SUPPORTING STATEMENT

	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart JJ) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart JJ) (Renewal)

EPA ICR 1716.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0324

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations were proposed on
December 6, 1994, and promulgated on December 7, 1995.  These standards
apply to both existing wood furniture manufacturing operations and to
new wood furniture manufacturing operations commencing construction,
modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal that are major
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).  This information is being
collected to assure compliance with the standard promulgated at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart JJ.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities that are major sources
must make one-time-only notifications including: notification of any
physical or operational change to an existing facility which may
increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the
initial performance test, including information necessary to determine
the conditions of the performance test, performance test measurements
and results; and notification of demonstration of the continuous
monitoring system (CMS).  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.
Monitoring requirements specific to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ provide
information on compliance with the rule.  Semiannual reports are
required for all sources.  Some sources having excess emissions must
submit quarterly reports.  In general, these notifications, reports and
records are required of all sources subject to 40 CFR part 63.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities that are incidental wood
furniture manufacturers or area sources (incidental/area sources) must
keep records to demonstrate that they are not major sources as defined
in the standard.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance 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 750 sources are currently subject to the standard, based
on information provided by the American Furniture Manufacturers
Association.  Of these sources, approximately 300 are major sources and
450 are incidental/area sources.  It is anticipated that no new
facilities will come on-line over the next three years.  It is assumed
that there is an average of one affected facility per source.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active
Information Collection Request (ICR) with the following “Terms of
Clearance.”

The assumptions underlying estimates of industry and agency burden and
costs of the collection should be updated in the next renewal.

	The industry and cost burden have been updated using rates from the
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March
2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational and Industry
group” and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2010 General
Schedule.

The wood furniture manufacturing operations consists of 750 facilities
in the United States, which are all privately owned and operated.  None
of the 750 facilities in the United States are owned by either state,
local, tribal or the Federal government.

The burden to the “Affected Public” may be found in Table 1: Annual
Respondent Burden and Cost - NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).  The burden to the “Federal
government” is attributed entirely to work performed by Federal
employees or government contractors.  This burden may be found in Table
2: Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).

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 (HAPs).
These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAPs 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 (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous emissions from wood furniture
manufacturers cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the
NESHAP was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJ.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions from hazardous air pollutant emissions from
wood furniture manufacturing operations require the installation of
properly designed equipment and the operation and maintenance of that
equipment.  Emissions of HAPs from wood furniture manufacturers are the
result of operation of the affected facilities.  This standard relies on
the reduction of hazardous air pollutants by the use of compliant or low
HAP content coatings, or the use of control devices, or some combination
of these three control technologies.

The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to
inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject
to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may
then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are
properly installed and functioning properly.  The required
quarterly/semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess
emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/
maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirement 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 with the
applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act.  The
information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is
also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be
used as evidence in court.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
63, subpart JJ.

3(a)  Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly 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 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 OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 34583) on July 8, 2009.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

During a previous renewal of this ICR, consultations concerning the
industry growth rate over the next three years and the burden costs of
recordkeeping and reporting under the rule were conducted with the
leading trade associations representing the industry, and the EPA Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  The contacts were: 1) The
American Furniture Manufacturing Association, Mr. David Purvis, (336)
884-5000; 2) The Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturing
Association, Mr. Tom Reardon,<PHONE_NUMBER>; and 3) the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.

The industry representatives indicated that no net growth in the
industry was expected over the next three years.  They cited foreign
competition as having a negative effect on industry growth and modestly
increasing residential/business demand for furniture as having a
positive effect with a projected net growth rate of zero.  In addition,
any industry growth over the next three years could likely be absorbed
by existing plants without any new source construction.

This rule was developed using the regulatory-negotiation process.  The
industry participated in the rulemaking process and agreed to comply
with the final rule, so they have a good understanding of the
recordkeeping and reporting burden.  They did not mention any specific
problems with the rule burden during the consultations.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the 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

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 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.

3(f)  Confidentiality

The required information has been determined not to be confidential.
However, 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 (CBI) (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 to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are wood
furniture manufacturers.  The United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) and the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes for the respondents affected by the standards are
shown below.

Standard	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ	2434	33711

	2511	337215

	2512	337121

	2517	337129

	2519	337125

	2521	337211

	2531	33636, 337127, 339942

	2541	337127, 337212, 337215

	2599	339111, 337127

	5712	337122

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).

