            Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under
                          the Paperwork Reduction Act

1	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

		Title:	Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b)

		EPA ICR No.:  0795.14	OMB Control No.:  2070-0030

	1(b)	Short Characterization

	Section 12(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) states, in part, that any person who exports or intends to export to a foreign country a chemical substance or mixture for which submission of data is required under TSCA section 4 or 5(b), or for which a rule, action or order has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 5, 6, or 7, shall notify the EPA Administrator of such export or intent to export.  The Administrator in turn will notify the government of the importing country of EPA's regulatory action with respect to the substance.

	On December 16, 1980, EPA promulgated a rule implementing TSCA section 12(b) (45 FR 82844).  This final rule requires exporters to submit an annual notice for each country to which a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b) requirements is exported.  To reduce the notification burden on industry and EPA and to facilitate foreign governments' review of export notifications, EPA issued a final rule on July 27, 1993, (58 FR 40238) that amended the December 16, 1980, rule.  The amended rule allows exporters of chemicals subject to TSCA section 4 test rules to submit a one-time notice to EPA for the export of a TSCA section 4 chemical to each particular country, instead of providing annual notification.  This final rule did not change the export notification requirements for chemical substances that are subject to sections 5, 6 and 7 of TSCA.  These rules are codified at 40 CFR Part 707, Subpart D.

	The export notice must include five easily ascertainable items: the name and address of the exporter, the name of the chemical, the country of import, the date of export or intended export, and the section of TSCA under which EPA has taken action (section 4, 5, 6 or 7).  There are currently over 1,000 substances or categories of substances that have been regulated or proposed to be regulated under the applicable sections of TSCA.

	In an effort to further reduce the information collection burden for TSCA section 12(b) export notification, EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) developed and made available to the public on its website in 2001 a list of chemical substances subject to TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements (see "Current List of Chemical Substances Subject to TSCA Section12(b) Export Notification Requirements" at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/main12b.htm).  In addition, OPPT made available in 2001 a comprehensive listing of the "sunset" dates for chemical substances subject to TSCA section 4 actions (i.e., the dates on which the TSCA section 4 testing, reimbursement, and reporting requirements and/or TSCA section 4-triggered TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements have terminated ("sunset") or have been calculated to sunset) (see "Sunset Date/Status of TSCA Section 4 Testing, Reimbursement, and Reporting Requirements and TSCA Section 4-Triggered TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements" at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/sunset.htm).  EPA believes that these lists, long recommended by industry, serve as useful tools to assist industry in complying with TSCA and have resulted in an overall reduction of the information collection burden.

	Finally, this paragraph identifies EPA actions that are anticipated to occur during the collection period that could affect the information requirements and burden.  During the collection period covered by this ICR renewal, a number of actions under TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 are anticipated that will trigger export notification under TSCA section 12(b).  Of course, should any of these anticipated actions impact this ICR, EPA will follow appropriate procedures to amend this ICR, as appropriate.

2	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	TSCA section 12(b) requires exporters to submit a notice for each country to which a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b) requirements is exported.  Specifically, TSCA section 12(b) states, in part, that any person who exports or intends to export to a foreign country a chemical substance or mixture for which submission of data is required under TSCA section 4 or 5(b), or for which a rule, action or order has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 5, 6, or 7, shall notify the EPA Administrator of such export or intent to export.  The Administrator in turn will notify the government of the importing country of EPA's regulatory action with respect to the substance.  See Attachment 1 for exact language of TSCA section 12(b), 15 U.S.C. 2611(b).

	Regulations implementing the statutory mandate in TSCA section 12(b) appear in 40 CFR Part 707, Subpart D, and include the following additional provisions:

(a) No notice of export will be required for articles, except PCB articles, unless the Agency so requires in the context of individual TSCA section 5, 6, or 7 actions.

(a) Any person who exports or intends to export polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or PCB articles, for any purpose other than disposal, shall notify EPA of such intent or exportation under TSCA section 12(b).  PCBs and PCB articles have the definitions published in 40 CFR 761.3.

(a) Any person who would be prohibited by a TSCA section 5 or 6 regulation from exporting a chemical substance or mixture, but who is granted an exemption by EPA to export that chemical substance or mixture, shall notify EPA under TSCA section 12(b) of such intent to export or exportation.

(a) An exporter will be subject to possible enforcement action (including penalties) for not complying with the applicable provisions of TSCA section 12(b).

 	The full text of 40 CFR part 707 is provided in Attachment 2.

 	2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

 	As required by TSCA section 12(b), the Administrator will use the information collected under this ICR to furnish the required notice to the government of the importing country.  The importing country typically uses the information provided to ensure that chemicals imported into their country comply with their laws and regulations.

 3	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

       3(a)	Non-Duplication

 	The exporter submits one notice to EPA.  There is no duplication of this mandate or collection activity, and no alternate sources for the Agency to obtain the information necessary to satisfy the statutory mandate.

 	The Agency carefully considered alternatives to imposing a notification requirement on the chemical exporters, but no alternate sources were identified.  Prior to promulgating the TSCA section 12(b) rule, EPA considered the possibility of using export data gathered by the Bureau of the Census in lieu of imposing notification requirements in a TSCA section 12(b) rule.  However, several problems with the Census data continue to make such an approach impractical.  These problems include, among others, the fact that Census data are often not chemical-specific; Census exempts certain shipments and exporters that are not exempt from TSCA section 12(b) notifications; and Census data would not be available for up to eight weeks following export, a delay that would prevent EPA from providing an importing government the timely notice required by TSCA section 12(b).

 	In addition, the Agency's activities are not duplicative of any other agency's actions.  Importing countries do not receive such notifications from any other sources.

 	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

 	Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made available to the public for comment through a Federal Register notice.  The public has 60 days to provide comments.  Any comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.

       3(c)	Consultations

 	Prior to proposing the original 1980 guidance for the submission of TSCA section 12(b) notices, EPA held informal meetings with the Manufacturing Chemists Association (now the American Chemistry Council), and with representatives of the Swedish, Canadian and British governments.  Comments were also received from exporters, environmental groups and foreign governments during the public comment period for the proposal.  Prior to issuance of the final amendments to the export notification requirements in 1993, EPA also met with stakeholders to discuss TSCA section 12(b) requirements and the possible need for some changes to the 1980 rule.  EPA also received and considered comments from exporters, environmental groups and foreign governments during the public comment period for the proposed amendments.  Finally, EPA considered comments received on an amendment to the TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements proposed in 2006.

 	Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1) OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an original or renewal ICR to OMB for review and approval.  In accordance with this regulation, EPA will pursue additional consultations with interested parties during the development of the renewal of this collection.

 	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

 	If the collection of information was conducted less frequently, the regulatory requirements would not be met.

       3(e)	General Guidelines

 	This information collection is necessary to implement statutory requirements of section 12(b) of TSCA and is consistent with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.6.

