SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). ( Renewal)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP), for aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities published at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG were proposed on June 6, 1994, and promulgated on September 1, 1995. These regulations apply to existing and new aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities where the total Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPs) emitted are greater than or equal to 10 tons per year of any one HAP; or where the total HAPs emitted are greater than or equal to 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of the proposal. Operations covered include: cleaning, primer and top coat application, depainting, chemical milling maskant application, and handling and storage of waste. This information is being collected to ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP standards.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these documents, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such notifications, reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office.

Approximately 136 sources are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

The active ( previous) Information Collection Request ( ICR) had the following Terms of Clearance ( TOC): 2 This collection is approved for three years. OMB notes that EPA has revised its burden estimate for this collection substantially in response to comments from the public. Prior to resubmitting the collection to OMB for revision or renewal, EPA should review the current burden estimate in consultation with the regulated entities. EPA should also evaluate whether it is possible to streamline the collection in order to reduce burden on regulated entities, and if so, undertake any needed rulemaking to accomplish this objective.

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC by consulting the Aerospace Industries Association to identify any need for further adjustment of the burden estimate, and by examining the rule to evaluate whether it would be possible to streamline the collection in order to reduce burden on regulated entities. Consultation with the Aerospace Industries Association revealed that the significant increase in burden due to personnel training shown in the previous ICR was overestimated for that activity. This is due to the limited need for extensive retraining in successive years after initial coating application training. Table 1, Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, has, therefore, been revised to reflect a decrease in annual per person training burden. EPA also examined whether it would be possible to streamline the collection in order to reduce burden on regulated entities, and determined that the information collected is the minimum necessary to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Therefore, no additional rulemaking was undertaken.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and 3 ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NESHAP for this source category were promulgated at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of HAP from aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of HAP from aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities are the result of operation of the affected facilities. These standards rely on the capture and/ or reduction of HAP emissions by control technology, and by the use of work practices which minimize emissions. Required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the appropriate pollution control devices are properly installed and operated; compliant coatings and solvents are being used; and to ensure work practices are being adhered to. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance on an on going basis with these standards, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements also is used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to 4 the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB)

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 68 FR 62289) on November 3, 2003. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations EPA consulted Bob Peters of the Aerospace Industries Association ( 703 358 1055) to obtain information on the industry and associated burden for this ICR. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) also conducted a review of the industry during initiation of the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities Residual Risk Assessment. Results from that activity were used in preparation of this ICR.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for this ICR are in accordance with the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.5.

These standards require affected facilities to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards. EPA believes that the five year records retention requirement is consistent with the Part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. Also, the retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action. Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years. EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records were retained for less than five years. 5 3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities. An aerospace manufacturing or rework facility is defined as a facility that produces an aerospace vehicle or component, or a facility that reworks or repairs these vehicles or components. Aerospace operations at any facility that conducts both aerospace and non aerospace work would be subject to the final standards, regardless of the relative proportion of aerospace and non aerospace work at the facility. However, only the aerospace portion of the work is covered by the final rule ( except for use of cleaning solvents).

Standard SIC Codes NAICS Codes 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG 3720 Aircraft and Parts 3721 336411 Aircraft 3724 336412 Aircraft Engines and Engine Parts 3728 332912, 336411, 336413 Aircraft Parts and Equipment 3760 Guided Missiles, Space Vehicles, and Parts 3761 336414 Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles 3764 336415 Space Propulsion Units and Parts 6 3769 336419 Space Vehicle Equipment 4581 48819 Airports, Flying Fields, and Services 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG.

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Requirement Regulation reference General provisions reference ! Reports of startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, construction, and modification 63.743( a)( 2) 63.743( a)( 3) 63.753( a) 63.6( e) 63.5( d) 63.10( d)( 5)

! Notification and report of performance tests and results 63.753( a) 63.7( b) 63.7( g)( 1) 63.9( e) 63.10( d)( 2)

! Notification and report of physical and operational changes 63.743( a)( 2) 63.753( a) 63.5( b)( 6)

! Notification and report of production capacity 63.753( a) 63.9( b)( 2)

! Notification and report of compliance status 63.753( a) 63.9( h)

! Report of startup, shutdown, malfunction plan 63.743( b) 63.753( a) 63.10( a) 63.10( d)( 5)

! Notification and report for waiver applications 63.753( a) 63.7( h)( 3) 7 ! Semiannual report 63.753( b) 63.753( c)( 1) 63.753( d)( 1) 63.753( d)( 3) 63.753( e) 63.6( e) 63.10( d)( 5) 63.10( e)( 3)

! Annual report 63.753( c)( 2) 63.753( d)( 2)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping ! 5 year retention of records 63.752( a) 63.10( b)( 1)

! Records of daily and monthly inspections 63.743( a)( 3) 63.752( a) 63.6( e)( 3) 63.10( b)( 2)

! Emission testing 63.752( a) 63.10( b)( 2)

! Facility operation and maintenance including startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, construction and modification 63.743( a)( 2) 63.743( a)( 3) 63.743( b) 63.752 63.5( b) 63.6( e)

! Cleaning solvents, all information records 63.752( b)( 1)

! Cleaning solvents, approved composition and vapor pressure, solvent usage records 63.752( b)( 2)

! Cleaning solvents, non approved composition, approved vapor pressure, solvent usage records 63.752( b)( 3)

! Cleaning solvents, usage log for exempt processes 63.752( b)( 4)

! Cleaning solvents, log of spray gun cleaner leaks 63.752( b)( 5)

