, dated December 17, 2019, terminate the applicable
required actions of this AD, provided the terminating action is done
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1345 RB, dated December 17, 2019.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-57A1345, dated December 17, 2019, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1345 RB, dated December 17, 2019.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1345 RB,
dated December 17, 2019, uses the phrase ``the original issue date
of Requirements Bulletin (RB) 737-57A1345 RB,'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1345 RB,
dated December 17, 2019, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions, this AD requires doing the repair before further
flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO 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 certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Ha,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5238; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1345 RB, dated
December 17, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 6, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-15818 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45796-45798]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18357]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173; FRL-9914-12]

Approach for Estimating Exposures and Incremental Health Effects
From Lead Due to Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities in Public
and Commercial Buildings; Notice of Availability and Request for
Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is currently in the process of determining whether or not
lead-based paint hazards are created by renovation, repair, and
painting (RRP) activities in public and commercial buildings (P&CBs),
as required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA is
making the following documents available for public review and comment
before they undergo external peer review: ``Approach for Estimating
Exposures and Incremental Health Effects from Lead Due to Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Activities in Public and Commercial Buildings''
(the Approach); the detailed appendices for the Approach; and a
supplementary report, entitled ``Developing a Concentration-Response
Function for Pb Exposure and Cardiovascular Disease-Related
Mortality.'' Together, these documents describe a methodology for
estimating exposures and incremental health effects created by
renovations of P&CBs. This methodology could be used to identify and
evaluate hazards from RRP in P&CBs. Also available for public review
and comment is a list of charge questions that will be directed to the
external peer reviewers for the Approach.

DATES: Comments must be submitted September 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Stan Barone, Jr., Risk Assessment Division (7403M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number
(202) 564-1169; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including independent
contractors and contracting companies involved in renovation, repair,
and painting, as well as academics and members of the public interested
in environmental and human health assessment and the assessment of
chemical risks. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting confidential business information (CBI). Do not
submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes 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. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    EPA is currently in the process of determining whether or not lead-
based paint hazards are created by RRP activities in P&CBs, as required
under TSCA, Subtitle IV (15 U.S.C. 2681 et seq.). For those renovation
activities in P&CBs that create lead-based paint hazards, TSCA directs
EPA to address the hazards through regulation.
    EPA recently published in the Federal Register of May 30, 2014
(Ref. 1) a document for public comment, entitled ``Framework for
Identifying and Evaluating Lead-Based Paint Hazards from Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Activities in Public and Commercial Buildings''
(Ref. 2). This Framework document described, in general terms, how EPA
could identify and evaluate hazards in P&CBs.
    The current document, entitled ``Approach for Estimating Exposures
and Incremental Health Effects from Lead Due to Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Activities in Public and Commercial Buildings'' (Ref. 3)
describes how EPA is modeling the potential overall magnitude and
distribution of renovation-related health effects due to lead exposure
from a renovation in a P&CB, taking into account background lead levels
when no such renovation exposure occurs. Based on information developed
through the Approach, renovation-related health effects will be
estimated as the difference between total health effects (background
plus renovation-related) and background. Exposures from renovation
activities that disturb lead-based paint are connected to subsequent
health effects in children and adults through modeling. Separate Monte-
Carlo based models were constructed for the analysis of exterior
renovations of P&CBs and interior renovations of P&CBs.
    The Monte Carlo analysis is designed to capture potential
population-level variability within each exposure scenario and, as
such, approximates the potential distribution of effects to the part of
the U.S. population who would fall within any scenario. However, the
results presented in the Approach are not representative of an overall
distribution of the entire U.S. population. All scenarios are not
equally likely, and in fact some scenarios may be very unlikely to
occur. In the future, EPA plans to estimate how many people may be
reasonably expected to be exposed in different scenarios.
    After further analysis, the full results of the Approach, along
with information about how often any scenario is expected to actually
occur, will be used to consider whether or not renovation activities in
P&CBs create hazards and, if so, what mitigation measures may be
appropriate. EPA plans to consider renovation-related dust loadings,
blood lead, and health effect changes across exposure scenarios in
order to evaluate whether a hazard occurs. A detailed discussion of the
additional analyses and considerations that would inform EPA's process
of making a hazard finding, or a finding of no hazard, are contained in
the Approach. By itself, the Approach methodology cannot be used to
determine whether hazards exist from P&CB renovations. EPA will need to
conduct additional analyses and make certain science policy decisions
in order to determine whether such hazards exist.
    EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has
identified the Approach as an influential product and according to EPA
peer review guidance is conducting an external peer review of that
document, supplemental files, appendices (Ref. 4), and attendant models
used for exposure scenarios. The external peer reviewers will assess
the accuracy and content of the Approach, ensuring that the Approach
and initial results are scientifically sound. The external peer review
will also address the supplemental documents, which include detailed
appendices for the Approach and a supplementary report relating lead
exposure to Cardiovascular

Disease (CVD) mortality and proposing an approach to quantify adult
health benefits from a reduction in lead (Pb) exposure for CVD
mortality, entitled ``Developing a Concentration-Response Function for
Pb Exposure and Cardiovascular Disease-Related Mortality'' (Ref. 5).
The panel peer review meetings are expected to occur later in 2014, and
the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the
materials given to the external peer reviewers.

