[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71543]
[DOCID:fr29no05-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1604-DR]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1604-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective November 16, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Acting Director, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order
12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the
Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
    This action terminates my appointment of Vice Admiral Thad Allen of
the United States Coast Guard as Federal Coordinating Officer for this
disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E5-6648 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19950-19953]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07994]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71880; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the End of Trading on CBSX

April 4, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the '' Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that, on April 1, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 51.2 to permit CBOE to end trading on
the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX'') as of the close of business on
April 30, 2014 (the ``Closing Date''). The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    CBSX, of which CBOE is a partial owner, is regulated as a stock
trading facility of the Exchange under Section 3(a)(2) of the Exchange
Act.\3\ Section 9.15 of the Third Amended and Restated Operating
Agreement of CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC, dated as of December 30, 2011
between CBOE and the other owners (``Non-CBOE Owners'') of CBSX
(``Operating Agreement''), requires the prior affirmative vote of
CBOE,\4\ as well as the affirmative vote by each of the CBSX Board and
a Super Majority of the Owners of CBSX,\5\ prior to CBSX: (i)
Materially changing CBSX's business model; or (ii) changing the status
of or registration of CBSX as a facility of CBOE. Each of CBOE, the
Board, and a Super Majority of Owners has affirmatively approved the
ending of CBSX trading operations and ceasing to operate CBSX as a
facility of the Exchange. This rule filing is not proposing any change
to the ownership structure of CBSX. The proposed rule change is
intended to further the Exchange's strategic goal to focus its
resources on other business opportunities while fulfilling its
regulatory obligations under the Exchange Act. CBSX's Trading Permit

Holders (``TPHs'') will continue to be able to execute transactions in
stocks on other stock-trading venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2007, the Commission approved the establishment of CBSX
as a facility of the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 55389 (March 2, 2007), 72 FR 10575 (March 8, 2007).
    \4\ CBOE's prior affirmative vote is required so that CBOE will
have the opportunity to determine, in advance of action taken by the
CBSX Board of Directors (``Board'') or the Non-CBOE Owners, whether
a proposed action, transaction, or aspect of an action or
transaction requiring a Super Majority of the Owners (as defined
below) would interfere with the performance of CBOE's regulatory
functions, its responsibilities under the Exchange Act or as
specifically required by the SEC (``Regulatory Requirements'').
    \5\ Section 2.1(a)(26) of the Operating Agreement generally
defines ``Super Majority of the Owners'' to mean, subject to the
prior affirmative vote of CBOE as to its Regulatory Requirements,
the affirmative vote of both: (i) All of the Owners of the Series A
voting shares at the time (currently CBOE), and (ii) Owners of
Series B voting shares representing at least a 20% interest in CBSX.
While not material to a Super Majority, the Exchange notes that CBSX
also has Series C non-voting restricted shares for Management
Owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within seven days of filing the proposed rule change, the Exchange
will inform all CBSX TPHs by Regulatory Circular that CBSX will end
trading operations as of the close of business on the Closing Date. The
Regulatory Circular will also inform all TPHs that the Exchange will
terminate the TPH status of any remaining CBSX TPHs on August 7,
2014,\6\ although CBSX TPHs may voluntarily terminate their TPH status
prior to that date.\7\ Once the proposed rule change is operative, CBSX
will no longer accept new TPH applications or further consider any
pending TPH applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All CBSX TPHs are required to become members of a national
securities association (i.e., the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (FINRA)) on or before August 7, 2014. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71513 (February 7, 2014), 79 FR 8771
(February 13, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-100) (order approving proposed
rule change relating to CBSX TPH eligibility).
    \7\ As of April 1, 2014, there are seven CBSX TPHs that are not
members of another SRO (as defined below) (``CBSX-only TPHs''). None
of the CBSX-only TPHs effect trades, nor have they effected trades
in recent months, on CBSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE will continue to act as designated examining authority
(``DEA'') for each CBSX TPH, for which CBOE is DEA, until the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') selects another
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') to perform that function or
until August 7, 2014, whichever occurs first.\8\ Moreover, all CBOE
rules applicable to CBSX (``CBSX Rules'') \9\ will remain in effect
after the Closing Date, so that CBOE will retain disciplinary
jurisdiction over all CBSX TPHs and persons associated with CBSX TPHs
with respect to all matters that occurred on or before the Closing
Date, pursuant to CBOE Rules 17.1 and 50.2.\10\ CBOE Rule 17.1
generally provides that a TPH or a person associated with a TPH shall
continue to be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange
following such person's termination as a TPH or person associated with
a TPH with respect to matters that occurred prior to such termination
or with respect to the failure to honor an arbitration award pursuant
to Chapter XVIII of CBOE Rules; provided that written notice of the
commencement of an inquiry into such matter is given by the Exchange to
such former TPH or former person associated with a TPH within one year
of termination of TPH or person associated with a TPH status. Such
notice requirement does not apply to a TPH or person associated with a
TPH who at any time after a termination subjects himself to the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange by becoming a TPH or person
associated with a TPH. CBOE Rule 50.2 (and CBSX Appendix A)
incorporates by reference the application of CBOE Rule 17.1 to CBSX
TPHs and persons associated with CBSX TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange also represents that it will move to amend or
cancel its participation in any existing Exchange Act Rule 17d-2
Plans for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities regarding CBSX
as appropriate in connection with the conclusion of all open matters
relating to the Exchange's regulation of CBSX.
    \9\ See CBOE Rules Chapter L-LIV (including Appendix A).
    \10\ Because all CBSX Rules will remain in effect after the
close of business on the Closing Date, CBOE Rule 50.6, which limits
the liability of CBSX under the same terms and conditions as CBOE
Rules 2.24, 6.7 and 6.7A limits the liability of CBOE, will also
remain in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBSX, CBOE and each of the Non-CBOE Owners will each continue to be
required to maintain books and records as required under the Operating
Agreement.\11\ Also, pursuant to Section 5.7 of the Operating
Agreement, CBSX, and to the extent that it relates to CBSX, each Owner,
agrees to comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and
regulations thereunder; to cooperate with the Commission and CBOE
pursuant to their regulatory authority and the provisions of the
Operating Agreement; and to engage in conduct that fosters and does not
interfere with the CBSX's and CBOE's ability to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Section 6.15(a) of the Operating Agreement states that CBOE
and each of the Non-CBOE Owners acknowledge that to the extent the
following are related to the CBSX trading platform for securities
other than options, the books, records, premises, officers,
directors, agents and employees of each of the Non-CBOE Owners shall
be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors,
agents, and employees of CBOE for the purpose of and subject to
oversight pursuant to the Exchange Act. Section 6.15(b) provides
that the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and
employees of CBSX, to the extent related to its activities as a
stock trading facility of CBOE, shall be deemed to be the books,
records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of
CBOE for the purpose of and subject to oversight pursuant to the
Exchange Act. Section 6.15(c) provides that CBSX and its Owners and
their respective officers, directors, agents, and employees
irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts,
the Commission, and CBOE for the purposes of any suit, action or
proceeding pursuant to U.S. federal securities laws or the rules or
regulations thereunder, commenced or initiated by the SEC arising
out of, or relating to, CBSX in its capacity as a stock trading
facility of CBOE (and shall be deemed to agree that CBSX may serve
as the U.S. agent for purposes of service of process in such suit,
action or proceeding), and waive, and agree not to assert by way of
motion, as a defense or otherwise in any such suit, action or
proceeding, any claims that they are not personally subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission, that the suit, action or proceeding
is an inconvenient forum or that the venue of the suit, action or
proceeding is improper, or that the subject matter thereof may not
be enforced in or by such courts or agency. Section 6.15(c) further
provides that for so long as CBSX is a facility of CBOE and to the
extent related to CBSX's activities as a stock trading facility, the
provisions of paragraph (c) shall not apply to CBOE and its
respective officers, directors, agents and employees. Finally,
Section 6.15(d) provides that, with respect to Section 6.15, CBSX
and each of its Owners shall take such action as is necessary,
unless otherwise provided for by law, written statement of policy,
individual contract or otherwise, to ensure that their officers,
directors, agents, and employees consent in writing to the
applicability of this provision with respect to CBSX-related
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it will retain its status as SRO to
the CBSX facility under Section 1.7 of the Operating Agreement for as
long as CBSX is a facility under the Exchange Act. The Exchange further
represents that there will be adequate funding to carry out regulatory
obligations related to CBSX until it ceases to be a facility of CBOE.
Lastly, under the proposed rule change, CBOE will not be able to begin
trading in securities other than options without first filing a
proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under
the Exchange Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to
the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Exchange Act.\13\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements
that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with

the Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not
be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change will allow CBOE to focus
its resources on business opportunities other than stock trading on
CBSX and to fulfill its regulatory obligations under the Exchange Act.
Current CBSX TPHs will continue to be able to send stock trades to
other stock trading venues, which include other national securities
exchanges, alternative trading systems, and the over-the-counter market
generally. Under the proposal, in addition to this filing, TPHs will
receive prior written notice by Regulatory Circular of CBSX's intention
to cease trading operations so that the TPHs will have time to route
their future stock transactions to other markets.\16\ Moreover, all
CBSX TPHs will receive prior notice that CBOE will terminate their TPH
status in CBSX as of August 7, 2014, unless the TPH voluntarily
terminates its TPH status prior to such date.\17\ CBOE will remain DEA
of each CBSX TPH for which it currently performs that function until
the Commission selects another SRO to perform that function or until
August 7, 2014, whichever comes first. The proposed rule change is
therefore consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act, that rules of an exchange be designed to facilitate
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that CBSX has already made CBSX TPHs
aware of its intention to shut down via an Information Circular
issued in February 2014. See Information Circular IC14-011.
    \17\ See note 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes further that the proposed rule change
promotes the protection of investors and the public interest, in that
it is intended to permit the CBOE to devote its resources more fully to
other business opportunities, while fulfilling its regulatory
obligations under the Exchange Act. Moreover, because all CBSX Rules
will remain in effect after the close of business on the Closing Date,
CBOE will retain disciplinary jurisdiction over all CBSX TPHs and
persons associated with CBSX TPHs with respect to all matters that
occurred through the Closing Date, pursuant to CBOE Rules 17.1 and
50.2. CBSX, CBOE and each of the Non-CBOE Owners will also each
continue to be required to maintain books and records as required under
the Operating Agreement. The Exchange therefore also believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange
Act,\18\ which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the
capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and
to enforce compliance by the Exchange's TPHs and persons associated
with its TPHs with the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing any change to the ownership structure
of CBSX via this rule filing, nor to CBOE's obligations to supervise
trading on CBSX or to supervise CBSX TPHs in general, as long as they
remain CBSX TPHs. The proposal therefore protects and maintains the
integrity of the self-regulatory function of CBOE with respect to CBSX
as a facility of CBOE.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The closing of the
CBSX stock trading facility as of the close of business on the Closing
Date will result in one fewer stock trading facilities. However, there
are numerous stock exchanges and trading platforms on which market
participants may trade equities. CBSX currently has less than 0.1% of
market share among national stock exchanges. In light of the low
trading volume on CBSX and the ability of CBSX TPHs to trade equity
securities on a large number of other trading venues, CBOE does not
believe that ceasing trading on CBSX will unduly burden competition in
equities trading.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
\19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ thereunder.\21\ At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-036. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-036 and should be submitted on or before May
1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07994 Filed 4-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10752-10754]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0141; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01052-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100
& 440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an
oxygen-fed ground fire event potentially caused by electrical arcing
from a faulty surround light wire on the third crew member's (observer)
oxygen mask. This proposed AD would require an inspection for
discrepancies of the observer's oxygen mask stowage box and storage
compartment, oxygen hose connections and routing, and the associated
electrical harness, and corrective actions if necessary; and modifying
the oxygen mask flexible lamp harness, mounting plate, and compartment
panel, including rerouting the electrical harness and applying
protective sealant. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact MHI RJ
Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N 1E1
Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free
telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-8500; fax
+1-514-855-8501; email [email protected]; internet https://mhirj.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0141; or in person at
Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Kim, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0141; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-01052-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