! Primers/ topcoats/ maskants: Records using compliant coatings without averaging 63.752( c)( 1) 63.752( c)( 2) 63.752( c)( 3) 63.752( f)( 1)

! Primers/ topcoats/ maskants: Records using averaging 63.752( c)( 1) 63.752( c)( 4) 63.752( f)( 2) 8 Recordkeeping ! Primers/ topcoats/ maskants: Records using control devices 63.752( c)( 1) 63.752( c)( 5) 63.752( c)( 6) 63.752( d) 63.752( f)( 3) 63.752( f)( 4)

! Chemical strippers, records and parts removed 63.752( e)( 1) 63.752( e)( 4)

! Chemical strippers, records using control devices 63.752( e)( 2) 63.752( e)( 3)

! Depainting equipment malfunction log 63.752( e)( 5)

! Annual exempt chemical stripper usage log and reworked airplane log for spot stripping and decal removal 63.752( e)( 6)

! Depainting control device maintenance log 63.752( e)( 7)

Electronic Reporting Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e. g., inlet and outlet concentrations when determining percent efficiency. Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping. In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the respondents use electronic reporting.

ii. Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate compliance monitoring system ( CMS) for opacity, or for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for wet scrubber.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, 4, 18, 24, 25A, 40, 301, or 319 as applicable, and repeat performance tests if necessary. 9 Respondent Activities Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, excess emissions reports, startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, and quality control plan for CMS required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS).

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance 10 test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for five years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected within the context of this specific Subpart and the specific process equipment and pollutant. The requirements reflect the burden on small businesses. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. Although the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and larger businesses, the Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

Low volume use of primers, topcoats, and chemical milling maskants which do not exceed 50 gallons ( 189 liters) per year per formulation, with a combined annual total of all three not exceeding 200 gallons ( 757 liters) are exempt from any information collection requirements presented by this regulation for primer, topcoat, and chemical milling maskant operations. This significantly reduces the burden on small businesses which meet this low usage threshold.

In addition, the majority of small businesses selected within the context of the Aerospace NESHAP are general aviation facilities. Only a small number of general aviation facilities are considered major sources and, therefore, subject to the NESHAP information collection requirements. The March 1998 amendment resulted in a significant reduction of general aviation monitoring requirements for their coatings operations and pumpless waterwash systems.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). 11 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the Subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at to be 141,645 hours ( Total Labor Hours from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency review and discussions with the industry during development of the rule, Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and information gathered during consultations described in Section 3( c) of this ICR.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 93.09 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 64.13 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 39.65 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

Managerial $ 93.09 ($ 44.33 + 110%) Technical $ 64.13 ($ 30.54 + 110%) Clerical $ 39.65 ($ 18.88 + 110%)

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs This section covers the costs associated with all types of continuous monitoring equipment [ e. g., continuous emissions monitoring systems ( CEMS) and continuous parameter monitors]. The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the subject standards are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a 12 13 facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor( s) and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startup Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startup Cost ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M, ( E X F)

CEM $ 14,000 0 0 $ 1,000 136 $ 136,000 The total Capital/ Startup costs for this ICR are $ 0. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs for this ICR are $ 136,000. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the Capital/ Startup costs, and the annual O& M costs. The average annual cost for Capital/ Startup and O& M costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 136,000. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars. The continuous monitoring costs that are included in this section consist only of those capital/ start up and O& M costs that a source incurs as a result of the standard. Some continuous monitoring costs may not be included in this section. For instance, if a particular industry typically utilizes a control device that must have a continuous monitor ( e. g., temperature, pressure drop, etc.) to function properly, and the recordation of additional measurements beyond the minimum are required by the standard, then there is no capital/ startup or O& M cost, but there is a labor cost to record the additional readings. Such a cost would not appear in this section, but in the industry burden Section 6( d) below.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records and reports maintained by the respondents, periodic evaluation of sources of emissions, and the analysis, publication and distribution of collected information. 14 The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 170,809 [ see Table 2 in Section 6( e)]. This cost is based upon the following labor breakdown:

Managerial $ 53.22 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 33.26 x 1.6) Technical $ 39.49 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 24.68 x 1.6) Clerical $ 21.38 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 13.36 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2003 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, there are approximately 136 existing sources currently subject to the standard. It is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents Year ( A) Number of New Respondents ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Respondents that Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 0 136 0 0 136 2 0 136 0 0 136 3 0 136 0 0 136 Average 0 136 0 0 136 To avoid double counting respondents, column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 136. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table: 15 Total Annual Responses ( A) Number of New Respondents ( B) Number of Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Respondents ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Sources ( F) Number of Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( AxB)+( CxD)+ F 0 7 136 4 0 544 The number of Total Annual Responses is 544. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 8,960,770. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost.