 	3(f)	Confidentiality

 	The respondent may claim all or part of a notice confidential.  EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA and 40 CFR Part 2.  However, notwithstanding any claim of confidentiality, the foreign government of the importing country will be notified of the export of the substance(s) in question.

 	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

 	This section is not applicable.  The information requested is not sensitive in nature.

 4	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

 	4(a)	Agency Activities

 	The activities routinely conducted by EPA related to the receipt and processing of TSCA section 12(b) export notices include the following:

 	o	review export notices for compliance;
 	o	respond to follow-up inquiries from foreign governments;
 	o	consult with companies on complying with the TSCA section 12(b) rule;
 	o	act as liaison between foreign governments and companies to seek additional information on exports;
 	o	log in notices for tracking/reporting;
 	o	prepare letters with supporting documents to foreign governments.

       4(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

 	The collection methodology is event based, i.e., the respondent's decision to export a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b).  With the exception of TSCA section 4 chemicals, an exporter must submit, on an annual basis, one TSCA section 12(b) notice for each country to which a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b) is exported.  For TSCA section 4 chemicals, an exporter must only submit a TSCA section 12(b) notice for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The TSCA section 12(b) notice must be postmarked within seven days after the respondent accepts a definite contractual obligation or no later than the date of export.

 	TSCA section 12(b) export notifications are received by EPA's Environmental Assistance Division (EAD) in OPPT.  The contractor-run TSCA Assistance and Information Service (TAIS  -  also known as the TSCA Hotline), processes all of the TSCA section 12(b) export notifications and prepares the letters and related materials used to notify appropriate foreign governments of the export of the specific TSCA-regulated chemicals to their country in accordance with the mandate in TSCA section 12(b) and the regulations at 40 CFR part 707, Subpart D.

 	The following is a brief overview of the Agency's handling and tracking process for these notices:

1) All incoming notices are received in OPPT's Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC), which is managed by OPPT's Information Management Division (IMD).

1) The CBIC sends the information to appropriate IMD staff to determine if the information is Confidential Business Information (CBI) or not.  IMD then sends the information with the CBI determination back to the CBIC.

1) The CBIC sends all notifications (CBI or non-CBI) to TAIS for processing.

1) TAIS records the company and chemical information, enters it into the database, and prepares the notification letter and explanatory materials (e.g., Federal Register notice, TSCA section 5(e) consent order).  For CBI packages, TAIS sends the CBI packages back to the CBIC and the CBIC then sends the notification and explanatory information to the embassy/foreign authority of the country to which the subject chemical is being exported.  For non-CBI packages, TAIS sends the notification and explanatory information to the embassy/foreign authority.

1) If the receiving country requests further information, the request comes directly to EAD.  EAD sends the request to TAIS.  TAIS obtains and/or generates the needed information, and sends the package back to EAD for formal signature and transmittal to the requesting country's embassy or authority.

 	The Export Notification Tracking System (ENTS), which is maintained by TAIS, currently houses approximately 162,000 records, dating back to 1989.  The ENTS database is modified daily with new, incoming records of chemical exports to foreign countries.  Updates also incorporate regulatory changes affecting the chemicals that are subject to EPA's TSCA section 12(b) export notification rule at 40 CFR 707.

 	EPA is continuing to explore the feasibility of developing and implementing an optional electronic data reporting system for the ease of respondents, which could result in a significant burden reduction.  The projected reporting system is designed to be a user-friendly interface for parties engaged in reporting under TSCA sections 4, 5, 8, and 12(b).  Thus, the submission of information to EPA will be less expensive, faster, and more efficient once this technology is fully applied.

       4(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

 	TSCA section 12(b) does not exempt small businesses.  However, most reporting has been by large companies, because they do most of the exporting.  In any case, the burden on any exporter is minimal, because it should take no more than one-half hour to prepare a TSCA section 12(b) notice and mailing costs are minimal.

 	4(d)	Collection Schedule

 	In general, there are basically two collection schedules related to the TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements, i.e., a one-time collection and an annual collection.  On an annual basis, excluding TSCA section 4 chemicals, an exporter must submit only one TSCA section 12(b) notice for each country to which a chemical subject to TSCA section 12(b) is exported.  For TSCA section 4 chemicals, an exporter must only submit one TSCA section 12(b) notice for the first export or intended export to a particular country.

 	If the collection of information was conducted less frequently, the statutory requirements would not be met.

 5	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

 	5(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

 	Respondents to this collection are exporters of chemical substances, which are mostly chemicals companies classified under NAICS Codes 325 and 32411.

 	5(b)	Information Requested

       	(i) Data Items

 	Respondents are required to include the following information in their export notification:

   * the name and address of the exporter;
   * the name of the chemical;
   * the country of import;
   * the date of export or intended export; and
   * the TSCA section 4, 5, 6 or 7 action that triggers the notice.

 		(ii) Respondent Activities

 	In providing the required TSCA section 12(b) export notification, the respondent (exporter) is likely to engage in the following activities:

   * Compile and maintain a list of chemical products manufactured by the company that are also subject to a TSCA section 4, 5, 6 or 7 action (e.g., compare list of their chemicals with EPA's list of TSCA section 12(b) chemicals);
   * Check this list against outgoing orders to determine if a product/chemical on the list is expected to be exported to a customer outside of the U.S.;
   * If it is, identify whether a TSCA section 12(b) notice is required (e.g., is it the first shipment to that country this year?); and
   * If product/chemical is on the list and a TSCA section 12(b) notice is required, complete the required export notice and forward it to EPA within the required time period.

 6	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

 	The purpose of this analysis is to determine the incremental cost to industry and to the EPA associated with export reports that are submitted to the Agency under the TSCA Section 12(b) reporting requirements.

       6(a)	Estimating the Respondent Burden

 	The burden to respondents of this information collection activity comprises the time required to perform the steps outlined in section 3 of this document.

      For the purpose of this section, a notification is a package received by the EPA by one company. One company may submit more than one notification per year. Each notification may contain several chemicals and/or countries.

      Ever since a change in reporting requirements published on November 14, 2006, there is a one-time notification requirement for exporters of chemical substances or mixtures. In addition, the change required the Agency to notify foreign governments once after it receives the first export notification from an exporter. The shift to one-time-only export notification in the amendments will affect almost all notifications received under TSCA Section 5 (EPAB 2006). EPA also promulgated de minimis concentration levels below which notification will not be required for the export of any chemical for which export notification under TSCA Section 12(b) is otherwise required.

      For the purposes of this ICR, the EPA used the average number of submitters and notifications from FY 2009, 2010, and 2011 as estimates for the number of submitters and notifications for FY 2012-2014.

 	Compile List.  Since this information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA Section 12(b) reporting.  Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company.  Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time).  This could vary depending on the number of products from two hours per year up to two hours per month of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time).  This will vary depending on the number of products exported by the company and the number of their products subject to TSCA Section 12(b).