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

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-32, dated September
17, 2021 (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100
& 440) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0141.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an oxygen-fed ground
fire event potentially caused by electrical arcing from a faulty
surround light wire on the third crew member's (observer) oxygen mask.
An investigation determined that the oxygen supply hose connecting to
the rear of the observer oxygen mask box assembly could be subject to
chafing damage. The FAA is proposing this AD to address possible damage
to the observer oxygen mask supply hoses and a potential for an oxygen-
fed fire in the vicinity of the observer oxygen mask storage
compartment. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    MHI RJ has issued Service Bulletin 601R-35-022, Revision A, dated
October 12, 2021. This service information describes procedures for
doing an general visual inspection for discrepancies (including elbow
fitting clocking (rotation), sealing tape installed in a certain
location, wire damage (e.g., cuts, nicks, kinks, insulation damage)) of
the observer's oxygen mask stowage box and storage compartment, the
observer's mask oxygen hose connections, the hose routing, and the
associated electrical harness, and applicable corrective actions; and
modifying the oxygen mask flexible lamp harness, mounting plate, and
compartment panel, including rerouting the electrical harness and
applying protective sealant. Corrective actions include re-positioning
the elbow fitting, removing sealing tape, and repairing wiring. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 407 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Work-hours x $85 per hour = up to $765.....................            $115             $880         $358,160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier,
Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2022-0141; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01052-
T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by April 11, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet
Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an oxygen-fed ground fire
event potentially caused by electrical arcing from a faulty surround
light wire on the third crew member's (observer) oxygen mask. An
investigation determined that the oxygen supply hose connecting to
the rear of the observer oxygen mask box assembly could be subject
to chafing damage. The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible
damage to the observer oxygen mask supply hoses and a potential for
an oxygen-fed fire in the vicinity of the observer oxygen mask
storage compartment.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 4,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this AD:
    (1) Do a general visual inspection for discrepancies of the
observer's oxygen mask stowage box and storage compartment, the
observer's mask oxygen hose connections, the hose routing, and the
associated electrical harness, in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 601R-35-
022, Revision A, dated October 12, 2021. If any discrepancies are
found, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions,
in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions
of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 601R-35-022, Revision A, dated October
12, 2021.
    (2) Modify the oxygen mask flexible lamp harness, mounting
plate, and compartment panel, including rerouting the electrical
harness and applying protective sealant, in accordance with
paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service
Bulletin 601R-35-022, Revision A, dated October 12, 2021.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using MHI RJ Service Bulletin 601R-35-022, dated
June 1, 2021.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or MHI RJ
Aviation ULC's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2021-32, dated September 17, 2021, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2022-0141.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim,
Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N
1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-
8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email [email protected]; internet https://mhirj.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on February 11, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-03939 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Prevalidation and Validation Study Plan for Minced Testes Assay Gary Timm Presented to EDMVS June 4, 2003 Objectives ° To assess relevance of minced testes assay for detecting compounds that affect steroidogenesis   Measure change in testosterone production relative to controls ° To assess reliability   Measure variability in testosterone measurements of participating laboratories   Measure variability in mean response among participating laboratories Data Interpretation ° Assay will detect interference with key steps in the steroidogenic pathway:

  Decreases in steroidogenic signal transduction   Interference with the transport of cholesterol from the cytoplasm to the mitochondria via StAR   Inhibition of enzymes involved in the conversion of cholesterol to testosterone C27 HO Cholesterol Pregnenolone C21 HO O Dehydroepiandrosterone C19 HO O Androstenedione O O O O Progesterone 17  Hydroxyprogesterone O O OH C21 HO O OH 17  Hydroxypregnenolone P450scc 3 HSD P450c17 P450c17 O HO H Dihydrotestosterone C19 OH HO C 18 Estradiol HO O Estrone TESTOSTERONE OH O C 19 17KSR P450arom P450arom 5  RED Testis Ovary Theca Cells ( Females)

Granulosa Cells Testis and Peripheral Tissues Leydig Cells Intracellular Compartment Corpus Luteum Mitochondria Cytoplasm Data Interpretation ( 2)

° Interference with steroidogenesis will result in a decrease or increase in measured testosterone relative to controls ° Assay is unlikely to detect   Inhibition of aromatase   5  reductase inhibitors Inhibition of these downstream steps would result in an increase in testosterone production Basic Protocol ° Optimization study will determine parameters of protocol ° Replicate Runs   3 with hCG stimulation   3 without hCG stiulation ° Dosing   3 dose levels   1 positive control   Media control ° Sample 3 4 time points Prevalidation Studies ° Purpose:

  To obtain initial information on protocol transferability   Primary test of relevance ° Studies:

  Protocol optimization study   Baseline study   Pilot study   Multichemical study Prevalidation Studies ° Optimization of minced testes protocol has been completed ° Baseline study   Two labs to run optimized protocol   3 runs without hCG   3 runs with hCG challenge   Measure testosterone formation and LDH   No test chemical   3 replicates Prevalidation Studies ( 2)

° Pilot studies   Aminoglutethimide ( positive control)

  Ethane dimethanesulfonate ( Leydig cell toxicant)

  Two labs   Three replicates ° Multichemical studies   9 challenge chemicals   Two labs   Two replicates Selection of Reference Chemicals ° Selected for known mode of action ° Limited by availability   Pharmaceuticals are difficult at best to procure because the require material transfer agreements   Many pharmaceuticals are not available from the manufacturer ° Thus, we will have to duplicate many of the chemicals in validation that were used in prevalidation, if we want to cover modes of action Reference Chemicals X Aromatase Fenarimol X X Leydig cell toxicant EDS X X StAR inhibitor Dimethoate X Inhibits C AMP Bisphenol A + Cont + Cont Aromatase P450scc Aminogluteth imide Val Preval Mode 2 Mode 1 Chemical Reference Chemicals X X Negative chemical Vinclozolin ?

5  reductase MK 434 X Inhibits C AMP Lindane X Aromatase P450scc Ketoconazole X X 3  HSD inhibitor Genistein X P450c17 Flutamide Val Preval Mode 2 Mode 1 Chemical Selection of Laboratories ° Laboratories to be selected by the Contractor by open solicitation ° Laboratories must be:

  Independent   Experienced in:

° In vitro test methods ° Cell and tissue culturing ° Test chemical administration ° Enzyme kinetics and inhibition studies   Knowledge of steroidogenesis   Compliance with GLP Measurements of Reliability 1. Coefficient of variation across studies   Study standard deviation/ mean of studies   Reflects the spread among study means in relation to their average value 2. Ratio of between to within study standard deviation   Standard deviation across studies/ average standard error within studies   Reflects relative contribution to total variation of the variability among study means as compared to the precision within studies 3. Comparison of within lab SD to Average within lab SD   Standard deviation of lab I/ geometric mean within lab SD   Measures the homogeneity of within study variation across laboratories   Can identify poor performing labs Determination of Number of Laboratories ° Sensitivity analysis for each measure of reliability was prepared using literature values. ( Fail, Gray Laskey)

° For Criterion 1 ( CV interval factor):

  95% confidence interval factors were calculated as a function of the number of laboratories and the number of replicate determinations per laboratory.

  A 95% confidence interval on the characteristic of interest is calculated by multiplying the point estimate by the confidence interval factor.