Note that the total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 136,000. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup versus O& M Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents appear in Table 2 and Table 1, respectively. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 297 hours per response.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to a reduction in annual burden due to an improved estimate of the number of facilities and a decrease in annual per person training burden.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 297 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 16 and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0146, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0146 and OMB Control Number 2060 0314 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 1 Table 1. Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Cost NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG)

Burden Item Total hours per year Annual costs in dollars ( rounded)

1a. Cleaning 49,299 $ 3,118,743 1b. Coating Application 91,439 $ 5,784,550 1c. Depainting 907 $ 57,477 Total Burden and Cost 141,645 $ 8,960,770 2 Table 1a. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost For Cleaning Operations NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 1. Applications Not Applicable 2. Survey and studies Not Applicable 3. Reporting requirements A. Read instructions 1 1 1 136 136 7 14 $ 9,928.41 B. Required activities Not Applicable C. Create information See 3E and 4C D. Gather existing information See 3E and 4C E. Write report  Notification of construction/

reconstructionb 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of physical and operational changesc 8 1 8 7 56 3 6 $ 4,108.45  Notification of actual startupb 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of change in production capacityb 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Compliance status information report 20 1 20 136 2,720 136 272 $ 197,878.64  Waiver applicationd 4 1 4 14 56 3 6 $ 4,108.45  Startup, shutdown, malfunction plane 4 1 4 136 544 27 54 $ 39,541.25 Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 3  Preparation of site specific test plan Not Applicable  Notification of initial performance test Not Applicable  Report of initial test Not Applicable  Startup, shutdown, malfunction reportf 2 1 2 27 54 3 5 $ 3,940.54  Semiannual report  Includes report of periods of noncomplianceg 12 2 24 109 2,616 131 262 $ 190,347.17 4. Record keeping requirements A. Read instructions See 3A B. Plan activities 4 1 4 136 544 27 54 $ 39,541.25 C. Implement activitiesh  Solvent information records 4 2 8 136 1,088 55 109 $ 79,215.24  Approved composition solvent records ( demonstrating compliance) 4 1 4 41 164 8 16 $ 11,896.44  Non approved list solvent usage records 1 12 12 122 1,464 73 146 $ 106,470.79  Solvent usage log for exempt processes 0.5 12 6 95 570 29 57 $ 41,513.76  Log of gun cleaner leaks 1 6 6 27 162 8 16 $ 11,768.18 D. Develop record systemi 20 1 20 136 2,720 136 272 $ 197,878.64 E. Time to enter/ maintain information Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 4  Records of startup, shutdown,

malfunction, etc. f 2 1 2 27 54 3 5 $ 3,940.54  Records of all measurements and information required by standard See 4C F. Time to train personnel 4 50 200 136 27,200 1,360 2,720 $ 1,978,786.40 G. Time for audits 20 1 20 136 2,720 136 272 $ 197,878.64 H. Total Burden ( hrs) and Costs 42,868 2,145 4,286 $ 3,118,742.79 49,299 aThis ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 93.09 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 64.13 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 39.65 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

bAssumes no net growth for the industry.

cAssumption based on 5 percent of total existing facilities.

dAssumes 10 percent of the total existing facility population will request a waiver.

eBased on number of facilities with add on control systems that require the development of inspection and maintenance and startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. Assumes 100 percent will have enclosed gun cleaners.

fAssumes 20 percent of facilities with add on control system will have a malfunction.

gAssumes that 80 percent of facilities will have excess emissions or will change their process in some way.

hSee regulation for details. Assumes 30 percent of facilities will use approved list solvents. Assumes 90 percent of facilities will use some solvents not on the approved list. Assumes 70 percent of the facilities will use some solvents for exempt processes. Assumes 20 percent of facilities will have a leak in their enclosed gun cleaner.

iAll facilities will need to develop a record keeping system. 5 Table 1b. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost For Coating Operations NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 1. Applications Not Applicable 2. Survey and studies Not Applicable 3. Reporting requirements A. Read instructions 1 1 1 136 136 7 14 $ 9,928.41 B. Required activities  Initial performance testb 280 1 280 4 1,120 56 112 $ 81,479.44  Repeat performance testc 280 1 280 1 280 14 28 $ 20,369.86 C. Create information See 3E and 4C D. Gather existing information See 3E and 4C E. Write report  Notification of construction/

reconstructiond 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of physical and operational changese 8 1 8 7 56 3 6 $ 4,108.45 E. Write report continued  Notification of actual startupd 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of change in production capacityd 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 6  Compliance status information report 10 1 10 136 1,360 68 136 $ 98,939.32  Waiver applicationf 4 1 4 14 56 3 6 $ 4,108.45  Startup, shutdown,

malfunction plang 4 1 4 41 164 8 16 $ 11,896.44  Preparation of site specific test plan Included in 3B  Notification of initial performanceb 2 1 2 4 8 1 1 $ 645.78  Report of initial test Included in 3B  Startup, shutdown,

malfunction reporth 4 1 4 27 108 6 11 $ 7,920.73  Semiannual report  Includes report of periods of noncompliancei 11 2 22 109 2,398 120 240 $ 174,470.54 4. Record keeping requirements A. Read instructions See 3A B. Plan activities 4 2 8 136 1,088 55 109 $ 79,215.24 C. Implement activitiesj  Compliant coating records 1 12 12 136 1,632 82 163 $ 118,756.49  Daily records of weighted average massk 1 250 250 14 3,500 175 350 $ 254,623.25  Control device maintenance or rolling material balance log ( organics) 0.5 250 125 4 500 25 50 $ 36,374.75 Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 7 C. Implement activities ( continued) j  Control device maintenance log ( inorganics) 0.25 250 63 136 8,568 429 857 $ 623,381.50 D. Develop record systeml 10 1 10 136 1,360 68 136 $ 98,939.32 E. Time to enter/ maintain information  Records of startup, shutdown,

malfunction, etc. h 2 1 2 27 54 3 5 $ 3,940.54  Records of all measurements and information required bystandard See 4C F. Time to train personnel 8 50 400 136 54,400 2,720 5,440 $ 3,957,572.80 G. Time for audits 20 1 20 136 2,720 136 272 $ 197,878.64 H. Total Burden ( hrs) and Costs 79,508 3,979 7,952 $ 5,784,549.95 91,439 aThis ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 93.09 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 64.13 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 39.65 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

bAssumes no net growth for the industry.

