4. Estimation of KOW from Molecular Fragments For computing thermodynamic properties it is often useful to consider a molecule as a collection of molecular fragments, each making a distinct contribution to the property of interest, which is relatively independent of the rest of the molecule. The rationale behind the method is that a large number of structures can be generated from a relatively small number of fragments, and thus a large number of estimates can be derived from a small number of experimentally determined fragment constants. The accuracy of the estimation, however, necessarily improves as the specificity of the fragment environment increases, which entails an increase in the number of fragments or corrective factors that must be considered. This approach is applied at different levels of sophistication. One user may employ a few fragment constants and generate ' first order' estimates whereas another may make numerous corrections or adjustments reflecting more fragment specificity for a given molecular environment. For a more complete discussion of group fragment methods one should consult Hansch and Leo, 1995.

4.1 Addition of Ring Fragments For condensed ring aromatics, the addition of rings is given by where are the fragment addition constants for " , $ , and ( condensation   " C4H2 ,   $ C3H ,   ( C2 respectively.

4.2 Addition of Substituents The addition of a substituent, S ( replacing a H atom) is a primary application of this method. In this case F 9 A arom Cl ' log K OW chlorobenzene log K OW benzene . 0.71 log K OW 1,3,5 & trichlorobenzene . log K benzene OW % 3 0.71 ' 4.26 where R is the base molecule and is a substituent constant, which is experimentally A S determined. Tables for common substituents are readily available or can be easily determined from measured data. One must distinguish ( i. e., have different substituent constants for) attachment to aliphatic, ethylenic, acetylenic, and aromatic carbon atoms in ' R'. Also corrections must be made for multiple substitution if attachment is to the same or adjacent carbons. The following are examples of K ow estimation. The fragment constant for Cl attached to aromatic carbon can be derived from:

With this constant, one can derive An exhaustive list of substituent constants is included in the aforementioned Hansch and Leo ( 1995) reference.

5. Example Application of EPA Draft Kow Selection Protocol BENZO( A) ANTHRACENE CAS log KOW Method Reference/ Comments 56 55 3 5.79 shake flask Medchem 5.61 shake flask Steen & Karickhoff ( 1979) 5.79 RP HPLC Wang et al ( 1986) 4.00 RP HPLC E Brooke et al ( 1986) 5.00 RP HPLC Brooke et al ( 1986) 5.66 CLOGP 5.83 SPARC 5.52 LOGKOW Calculated values < 6, therefore enter Step IV of protocol. Go to step III of protocol with inclusion of shake flask data. III A. Two shake flask measurements in good agreement with one another and avg = 5.70 B. Calculators: SPARC, LOGKOW and CLOGP in good agreement with range from 5.52 5.83 and avg = 5.67. Shake flask measurements in excellent agreement with calculators, therefore recommended value is 5.70   average of the two shake flask measurements. F 10 F 11 BENZO( K) FLUORANTHENE CAS log KOW Method Reference/ Comments 207 08 9 6.12 CLOGP 6.30 SPARC 6.11 LOGKOW Calculated values in range 6 8, therefore enter Step III of protocol. III A. No measured values available. E. Calculators: SPARC, LOGKOW and CLOGP in excellent agreement with range from 6.11 6.30 and avg = 6.18. ° Estimate Kow from Molecular Fragment Constants: Fluoranthene ( 5.12) + fa( C 4 H 2) ( 1.20) = 6.32 This is in good agreement with calculated values.

Recommended value is average of three calculators = 6.18.

BENZO( A) PYRENE CAS log KOW Method Reference/ Comments 50 32 8 5.98 gen. col. Miller et al ( 1985) 6.34 shake flask Steen & Karickhoff ( 1979) 6.04 shake flask Medchem 6.00 shake flask Mallon & Harrison ( 1984) 5.99 shake flask Mallon & Harrison ( 1984) 6.42 RP HPLC Rappaport & Eisenreich ( 1984) 6.24 RP HPLC Hanal et al( 1981) ( 60% solvent values 6.04 RP HPLC Wang et al ( 1986) 5.97 unknown Hansch & Leo 6.12 CLOGP 6.25 SPARC 6.11 LOGKOW Calculated values in range 6 8, therefore enter Step III of protocol. III A. There are no slow stir measurements. There are four shake flask measurements in range 5.99 6.34 with an average = 6.09 B. Calculators: SPARC, LOGKOW and CLOGP in excellent agreement with range from 6.11 6.25 and average = 6.16 ° Estimate K ow from Molecular Fragment Constants: pyrene ( 5.05) + f g( C 4 H 2) ( 1.20) = 6.25 This is in good agreement with calculated and measured values. ° Three RP HPLC values ( range 6.04  6.42) with average 6.26.

This compound is on the border of whether shake flask data acceptable but PNAs are less susceptible to emulsification using the shake flask approach than other compounds. Therefore shake flask measurements may be acceptable up to 6.5 rather than 6.0. Therefore, we will assume the shake flask F 12 measurements for this compound are accurate and recommend going with the average of the four shake flask measurements = 6.09 DI N OCTYL PHTHALATE CAS log KOW Method Reference/ Comments 117 84 0 8.06 RP HPLC McDuffie ( 1981) 9.49 CLOGP 8.39 SPARC 8.54 LOGKOW Calculated values are > 8.0 therefore enter step II of protocol. II A. No published measured values were available, J. Ellington ( EPA, Athens) measured 8.1 by slow stir. D. Calculators: Not in good agreement: SPARC, 8.39, CLOGP, 9.49, & LOGKOW, 8.54. ° SPARC and LOGKOW calculators are close to the Ellington value. ° Can use branching correction and estimate from diethylhexyl phthalate ( 2 slow stir measurements, average 7.3) . A secondary branch contributes approximately ` 0.3 ` per which would place the unbranched dioctyl phthalate at 7.9 ( 7.3 + 2( 0.3)); this is close to the Ellington value. ° The RP HPLC estimate is 8.06.