 	The number of submitters per year who report under TSCA Section 12(b) has varied over time, rising from around 160 in 1991 to over 460 in 2000, and declining since.  EPA estimates that there will be a decrease in the number of submitters to around 240 in the near-future years (average of FY 2009, 2010, and 2011).  This is a decrease from the previous ICR estimate of 300 submitters.  Of these 240 submitters, we estimate that 160 companies are near the lower estimate of 2 hours per year, and 80 companies are near the upper estimate of 24 hours per year. EPA conservatively retains the estimate that 80 exporters are near the upper estimate of 24 hours per year, as it is likely that lower-volume submitters will be the ones exempted by these amendments because they will be filing notices under TSCA Section 12(b) for the first time. The previous ICR estimated 200 firms near the 2-hour estimate.  Compiling the list for all respondents is estimated to take 2,240 hours (2 hours x 160 firms plus 24 hours x 80 firms), or an average of 9.3 hours per firm per year.

 	Write or Revise Letter.  Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA Section 12(b) reporting must prepare an export notification to send to EPA.  Time for initial preparation of the export notice probably varies depending on whether the company has prior experience with this program, but this step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per year for each company subject to TSCA Section 12(b) reporting.  We estimate a total of 240 hours (1 hour x 240 firms) per year in letter writing or revising.

 	Check Orders and Send Notices.  The 240 companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA Section 12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their products described above.  A form letter notifying EPA is printed out detailing where the shipment is going for a TSCA Section 12(b) chemical if it is the first shipment to the importing country.  This whole process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per notice.

 	The annual number of submitted notices has varied substantially over time, but without any obvious trend.  The number has been consistently in the range of 3,000 to 12,000 submissions, with a peak of over 11,600 in 2000, and with more recent years being slightly lower.  EPA therefore estimates that the number of notices in near-future years will average about 3,090 (average of FY 2009, 2010 and 2011).  This is a decrease from the previous ICR estimate of 3,500 notices.  For 240 firms, that indicates an average of roughly 13 notices per year per firm.  Total time for this task will be 1,545 hours (3,090 x 0.5 hours each).

 TABLE 1: ANNUAL AVERAGE BURDEN PER RESPONDENT FACILITY

                                  BURDEN HOURS
                                    ACTIVITY
                                   TECHNICAL
                                    CLERICAL
                                     TOTAL
 Compile list
                                      9.3
                                       -
                                      9.3
 Write letter
                                       1
                                       -
                                        1
 Check order and send notice
                                       -
                                      6.5
                                      6.5
 Total
                                      10.3
                                      6.5
                                      16.8

 TABLE 2: ANNUAL AGGREGATE BURDEN

                                  BURDEN HOURS
                                    ACTIVITY
                                   TECHNICAL
                                    CLERICAL
                                     TOTAL
 Compile list
                                     2,240
                                       -
                                     2,240
 Write letter
                                        240
                                       -
                                       240
 Check order and send notice
                                       -
                                     1,545
                                     1,545
 Total
                                     2,480
                                     1,545
                                     4,025
 Average burden hours per notice
                                      0.80
                                      0.5
                                      1.30

 	It is estimated that the annual number of notices to be submitted for FY 2012-2014 will be 3,090.  Estimating that the number of respondents will be 240, the average number of notices submitted per respondent will be roughly 13.  The previous ICR estimated 12 notices per respondent (3,500/300).

       6(b)	Estimating the Respondent Cost

 	The costs to respondents is based on the time needed to complete the tasks listed in section 3, the hourly cost of labor at appropriate levels (labor rates), the number of facilities affected, and the number of reports generated.  There are also costs for mailing. There are no specific capital or overhead costs associated directly with this information collection activity.

 	Loaded labor rates, including fringe costs, are $69.14 for management time, $61.71 for technical time, and $28.98 for clerical time.  These labor rates are higher than previous estimates used and result from increased wages indicated in the BLS data.1

 	Companies will also incur a cost of $15.35 per export notice to send the letter to EPA via registered mail ($10.95 for registered mail, $3.95 for a return receipt, and $0.45 postage).  Aggregate annual costs for mailing will be $47,432 ($15.35 x 3,090).

 TABLE 3: ANNUAL COST PER RESPONDENT FACILITY (WITH 13 NOTICES)

                                  ANNUAL COST
 ACTIVITY
                                   TECHNICAL
                                    CLERICAL
                                     TOTAL
 Compile list
                                    $573.90
                                       -
                                    $573.90
 Write letter
                                     $61.71
                                       -
                                     $61.71
 Check order and send notice
                                       -
                                    $188.37
                                    $188.37
 Mailing cost
                                       -
                                       -
                                    $199.55
 Total
                                    $635.61
                                    $188.37
                                   $1,023.53

 TABLE 4: ANNUAL AGGREGATE RESPONDENT COST

                                  ANNUAL COST
 ACTIVITY
                                   TECHNICAL
                                   $61.71/hr
                                    CLERICAL
                                   $28.98/hr
                                     TOTAL
 Compile list
                                    $138,230
                                       -
                                    $138,230
 Write letter
                                    $14,810
                                       -
                                    $14,810
 Check order and send notice
                                       -
                                    $44,774
                                    $44,774
 Mailing cost
                                       -
                                       -
                                    $47,432
 Total
                                    $153,040
                                    $44,774
                                    $245,246

 	6(c)	Federal Government Burden and Cost

 	Agency unit costs are based on past TSCA Section 12(b) analyses, including the previous ICR, and on contacts with the Environmental Assistance Division (EAD).  EPA's cost estimates are based on past experience with these activities.  The Agency cost can be divided into three parts: receiving and processing incoming notices, preparing and mailing notifications to importing countries, and responding to requests for information and clarification from companies and importing countries.  The allocation of burden hours and costs among these three parts is not exact, but the analysis below is reasonably accurate in terms of the overall burden estimate and the approximate allocation of that burden among these tasks.

 	In the first task, notices are received from firms that intend to export a product covered by this rule, the forms are checked for completeness, and the submissions are logged into a document control system.  Based on conversations with the workers responsible for this task, about ten notifications can be processed per hour.  EPA projects that an average of 3,090 notifications will be received per year over the period covered by this ICR, requiring approximately 309 hours of support.  This work is currently done by technical EPA staff with a fully-loaded labor rate of $77.62 per hour (December 2010) and thus is projected to cost $23,985 per year over the period of this ICR.

      In the second task, workers prepare letters of notice which are subsequently reviewed and sent out to importing countries.  Not all notifications submitted require that a notice be sent out.  This work averages approximately 30 minutes per notice.  EPA estimates that the reduction in notices sent to foreign governments will be proportional to the reduction in notifications received under that section.  EPA projects an average of 22 notification letters mailed each year (average of FY 2009, 2010, and 2011 notification letters mailed).  This yields a burden of approximately 11 hours annually.  This work is currently done by technical EPA staff with a fully-loaded labor rate of $77.62 per hour and thus is projected to cost $854 yearly.