A source must make the following reports:

Reports for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ

Notification of applicability.	63.807(a), 63.9(h)

Notification and application of construction or reconstruction.
63.807(a), 63.5(d)

Notification of anticipated date of initial startup.	63.807(a), 63.5(b),
63.9(b)

Notification of physical or operational change which may increase the
emission rate.	63.807(a), 63.5(b)(6)

Notification of performance tests.	63.807(a), 63l7(b), (c), and (g),
63.8, 63.9(c), 63.10(d)(2)

Notification performance test results.	63.807(a), 63.8(e)(2), 63.9(g),
63.10(e)(2)

Notification of compliance status.	63.807(b), 63.9(h)

Reports

Semiannual reports	63.807(c)

Quarterly reports	63.807(d)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ

Startup, shutdown or malfunctions and corrective action records.
63.806(a), 63.6(e), 63.10(b)(2)

Work practice standards implementation plan	63.806(e), 63.10(d)(1)

Work practice standards records	63.806(e), 63.10(b)(2)

Records of compliance monitoring system data	63.806(b)(2), 63.10(c),
63.6(e)

CMS quality control plan	63.807(a)

Startup, shutdown and malfunction plans.	63.807(a), 63.6(e)(3),
63.10(d)(5)

Records of the types and quantities of finishing/cleaning/adhesive
materials	63.806(b), 63.10(b)(2)

Records monthly weighted-average emission calculations	63.806(a),
63.10(b)(3)

Records of applicability determination/area source status	63.806(a),
63.10(b)(3)

Records of performance test/evaluations	63.806(a), 63.10(b)(2)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way, e.g., internal feed.  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 percent of the
respondents use electronic reporting.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity, or for
pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for control device.

Perform initial performance test and repeat, if necessary.

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 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.

 	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way.  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.

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, 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 operational.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved.  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 the EPA Office of Compliance.  AFS is the EPA
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
and annual emission inventory data for more than 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

According to the Final Rule (64 FR 31358):

The Agency has found that two of the twenty-one firms that potentially
could be subject to the standards are small firms.  Of the two, data
indicate that one is an area source which would not be covered by the
standards.  The second source could be major and subject to the
requirements of the standards.  Information available to the Agency
shows that the second source is able to achieve the control levels of
the NESHAP using existing equipment.  The testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are essentially identical to
the current requirements and, thus, should cause little or no change in
these burdens.

This ICR conservatively assumes that two of twenty-one ownership firms
are small, and extrapolates this fraction to the affected facilities,
assuming that approximately 9½ percent, or 71 affected facilities, are
small entities (e.g., small businesses).  However, the impact on small
entities was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the type of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large
entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to
ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small
entities.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 document 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.  Wherever 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 to be 47,189
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$114.77 ($54.65 + 110%)

Technical	$97.59 ($46.47 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.26 ($22.98 + 110%)

	These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, March 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, 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.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The types of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities 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
facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and
maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation 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)

Several options available	0	0	$0	$600	30	$18,000

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are zero.  This is the
total of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are
$18,000.  This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $18,000.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  The EPA compliance and enforcement program
includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the
respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the
publication and distribution of collected information.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

		Technical	$46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

		Clerical	$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

	These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2010
General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates have
been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear below in Table 2.

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, there are approximately 750
existing sources currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated
that no additional sources per year 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 Existing 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	300	450	0	750

2	0	300	450	0	750

3	0	300	450	0	750

Average	0	300	450	0	750

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 750.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year

Regulation Citation	(A)

Average Number of New Respondents per Year	(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 =

(AxB)+(CxD)+F

40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ	0	0	300	2.011	450	1,053

1 Weighted average of semiannual and quarterly reports (See Table 1.
Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ) for details

The number of total respondents is 750.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 1,053.  This is the number in
column E of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses per Year
table above.

The total annual labor costs are $4,438,012.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost -
NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJ), below.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There are no changes in the respondent labor hours in this ICR compared
to the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations: 1) the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and 2) the growth rate
for the respondents is very low, negative or non-existent.  Therefore,
the labor hours in the previous ICR reflect the current burden to the
respondents and are reiterated (with a correction for rounding) in this
ICR.  It should be noted that there is an apparent decrease of one hour
in the total labor hours for this ICR.  Total labor hours for this ICR
are 47,189 rather than 47,190 as in the previous ICR.  The previous ICR
did not carryout decimal places for the calculations in Table 1.