bSee Chrome NESHAP. Assumes 10 percent of facilities will use add on control equipment for maskant application ( 10% of 40).

cSee Chrome NESHAP. Assumes 20 percent of facilities with add on control equipment will repeat performance test ( 20% of 10% of 40).

dAssumes no net growth for the industry.

eAssumption based on 5 percent of total existing facilities.

fAssumes 10 percent of the total existing facility population will request a waiver.

gBased on number of facilities with add on control systems that require the development of inspection and maintenance and startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. Assumes 100 percent will have add on control equipment including particulate filters for coating application. Assumes 70 percent will operate particulate systems according to manufacturer's specifications 8 and that only 30 percent will be required to submit operational plans due to deviations from manufacturer's specifications.

hAssumes 20 percent of facilities with add on control system ( including particulate filters) will have a malfunction.

iAssumes that 80 percent of facilities will have excess emissions or will change their process in some way.

jSee regulation for details. Assumes 10 percent of facilities will average coatings. Assumes 10 percent will use add on control equipment for maskant application. Assumes 100 percent of facilities will use particulate filters for coating application.

kThe final rule requires monthly records. Daily averaging was included in the cost analysis because 90 percent of the industry is located in nonattainment areas and will be required to use daily averaging by the permitting agency.

lAll facilities will need to develop a record keeping system.

Table 1c. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost For Depainting Operations NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G)

Clerical person hours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 1. Applications Not Applicable 2. Survey and studies Not Applicable 3. Reporting requirements A. Read instructions 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 $ 453.39 B. Required activities  Initial performance testb 280 1 280 0 0 0 0 0  Repeat performance testc 280 1 280 0 0 0 0 0 C. Create information See 3E and 4C D. Gather existing information See 3E and 4C E. Write report  Notification of construction reconstructiond 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G)

Clerical person hours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 9  Notification of physical and operational changese 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 E. Write report ( continued)

 Notification of actual startupd 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of change in production capacityd 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Compliance status information report 10 1 10 5 50 3 5 $ 3,684.02  Waiver applicationf 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 0  Startup, shutdown,

malfunction plang 5 1 5 0 0 0 0 0  Preparation of site specific test plan NA  Notification of initial performance test b 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Report of initial test Included in 3B  Startup, shutdown,

malfunction reporth 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 0  Semiannual report  Includes report of periods of noncompliancei 12 2 24 4 96 5 10 $ 7,018.43 4. Record keeping requirements A. Read instructions See 3A B. Plan activities 4 1 4 5 20 1 2 $ 1,454.99 Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G)

Clerical person hours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 10 C. Implement activitiesj  Chemical stripper records ( demonstrating compliance) 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 $ 2,357.29  Chemical stripper usage log 1 12 12 4 48 3 5 $ 3,555.76  Depainting equipment malfunction log 4 3 12 2 24 1 2 $ 1,711.51  Exempt stripper usage log and reworked airplane log for spot stripping and decal removal 1 12 12 5 60 3 6 $ 4,364.97  Record of parts removed for parts depainting 8 2 16 5 80 4 8 $ 5,819.96  Control device maintenance log 0.5 250 125 2 250 13 25 $ 18,233.92 D. Develop record systemk 10 1 10 5 50 3 5 $ 3,684.02 E. Time to enter/ maintain infor mation  Records of startup,

shutdown malfunction, etc. h 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0  Records of all measurements and information required by standard See 4C F. Time to train personnel 4 1 4 5 20 1 2 $ 1,454.99 G. Time for audits 10 1 10 5 50 3 5 $ 3,684.02 H. Total Burden ( hrs) and Costs 785 43 79 $ 57,477.27 Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( E x 0.05) ( G)

Clerical person hours per year ( E x 0.1) ( H)

Annual costs in dollars 11 907 aThis ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 93.09 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 64.13 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 39.65 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

bAssumes no net growth for the industry.

bAssumes 1 percent of the total existing facilities will use add on control equipment for HAP containing chemical stripper usage ( 70% of 5).

cAssumes 20 percent of facilities with add on control equipment will repeat performance test ( 20% of 1% of 5).

dAssumes no net growth for the industry.

eAssumption based on 5 percent of total existing facilities. ( Total facilities include only the 96 rework facilities.)

fAssumes 10 percent of the total existing facility population will request a waiver.

gBased on number of facilities with add on control systems that require the development of inspection and maintenance and startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. Assumes 15 percent will use blasting equipment that must have add on control equipment. Assumes 29 percent of blasting operations will operate particulate control systems according to manufacturer's specifications and that only 30 percent will be required to submit operational plans due to deviations from manufacturers specifications. Also assumes 1 percent of all facilities will use HAP containing chemical strippers with emissions control systems and 70 percent will use non HAP chemical strippers which do not require add on control equipment.

hAssumes 20 percent of facilities with add on control system will have a malfunction ( 20% of 30%).

iAssumes that 80 percent of facilities will have excess emissions or will change their process in some way.

jSee regulation for details. Assumes 1 percent of facilities will use HAP containing chemical strippers as the primary stripping technique. Assumes 29 percent of facilities will use media blasting equipment. Assumes 70 percent of facilities will use non HAP chemical strippers. Assumes 100 percent of the facilities will use some HAP stripper for exempt processes.