  Confidence interval factor is sensitive to the number of labs and approaches 1 as the number of labs increases, flattens after ~ 8 labs   Criterion 1 is not sensitive to the number of replicate determinations per lab Determination of Number of Laboratories ( 2)

° Criterion 2 ( Lower and Upper confidence interval factor of between: within SD)

  95% confidence interval factors were calculated as a function of the number of laboratories and the number of replicate determinations per laboratory   Lower confidence interval is sensitive to both number of labs and number of replicates   Upper confidence level is sensitive only to the number of labs   Flattens out after ~ 8 labs Determination of Number of Laboratories ( 3)

° Criterion 3 ( Lower confidence factor of withinlaboratory standard deviations to average withinlaboratory standard deviation)

  95% confidence interval factors were calculated as a function of the number of laboratories and the number of replicate determinations per laboratory   Sensitive to number of replicates   Not sensitive to number of labs   Flattens after ~ 8 replicates Determination of Number of Laboratories ( 4)

° Conclusions   Based on available data, 6 10 laboratories are needed to achieve a high confidence indication of assay reliability   We shall select 6 laboratories as the actual variability in these studies should be less than in the literature where different protocols were used   ~ 8 replicates are needed to obtain a high confidence estimate of within laboratory standard deviations.

This information will be generated by the positive and negative controls. Validation ° 6 labs ° Baseline studies   3 runs without hCG   3 runs with hCG challenge   Measure testosterone formation and LDH   No test chemical ° Pilot studies   Aminoglutethimide ( positive control)

  Ethane dimethanesulfonate ( Leydig cell toxicant) Validation ° Coded sample studies   5 chemicals   2 replicates per laboratory   Aminogluthethimide is positive control   Vinclozolin ( AR antagonist) used as negative chemical ° Will modify validation study plan based on results of prevalidation work Reference Chemicals by Mode of Action Fenarimol Aromatase Vinclozolin Vinclozolin Negative MK 434 5  reductase Genestein Genestein 3  HSD Flutamide P450c17 + Cont + Cont Ketoconazole P450scc Dimethoate Dimethoate StAR inhibitor Lindane BPA C AMP inhibitor Validation Prevalidation Mode of Action Data Analysis ° Intra Laboratory Analysis Assess chemically related testosterone inhibition within laboratories ° Inter Laboratory Analysis Assess extent of heterogeneity of chemical inhibition effects across laboratories Data Analysis Strategy ° Large numbers of comparisons can be identified, for both intra and inter laboratory analyses   Baseline studies ° Preval: 2 labs x 3 replicates = 6 ° Validation: 6 labs x 2 replicates = 12   Positive Control ( aminoglutethimide)

° Preval pilot: 2 labs x 3 replicates = 6 ° Validation pilot: 6 labs x 2 replicates = 12 ° Preval high dose: 2 labs x 9 chems x 2 replicates = 36 ° Validation high dose: 6 labs x 5 chems x 2 reps = 60 Data Analysis Strategy ( 2)

° Preval/ val chemicals 2 labs x 4 chems x 2 replicates = 16 6 labs x 4 chems x 2 replicates = 48 ° Preval chemicals: 2 labs x 5 chems x 2 replicates = 20 ° Validation chemicals: 6 labs x 1 chem x 2 replicates = 12 Total of 228 studies ° In validation study carry out each analysis considered a priori to be possibly toxicologically relevant ° Make recommendations in final report concerning which analyses are most informative and so should be included in assay standard practice Intra Laboratory Analysis ° Principal Endpoints   Cumulative Testosterone Concentration   Cumulative LDH Concentration ( 3 doses and 3 4 time points)

° Similar analyses for both endpoints ° Variation in Effects   Across chemicals   Across graded chemical doses Components of Variation ° Rat to rat ° Testis to testis within rat ° Fragment to fragment within testis ° Block of assays performed simultaneously ( e. g. day

today

° Variance components need to be accounted for in the statistical analysis Inter Laboratory Analysis ° Focus on primary and secondary responses from intra laboratory analysis ° Assess extent of heterogeneity of responses across laboratories ° Reference   American Society for Testing and Materials ( 1988). " Standard Practice for Conducting an Inter Laboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method" Measures of Variation Among Laboratories ° Heterogeneity of within laboratory means across laboratories ° Heterogeneity of within laboratory standard deviations across laboratories ° Ratio of laboratory to laboratory standard deviation to average within laboratory standard deviation ° Coefficient of variation across laboratories Reporting ° Each laboratory will report:

  That protocol was followed   Difficulties in executing the studies   Summary of data   Raw data ° Validation Study Report Graphical Summary Displays ° Prepare control charts and associated control limits ° Display intra laboratory statistics side by side across   Chemicals   Graded doses   Laboratories ° Identify outlying laboratories and nature of discrepancies


                        Analysis of Demographic Factors
                         For Populations Living Near
                        Surface Coating Operations of
                      Plastic Parts for Business Machines

                                 Prepared by:

                             SC&A Incorporated

                         1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 450
                            Chapel Hill, NC  27517

                           GSA BPA No. 68HERD21A0003
                         Task Order No. 68HERH22F0003

                                 Prepared for:

                          Air Toxics Assessment Group
                   Health and Environmental Impacts Division
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                                 April 8, 2022
	Disclaimer

            Although the analysis described in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under GSA contract 47QRAA20D002W / BPA 68HERD21A0003 to SC&A Incorporated, it has not been subject to the Agency's review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
                                   Contents

1.	Introduction	1
2.	Census Data	2
3.	Calculation Methods	3
3.1	Race, Ethnicity and Age Categories	3
3.2	Level of Education	4
3.3	Poverty Level	4
3.4	Linguistic Isolation	5
3.5	Defaults	5
4.	Results	6
5.	Uncertainty Discussion	8
Appendix: Analyzed Facilities	9

 Introduction
	This document provides summary results and describes the approach used to evaluate the different socio-economic demographic groups within the population living near facilities engaged in surface coating of plastic parts for business machines in the United States (U.S.). The demographic analysis is for three facilities identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as subject to the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (Industrial Surface Coating) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The current analysis evaluates census blocks surrounding these facilities with census-based demographic data. This analysis presents the demographic composition of the population located within close proximity at 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of these facilities. The following demographic groups were included in this proximity analysis:

 Total population;
 White;
 Minority;
 African American (or Black);
 Native Americans;
 Other races and multiracial;
 Hispanic or Latino;
 Children 17 years of age and under;
 Adults 18 to 64 years of age;
 Adults 65 years of age and over;
 Adults 25 years of age and older without a high school diploma;
 People living below the poverty level; and
 Linguistically isolated people.

	The current analysis used the Proximity Tool to (1) identify all census blocks with centroids located within specified radii of the latitude/longitude location of each facility, and then (2) link each block with census-based demographic data. It should be noted that, if the centroid of a census block is located within the specified radius, the entire population of that census block is counted as within the radius. In addition to facility-specific demographics, the Proximity Tool also computes the demographic composition of the populations within the specified radii for all facilities as a whole (e.g., source category-wide). The source category-wide computation takes into account neighboring facilities with overlapping study areas and ensures populations in common are counted only once in this demographic analysis. Finally, this analysis compares these source category-wide demographics at each specified radius (i.e., 5 km, 50 km) to the demographic composition of the nationwide population.