III. Request for Comment

    EPA is requesting public review and comment on all aspects of the
Approach and its supplemental files, appendices, attendant models, peer
review charge (Ref. 6), and particularly related to the following:
     The utility of the Approach for estimating exposures
through summarizing building use configuration types and human-activity
patterns to incorporate variability across the wide variety of P&CBs.
     The utility of the updated Leggett Model (original model
described in Leggett 1993 (Ref. 7); updated model described in the
appendices to the Approach (Ref. 4)) to estimate blood lead levels for
both children and adults, and specifically the use of the various
outputs derived from the Leggett Model (concurrent blood lead, lifetime
blood lead, and bone lead) in concentration-response curves for
children and adults.
     The utility of concentration-response functions for health
endpoints in both children and adults for assessing risk to human
health inside P&CBs as a result of P&CB renovations.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. EPA. Lead; Framework for Identifying and Evaluating Lead-
Based Paint Hazards From Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities
in Public and Commercial Buildings. Federal Register (79 FR 31072,
May 30, 2014) (FRL-9910-44).
    2. EPA. Framework for Identifying and Evaluating Lead-Based
Paint Hazards From Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities in
Public and Commercial Buildings. May 2014. Document ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0196. Also available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/lead_pncb_framework_document.pdf.
    3. EPA. Approach for Estimating Exposures and Incremental Health
Effects from Lead Due to Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities
in Public and Commercial Buildings. July 2014. Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2010-0173.
    4. EPA. Appendices to the Approach for Estimating Exposures and
Incremental Health Effects from Lead due to Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Activities in Public and Commercial Buildings. July 2014.
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173.
    5. EPA. Developing a Concentration-Response Function for Pb
Exposure and Cardiovascular Disease-Related Mortality. July 2014.
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173.
    6. EPA. Charge Questions for Approach for Estimating Exposures
and Incremental Health Effects from Lead due to Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Activities in Public and Commercial Buildings. July
2014. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173.
    7. Leggett, R.W. An age-specific kinetic model of lead
metabolism in humans. Environmental Health Perspectives. 101:598-
616. 1993.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Commercial
buildings, Lead, Peer revew, Renovation, Risk assessment.

    Dated: July 28, 2014.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2014-18357 Filed 8-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 31030-31031]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8924-1; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0178]

Draft Toxicological Review of Pentachlorophenol: In Support of
the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of peer-review workshop.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that Versar, Inc., an EPA contractor for
external scientific peer review, will convene an independent panel of
experts and organize and conduct an external peer-review workshop to
review the external review draft document titled, ``Toxicological
Review of Pentachlorophenol: In Support of Summary Information on the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/635/R-09/004). The
draft document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development. EPA
previously announced the 60-day public comment period (ending July 6,
2009) for the draft document in the Federal Register on May 7, 2009 (74
FR 21362). EPA will consider public comments and recommendations from
the expert panel workshop as EPA finalizes the draft document.
    The public comment period and the external peer-review workshop are
separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested
parties to comment on the document. EPA intends to forward public
comments submitted in accordance with the May 7, 2009, Federal Register
notice (74 FR 21362) to Versar, Inc., for consideration by the external
peer-review panel prior to the workshop.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination.
    Versar, Inc., invites the public to register to attend this
workshop as observers. In addition, Versar, Inc., invites the public to
give oral comments at the workshop regarding the draft document under
review. Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-
come, first-served basis. The draft document and EPA's peer-review
charge are available primarily via the Internet on NCEA's home page
under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. In preparing a final report, EPA will consider
Versar's report of the comments and recommendations from the external
peer-review workshop and any public comments that EPA receives in
accordance with 74 FR 21362, May 7, 2009.

DATES: The peer-review workshop will be held on Tuesday, August 4,
2009, beginning at approximately 8:30 a.m. and ending at approximately
5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. Observers must register by Tuesday, July
28, 2009. At the time of registration, please indicate

that you wish to make a brief oral comment at the workshop.

ADDRESSES: The peer-review workshop will be held at the Courtyard
Arlington Crystal City/Reagan National Airport, 2899 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Versar, Inc. is organizing,
convening, and conducting the peer-review workshop. To attend the
workshop as an observer, register by Tuesday, July 28, 2009 via the
Internet at http://epa.versar.com/pentachlorophenol. You may also
register by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line:
Pentachlorophenol Peer-Review Workshop), by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> x. 316,
or by faxing a registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER> (please reference
the ``Pentachlorophenol Peer-Review Workshop'' and include your name,
title, affiliation, full address and contact information).
    The draft ``Toxicological Review of Pentachlorophenol: In Support
of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)'' is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA home page
under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available from
the Information Management Team, NCEA, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you are requesting a paper copy, please
provide your name, mailing address, and the document title,
``Toxicological Review of Pentachlorophenol: In Support of Summary
Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).'' Copies
are not available from Versar, Inc.
    Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities: EPA
welcomes the attendance of the public at the Pentachlorophenol Peer-
Review Workshop and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. For information on access or services for individuals
with disabilities, please contact Versar, Inc. (see below for contact
information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding information,
registration, access or services for individuals with disabilities, or
logistics for the external peer-review workshop should be directed to
Versar, Inc., 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151; telephone:
703-750-3000 x. 316; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Pentachlorophenol Peer-Review
Workshop). To request accommodation of a disability, please contact
Versar, Inc., preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give
as much time as possible to process your request.
    If you need technical information about the document, please
contact Catherine Gibbons, IRIS Staff, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 703-347-
8689; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Information About the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)

    IRIS is a database that contains potential adverse human health
effects information that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure
to specific chemical substances found in the environment. The database
(available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris) contains
qualitative and quantitative health effects information for more than
540 chemical substances that may be used to support the first two steps
(hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of a risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, the database
provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference
concentrations (RfCs) for chronic health effects, and oral slope
factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. Combined
with specific exposure information, government and private entities can
use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.

II. Workshop Information

    Members of the public may attend the workshop as observers, and
there will be a limited time for oral comments from the public. The
deadline for registration is July 28, 2009. Please let Versar, Inc.
know if you wish to make oral comments during the workshop. Space is
limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-
served basis.

    Dated: June 22, 2009.
Rebecca Clark,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E9-15313 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P