kAll facilities will need to develop a record keeping system. 1 Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG)

Burden Item ( A)

EPA hours per occurrence ( B) Respondents per yra ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Management personhours per year ( C x 0.05) ( E)

Clerical personhours per year ( C x 0.1) ( F)

Annual costs in dollars 1. Initial performance testc 80 0 0 0 0 0 2. Repeat performance test  Retesting preparationd 16 1 16 1 2 $ 727.82  Retestinge 80 0 0 0 0 0 3. Report review  Notification of construction/

reconstructionf 2 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of physical or operational changesa 2 14 28 2 3 $ 1,276.30  Notification of anticipated startupf 2 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of actual startupf 2 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of changes in production capacityf 2 0 0 0 0 0  Compliance status information reporta 6 279 1,674 89 167 $ 74,413.30 Burden Item ( A)

EPA hours per occurrence ( B) Respondents per yra ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Management personhours per year ( C x 0.05) ( E)

Clerical personhours per year ( C x 0.1) ( F)

Annual costs in dollars 2  Waiver applicationa 6 28 168 8 17 $ 7,423.54  Review of startup, shutdown,

malfunction plana 6 177 1,062 53 106 $ 47,025.32  Review of site specific test plana N/ A 0 0 0 0 0  Notification of initial performance test a 2 4 8 1 1 $ 390.52 4. Report review ( continued)

 Report of initial testa 8 0 0 0 0 0  Review of startup, shutdown,

malfunction reports a 4 55 220 11 22 $ 9,743.58  Review of semiannual reportsa 3 222 666 39 67 $ 29,808.38 Total Burden ( hrs) and Costs 3,842 204 385 $ 170,808.76 4,431 aData for Respondents per year taken from Table 1a through 1c bCosts are based upon the following per hour labor breakdown: Managerial, $ 53.22 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 33.26 x 1.6), Technical, $ 39.49 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 24.68 x 1.6), and Clerical, $ 21.38 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 13.36 x 1.6).

cAssumes 10 percent of the performance tests are attended by EPA personnel. ( 10% of 4)

dAssumes 20 percent fail the initial performance test and retest.( 20% of 4)

eAssumes 10 percent of retests are attended by EPA personnel.

fAssumes no net growth for the industry.


[Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63829-63831]
[DOCID:fr13no07-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-138-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Fan Jet Falcon, Fan Jet
Falcon Series C, D, E, F, and G Airplanes; Model Mystere-Falcon 200
Airplanes; and Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation
had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank * * *
located in the Right Hand MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was
mistakenly installed upside down. This discrepancy and improper
installation caused an unexpected 5[deg] positioning offset of the
elevator control surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on
landing, [involving] the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as
needed * * * [which resulted in a hard landing].

The unsafe condition is reduced controllability of the airplane. The
proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web Site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     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: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0182;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-138-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each

substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member State of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2006-0185, dated July 6, 2006 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation
had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank P/N (part
number) MY20273017 or P/N MY20273017015 located in the Right Hand
MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was mistakenly installed upside
down. This discrepancy and improper installation caused an
unexpected 5[deg] positioning offset of the elevator control
surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on landing, [involving]
the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as needed * * * [which
resulted in a hard landing].
    The purpose of this AD is to prevent reoccurrence of this kind
of incident introducing disabusing markings on the incriminated
parts by applying SB (Service Bulletin) F20-768 or SB F200-122 as
appropriate.

    The unsafe condition is reduced controllability of the airplane.
Corrective actions include verifying the correct assembly of the
elevator bellcrank and re-installing if necessary. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Service Bulletins F20-768, dated May 23, 2006,
and F200-122, dated May 23, 2006. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 255 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $9 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $63,495, or $249 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Dassault Aviation (Formerly Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation
(AMD/BA)): Docket No. FAA-2007-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
138-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 13, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Dassault Model Fan Jet Falcon, Fan
Jet Falcon series C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model Mystere-Falcon
200 airplanes; and Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-
F5 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation
had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank P/N

(part number) MY20273017 or P/N MY20273017015 located in the Right
Hand MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was mistakenly installed
upside down. This discrepancy and improper installation caused an
unexpected 5[deg] positioning offset of the elevator control
surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on landing, [involving]
the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as needed * * * [which
resulted in a hard landing].
    The purpose of this AD is to prevent reoccurrence of this kind
of incident introducing disabusing markings on the incriminated
parts by applying SB (Service Bulletin) F20-768 or SB F200-122 as
appropriate.

The unsafe condition is reduced controllability of the airplane.
Corrective actions include verifying the correct assembly of the
elevator bellcrank and re-installing if necessary.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 74 months from the effective date of this AD, unless
already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Verify the correct assembly of the elevator bellcrank P/N
(part number) MY20273-17 or P/N MY20273-17-15 at frame 26, as
instructed in Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006;
or Dassault Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as
applicable.
    (2) If the elevator bellcrank is found in the reverse
orientation, reinstall it prior to next flight in accordance with
Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault
Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as applicable.
    (3) Label the elevator bellcrank as instructed in Dassault
Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault Service
Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as applicable.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No Differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2006-0185, dated July 6, 2006, and Dassault Service
Bulletins F20-768 and F200-122, both dated May 23, 2006, for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 23, 2007.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-22102 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 34322]
[DOCID:fr15jy09-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13479-000]

FFP Project 63, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 8, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 63, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Fort Adams Hydrokinetic
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Concordia Parish,
Louisiana and Wilkinson County, Mississippi.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Fort Adams Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1) 2,693
proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 107.72 megawatts; (2) a 3.3-mile-long, 69
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Fort Adams Hydrokinetic Project would have an average annual
generation of 472 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13479) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16725 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

			OFFICE OF  PREVENTION, PESTICIDES,  AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM							August 11, 2008

Subject: 		Dietary Risk Assessment for Triclosan for the RED Process

From:			A. Najm Shamim, PhD.