	The census data used in this analysis is described in Section 2. The algorithms used to compute the population of each demographic category surrounding the facility are presented in Section 3. The summary results of this analysis are presented in Section 4. The Appendix points to a supplemental workbook of spreadsheets containing the detailed facility-specific results.
 Census Data
	The total population within a specified radius around each facility is the sum of the population for every census block within that radius, based on each block's population provided by the 2010 Decennial Census. For the demographic analysis, statistics on total population, race, ethnicity, age, education level, poverty status and linguistic isolation are obtained from the Census' American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year averages for 2015-2019. These data are provided at the block group level. A census block group contains about 28 blocks on average, or about 1,400 people. Table 1 summarizes the census data used in the analysis, showing the source of each dataset and the level of geographic resolution.

    Table 1.  Summary of Census Data used for Different Demographic Groups
Type of population category
Source of data
Level of geographic resolution
Total population (sum of block counts within radius)
2010 Census3 SF1
Census block
Total population (sum of block group counts, used for demographic percentages)
ACS4 Table B03002 (e1)
Census block group

Race/ethnicity categories (percentages):

 White (non-hispanic):
 Minority (non-white + hispanic)
 African American (non-hispanic):
 Native American (non-hispanic):
 Other & Mixed race (non-hispanic):
 Hispanic (all races):
ACS Table B03002, Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race (Tiger table X03):
 e3/e1
 (e1-e3)/e1
 e4/e1
 e5/e1
 (e6+e7+e8+e9)/e1
 e12/e1
Census block group
Age groups
ACS Table B01001, Sex by Age (Tiger table X01)
Census block group
Level of education  -  percentage of adults 25 years and older without a high school diploma
ACS Table B15002, Sex by Educational Attainment (Tiger table X15)
Census block group
Individuals living in households earning below the poverty level (percentage of individuals)
ACS Table C17002, Ratio of Income to Poverty Level (Tiger table X17): (e2+e3)/e1
Census block group
Individuals living in linguistically isolated households (percentage of households)
ACS Table C16002, Household Language by Household (Tiger table X16): (e4+e7+e10+e13)/e1
Census block group

      The statistics for total minorities, age groups, educational attainment, poverty, and linguistic isolation are consistent with the demographic statistics used in EPA's EJSCREEN tool for Environmental Justice analysis. We derive our demographic statistics from the ACS, which is the source of data for EJSCREEN's statistics. For the current analysis, however, we provide the impact on different racial and ethnic groups in more detail, as Table 1 illustrates.
 Calculation Methods
	The Proximity Tool uses the census block and census block group identification codes to link each block to the appropriate ACS block group demographic statistics. This allows us to estimate the number of people in different demographic categories for each census block in a specified radius around each facility. As noted in Section 2, demographic data is available at the census block group level. To estimate more detailed block level demographic percentages for the purposes of this analysis, the demographic characteristics of a given block group  -  that is, the percentage of people in different races/ethnicities, the percentage in different age groups, the percentage without a high school diploma, the percentage that are below the poverty level, and the percentage that are linguistically isolated  -  are presumed to also describe each census block located within that block group.

	For comparison, the nationwide demographic percentages are computed from the Census' ACS 5-year averages for 2015-2019 ("2019 ACS"). The denominator for these percentages uses the total nationwide population, which is likewise computed from the 2019 ACS and determined by summing the total population of all census block groups. We also provide the total population based on the 2010 Decennial Census for comparison, because the census block populations are based on 2010 Decennial Census data, as noted in Section 2.

	Sections 3.1 through 3.4 describe calculation methods for racial, ethnic, age, education status, poverty status, and linguistic isolation demographic categories. Section 3.5 describes the gap-filling approach used when block group statistics are not available for a given block, based on computing default averages for the missing demographic(s) at the tract or county level.
    Race, Ethnicity and Age Categories

	Table B03002 (Hispanic or Latino origin by race) of the ACS data provides race/ethnicity statistics for each census block group nationwide. Table B01001 provides age statistics for the population by ranges (in years) for each census block group nationwide. For each census block in this analysis, the race/ethnicity (White, African American, Native American, Multiracial/Other, and Hispanic or Latino) and age range (0-17, 18-64 and >=65 years) for that block is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(s,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(s,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(s,b/bg) =	number of people in racial/ethnic or age subgroup "s", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(s,bg) =	percentage of people in racial/ethnic or age subgroup "s", in a block group "bg"

The number of people in each racial/ethnic and age category is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
    Level of Education

	Table B15002 (educational attainment) of the ACS provides education attainment statistics for each census block group nationwide. For each census block in this analysis, the number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(nhs,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(nhs,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(nhs,b/bg) =	number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma "nhs", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	number of people 25-years and older in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(nhs,bg) =	percentage of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma "nhs", in a block group "bg"

The number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
3.3	Poverty Level

	Table C17002 (poverty) of the ACS estimates the numbers of individuals within a Census block group who live in households where the household income is below the poverty line, and below various multiples of the poverty line. For this analysis, we calculate the fraction of individuals living in households earning incomes below the poverty level. For each census block in this analysis, the block's household income level is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

	N(hi,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(hi,bg) ∕ 100

where "hi" indicates household income below the poverty level, and:

	N(hi,b/bg) = 	number of people living in households "hi" below the poverty level, in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(hi,bg) =	percentage of people living in households "hi" below the poverty level, among the population for which poverty status is known, in block group "bg"

The number of people living in households earning below the poverty level is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
3.4	Linguistic Isolation

      Linguistic Isolation is defined by in the ACS as "a household in which all members age 14 years and over speak a non-English language and also speak English less than "very well" (have difficulty with English)." Table C16002 (Tiger table X16_language_spoken_at_home) of the ACS provides the number of households in linguistic isolation in each block group. For each census block in this analysis, the number of people living in linguistic isolation is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(li,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(li,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(li,b/bg) =	number of people living in linguistic isolation "li", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(li,bg) =	percentage of linguistically isolated households "li", in block group "bg"

The number of people living in linguistic isolation is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
 	Defaults

      Block and block group designations used in the Census may be modified to accommodate population growth in some regions. As a result, certain blocks which are based on the last Decennial Census, may not map to the block group designations used in the latest 5-year ACS survey. In addition, some statistics may not be reported in the ACS for every block group. Race, ethnicity, and age statistics are generally reported for all block groups. However, poverty, linguistic isolation, and educational attainment statistics are not available for some block groups.