 	The cost of mailing a notification can vary from $15.35 to $31.85, depending on whether it is sent to an embassy in the US or to an overseas destination and assuming the notice is registered with a return receipt ($10.95 for registered mail, $3.95 for a return receipt, and $0.45 - $16.95 (international) postage). The average mailing cost of $23.60 and a total annual mailing cost of $519 ($23.60*22).

 	The burden described above covers the routine tasks of handing both incoming notices and outgoing notifications.  The totals above also include a certain amount of time spent responding to routine requests for information, since data are not available to separate this out from the other tasks.  Based on conversations with EAD staff, the work of responding to non-routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, assisting the contractor staff in handling non-routine issues, and handling other tasks associated with the TSCA Section 12(b) program can be expected to require about 20% of the time of a GS-13 Step 5 EPA employee, or roughly 400 hours per year.  Following the 2010 federal employee wage scale and assuming an additional 60% to cover fringe benefits, that represents an annual cost of approximately $31,048 ($77.62*400) (OPM, 2010).

 TABLE 5: ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                  ANNUAL COST
 Processing of notices from companies
                                    $23,985
 Processing of notifications to importing countries
                                      $854
 EPA staff time, responding to information requests, etc.
                                    $31,048
 Mailing cost of notifications
                                      $519
 Total
                                    $56,406

 	6(d)	Total Burden and Costs to Industry

 	The total estimated industry burden associated with this collection, as noted in Table 2, is estimated to be 4,025 hours annually.  The associated cost, as noted in Table 4, is estimated to be $245,246 annually.

 	6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

 	(i) 	Respondent Tally

 		Annual Respondent Burden: 4,025 hours.

 		Annual Respondent Costs: $245,246.

 	(ii) 	The Agency Tally

 		Annual Agency Costs: $56,406.

 	6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

	There is a decrease of 825 hours (from 4,850 hours to 4,025 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the information collection most recently approved by OMB.  This decrease represents the net effect of a decrease in the estimated number of notices sent to EPA and a decrease in the number of firms sending notices, based on EPA's recent experience with TSCA Section 12(b) notices.

      On November 14, 2006, EPA made amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act Section 12(b) export notification rule at Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 707.  There was a change to the reporting requirements. The first amendment changed the annual notification requirement for exporters of chemicals for which certain actions have been taken under TSCA.  Previously, the TSCA Section 12(b) rule required exporters to notify EPA of the first export or intended export to a particular country in a calendar year for chemical substances subject certain actions under TSCA Section 5, 6, or 7.  For chemicals subject to a final TSCA Section 4 action, exporters were required to submit an export notification only for the first export or intended export to a particular country.  The amendments changed the annual notification requirement to a one-time export notification requirement per each destination country for each exporter of a chemical substance subject to TSCA Section 5(a)(2), 5(b), 5(e)(1), and 5(e)(2).  For exports of chemical substances subject to Sections 5(f), 6 or 7 actions, however, the exporter will continue to submit an annual notification for each chemical exported to each country of destination. EPA is also establishing de minimis concentration levels below which notification will not be required for the export of any chemical that is the subject of an action under Section 4, 5, 6, or 7 of TSCA.  For these reasons, the number of submitters, number of notifications and notification letters decreased since the last ICR.

      With these changes in reporting requirements, the costs are predicted to change as a result of the number of notifications and submitters declining. According to a prior analysis on the 2006 amendments to TSCA Section 12(b), it was estimated that the reduction in the number of notifications and submitters due to TSCA Section 5 reporting would be 50% in each year after the amendments go into effect (EPAB 2006). Based on average numbers of Section 12(b) notifications from 1996-2004, TSCA Section 5 notifications comprised approximately 25% of the total notifications (EPAB 2006). Therefore, the reduction in TSCA Section 5 notifications should be about 13% of the total TSCA Section 12(b) notifications. In addition, due to the de minimis exemption EPA conservatively estimates a 20% reduction for all TSCA sections (EPAB 2006).

      Prior to the TSCA Section 12(b) amendments, the 2006 data showed about 5,100 notifications and 330 submitters. After applying the reductions outlined in the TSCA 12(b) economic analysis (EPAB 2006), a 50% reduction in Section 5 notifications and a 20% total reduction in notifications due to the de minimis exemption, the estimated number of notifications were 3,550 and 230 submitters. The predictions from this ICR, which were generated from the averages of FY 2009, 2010 and 2011 data, were 3,090 notifications and 240 submitters.

 	6(g)	Burden Statement

 	The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0030, is estimated to be 1.3 hours per response.  According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, "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.  For this collection it 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 currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control number for this information collection appears above.  In addition, the OMB control numbers for EPA's regulation, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

 	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 No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0258, which is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. 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 Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov.  Use regulations.gov 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.  Once in the web site, click the Advanced Search link at the top of the page and select Docket Search from the drop-down menu.  At the Advanced Search page, select Environmental Protection Agency in the Agency field; in the Docket ID field key in the docket ID number identified above; scroll to the bottom of the page to click on Submit.  At the Docket Search Results page click on the Docket ID to display all of the documents found within this docket ID number.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0258 and OMB Control No. 2070-0030 in any correspondence.

 Sources

 40 CFR Parts 707 and 799. Federal Register: November 14, 2006. Volume 71, Number 219 Rules and Regulations 66234-66245. January 2009 <wais.access.gpo.gov>.

"Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2007." US Bureau of Labor Statistics. January 2009.

"Final Economic Analysis of the Amendments to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements." Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. August 2006.

"Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2007-DCB, Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV." January 2009 <http://www.opm.gov/oca/07tables/html/dcb.asp>.


   DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES default		         		Public
Health Service

 ADVANCE \r360  ADVANCE \d3 	Food and Drug Administration

 ADVANCE \r360 	Rockville, MD  20857

September 20, 2004

Frederick Razzaghi

Consumer Healthcare Products Association

900 19th Street, N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Razzaghi:

Your petition, on behalf of the Industry Coalition requesting the Food
and Drug Administration to revoke 21 C.F.R. Part 11 in its entirety, and
pursue implementation of electronic record and signature, was received
by this office on 09/17/2004.  It was assigned docket number
2004P-0429/CP1 and it was filed on 09/17/2004. Please refer to this
docket number in future correspondence on this subject with the Agency.

Please note that the acceptance of the petition for filing is a
procedural matter in that it in no way reflects an agency decision on
the substantive merits of the petition.