	There is an increase in both respondent and Agency labor costs
resulting from labor rate increases from 2003 to 2009.  In addition,
Tables 1 and 2 were expanded to include managerial and clerical labor
rates.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 45 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 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
EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0380, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and
Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of
the public docket is available online at www.regulations.gov.  This site
can be used 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,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please
include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0380 and OMB Control
Number 2060-0324 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJ)

Burden item

	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)	(G)	(H)

	Person-hours per occurrence	No. of occurrences per respondent per year
Person-hours per respondent per year	Respondents per year  a	Technical
person- hours per year	Management person-hours per year	Clerical person-
hours per year	Cost, $b

	(C=AxB)

(E=CxD)	(Ex0.05)	(Ex0.1)

	1.  Applications for construction, reconstruction and modification a,
d, e	4	1	4	39	156	7.8	15.6	$16,872

2.  Survey and studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting Requirements

   A. Read instructions c	1	1	1	300	300	15	30	$32,446

   B. Create information	See 3D

	   C. Gather existing information	See 3D

	   D. Write reports

        Notification of construction/reconstruction d	2	1	2	9	18	0.9	1.8
$1,947

        Notification of modifications e
(physical/operational changes)	8	1	8	30	240	12	24	$25,957

        Notification of anticipated startup
(including reconstruction and modification)	2	1	2	39	78	3.9	7.8	$8,436

        Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	39	78	3.9	7.8	$8,436

        Semiannual compliance status reports f	4	2	8	270	2,160	108	216
$233,614

        Semiannual excess emissions reports g	4	2	8	29	232	11.6	23.2
$25,092

        Quarterly excess emissions reports  h	4	4	16	2	32	1.6	3.2	$3,461

        List of types and quantities of materials              used,
including VHAP and solids content           data	1.5	52	78	300	23,400
1,170	2340	$2,530,815

Subtotal Reporting

	30,698	$2,887,076

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

   A. Read instructions 	See 3A

	   B. Plan activities 	N/A

	   C. Implement activities	N/A

	   D. Time to enter information

        Record of operators completing training             courses	1	2
2	300	600	30	60	$64,893

        Records of CMS parameters i	1.5	52	78	30	2,340	117	234	$253,082

        Records of types and quantities of
materials used, including VHAP and solids         common data	See 3D

	   E. Records for incidental and area sources  j	1	12	12	450	5,400	270
540	$584,034

   F. Annual personnel refresher course k	8	1	8	750	6,000	300	600
$648,927

  G. Time for audits	N/A

	Subtotal Recordkeeping

	16,491	$1,550,936

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	41,034	2,052	4,103	$4,438,012

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	47,189	$4,438,012

Assumptions:

a  We assume that the average number of respondents that will be subject
to the rule will be 750.  Of these sources, approximately 300 are major
sources and 450 are incidental/area sources.  There will be no
additional new sources that will become subject to the rule over the
three-year period of this ICR.

b We assume a technical labor rate of $97.59, managerial rate $114.77,
and clerical rate of $48.26 from the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group.” Workers by Occupational and Industry
Group.  The rates are from column 1: Total compensation.  The wage rate
obtained from the table has been increased by 110 percent to account for
the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c  We have assumed that there will be 39 respondents (30 modified + 9
reconstructed) that will apply for construction, reconstruction and
modification.

d  It is assumed that approximately 3 percent of the total number of
major sources will apply for reconstruction of their facility (300x3=9).

e  It is assumed that 10 percent of the total number of major sources
will apply for modification of their facility (300x10=30).

	f  We have assumed that 90 percent of the affected sources will comply
by using compliant coatings or by using the HAP averaging approach
(300x90%=270).

	g  We have assumed that 10 percent of the affected facilities will
comply by using control devices, but only 95 percent are assumed to be
in compliance at any given time and would be required to submit
semiannual rather than quarterly reports; therefore, the number of
affected facilities submitting semiannual report is 29 [300x10%x95%=29
(rounded)].

h   We have assumed that the number of sources submitting quarterly
reports is 2 [300x10%x5%=2 (rounded)].

i   It is assumed that 10 percent of affected facilities will use
control devices to comply (300x10%=30).