			Regulatory Management Branch II

			Antimicrobials division (7510P)

To:	Tim McMahon, PhD., Senior Toxicologist

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Thru:	Heather Garvie, CRM for Triclosan RED

	Regulatory Management Branch II

	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

			And

	Mark Hartman, Chief

	Regulatory Management Branch II

	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

DP Barcode: (343547)

				EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As pursuant to the Agency policy AD has carried out the dietary risk
assessment form the AD use patterns which present the indirect food
contact scenarios. AD has conducted the risk assessment of those use
patterns which triggered the possibility of indirect food migration from
paper/pulp use, ice-making equipment, adhesives cutting boards, and
counter tops uses as well use in conveyer belts. All % aPADs and % cPADs
for adults and children for Triclosan uses fall well below Agency’s
level of concern.

DIETARY RISK ASSESSMENT FROM INDIRECT FOOD USES OF TRICLOSAN

Background:

AD’s label search has shown that Triclosan is used in many indirect
food use scenarios which trigger risk assessment for dietary exposure.
The following table lists the use patterns, and application rates of
Triclosan.

					Table I

Product Name/EPA Reg#	Use Scenario	Application Rates

DPN-10/Sanitized Brand T96-2/ 3090-165	Paper	10% Formulation; no other
information is provided

Ultra Fresh NM/10466-27	Adhesives	3% Formulation; no other information
is provided

Ultra Fresh FT-7/10466-42	Emulsions/adhesives	1.5%

Microban  Additive B 	Counter tops, cutting boards, conveyer belts,
ice-making equipments, paper/paperboard	0.1%  to 1.0% of the 99% TGAI

Igraguard B1000/70474-5	Conveyer Belt, cutting board	Conveyer belt: 2%
Formulations

Cutting Boards: 1% formulations

	RESIDUE CHEMISTRY

	All uses of Triclosan are nonagricultural, and no residue chemistry
data based on the Agency’s Residue Chemistry Guidelines (OPPTS GLN
Series 860) were submitted nor was it requested by the Agency.
Therefore, the Agency has used available methods to estimate Triclosan
residues on food due to migration of this chemical, when this chemical
comes in to contact with food-contact paper. In this regard the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration has developed guidelines to estimate
residues in food due to migration into food.

The Antimicrobials Division, in  recent RED documents, has included
scenarios such as paper/pulp, paperboard, adhesives, counter tops,
cutting boards, conveyer belts, and ice-making equipment as a source of
indirect food contact surfaces and a cause of migration of pesticides
into foods.  For all scenarios AD has relied upon FDA methodology for
calculating the estimated daily intakes (EDI), and daily dietary doses
(DDD). In turn, we calculate the % a-and cPADs for the US populations to
determine if there are any exceedances. For the conveyer belt scenario,
the FDA methodology was adapted to calculate the EDI, DDDs to estimate
the % a-and cPADs

Detailed Discussion:

1) 	Paper and Paperboard Use:

	FDA1,2, Method makes a number of assumptions for calculating migration
of active (in this case Triclosan) from food contact surfaces (paper):
1. Food contact surface (paper) can be a one time use/day or a repeat
use material; 2. Consumption factor (CF) or fraction of daily food which
comes in to contact with the packaging surface (paper). CF represents
the actual weight of food that comes into contact with the paper to the
weight of all food packaged with paper; 3. The CF varies from one type
of packaging (type of paper) to the other (type of paper). FDA
methodology of migration of active assumes a 100% migration to the food
commodities (This represents a worst case scenario).

Note:	No information is provided for application rate on paper use of
Triclosan as a fungicide; but the percent of the active (Triclosan) in
the formulation 10%. In the absence of actual data, we will use the
highest application rate which is 10% of formulations. It is therefore
assumed that  the  amount (lb) of Triclosan in the formulation is: 10
lbs x 10% = 1 lbs active per 1000 lbs paper For 2000 lbs of the product,
the amount of the active = 2 lbs. For our calculations we assume 2000
lbs paper ~ 1 ton paper.

2 lb active /2000 lb of finished paper = 908 ppm active  mg/kg of
finished paper

 But the paper slurry is 1% ; 908 mg x 01 = 9.08  active mg/kg of
finished paper = ~ 10 ppm of active in the paper slurry= Application
Rate

Application rate x % water / % pulp = 10 ppm = 5µg/g pulp slurry x
0.67g water/0.33.g pulp = 20 µ g of active/g
異灬മ潃獮浵瑰潩慆瑣牯⠠䙃
‽⸰〱഍䰍歩汥⁹浡
畯瑮漠牔捩潬慳業牧瑡湩湩潴映潯㩤

20 µg of Triclosan ⁄ mass of pulp x 0.92 g pulp∕ g of paper x 0.05
g ∕ in2 x 1 in2 ∕ 10 g food = 0.092µ g of Triclosan ∕ g food

Since the Consumption factor for paper, based on FDA’s methodology is
0.10

The  actual amount of Triclosan in daily diet will be:

0.092µg of Triclosan g food x 0.10 = 0.0092 µg ∕ g food

Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) of Triclosan for an adult:

0.0092µg of Triclosan∕ g food x 3000 g food =27.6µg of
Triclosan/person/day

Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) of Triclosan for a child:

0.0092µg of Triclosan ∕ g food x 1500 g food = 13.8 µg of
Triclosan/person/ day

 (A Memo by Tim McMahon  to Jess Rowland, Executive Secretary for
Agency’s HIARC Committee, 1998)  indicated that AD scientists
determined both the Acute dietary and chronic dietary end points and
based on the selection, the aRfD,   (aPAD)and cRfD (aPAD)  have the same
value i.e.,:  0.30 mg/kg/day

In Table II estimations are given for % aPAD and % cPAD.