Sincerely,

Jennie C. Butler, Director

Division of Dockets Management

Office of Management Programs

Office of Management


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 28993]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM93-11-000]

Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy
Policy Act of 1992; Notice of Annual Change in the Producer Price Index
for Finished Goods

    The Commission's regulations include a methodology for oil
pipelines to change their rates through use of an index system that
establishes ceiling levels for such rates. The Commission bases the
index system, found at 18 CFR 342.3, on the annual change in the
Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG), plus two point six
five percent (PPI-FG + 2.65). The Commission determined in an Order
Establishing Index For Oil Price Change Ceiling Levels,\1\ issued
December 16, 2010, that PPI-FG + 2.65 is the appropriate oil pricing
index factor for pipelines to use for the five-year period commencing
July 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 133 FERC ] 61,228 at P 1 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations provide that the Commission will publish annually,
an index figure reflecting the final change in the PPI-FG, after the
Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the final PPI-FG in May of each
calendar year. The annual average PPI-FG index figures were 196.6 for
2013 and 200.4 for 2014.\2\ Thus, the percent change (expressed as a
decimal) in the annual average PPI-FG from 2013 to 2014, plus 2.65
percent, is positive 0.045829.\3\ Oil pipelines must multiply their
July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, index ceiling levels by positive
1.045829 \4\ to compute their index ceiling levels for July 1, 2015,
through June 30, 2016, in accordance with 18 CFR 342.3(d). For guidance
in calculating the ceiling levels for each 12 month period beginning
January 1, l995,\5\ see Explorer Pipeline Company, 71 FERC ] 61,416 at
n.6 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the final figure
in mid-May of each year. This figure is publicly available from the
Division of Industrial Prices and Price Indexes of the BLS, at 202-
691-7705, and in print in August in Table 1 of the annual data
supplement to the BLS publication Producer Price Indexes via the
Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm. To obtain the BLS data,
scroll down to ``PPI Databases'' and click on ``Top Picks'' of the
Commodity Data including ``headline'' FD-ID indexes (Producer Price
Index--PPI). At the next screen, under the heading ``Producer Price
Index Commodity Data,'' select the box, ``Finished goods--
WPUSOP3000,'' then scroll to the bottom of this screen and click on
Retrieve data.
    \3\ [200.4 - 196.6]/196.6 = 0.019329 + 0.0265 = 0.045829
    \4\ 1 + 0.045829 = 1.045829.
    \5\ For a listing of all prior multipliers issued by the
Commission, see the Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/oil/gen-info/pipeline-index.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this Notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print this Notice via the Internet through
FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference
Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time)
at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The full text
of this Notice is available on FERC's Home Page at the eLibrary link.
To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding
the last three digits of this document in the docket number field and
follow other directions on the search page.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of
FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please
contact the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free)
or<PHONE_NUMBER> (email at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov), or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public
Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 14, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12182 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Comment and Response Document Docket Number F 2001 LBPF FFFFF Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices and Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Disposal of Residential lead Based Paint Waste February 4, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices and Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Disposal of Residential Lead Based Paint Waste Comment number: LBPP 00001 Commenter: Thom Snyder Category: Individual Comment: Thank you for extending the residential Lead Based Paint ( LBP) waste provisions to include construction & demolition ( C& D) landfills. This makes sense for larger scale residential renovations, where commercial dumpsters may be used. C& D landfills are adequately lined and protected to prevent leaching of lead. This is a move in the right direction. Inclusion of the C & D landfills is a common sense and cost effective proposal for the disposal of residential LBP waste, which is still protective of human health and the environment.

Response: EPA agrees with the comment.

Comment number: LBPP 00002 Commenter: GA Environmental Protection Division, Land Protection Branch Category: State Comment: The Georgia Environmental Protection Division ( EPD) Land Protection Branch has reviewed the proposed rule for disposal of residential lead based paint waste. While this proposed rule does offer a positive interpretation by allowing lead based paint abatement waste from residential structures into municipal solid waste landfills and construction demolition ( C& C) landfills, Georgia EPD believes a significant flaw exists with this proposed rule. This comments offers to explain Georgia EPD's opposition and offers to provide a more meaningful solution to this disposal dilemma.

The decision to include lead based paint ( LBP) waste types such as chips, dust and sludges ( Section VI. C. Addition of Residential Lead based paint Waste Definition, second paragraph) in C& D landfills overlooks a C& D landfill trait. EPA failed to take into consideration in the Section VII. Analytic Basis for Today's Proposed Rule, the potential for sheet, surface water or windborne movement of lead paint chips, dust and sludges off site from a C& D landfill. C& D landfills in Georgia, and elsewhere, are only required to be covered by earth every thirty ( 30) days. The placement of LBP dust, chips and/ or sludges to an open environment over an extended period of time ( up to 30 days) may allow a significant rain or wind event to transport lead containing materials off site. Such an occurrence may cause an adverse environmental or human health impact to surrounding lands and habitats. The analytic basis used by EPA to justify the placement of chips, dust and sludges in C& D landfills was based only upon the leachate analysis used to simulate the movement of lead through the ground water system of the landfill. Sudden intense rain events, or winds above 20 to 25 miles per hour can readily transport lead containing wastes off site by surface water or air currents.

Response: It is true that only ground water impacts were evaluated, however, given EPA's knowledge of handling practices ( i. e., paint chips and dust are managed in plastic bags), the Agency saw no need to take into consideration the potential for sheet, surface water wind borne movement of paint chips and dust.

Comment: Requiring daily cover for such lead waste disposal, or special packaging at C& D landfills of the above mentioned wastes would mitigate the potential for adverse impact from surface water or air transport. This type of special handling is characteristic of asbestos disposal requirements. In lieu of those type requirements, lead dust, chips, sludges and contaminated soil should only be allowed to be placed in a municipal solid waste landfill where cover of waste is applied daily.

The volume of LBP waste from lead dust, chips, sludges, and contaminated soil from residential projects is believes to be small in comparison to the volume generated by architectural components from LBP abatement. Georgia EPD has no objection to these architectural components being disposed in a C& D landfill. The minor extra cost to require such waste to be disposed into a municipal solid waste landfill versus and C& D landfill is worth the added environmental protection benefit.

Georgia EPD respectfully submits this comment and requests modification of the proposed Rule in a manner that reflects better environmental controls regarding the disposal of LBP chips, dust, sludges, and contaminated soil in the C& D landfills.

Response: First, EPA notes that today's rule only addresses residential LBP waste, i. e., LBP waste that is excluded from RCRA Subtitle C requirements as " household waste" pursuant to 40 C. F. R. 261.4( b)( 1). LBP waste from sources other than residences that meets the definition of hazardous waste ( e. g. exhibits the toxicity characteristic for lead) must be managed under Subtitle C and is not affected by today's rule. Similarly, LBP waste that does not meet the definition of hazardous waste, whether from residential or non residential sources, has been allowed to be disposed in RCRA Subtitle D facilities, including C& D landfills, and is not the subject of today's rule.

Existing requirements applicable to C& D landfills serve to mitigate potential impacts from surface water or air transport, thus the Agency does not agree that requirements for daily cover or special packaging are needed on the federal level. Surface water transport off site by sudden intense rain events would likely constitute " non point source" pollution under the Clean Water Act. To mitigate potential surface water impacts, C& D landfills must comply with 40 CFR 257.3 3( c), which requires that a facility or practice shall not cause non point source pollution that violates legal requirements implementing an areawide or statewide water quality management plan approved by EPA under the Clean water Act.