J  We have assumed that 450 incidental/area sources affected facilities
will record information once per month.

k  It is assumed that all of the affected sources will participate in
the annual personnel refresher source once per year.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJ)

Activity	(A)	(B)	(C)	(D)	(E)	(F)

	EPA person-hours per occurrence	 No. of occurrences per plant per year
Technical person-hours per year (C=AxB)	Management person-hours per year
(Cx0.05)	Clerical person-hours per year (Cx0.1)	Cost, $ b

1.  Excess emissions enforcement activities

2.  Report Review

     A.  Review notification of construction/reconstruction c	2	9	18	0.9
1.8	$1,947

     B.  Review notification of modifications (physical/operational
changes) d	2	30	60	3	6	$6,489

     C.  Review semiannual compliance status reports and certifications
e	8	270	2,160	108	216	$233,614

     D.  Review semiannual excess emission reports f	8	29	232	11.6	23.2
$25,092

     E.  Review quarterly excess emission reports g	16	2	32	1.6	3.2
$3,461

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	2,502	125	250	$270,603

 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	2,877	$270,603

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of respondents that will be
subject to the rule will be 750.  Of these sources, approximately 300
are major sources and 450 are incidental/area sources.  There will be no
additional new sources that will become subject to the rule over the
three-year period of this ICR.

b Assume a technical labor rate of $97.59, managerial rate $114.77, and
clerical rate of $48.26 from the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2009, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group.” Workers by Occupational and Industry
Group.  The rates are from column 1: Total compensation.  The wage rate
obtained from the table has been increased by 110 percent to account for
the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c  It is assumed that approximately 3 percent of the total number of
major sources will apply for reconstruction of their facility (300x3=9).

d  It is assumed that 10 percent of the total number of major sources
will apply for modification of their facility (300x10=30).

e  We have assumed that 90 percent of the affected sources will comply
by using compliant coatings or by using HAP averaging approach
(300x90%=270).

	f  We have assumed that 10 percent of the affected facilities will
comply by using control devices, but only 95 percent are assumed to be
in compliance at any given time and would be required to submit
semiannual rather than quarterly reports; therefore, the number of
affected facilities submitting semiannual report is 29 [300x10%x95%=29
(rounded)].

g  We have assumed that the number of sources submitting quarterly
reports is 2 [(300x10%x5%=2 (rounded)].

 PAGE

 PAGE   11

 PAGE


34825 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See Section 307( b)( 2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 24, 2003. L. John Iani, Regional Administrator, Region 10.

 Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52   [ AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Subpart WW   Washington  2. Amend § 52.2470 by adding paragraph ( c)( 82) to read as follows:

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * * ( c) * * * ( 82) On November 5, 1999, the State of Washington, Department of Ecology submitted a revision to the Visibility SIP. EPA approves all provisions to the November 5, 1999 Visibility SIP revision including, but not limited to the 1998 Smoke Management Plan, and South West Air Pollution Control Agency, Reasonably Available Control Technology order on the Centralia Power plant. EPA is taking no action on Section VIII. Identification and Analysis for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) and Section X, New Source Review, of the November 5, 1999, Visibility SIP revision. ( i) Incorporation by reference. ( A) South West Air Pollution Control Agency ( SWAPCA) regulatory order, SWAPCA 97   2057R1, Regulatory Order to Establish RACT Limits and Order of Approval, Adopted February 26, 1998. ( B) [ Reserved]

 3. Amend § 52.2475 by adding paragraph ( g) to read as follows:

§ 52.2475 Approval of plans.

* * * * * ( g) Visibility. ( 1) EPA approves as a revision to the Washington State Implementation Plan, the November 5, 1999, Visibility SIP revision, except that EPA is taking no action on Section VIII. Identification and Analysis for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART), and Section X, New Source Review of the November 5, 1999, Visibility SIP revision. ( 2) [ Reserved]

 4. In § 52.2479, the table is amended by revising the entries under Section 5 to read as follows:

§ 52.2479 Contents of the Federally approved, State submitted implementation plan.