      In these cases, we compute default estimates for the missing demographic statistics based on the average statistics for the tract in which the block is located. If no tract-level data are available, demographic statistics are estimated based on the overall demography of the county in which the unmatched block is located. This gap-filling exercise is performed separately for each type of demographic data. That is, in the case where some categories of data are available (for instance, race, age and ethnicity) and others are not available (educational attainment, poverty, or linguistic isolation) we only compute defaults for the categories of data that are missing.

      The tract level defaults are computed using weighted averages based on all of the other block groups in the tract for which data are available. Defaults are calculated as follows for race, ethnicity, and age subgroups:

		P(s,T) =  { ∑ P(s,bg/T) x N(t,bg) } ∕ {∑ N(t,bg)}
where:

	P(s,T) =	percentage of people in race, ethnicity, or age subgroup "s", in tract "T"
	∑	refers to the summation over all block groups in tract "T" for which data are available
	P(s,bg/T) =	percentage of people in race, ethnicity, or age subgroup "s", in a block group "bg" of tract "T"
	N(t,bg) =	total number of people in block group "bg"

Defaults for educational attainment, poverty, and linguistic isolation are calculated in a similar fashion, except that the population weighting term N is replaced by the population over age 25, the population for which poverty status is known, and the number of households, respectively. County level defaults are also calculated in a similar way, except that data are summed over the county instead of the tract.

      Results
	The proximity results describe the demographics of the population surrounding these facilities engaged in Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines. Table 2 presents the demographic composition of the population located within a close proximity of 5 km and within 50 km of the three facilities as a whole (source category). For context, Table 2 also provides the nationwide percentages of these various demographic groups. The detailed facility-specific results underpinning these source category-wide results are noted in the Appendix.

	The proximity results presented in Table 2 indicate that the population percentage for one demographic group within 5 km of the three facilities is greater than the corresponding nationwide percentage. The demographic percentage for populations residing within 5 km of facility operations is 2 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population less than 18 years old (24% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 22% nationwide). The remaining demographic groups within 5 km of facility operations are less than, or within one percentage point of, the corresponding nationwide percentages.

      In addition, the proximity results presented in Table 2 indicate that the population percentages for certain demographic groups within 50 km of the three facilities are greater than the corresponding nationwide percentages. The demographic percentage for populations residing within 50 km of facility operations is 5 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the African American population (17% within 50 km to the facilities compared to 12% nationwide), and 2 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population 65 years old and older (18% within 50 km to the facilities compared to 16% nationwide). The remaining demographic percentages within 50 km of the facilities are less than, or within one percentage point of, the corresponding nationwide percentages.

Table 2.  Summary of Demographic Assessment for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines: Proximity Statistics

                               Population Basis
                             Demographic Group[1]

                                     Total
                                  Minority[2]
                               African
American
                               Native
American
                             Other and
Multiracial
                             Hispanic
or Latino[3]
                                 Ages 0
to 17
                                Ages 18
to 64
                                Ages 65
and up
                         Over 25 Without a HS Diploma
                            Below the Poverty Level

                            Linguistic Isolation[4]
Nationwide Demographics    (2015-2019 ACS)
                                 328,016,242
                                      40%
                                      12%
                                     0.7%
                                      8%
                                      19%
                                      22%
                                      62%
                                      16%
                                      12%
                                      13%
                                      5%
Nationwide Block Counts
(2010 Decennial Census)[5]
                                  312,459,649

                                 Proximity[6]
                  Population Surrounding the Three Facilities
            Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines
                                     50 km
                                   2,979,558
                                      29%
                                      17%
                                     0.4%
                                      5%
                                      6%
                                      21%
                                      61%
                                      18%
                                      10%
                                      14%
                                      2%
            Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines
                                     5 km
                                    79,323
                                      23%
                                      2%
                                     0.2%
                                      7%
                                      14%
                                      24%
                                      61%
                                      15%
                                      13%
                                      10%
                                      5%
Notes:
[1] The demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey five-year averages, at the block group level, and include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population of each facility and of the entire run group are based on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Populations by demographic group for each facility and for the run group are determined by multiplying each 2010 Decennial block population within the indicated radius by the ACS demographic percentages describing the block group containing each block, and then summing over the appropriate area (facility-specific or run group-wide).
[2] Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
3 To avoid double counting, the "Hispanic or Latino" category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.
[4] The linguistically isolated population is estimated at the block group level by taking the product of the block group population and the fraction of linguistically isolated households in the block group, assuming that the number of individuals per household is the same for linguistically isolated households as for the general population, and summed over all block groups.
[5] The nationwide 2010 Decennial Census population of 312,459,649 is the summation of all Census block populations within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Block level population used by the Proximity Tool will be updated based on the 2020 Decennial Census, once processed and quality-assured for these analyses.
6 The population tally and demographic analysis of the total population surrounding all facilities as a whole takes into account neighboring facilities with overlapping study areas and ensures populations in common are counted only once.

 Uncertainty Discussion

	Our analysis of the distribution of population across various demographic groups is subject to the typical uncertainties associated with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and transcribing census forms), which are generally thought to be small, as well as the additional uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of census block group data down to the census block level.

	The methodology for our demographic analyses applies demographic data from the Census American Community Survey (ACS). While this is our best attempt to provide useful information now, our thinking is continuously advancing. The EPA has developed technical guidance for environmental justice analyses. We present these analyses, with their associated uncertainties, to EPA decision makers and the public as additional analyses to inform Risk and Technology Review decisions.

Appendix: Analyzed Facilities

A workbook of spreadsheets containing the detailed facility-specific results underpinning the source category-wide results are provided in the file entitled "Business Machines Facility-Specific Demographic Results 2022-04-08.xlsx". The dataset covering these facilities at both 5 km and 50 km makes the data more amenable to Excel(R) spreadsheets, than a Word(R) document.


Kentucky Portion of the Ashland Huntington MSA Boyd Greenup Carter The Huntington Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area encompasses three states and six counties. It includes Lawrence County in Ohio, Cabell and Wayne Counties in West Virginia, and Boyd, Greenup, and Carter Counties in Kentucky. In 2001, this MSA was listed as the 128rd largest MSA within the United States. Lawrence Cnty, Ohio Cabell, WV Wayne, WV 2 BOYD COUNTY, KENTUCKY Boyd County is part of the Huntington Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) and is located to the south southeast of Greenup County, Kentucky, and to the east northeast of Carter County, Kentucky.

Geography/ Topography Boyd County has a land area of 160 square miles and is located on the banks of the Ohio River in the Appalachian foothills of the tri state area of Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia. Although part of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Region, the topography of this area is less rugged than that of other eastern Kentucky counties.

Meteorological Information Wind speed/ wind direction information shows that the majority of the time for the period 1988   1992, the wind in the Ashland area came from the west/ southwest and typically from 4 6 knots. ( See figure 1 A) The mean high temperature for July for the area from 1961 through 1990 was 84 ° F, the mean low was 65 ° F. The mean precipitation for the same period was 4.7 inches.