To further mitigate potential water or air transport, both EPA and HUD have issued guidance for LBP waste management calling for the containment of LBP wastes in plastic with sealed seams. EPA's " Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home" EPA 747 K 97 001 ( http:// www. epa. gov/ lead/ rrpamph. pdf) and EPA's Model Renovation Training Course EPA 747 B 00 005/ 6 ( http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ lead/ rrmodel. htm) both call for safe and secure disposal. Safe and secure disposal involves placing the LBP wastes in plastic ( 4 6 mil poly) bags that are sealed closed. HUD modified the EPA training course and developed their own training program to serve the specific needs of HUD's constituents. The HUD training course entitled " Addressing Lead Based Paint Hazards During Renovation, Remodeling and Rehabilitation in Federally Owned and Assisted Housing" ( also referred to as " The 3R Course") ( http:// www. hud. gov/ offices/ lead/ training/ 3r/ 3r_ course. cfm) was first delivered to remodeling and rehabilitation workers during HUD's nationwide training initiative in 2001 2002. HUD's training also recommends that safe disposal be accomplished by means of plastic bags. Other HUD brochures and documents also recommend that LBP wastes be placed in plastic bags for safe disposal. These brochures include: " Lead Paint Can Poison: Is Your Family at Risk?" ( http:// www. hud. gov/ offices/ lead/ outreach/ parents. pdf) " Lead Paint Safety A Field Guide for Painting, Home Maintenance, and Renovation Work" ( http:// www. hud. gov/ offices/ lead/ training/ LBPguide. pdf) " Caution: Lead Paint Handle With Care" ( http:// www. hud. gov/ offices/ lead/ outreach/ tradesOKAYTOPRINT. pdf) " Lead Paint Can Poison: Protect Your Family When You Repaint or Remodel". ( http:// www. hud. gov/ offices/ lead/ outreach/ remodel. pdf)

HUD also operates the Lead Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program that has as its primary purpose to reduce the exposure of young children to lead based paint hazards in their homes. The program provides grants to State and local governments for control of lead based paint hazards in privately owned, low income owner occupied and rental housing. These grants are designed to stimulate the development of a trained and certified hazard evaluation and control industry. Evaluation and hazard control work under the program must be conducted by either contractors who are certified and workers who are trained through a State accredited program or by contractors trained in lead safe work practices in the case of interim controls.

As of March 1, 2000. Lead service providers within the United States must be certified ( or licensed) under a EPA authorized lead program. Most of the States have developed and are administering such a program and EPA certifies lead service providers in states that do not have their own programs. As of January 2003, 38 States had EPA approved state lead programs that actively certify ( license) lead service providers.

EPA has also discussed this issue with the National Association of Demolition Contractors ( NADC). NADC re confirmed EPA's belief that paint chips and dust are managed in plastic bags. NADC stated that lead based dust is removed with vacuums with HEPA filters and that the vacuum bags are removed and then tied closed prior to disposal. Paint chips that may fall on a plastic sheet are collected in the plastic sheet which is than placed in a tied plastic bag.

As stated above, the EPA believes that sufficient guidance, literature, training programs, EPA approved state lead programs, and current practices exist so that whether the LBP waste is in the form of chips or dust, it will be managed appropriately ( i. e., containment in plastic bags on site prior to transport to disposal). At the disposal facility, the containment plastic serves to mitigate against potential impacts of water or wind transport.

Additionally, where water or wind transport are problematic, States have demonstrated their ability, even in the absence of a federal requirement, to impose additional requirements for weekly, monthly, or daily cover as necessary to control particulate releases. According to the 1995 report, " Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills," 14 States require on site C& D units to provide daily cover while 19 States require daily cover at off site C& D units. Based on these C& D landfill features and LBP waste handling practices, the Agency does not believe it is necessary to impose on the federal level a requirement for daily cover at C& D landfills receiving LBP waste.

Comment: Georgia EPA has coordinated with its Lead Based Paint Program, Solid Waste Management Program, and Hazardous Waste Generator Compliance Program to a develop new guidance document entitle, " Georgia's Lead Based Paint Waste Disposal Requirements." This new guidance document was published October 31, 2001. Much thought has been put into all of Georgia's environmental rules that govern this issue. Currently, Georgia EPD has all of the necessary statutory and regulatory authority to handle lead based paint waste in the manner described in the attached guidance document.

Response: Because today's final rule is less stringent than existing federal criteria, States are not required to amend permit programs which have been determined to be adequate under 40 CFR part 239. States have the option of amending statutory or regulatory definitions pursuant to today's final rule. If a state chooses to amend its permit program pursuant to today's action, the State would be required to notify the Regional Administrator of the modification as provided by 40 CFR 239.12. Whether a State chooses to incorporate today's rule into its solid waste program has no effect on its existing status with respect to EPA approval, i. e., State revisions will not open previously approved solid waste programs for Federal review.

Comment number: LBPP 00003 Commenter: National Association of Home Builders ( NAHB) Category: Trade Association Comment: NAHB supports the proposed rule and direct final rule that are the subject of these comments because EPA has addressed many of our previous concerns about the economic feasibility of working in pre 1978 buildings.

Several commentors stated that the proposed rule was not sufficiently clear as to the distinctions between those LBP activities that generate waste that would qualify as " residential LBP waste" ( e. g. abatement, rehabilitation, renovation, and remodeling") and those that would not fall within the scope of the rule ( e. g., " demolition and deconstruction"). One of these commentors stated that the regulated community might believe that there is some deconstruction or demolition occurring whenever you perform rehabilitation, renovation, remodeling, and perhaps to some extent abatement. The commentor suggested that the focus of the final rule be on waste type and not waste activity.

Response: The Agency distinguishes demolition and deconstruction activities from abatement, rehabilitation, renovation, and remodeling on the basis that demolition and deconstruction result in elimination of the residential structure, while the residential structure remains where the other listed activities are conducted. The proposed definition of residential lead based paint waste does not include residential demolition and deconstruction activities. The proposed definition was limited to waste that would be required to be managed under Subtitle C of RCRA except that it is subject to the household waste exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1). The Agency has applied two criteria to define the scope of the exclusion: ( 1) the waste must be generated by individuals on the premises of a household, and ( 2) the waste must be composed primarily of materials found in the wastes generated by consumers in their homes ( 49 FR 44978 and 63 FR 70241). In the case of LBP wastes, we have determined that demolition and deconstruction, which result in the elimination of the household structure, are outside the scope of the household waste exclusion and therefore are not included in the definition of some of " residential LBP waste." Although demolition activities and renovation activities may produce some of the same type of waste, the waste type is not a factor for consideration under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1), and therefore, today's final rule continues to read as proposed. The Agency wants to make it clear that deconstruction and demolition wastes can continue to be placed in construction and demolition waste landfills provided that these types of wastes do not fail the TCLP test ( i. e., are not considered a hazardous waste).