* * * * *

WASHINGTON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR AIR QUALITY STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS   TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 5   Federally Mandated Programs [ Dates in brackets indicate EPA effective date]

5. BAP   Business Assistance Program [ 5/ 8/ 95] 5. IM   Motor Vehicle Inspection/ Maintenance Program [ 9/ 25/ 96] 5. OXY   Oxygenated Gasoline Program [ 3/ 21/ 94] 5. SMP   Smoke Management Program [ 7/ 6/ 87] 5. VIS   Washington State Visibility Protection Program [ 7/ 6/ 87] 5. VIS. NSR   Visibility New Source Review ( NSR) for nonattainment areas for Washington [ 7/ 28/ 86]

Supplemental Section A   Reference Material [ Date in brackets indicate EPA effective date]

A. 1   Description of Source test Program for the State Implementation Plan [ 10/ 24/ 84]

Supplemental B   Administrative and Procedural Material [ Dates in brackets indicate EPA effective date]

B. 3   Correspondence B. 3.1   Legal Authority [ 6/ 05/ 80] B. 3.2   Correspondence prior to 1991 B. 3.2.1   New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Tri Counties [ 9/ 23/ 81]

[ FR Doc. 03   14573 Filed 6   10   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0159; FRL   7309   5]

Methoprene, Watermelon Mosaic Virus 2 Coat Protein, and Zucchini Yellow Mosaic Virus Coat Protein; Final Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is amending the text of the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for methoprene and is revoking all of the tolerances for residues for methoprene because a recent EPA review finds that no harm is expected to the public from exposure to residues of methoprene. Therefore, these tolerances are no longer needed and their associated uses are covered by tolerance exemptions. Also, EPA is revoking the exemptions for watermelon mosaic virus 2 coat protein, and zucchini yellow mosaic virus coat protein and specific portions of the viral genetic material when used as plantincorporated protectants in squash, because these exemptions are covered in later sections of 40 CFR part 180. Because methoprene's 35 tolerances and the 2 exemptions from the virus materials were previously reassessed, the regulatory actions taken in this document do not contribute toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) section 408( q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 11, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 23: 48 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JNR1. SGM 11JNR1 34826 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations number OPP   2003   0159, must be received on or before August 11, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit IV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Mandula, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   7378; e mail address: mandula. barbara@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit IIA. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ID number OPP   2003   0159. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

In the Federal Register of February 12, 2003 ( 68 FR 7097) ( FRL   7288   7), EPA issued a proposed rule to amend the exemption expression for methoprene to indicate that methoprene is exempt from tolerances when used on food commodities as an insect larvicide, to revoke all the tolerances for residues of methoprene because they are no longer needed to protect the public, and to revoke the exemptions for watermelon mosaic virus 2 coat protein and zucchini yellow mosaic virus coat protein and specific portions of the viral genetic material when used as plantincorporated protectants in squash, because these exemptions are covered in later sections of 40 CFR part 180. Also, the February 12, 2003 proposal provided a 60   day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA standards. No comments were received. On August 1, 2002, EPA concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, infants, and children from aggregate exposure to residues of methoprene based on its review and evaluation of available information and conservative assumptions that assumed the existence of a broad based tolerance exemption; i. e., that methoprene can be used on all crop commodities. In addition, EPA determined that all methoprene tolerances in 40 CFR 180.359 and its exemption in § 180.1033 were considered to be reassessed. For reassessment counting purposes, the tolerance for the cereal grain milled fractions was counted as two to reflect the original tolerances found previously in 40 CFR 185.4150 and 186.4150. Methoprene is being granted a tolerance exemption for use as an insect larvicide on all food commodities based on the Agency's safety finding which supports tolerance exemption. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary for the continued use of methoprene as a pesticide. A copy of EPA's August 1, 2002 memo is available in e docket OPP   2002   0274. EPA is aware that revocation of some of the methoprene tolerances leads to or continues a lack of harmonization with some of the existing methoprene CODEX maximum residue limits ( MRLs). For egg, the EPA tolerance of 0.1 ppm is being revoked while the CODEX MRL remains at 0.05 milligrams/ kilogram ( mg/ kg). For mushroom, EPA's tolerance of 1.0 ppm is being revoked while the CODEX MRL remains at 0.2 mg/ kg. For peanut, EPA's tolerance of 2.0 ppm is being revoked while the CODEX MRL remains at 2 mg/ kg. For residues of methoprene in other food commodities, there was either a tolerance or there is a CODEX MRL, but not both; therefore, a lack of harmonization remains for residues in these other food commodities. EPA is revoking the methoprene tolerances in all food commodities because a thorough risk analysis has shown that these tolerances are not necessary to protect human health or the environment. Risk assessments were performed for oral exposure for acute, short term, intermediate term, and chronic exposures. No evidence of risk to adults, infants, or children were found, and the EPA review stated `` There are no concerns for chronic dietary exposure.'' Similarly, the review states `` There are no concerns for any oral, dermal, or inhalation intermediateterm exosures to methoprene.'' The review concludes, `` Based on its review and evaluation of the available information, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of methoprene.'' In VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 23: 48 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JNR1. SGM 11JNR1 34827 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations addition, EPA's risk assessment was based on conservative assumptions that assumed the existence of the tolerance exemption. Therefore, EPA is amending 40 CFR 180.1033 to exempt methoprene from the requirement of a tolerance by revising the commodities from `` raw agricultural'' to `` food'' and the use of control from `` mosquito'' to `` insect'' larvae. Because they are no longer needed, EPA is revoking all 35 tolerances for methoprene in 40 CFR 180.359, including: barley; buckwheat; cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts; cereal grain milled fractions ( except flour and rice hulls); corn ( except popcorn and sweetcorn); egg; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; milk; millet; mushroom; oat; peanut; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; rice; rice, hulls; rye; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, meat byproducts; sorghum ( milo); and wheat in § 180.359( a)( 1), and feed supplement tolerances for beef cattle and dairy cattle in § 180.359( a)( 2). On July 9, 2002, EPA concluded that exemptions in 40 CFR 180.1132 watermelon mosaic virus 2 coat protein and zucchini yellow mosaic virus coat protein, and the genetic material necessary for the production of these proteins in or on summer squash were superseded by the exemption in 40 CFR 180.1184 in or on all food commodities. In addition, the Agency determined that these two exemptions were considered to be reassessed. Therefore, EPA is revoking the exemptions in 40 CFR 180.1132 because they are no longer needed. This final rule does not change availability or use of the pesticides mentioned. A copy of the July 9, 2002 memo is in the docket for this action.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses if a numerical tolerance is being replaced by a tolerance exemption for those uses, or if the tolerance statement is redundant or has been superceded. EPA also proposes revocation of tolerances for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as `` import tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.