Planning The authority for air quality planning in the Ashland area resides with the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. Transportation planning for Boyd County is performed by FIVCO in conjunction with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

Air Monitoring For the 2000   2002 monitoring period, the ozone monitor ( 21 019 0017) in Ashland, Boyd County, shows an 8 hour design value of .088 parts per million ( ppm) which would be classified as a county in violation of the standard. ( See table 1 A)

Population Based on projections to 2001 from the 2000 census data, there are 49,727 persons living in Boyd County. ( See table 1 C) That represents approximately 311 persons per square mile. The population of Boyd County is approximately 3 26% rural with the remaining 74% living in incorporated areas. The largest cities in Boyd County are Ashland and Catlettsburg. ( See table 1 C)

Boyd County's population from 1990 through 2000 decreased by approximately 3% ( 51,150 to 49,752). The population is further expected to decrease by an additional 3% between 2000 and 2010. ( See table 1 B)

Based on 2001 population data for the entire Huntington Ashland MSA, Boyd County represents approximately 16% of the total 2001 population in the MSA and 44% of the Kentucky portion of the MSA. ( See table 1 C)

Air Emissions Point source VOC emissions from Boyd County were estimated at 18.61 tons per summer day ( tpsd) in 2001 which represents approximately 99% of the 18.87 tpsd of overall VOC point source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. Point source NOx emissions from Boyd County were estimated at 20.06 tpsd in 2001 which represents approximately 90% of the 22.21 tpsd of overall NOx point source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. ( See table 1 D)

2001 Point Source Emissions For VOC and NOx control, point sources located within Boyd County are subject to PSD requirements, CTG RACT requirements, Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) requirements for sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants, and New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS). Any controls imposed as a result of previous nonattainment designations are required to remain in Boyd County.

Onroad mobile source VOC emissions from Boyd County were estimated at 3.19 tpsd in 2001 which represents approximately 37% of the 8.66 tpsd of overall VOC Emissions tons per summer day Carter 0% Greenup 1%

Boyd 99% NOx Emissions tons per summer day Carter 0% Greenup 10%

Boyd 90% 4 VOC onroad mobile source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. Onroad mobile source NOx emissions from Boyd County were estimated at 4.02 tpsd in 2001 which represents approximately 39% of the 10.20 tpsd of overall NOx onroad mobile source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. ( See table 1 D)

2001 Onroad Mobile Source Emissions Commuting traffic from other counties into Boyd County is high, and the commuting traffic from Boyd County into other counties is minimal.

Commuting Classifications Not Significant 0 10% Minimal 11 30% High 31 50% Significant 51% or more VOC Emissions tons per summer day Greenup 24% Boyd 37%

Carter 39% NOx Emissions tons per summer day Greenup 25% Boyd 39%

Carter 36% 5 2001 VOC Contribution ( tons per summer day)

2001 NOx Contribution ( tons per summer day) 18.61 3.19 0.06 3.35 0.2 2.12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Boyd Carter Greenup Mobile Point 20.06 4.02 0 3.67 2.15 2.51 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Boyd Carter Greenup Mobile Point 6 Conclusion and Recommendation The monitoring and emissions data presented indicate that Boyd County, Kentucky, does contribute a significant amount of ozone forming emissions in the area. In 1998 there was a violation of the 1 hour standard in the West Virginia portion of the area, which required Kentucky and West Virginia to implement contingency measures. While overall VOC emission reductions have occurred since 1990, this county has recorded a violation of the 8 hour ozone standard based on 2000  2002 monitoring data.

Therefore, Boyd County should be designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone standard. 7 CARTER COUNTY, KENTUCKY Carter County is part of the Huntington Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) and is located to the south southwest of Greenup County, Kentucky, and to the west of Boyd County, Kentucky.

Geography/ Topography Carter County has a land area of 410 square miles and is located in the Appalachian foothills of the tri state area of Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia. Although part of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Region, the topography of this area is less rugged than that of other eastern Kentucky counties.

Meteorological Information Wind speed/ wind direction information shows that the majority of the time for the period 1988   1992, the wind in the Ashland area came from the west/ southwest and typically from 4 6 knots. ( See figure 1 A) The mean high temperature for July for the area from 1961 through 1990 was 84 ° F, the mean low was 65 ° F. The mean precipitation for the same period was 4.7 inches.

Planning The authority for air quality planning in the Ashland area resides with the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. Transportation planning for Carter County is by FIVCO in conjunction with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

Air Monitoring For the 2000   2002 monitoring period, the ozone monitor ( 21 043 0500) in Grayson Lake, Carter County, shows an 8 hour design value of .080 parts per million ( ppm) which would be classified as a county in attainment of the standard. ( See table 1 A) 8 Population Based on projections to 2001 from 2000 census data, there are approximately 27,024 persons living in Carter County. That represents approximately 66 persons per square mile. The population of Carter County is approximately 82% rural with the remaining 18% living in incorporated areas. The largest cities in Carter County are Grayson and Olive Hill.

Carter County's population from 1990 through 2000 increased by approximately 11% ( 24,340 to 26,889). The population is further expected to increase by an additional 9% between 2000 and 2010. ( See table 1 B)

Based on 2001 population data for the entire Huntington Ashland MSA, Carter County represents approximately 9% of the total 2001 population in the MSA and 24% of the Kentucky portion of the MSA. ( See table 1 C)

Air Emissions Point source VOC emissions from Carter County were estimated at 0.06 tpsd 2001 which represents less than 1% of the 18.87 tpsd of overall VOC point source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. Point source NOx emissions from Carter County were estimated at 0.00 tpsd in 2001 which represents 0% of the 22.21 tpsd of overall NOx point source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. ( See table 1 D)

2001 Point Source Emissions Point sources located within Carter County are subject to PSD requirements, CTG RACT requirements, Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) requirements for sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants, and New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS). VOC Emissions tons per summer day Carter 0% Greenup 1%

Boyd 99% NOx Emissions tons per summer day Carter 0% Greenup 10%

Boyd 90% 9 Onroad mobile source VOC emissions from Carter County were estimated at 3.35 tpsd in 2001 which represents approximately 39% of the 8.66 tpsd of overall VOC onroad mobile source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. Onroad mobile source NOx emissions from Carter County were estimated at 3.67 tpsd in 2001 which represents approximately 36% of the 10.20 tpsd of overall NOx onroad mobile source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. ( See table 1 D)

2001 Onroad Mobile Source Emissions Commuting traffic from other counties into Carter County is minimal, and the commuting traffic from Carter County into other counties is high.