				Table II

		Dietary Exposure of Triclosan from Paper/Pulp/ Paperboard

Dietary Conc. of  Triclosan	Estimated Daily Intake (EDI)	Daily Dietary
Dose (DDD): mg/kg/day	% aPAD

(aPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/day)	% cPAD (cPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/day)

20.0 µ g	Adult: 27.6 µg

	Adult: 27.6 µg/70 kg/day = 0.00039 mg/kg/day

Adult: 0.00039 mg/kg/day ∕ 0.30 mg/kg/day x 100

= 0.13%	Adult: 0.00039 mg/kg/day/0.30 mg/kg/day x 100 = 0.13%

	Child: 13.8  µg 	Child: 13.8µg/ 15 kg/day = 0.00092 mg/kg/day	Child:
0.00092 mg/kg/day ∕ 0.37 mg/kg/day = 0.30% 	Child: 0.00092 mg/kg/day /
0.037 mg/kg/day = 0.30%

The calculations of % aPAD and cPAD show that there are no acute  and
chronic dietary concerns from the migration of Triclosan from paper to
food.

Adhesive Use of Triclosan

As a matter of policy, AD has assessed adhesive use as an indirect food
use.  Since it is likely that adhesives may end up in the food packaging
materials, and this may result in the migration of the pesticide into
the food indirectly.  For the indirect food dietary assessment, AD has
adopted Food & Drug Administration (FDA) methodology.  For adhesive use,
FDA has provided guidance for dietary estimation that a maximum of 7 ppb
of a pesticide is likely to migrate from the food packaging materials
into the food. The quantity of 7 ppb can be used to calculate the
Estimated Daily Intake (EDI), Daily Dietary Dose (DDD), and using the
acute and dietary end points from toxicity data, one calculates the
overall risks to general and subgroups of populations (% aPAD, and %
cPAD).

For the present case: FDA’s assumptions are: 1) Maximum migration of
Triclosan into food from adhesive use = 7 ppb = 7µg/g; 2) Maximum adult
food intake = 3000 g; 3) Maximum food intake for a child = 1500 g.

In general, % PAD = DDD/% a PAD or % cPAD.

Table III gives estimates of % cPAD for adhesive use of Triclosan

Table III

			Dietary Exposure of Triclosan from Adhesive Use

Use	Dietary Conc. (ppb)	Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) µg/p/day	Daily
Dietary Dose (DDD) mg/kg/day

	% aPAD

(aPAD= 0.30 mg/kg/d)	% cPAD

( cPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/d)

Adhesive	7	Adult: 7µg/g x 3000g = 21 µg/p/day

Child: 7 µg/g x 1500 g = 10.5 µg/p/day	Adult: 21 µg/70 kg/day =
0.0003 mg/kg/day

Child: 10.5 µg/15kg/day = 0.0007 mg/kg/day	Adult: 0.0003/0.30 x 100) =
0.10%

∕ 0.3 mg/kg/day x100 = 0.10%

Child: 0.0007 mg/kg/day ∕ 0.30 mg/kg/day x 100  = 0.23 %

These calculations assume that the adhesive use is 100% of the chemical
produced, which is not a likely scenario. The actual  % cPAD is going to
be much lower than the estimated one The Agency has no chronic dietary
concerns from the use of Triclosan in adhesives.

Ice-making Equipment

AD makes the following assumptions to calculate the exposure of
Tricolsan use from ice-making equipments:

Use of Ice/water/day = 50%  ice/water mixture

Male adult uses 2L/day and child uses 1L/day of ice-water mixture

Table IV summarizes the daily dietary dose and % aPAD and % cPAD for
ice-making equipment:

				Table IV

	Exposure from Triclosan Use from Ice-Making Equipment

Daily Dietary Dose (DDD) mg/kg/day1	% aPAD ( aPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/day)	%
cad (cPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/day)

Male Adult: 1.13 x10-8  mg/kg/day

Child: 2.65 x 10-8  mg/kg/day	Male Adult: 1.13 x10-8  mg/kg/day/ 0.30
mg/kg/day = 3.76 x 10-8  x 100 = 3.76 x 10-6  %

Child: 2.65 x 10-8  mg/kg/day /0.30 mg/kg/day = 8.83 x 10-8  x 100 =
8.83  x 10-6  %	Male Adult: 1.13 x10-8  mg/kg/day/ 0.30 mg/kg/day = 3.76
x 10-8  x 100 = 3.76 x 10-6  %

Child: 2.65 x 10-8  mg/kg/day /0.30 mg/kg/day = 8.83 x 10-8  x 100 =
8.83  x 10-6  %

	Note: 1) Calculations reported by Bob Quick in a Memo by Bob Quick to
Bob Brennis, 1998.