C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? The actions in this final rule are effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register. The only effect of the final rule will be to remove redundancies and inconsistencies in 40 CFR part 180. No person or entity is expected to be adversely affected. This final rule does not change the regulatory status of any registered products.

D. What is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment? By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of May 7, 2003, EPA has reassessed over 6,500 tolerances. In this final rule, EPA is revoking 35 tolerances and 2 exemptions. These tolerances and exemptions were previously reassessed and counted as described in Unit II. A.

III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final Action? EPA is working to ensure that the U. S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex MRLs in setting U. S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. When possible, EPA seeks to harmonize U. S. tolerances with Codex MRLs. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408( b)( 4) requires that EPA explain in a Federal Register document the reasons for departing from the Codex level. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs. The U. S. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support ( 65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) ( FRL   6559   3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/. On the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations,'' then select `` Regulations and Proposed Rules'' and then look up the entry for this document under `` Federal Register   Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:/ / www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/.

IV. Objections and Hearing Requests Under section 408( g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408( g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to `` object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408( d) of FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP   2003   0159 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before August 11, 2003. 1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections ( 40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues( s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector ( 40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 23: 48 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JNR1. SGM 11JNR1 34828 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk ( 1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is ( 703) 603   0061. 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33( i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33( m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P. O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it `` Tolerance Petition Fees.'' EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement `` when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at ( 703) 305   5697, by e mail at tompkins. jim@ epa. gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IV. A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I. B. 1. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0159, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I. B. 1. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e mail to: oppdocket epa. gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing? A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues( s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested ( 40 CFR 178.32).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule revokes tolerances established under section 408( d) of the FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has exempted this type of action ( i. e., a tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 ( 62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, the pesticides mentioned in this rule have tolerance exemptions and will therefore remain available after this rule becomes effective. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408( n)( 4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 23: 48 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JNR1. SGM 11JNR1 34829 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

VI. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 21, 2003.