Comment number: LBPP 00004 Commenter: Construction & Demolition Association of OH Category: Trade Association Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed definition of " construction and demolition waste landfill" because the proposed rule would define a C& D waste landfill as one that does not receive " industrial wastes" as defined in 40 CFR section 258.2. The commenter objected because the definition as proposed would preclude a C& D landfill that receives industrial waste in the form of manufacturer's " off spec," rejected, or damaged construction materials from accepting residential LBP waste. Thus C& D landfills in the state would have to elect to receive residential LPB waste or " off spec," damaged, or rejected construction materials, but not both.

Response: In the proposed definition of a C& D waste landfill, the Agency stated that C& D waste landfills were not eligible to receive " industrial solid wastes as defined in 40 CFR 258.2." The definition of " industrial solid waste" in section 258.2 is based on wastes generated by particular manufacturing or industrial processes. The Agency was concerned about C& D waste landfills receiving wastes generated by manufacturing or industrial processes and, as such, wrote the definition to exclude such wastes. In reality, industrial process wastes are typically managed on site, or in limited cases, sent off site to private/ commercial industrial waste facilities. Industrial process wastes should not be received for disposal at a C& D waste landfill. The commenter was concerned that off spec construction products ( e. g., toilets or shingles) would not be allowed in a C& D waste landfill because of the proposed definition; however, the Agency views " off spec," rejected, or damaged construction materials as virtually identical in nature to the type of waste that is appropriately received at a C& D waste landfill and are not " industrial solid waste" as defined at 40 CFR 258.2. For this reason, EPA believes that industrial waste in the form of manufacturer's " off spec," rejected, or damaged construction materials can be appropriately placed in a C& D landfill. The Agency expects that States would exercise judgement in what is considered industrial wastes and as such, does not intend to change the proposed definition of construction and demolition waste landfill because of this comment.

Comment number: LBPP 00005 Commenter: Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning Category: Environmental Coalition Comment: One commenter was concerned that the proposed definition of residential LBP waste could create confusion about the scope of activities that are considered " lead based paint activities" under the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA). The residential LBP definition states that the LBP activities include abatement, rehabilitation, renovation, and remodeling. Regulations promulgated under TSCA define " lead based paint activities" to mean lead inspection, risk assessment and abatement in the case of target ( most pre 1978) housing ( see 40 CFR 745.223). Renovation, remodeling, and rehabilitation are not considered lead based paint activities under Title X. The commenter was concerned that the Agency was trying to change the scope of the TSCA regulation under the proposed RCRA regulation. The commenter suggested that the term lead based paint activities be deleted and replaced with the phrase " activities that disturb leadbased paint."

Response: The Agency did not intend or propose to change the scope of the TSCA regulation in the October 2001 proposal. However, to eliminate any potential confusion, the Agency has decided to change the definition of residential LBP wastes to eliminate the words " lead based paint activities." A new definition of residential LBP wastes is included in today's final rule that does not use the term " lead based paint activities." This definition is as follows: " Residential lead based waste means waste containing lead based paint, which is generated as a result of activities such as abatement, rehabilitation, renovation and remodeling in homes and other residences. The term residential lead based paint waste includes, but is not limited to, lead based paint debris, chips, dust, and sludges."

Comment number: LBPP 00006 Commenter: National Association of Demolition Contractors Category: Trade Association Comment: Two commenters stated that lead based paint architectural debris generated from all structures, commercial and industrial as well as residential, can safely be disposed of in C& D landfills and Subtitle D facilities. The commenter disagreed with the Agency's statement in the preamble that demolition and deconstruction waste was not similar to household waste. The commenter believe that LBP material handled by the demolition industry in commercial and industrial structures is no more dangerous to public health and the environment than when LBP appears in a residential structure.

Response: The Agency wishes to clarify that today's final rule is an outgrowth of the July 21, 2000 Memorandum stating that waste generated as a result of LBP activities in homes and other residences falls within the exclusion for " household waste" in 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1). ( See 66 FR 53569.) The scope of this rulemaking concerns only the residential LBP wastes and not LBP wastes from commercial and industrial structures because LBP waste from commercial and industrial does not fall within the exclusion for " household waste" in 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1) or the definition of " household waste" in 40 CFR 258.2. Thus, residential LBP waste that would otherwise be hazardous waste subject to the hazardous waste management requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA can be managed under Subtitle D of RCRA. The purpose of this rulemaking is to expand Subtitle D disposal options for this particular household waste, which, without today's rule could only be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills pursuant to 40 CFR 258. The July 31, 2000 Memorandum did not affect the regulatory status of nonresidential LBP waste, such as that generated during the abatement or renovation and remodeling of a commercial building. " Household waste" is defined as " any material ( including garbage, trash and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households ( including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds and day use recreation areas)." The Agency recognizes that not all LBP waste, whether from residential, commercial, or industrial sources, is " hazardous waste" which must be managed under RCRA Subtitle C. Any LBP waste that is not hazardous waste can be safely disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill, including a C& D waste landfill.

Comment number: LBPP 00007 Commenter: ASTSWMO Category: Trade Association Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of a C& D landfill as currently proposed could be interpreted to mean that conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste can be accepted in a 40 CFR part 257 Subpart A facility. The commenter suggested a wording change to eliminate this possible misinterpretation.

Response: EPA does not intend that a C& D landfill be allowed to receive conditionally exempt small quantity generator wastes if the C& D landfill meets the requirement of 40 CFR part 257 Subpart A, but does not meet the requirements of part 257, Subpart B. Therefore, the Agency has changed the definition of C& D waste landfill to eliminate any potential confusion. The definition has been changed to clarify that conditionally exempt small quantity generator wastes can only be disposed of in a C& D landfill that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 257, Subpart B. Commenter LBPP 00007 also stated that it is important that EPA be explicit that States are not required to amend their programs to incorporate today's rule, however, the commenter also suggested language to assure States that their prior approved programs will not be reopened regardless of whether they adopt today's rule or not. EPA agrees with the comment and has revised the language in Section V. of today's preamble to provide clarity.

Comment number: LBPP 00008 Commenter: Battery council International Category: Trade Association Comment: One commenter stated that EPA had missed a golden opportunity to provide a similar opportunity for disposal of lead contaminated soils and requested that EPA move expeditiously to craft a rule to allow lead contaminated soils to be disposed of in C& D and municipal solid waste landfills. The commenter claimed that the disposal of lead contaminated soils in C& D landfills and municipal solid waste landfills is more environmentally safer than the disposal of LBP debris. The commenter argued that the cost of managing these soils that fail the TCLP under RCRA hazardous waste requirements discourages soil lead abatement from residences.