4) 	Counter Tops and Cutting Boards:

Table V lists the input parameters and explanations for EDI, DDD, and %
aPAD and % cPAD for Triclosan use on counter tops and cutting board.

					Table V

Parameter	Comment	Value/Units

AR	Application Rate, usually highest application rate is used	ppm or
µg

RS	Residual solution	1 mg/cm2 , adapted from FDA methodology

SA	Treated surface area which comes into contact with food	Cm2 ; assumed
to be 2000 cm2 for counter tops and cutting boards

F	% fraction of the active	No units; normally Agency has sued 10%.

BW	Body Weight	Adult: 70 kg; child: 15 kg

EDI	Estimated Daily Intake	= AR * RS * SA * F

DDD	Daily Dietary Dose	= EDI/BW

aPAD	Acute dietary end points	For Triclosan: 0.30 mg/kg/day

cPAD	Chronic Dietary end point	For Triclosan: 0.30 mg/kg/day

% aPAD	Ratio of DDD and aPAD	% population affected (acute)

% cPAD	Ratio of DDD and cPAD	% population affected

Table VI provides the summary of calculations and results for EDI, DDD,
% aPAD, and % cPAD; based on: a) maximum application rate = 1%; aPAD =
0.30 mg/kg/day and cPAD = 0.30 mg/kg/day; fraction % = 10%; and maximum
surface area food is exposed to the pesticide = 2000 cm2

					Table VI

Parameter	Calculations/Results

EDI	AR * RS* SA * F; =  10,000 µg/1000 mg (ppm) * 1 mg/cm2 * 10/100 *
2000 cm2 = 2000 µg

DDD	Adult: EDI/70 kg/day = 2000µg/70 = 28.6 µg/kg/day; Child: EDI/15
kg/day = 2000µg/15 kg/day = 133. 3 µg/kg/day

% aPAD	DDD/ aPAD x 100 ; Adult: 0.0286 mg/kg/day/ 0.30 mg/kg/day = 9.53%

Child: 0.1333 mg/kg/day/ 0.3 mg/kg/day x 100 = 44.3%

% cPAD	 Adult = 9.53%; Child = 44.3%

All results are below level of concern. These results are very
conservative and the likelihood of exposure from counter tops and
cutting board use on a regular basis of 7/24/year is minimum.In addition
use of surface area of 2000 cm2 of 7/24/year is also not likely. The
Agency believes the actual exposure form counter tops and cutting boards
will be much lower than the results shown here

Conveyer Belt Use.

Triclosan is used as a material preservative in a number of commodities
made up of synthetic fibers as thin films like polyesters, latex,
polypropylene, polyethylene etc.

Conveyer belts are generally made from polyethylene materials and
Triclosan is used as a material preservative.  In food establishments,
grocery stores, food storage establishments, conveyer belts are used to
move foods along. There is a likelihood that some of the Triclosan
migrates form the belts to the food which is being moved on the belt.
FDA has established some in put parameters for such a scenario.  In
addition, AD industry provided us with a few parameters which are used
as a common industry practice. Although  label Triclosan (EPA REG#:
70404-5) has provided the maximum rate of application of 2% formulation,
it is not clear how this is spread out on the conveyer belt and in this
regard Agency has made its own assumptions.

Table VII lists the FDA and industry parameters, and Agency’s
assumptions for calculating the EDIs for Triclosan when it is migrated
into food through indirect contact with the conveyer belt surfaces.

					Table VII

A

E

F

X

„

”

õ

h

æ

ç

ô

õ

h

!

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

È

È

È

È

È

È

È

È

È

È

È

È

瑹䓖¥̀First  5 days: industry data

Amount of food which passes through the conveyer belt: A * C

X = A * C = 20386 in2  * 8 x 106 = 1.42 x 108  g

Maximum Migration of Triclosan from the conveyer belt: B * D = Y

Y = 0.90ppm = 900 ng/ml x 6.7 ml/ in2 = 6.03 µg/in2

Total migration of Triclosan into all food: A * Y /X = Z

Z = 20386 in2 x 6.03 µg / in2 / 1.42 x 108 g

 = 0.000866 mg/day = Estimated daily intake (EDI)

Table VIII summarized the DDD,  % aPAD and % cPAD

				TableVIII

Parameter	Calculations/Results

DDD	Adult: 0.000866 mg/70kg/day = 0.0000123 mg/kg/day

Child: 0.000866 mg/15kg/day = 0.000057 mg/kg/day

% aPAD and % cPAD	Adult: 0.0000123 mg/kg/day/0.30 mg/kg/day x 100 =
0.041%

Child:  0.000057 mg/kg/day / 0.30 mg/kg/day x 100 = 0.019%

Conclusions:

	None of the indirect food contact scenarios appear to exceed Agency’s
level of concern.

				BIBLIOGRAPHY

FDA, 2003, A Guidance for Industry: Preparations of food Contact
Notifications and Food Additive Petitions for Food Contact Substances,
Chemistry Recommendations. Final Guidance, April 2003.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cfsan.fda.gov"  http://www.cfsan.fda.gov

FDA, 2003.  Sanitizing  Solutions: Chemistry Guidance for Food Additive
Petitions, January 2003.   HYPERLINK "Http://www.cfsan.fda.gov"
Http://www.cfsan.fda.gov

An AD Memo by Tim McMahon  to Jess Rowland, Executive Secretary for
Agency’s HIARC Committee, 1998)

4.	Calculations reported by Bob Quick in an AD   Memo by Bob Quick to
Bob Brennis, 1998.