James Jones,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U. S. C. 321( q), 346( a) and 371. § 180.359 and 180.1132 [ Removed]

 2. Sections 180.359 and 180.1132 are removed.

 3. Section 180.1033 is revised to read as follows:

§ 180.1033 Methoprene; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

Methoprene is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all food commodities when used to control insect larvae. [ FR Doc. 03   14330 Filed 6   10   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [ FRL   7511   1 ]

Utah: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Utah applied to EPA for Final authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA). EPA has reached a final determination that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization. Thus, with respect to these revisions, EPA is granting Final authorization to the State to operate its program subject to the limitations on its authority retained by EPA in accordance with RCRA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) of 1984. DATES: Final authorization for the revisions to Utah's hazardous waste management program will become effective June 11, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris Shurr, 8P   HW, U. S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202   2466, phone number: ( 303) 312   6139 or e mail: shurr. kris@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

States which have received Final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006( b), 42 U. S. C. 6926( b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. Utah initially received Final Authorization on October 10, 1984, effective October 24, 1984 ( 49 FR 39683) to implement its base hazardous waste management program. Utah received authorization for revisions to its program on February 21, 1989 ( 54 FR 7417), effective March 7, 1989; May 23, 1991 ( 56 FR 23648) and August 6, 1991 ( 56 FR 37291), both effective July 22, 1991; May 15, 1992 ( 57 FR 20770), effective July 14, 1992; February 12, 1993 ( 58 FR 8232) and May 5, 1993 ( 58 FR 26689), both effective April 13, 1993; October 14, 1994 ( 59 FR 52084), effective December 13, 1994; May 20, 1997 ( 62 FR 27501), effective July 21, 1997; January 13, 1999 ( 64 FR 02144), effective March 15, 1999; October 16, 2000 ( 65 FR 61109), effective January 16, 2001, and May 7, 2002 ( 67 FR 30599), effective July 7, 2002. On February 12, 2003, Utah submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of additional changes to its program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. On April 10, 2003, EPA published both an Immediate Final Rule ( 68 FR 17556) granting Utah Final authorization for these revisions to its Federallyauthorized hazardous waste program, along with a companion Proposed Rule announcing EPA's proposal to grant such a Final authorization ( 68 FR 17577). EPA announced in both notices that the Immediate Final Rule and the Proposed Rule were subject to a thirtyday public comment period. The public comment period ended on May 12, 2003. EPA did receive identical written comments from two commenters during the public comment period. Today's action responds to the comments EPA received and publishes EPA's Final determination granting Utah Final authorization of its program revisions. Further background on EPA's Immediate Final Rule and its tentative determination to grant authorization to Utah for its program revisions appears in the aforementioned Federal Register notices. The issues raised by the commenters are summarized and responded to in Item B.

B. What Were the Comments and Responses to EPA's Proposal? Both commenters challenged Region VIII's process for authorizing revisions VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 23: 48 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JNR1. SGM 11JNR1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 30032]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12356]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold Closed Meetings on Wednesday, May 16,
2012 at 11:30 a.m., Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., and Friday,
May 18, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions as set
forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (4), (6) and (8) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(2), (4), (6) and (8), permit consideration of the scheduled
matter at the Closed Meetings. Certain staff members who have an
interest in the matter also may be present.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meetings in closed sessions, and determined
that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meetings on May 16 and 18 will be
an examination of a financial institution.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting on May 17 will be
examination of financial institutions and a personnel matter.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 16, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12356 Filed 5-17-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14551-14554]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01745]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 17, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1181; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01368-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601),
and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R and 604 Variants) airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on the passenger door
internal structure of in-service airplanes. This proposed AD would
require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 3,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or
direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet http://www.bombardier.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>.

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-
1181; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1181; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01368-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Aziz
Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New
York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-37, dated November
25, 2016 (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601),
and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604 Variants) airplanes. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
1181.
    This proposed AD was prompted reports of corrosion on the passenger
door internal structure of in-service airplanes caused by an
accumulation of moisture under the epoxy ramp. This proposed AD would
require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. The FAA is proposing this