Response: Today's rulemaking is limited to providing the C& D landfill disposal option for residential LBP waste addressed in the July 31, 2000 Memorandum. Lead contaminated soils were not included in the July 31, 2000 Memorandum, thus EPA is not addressing disposal of leadcontaminated soils at this time.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66781-66783]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27193]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0001; FRL-9367-5]

Notice of Filing of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for
Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)

number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in
the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person, with telephone
number and email address, is listed at the end of each pesticide
petition summary. You may also reach each contact person by mail at
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P) or
Registration Division (RD) (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of
the pesticide petition summary of interest.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
(21 U.S.C. 346a), requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 and part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2);
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to
evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may
be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide
petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance

    1. PP 2E8064. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0635) Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues
of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide, in or on grain, cereal, group 15, except rice at 6.0 parts
per million (ppm); grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 at
30.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 1.4 ppm; and fruit, pome, group
11-10 at 1.2

ppm. Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry--(LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. Contact: Sidney Jackson, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 2E8065. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0775) BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, requests to
establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide
for the combined residues of saflufenacil (2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-
methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-
[[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide) and its metabolites N-
[2-chloro-5-(2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-1(2H)-
pyrimidinyl)-4-fluorobenzoyl]-N'-isopropylsulfamide and N-[4-chloro-2-
fluoro-5-({[(isopropylamino)sulfonyl]amino carbonyl)phenyl]urea,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of saflufenacil, in or on
sugarcane, cane at 0.03 ppm; sugarcane, molasses at 0.075 ppm; and
sugarcane, refined sugar at 0.045 ppm . Adequate enforcement
methodology (LC/MS/MS methods D0603/02 (plants) and L0073/01
(livestock)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. Contact:
Bethany Benbow, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 2E8072. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0716) IR-4, 500 College Rd. East,
Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide fenpyroximate, (E)-1,1-
dimethylethyl 4-[[[[(1,3-dimethyl-5-phenoxy-1H-pyrazol-4-
yl)methylene]amino]oxy] methyl]benzoate and its Z-isomer, (Z)-1,1-
dimethylethyl 4-[[[[(1,3-dimethyl-5- phenoxy-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methylene]
amino]oxy]methyl]benzoate in or on fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 2.0
ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-
07F at 1.0 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.1
ppm. An enforcement method has been developed which involves extraction
of fenpyroximate from crops with ethyl acetate in the presence of
anhydrous sodium sulfate, dilution with methanol, and then analysis by
high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using tandem mass
spectrometric detection (HPLC/MS/MS). This is a new enforcement method.
Contact: Sidney Jackson, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 2E8083. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0791) IR-4, 500 College Rd. East,
Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide linuron, (3-(3,4-
dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea) and its metabolites convertible
to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron, in or on; cilantro,
dried leaves at 27 ppm; cilantro, fresh leaves at 3 ppm; dillweed,
dried leaves at 7.1 ppm; dillweed, fresh leaves at 1.5 ppm; dill oil at
4.8 ppm; dill seed at 0.3 ppm; horseradish at 0.050 ppm; parsley, dried
leaves at 8.3 ppm; parsley leaves at 3 ppm; and pea, dry, seed at 0.08
ppm. Adequate enforcement methods (gas chromatography/mass selective
detection (GC/MSD)) are available for the determination of linuron in
plant and animal commodities. A second method involves using reversed
phase HPLC with MS/MS detection. Contact: Laura Nollen, RD, (703) 305-
7390, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amended Tolerance

    1. PP 2E8064. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0635) IR-4, 500 College Rd. East,
Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to concurrently delete the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.628 for residues of the insecticide
chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide, in or on mayhaw; corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain;
corn, field, milled byproducts; corn, field, stover; corn, pop, forage;
corn, pop, grain; corn, pop, stover; corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet,
kernel plus cobs with husk removed; corn, sweet, stover; fruit, citrus,
group 10; and fruit, pome, group 11 upon approval of the tolerances
listed under ``New Tolerance'' for PP 2E8064. Contact: Sidney Jackson,
RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 2E8083. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0791) IR-4, 500 College Rd. East,
Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to delete the regional
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.184(c) for residues of the herbicide linuron,
(3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea) and its metabolites
convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron, in or on
parsley, leaves at 0.25 ppm upon approval of the tolerances listed
under ``New Tolerance'' for PP 2E8083. Contact: Laura Nollen, RD, (703)
305-7390, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
New Tolerance Exemption

    PP 2E8059. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0795) Pioneer Hi-Bred International,
Inc. (DuPont Pioneer), 7100 NW 62nd Avenue, P.O. Box 1000, Johnston, IA
50131, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the Glycine max herbicide-resistant
acetolactate synthase (GM-HRA) enzyme when used as an inert ingredient
as part of a plant-incorporated (PIP) in or on the food and feed
commodities of soybean. The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without
numerical limitation is requested for GM-HRA enzyme as expressed in
soybean. Contact: Susanne Cerrelli, BBPD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 26, 2012.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-27193 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18756-18758]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0360; Product Identifier 2018-NM-009-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and
Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-
600 series airplanes). This proposed AD was prompted by a determination
that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 14, 2018.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0360; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0360;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-009-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0205, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300-600 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for the Airbus A300-600
aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and
published in the Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) documents. The Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items
are specified in the A300-600 ALS Part 2. These instructions have
been identified as mandatory for continuing airworthiness.

    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition [i.e., to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, or
corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane].
    EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2016-0218 [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2018-01-07, Amendment 39-19148 (83 FR 2042, January 16, 2018)
(``AD 2018-01-07'')] to require compliance with the maintenance
requirements and associated airworthiness limitations defined in
Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 2 Revision 01, Variation 1.1 and Variation
1.2.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations were approved
by the EASA. Consequently, Airbus published Revision 02 of the A300-
600 ALS Part 2, compiling all ALS Part 2 changes approved since
previous Revision 01.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0218, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A300-600 ALS Part
2 Revision 02.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0360.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2018-01-07

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2018-01-07. Rather, we have
determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address
the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the
maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the new maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the
proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2018-01-
07.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS), Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-
ALI),'' Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017. This service information
describes airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT ALIs. 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This proposed AD requires 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 (j)(1) of this proposed AD.
The request should include a description of changes to the required
actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected
structure.

Difference Between the MCAI and This Proposed AD

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS
inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance
with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does
not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes
are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to
perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We
consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions
necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this
proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0360; Product Identifier 2018-NM-009-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 14, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2018-01-07, Amendment 39-19148 (83 FR 2042,
January 16, 2018) (``AD 2018-01-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-
622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F
airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/
maintenance checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking,
damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS), Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation
Items (DT-ALI),'' Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017. The initial
compliance times for doing the tasks are at the applicable times
specified in Airbus A300-600 ALS, Part 2, ``Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),'' Revision 02, dated August
28, 2017, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the 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 (j)(1) of
this AD.

(i) Terminating Actions for AD 2018-01-07

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2018-01-07.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) AD 2017-0205, dated October 12, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0360.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 20, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-09005 Filed 4-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P