Commuting Classifications Not Significant 0 10% Minimal 11 30% High 31 50% Significant 51% or more VOC Emissions tons per summer day Greenup 24% Boyd 37%

Carter 39% NOx Emissions tons per summer day Greenup 25% Boyd 39%

Carter 36% 10 20.06 4.02 0 3.67 2.15 2.51 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Boyd Carter Greenup Mobile Point 18.61 3.19 0.06 3.35 0.2 2.12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Boyd Carter Greenup Mobile Point 2001 VOC Contribution ( tons per summer day)

2001 NOx Contribution ( tons per summer day) 11 Conclusion and Recommendation The Carter County monitor was sited as the upwind, or background, monitor for the Ashland Huntington area. Regional emission reductions in both VOC and NOx have occurred during the last several years. Monitoring and emissions data and other documentation presented indicate that Carter County, Kentucky, does not contribute significantly to violations of the 8 hour standard in the region and therefore should be designated attainment for the 8 hour ozone standard. 12 Greenup County, Kentucky Greenup County is part of the Huntington Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) and is located to the north northwest of Boyd County, north northeast of Carter County, Kentucky.

Geography/ Topography Greenup County has a land area of 346 square miles and is located in the Appalachian foothills of the tri state area of Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia. Although part of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Region, the topography of this area is less rugged than that of other eastern Kentucky counties. Greenup County is bordered by the Ohio River on its eastern border.

Meteorological Information Wind speed/ wind direction information shows that the majority of the time for the period 1988   1992, the wind in the Ashland Huntington area came from the west/ southwest and typically from 4 6 knots. ( See figure 1 A) The mean high temperature for July for the area from 1961 through 1990 was 84 ° F, the mean low was 65 ° F. The mean precipitation for the same period was 4.7 inches.

Planning The authority for air quality planning in Ashland area resides with the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. Transportation planning for Greenup County is performed by FIVCO in conjunction with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

Air Monitoring For the 2000  2002 monitoring period, the ozone monitor ( 21 089 0007) in Worthington, Greenup County, shows an 8 hour design value of .083 parts per million ( ppm). This average would classify Greenup County as a county meeting the 8 hour standard. ( See table 1 A)

Population Based on projections to 2001 from the 2000 census data, there are approximately 36,823 persons living in Greenup County. That represents approximately 106 persons per square mile. The population of Greenup County 13 is approximately 39% rural with the remaining 61% living in incorporated areas. There are eight incorporated cities in Greenup County with the largest being Flatwoods, Raceland, Russell, and Worthington.

Greenup County's population from 1990 through 2000 increased by approximately 0.4% ( 36,742 to 36,891). The population was further expected to increase by an additional 0.3% between 2000 and 2010. ( See table 1 B)

Based on 2001 population data for the entire Huntington Ashland MSA, Greenup County represents approximately 12% of the total 2001 population in the MSA and 32% of the Kentucky portion of the MSA. ( See table 1 C)

Air Emissions Point source VOC emissions from Greenup County were estimated at 0.20 tpsd in 2001 which represents 1% of the 18.87 tpsd of overall VOC point source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. Point source NOx emissions from Greenup County were estimated at 2.15 tpsd in 2001 which represents 10% of the 22.21 tpsd of overall NOx point source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. ( See table 1 D)

2001 Point Source Emissions Point sources located within Greenup County are subject to PSD requirements, CTG RACT requirements, Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) requirements for sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants, and New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS). Any emission controls previously installed as a result of a nonattainment designation must remain in place. VOC Emissions tons per summer day Carter 0% Greenup 1%

Boyd 99% NOx Emissions tons per summer day Carter 0% Greenup 10%

Boyd 90% 14 Onroad mobile source VOC emissions from Greenup County were estimated at 2.12 tpsd in 2001 which represents approximately 24% of the 8.66 tpsd of overall VOC onroad mobile source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. Onroad mobile source NOx emissions from Greenup County were estimated at 2.51 tpsd in 2001 which represents approximately 25% of the 10.20 tpsd of overall NOx onroad mobile source emissions from the Kentucky portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA. ( See table 1 D)

2001 Onroad Mobile Source Emissions Commuting traffic from other counties into Greenup County is high, commuting traffic from Greenup County into other counties is significant.

Commuting Classifications Not Significant 0 10% Minimal 11 30% High 31 50% Significant 51% or more VOC Emissions tons per summer day Greenup 24% Boyd 37%

Carter 39% NOx Emissions tons per summer day Greenup 25% Boyd 39%

Carter 36% 15 20.06 4.02 0 3.67 2.15 2.51 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Boyd Carter Greenup Mobile Point 18.61 3.19 0.06 3.35 0.2 2.12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Boyd Carter Greenup Mobile Point 2001 VOC Contribution ( tons per summer day)

2001 NOx Contribution ( tons per summer day) 16 Conclusion and Recommendation Regional emission reductions have occurred over the last several years in both VOC and NOx emissions. The present monitoring and emissions data presented indicate that Greenup County, Kentucky, is not contributing significantly to violations of the 8 hour standard in the region and therefore, should be designated attainment for the 8 hour ozone standard. 17 Huntington Ashland MSA Figure 1 A Wind Rose Patterns Figure 1 B 2001 VOC and NOx Emissions Kentucky Portion of the Huntington Ashland MSA ( tons per summer day)

21.8 24.08 3.41 3.67 2.32 4.66 0 5 10 15 20 25 Boyd Carter Greenup VOC NOx 18 Table 1 A Ozone Design Values ( parts per million)

Monitor 2000 2001 2002 3 year Average Boyd * .079 .085 .102 .088 Carter .080 .076 .086 .080 Greenup .077 .088 .084 .083 * Monitor location was changed beginning in 2002.

Table 1 B Ashland Area Population Growth Data County 1990 2000 % Growth 1990   2000 2010 % Growth 2000  2010 Boyd 51,150 49,752  2.7% 48,148  3.2% Carter 24,340 26,889 10.5% 29,406 9.4% Greenup 36,742 36,891 0.4% 36,989 0.3%

Table 1 C 2001 Estimated Huntington Ashland MSA Population Kentucky Estimated Population Boyd County 49,727 Carter County 27,024 Greenup County 36,823 Ohio Lawrence County 62,009 West Virginia Cabell County 95,682 Wayne County 42,665 Total Estimated Population 313,930 19 Table 1 D 2001 VOC and NOx Emissions ( tons per summer day)

VOC NOx County Point Mobile Total Point Mobile Total Boyd 18.61 3.19 21.80 20.06 4.02 24.08 Carter 0.06 3.35 3.41 0.00 3.67 3.67 Greenup 0.20 2.12 2.32 2.15 2.51 4.66 Total 18.87 8.66 27.53 22.21 10.20 32.41