AD to address corrosion on the passenger door internal structure and
consequent loss of the structural integrity of the forward passenger
door. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed the following Bombardier service information,
which describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for
the upper latch pins of the forward passenger door. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. (Note:
The asterisk (or ``one star'') with the last three digits of the task
number indicates that the task is an airworthiness limitation task.)
     Task 53-10-01-101*, ``Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger
Door,'' of Bombardier Challenger CL-600-1A11 Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks (TLMC), Product Support Publication (PSP) 605, Revision 39,
dated January 8, 2018.
     Task 53-10-01-101*, ``Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger
Door,'' of Bombardier Challenger CL-600-2A12 TLMC, PSP 601-5, Revision
46, dated January 8, 2018.
     Task 53-10-01-101*, ``Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger
Door,'' of Bombardier Challenger CL-600-2B16 TLMC, PSP 601A-5, Revision
42, dated January 8, 2018.
     Task 53-20-00-188*, ``Special Detailed Inspection of the
Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger Door,'' of Bombardier Challenger
TLMC, CH 604 TLMC, Revision 32, dated December 18, 2019.
     Task 53-20-00-188*, ``Special Detailed Inspection of the
Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger Door,'' of Bombardier Challenger
TLMC, CH 605 TLMC, Revision 21, dated December 18, 2019.
    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.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(i)(1) of this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 133 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the
agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator.
Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes
for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator
estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the
agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2020-1181; Project Identifier MCAI-
2020-01368-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by May 3, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11
(600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604
Variants) airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on the passenger
door internal structure of in-service airplanes. This AD was further
prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address corrosion on the passenger door internal structure and
consequent loss of the structural integrity of the forward passenger
door.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in the applicable time limits/
maintenance checks (TLMC) revision specified in figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD. The initial compliance time for doing the
tasks is at the time specified in the TLMC, or within 30 days after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MR21.000

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals, are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-37, dated November 25, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-1181.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone

516-228-7329; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-
866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.bombardier.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>.

    Issued on January 20, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-01745 Filed 3-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19492]
[DOCID:fr14ap06-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM05-30-000]

Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards; Notice of New Docket
Prefixes ``RR'', ``RD'', and RC for Reliability Organizations and
Standards

April 7, 2006.
    Notice is hereby given that new docket prefixes ``RR'', ``RD'', and
``RC'' have been established for certain filings pursuant to Order No.
672, issued February 3, 2006.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards (Order No. 672), 114
FERC 61,104 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The prefixes are defined as:
    RR--ERO Rules and Organizational Filings,
    RD--Electric Reliability Standards,
    RC--Compliance and Enforcement of Reliability Standards and the
following examples illustrate the types of reliability organization
filings that fall under each of the new prefixes.

A. RR Prefix Filings--ERO Rules and Organizational Filings

    1. Application for certification as the Electric Reliability
Organization [39.3(a)].
    2. The ERO's assessment of its performance [39.3(c)].
    3. Request to modify the formula or method for the allocation and
assessment of ERO dues, fees and charges [39.4(a)].
    4. The ERO's proposed annual budget, including the annual budget
for each Regional Entity [39.4(b)].
    5. Request for authorization to collect a special assessment
[39.4(d)].
    6. Request for approval of penalty guidelines that set forth a
range of penalties for the violation of Reliability Standards
[39.7(g)(2)].
    7. Agreement to delegate authority to a Regional Entity for the
purpose of proposing Reliability Standards to the ERO and enforcing
Reliability Standards [39.8(c)].
    8. Application for assignment to an entity of the ERO's authority
to enforce Reliability Standards within the entity's region [39.8(f)].
    9. Request for approval of any proposed ERO Rule or Rule change or
proposed Regional Entity Rule or Rule change [39.10(a)].
    10. Petition to establish a Regional Advisory Body [39.13(a)].

B. RD Prefix Filings--Electric Reliability Standards

    1. Each proposed Reliability Standard or modification to a
Reliability Standard that is processed as an Order (a proposed
reliability standard processed as a rulemaking will be designated an RM
docket prefix) [39.5(a)].
    2. Notification of the possible conflict of a Reliability Standard
with a function, rule, order, tariff, rate schedule, or agreement
accepted, approved, or ordered by the Commission [39.6(a)].
    3. Application for a determination of consistency of a state action
with a Reliability Standard [39.12(b)].

C. RC Prefix Filings--Compliance and Enforcement of Reliability
Standards

    1. Report to the Commission of any self-reported violation or
investigation of a violation or an alleged violation of a Reliability
Standard and its eventual disposition [39.7(b)].
    2. Such periodic summary reports as the Commission shall from time
to time direct on violations of Reliability Standards [39.7(b)(5)].
    3. Notice of penalty for violation of a Reliability Standard
[39.7(c)(2)].
    4. Application for review of a penalty [39.7(e)(1)].
    5. Report on the ERO's assessment of the reliability of the Bulk-
Power System in North America [39.11(a)].
    6. Report on the ERO's assessment of the adequacy of the Bulk-Power
System in North America [39.11(b)].
    7. Notice of proposed penalty, filed by ERO.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5560 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P