Recommended value is 8.1 ( Ellington, unpublished), supported by two of the calculators and two other estimates. F 13 PYRENE CAS log KOW Method Reference/ Comments 129 00 0 5.07 slow stir Stancil ( 1994) 5.18 gen. col. Miller et al ( 1985) 5.18 shake flask Karickhoff et al ( 1979) 5.09 shake flask Means et al ( 1980); Hassett et al ( 1980) 5.09 shake flask Wang et al ( 1986) 5.08 shake flask Medchem 5.05 shake flask Ellington & Stancil ( 1988) 4.88 shake flask Hansch & Leo ( 1979); Medchem 4.93 RP HPLC E Hammers et al ( 1982) 4.89 RP HPLC E Tomlinson & Hafkenschield ( 1986) 4.76 RP HPLC E Hafkenschield & Tomlinson ( 1983) 5.52 RP HPLC Rurkhard et al ( 1985) 5.05 RP HPLC McDuffie ( 1981) 4.97 RP HPLC Chin et al ( 1986) 4.96 RP HPLC Rapaport & Eisenreich ( 1984) 5.08 RP HPLC Wang et al ( 1986) 4.89 RP HPLC Hanal et al ( 1981) ( 50% acetonitrile) 4.95 CLOGP 5.02 SPARC 4.93 LOGKOW Calculated values < 6, therefore enter Step IV of protocol. Go to step III of protocol which permits consideration of shake flask data. III A. Seven of eight measured values are in good agreement ( range = 4.88 to 5.18); shake flask, slow stir, generator column avg 5.08. B. Calculators: All three calculators are in excellent agreement with avg = 4.94, in agreement with the measured value. Recommended value is average of slow stir, shake flask and generator column values = 5.08 6. References Hansch, C. and A. Leo. 1995. Exploring QSAR. American Chemical Society.

Hawker, D. W. and D. W. Connell. 1988. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22: 382 387.

Hilal, S. H., L. A. Carreira, and S. W. Karickhoff. 1994. Quantitative Treatments of Solute/ Solvent Interactions. Theoretical and Computational Chemistry 1: 291 353.

Meylan, W. M. and P. H. Howard. 1995. J. Pharm. Sci. 84: 83 92. G 1 Appendix G Amount of Commercial Food Items Consumed and Intake of Chemical X from Commercial Food Items Food Item Amount of food item consumed* ( g/ day) Average chemical X concentration ( ug/ g) Average intake of chemical X ( mg/ kg day) High end chemical X concentration ( ug/ g) High end intake of chemical X ( mg/ kg day)

cheddar cheese 7.07 4.55E 04 4.59E 08 2.00E 02 2.0E 06 beef roast 15.06 4.55E 04 9.78E 08 1.00E 02 2.2E 06 steak 1.93 5.00E 04 1.38E 08 1.50E 02 4.1E 07 beef loin 28.09 5.00E 04 2.01E 07 2.20E 02 8.8E 06 pork chop 8.07 8.41E 04 9.70E 08 2.10E 02 2.4E 06 pork roast 3.98 1.18E 03 4.70E 08 3.40E 02 1.9E 06 lamb chop 1.13 2.27E 04 3.66E 09 1.00E 02 1.6E 07 veal cutlet 1.11 2.05E 04 3.24E 09 9.00E 03 1.4E 07 turkey breast 3.42 7.50E 04 3.67E 08 2.30E 02 1.1E 06 bologna 7.90 1.82E 04 2.05E 08 8.00E 03 9.0E 07 cod/ haddock 8.58 5.23E 04 6.40E 08 2.30E 02 1.72E 06 fishsticks 1.70 2.05E 03 5.00E 09 9.00E 03 2.18E 07 corn grits 4.03 3.64E 04 2.09E 08 1.60E 02 9.2E 07 popcorn 1.18 2.05E 04 3.44E 09 9.00E 03 1.5E 07 cornbread 7.41 2.50E 04 2.65E 08 1.10E 02 1.2E 06 biscuits 4.58 9.09E 04 5.95E 08 2.40E 02 1.6E 06 pancakes 5.51 5.45E 04 4.30E 08 2.40E 02 1.9E 06 cereal 2.23 2.45E 03 7.81E 08 6.40E 02 2.0E 06 raisins 0.34 4.77E 04 2.34E 09 2.10E 02 1.0E 07 prunes 0.34 2.73E 04 1.32E 09 1.20E 02 5.8E 08 tomato 18.26 4.55E 04 1.19E 07 2.00E 02 5.2E 06 squash 1.47 5.91E 04 1.24E 08 2.60E 02 5.5E 07 pizza 8.77 2.27E 04 2.85E 08 1.00E 02 1.3E 06 Food Item Amount of food item consumed* ( g/ day) Average chemical X concentration ( ug/ g) Average intake of chemical X ( mg/ kg day) High end chemical X concentration ( ug/ g) High end intake of chemical X ( mg/ kg day)

G 2 meatloaf 8.04 6.82E 04 7.83E 08 2.30E 02 2.6E 06 potpie 1.64 5.68E 04 1.33E 08 2.50E 02 5.9E 07 margarine 4.44 4.55E 04 2.88E 08 2.00E 02 1.3E 06 butter 2.84 5.45E 04 2.21E 08 2.40E 02 9.7E 07 carmel candy 2.37 1.36E 04 4.62E 09 6.00E 03 2.0E 07 Intake from all foods containing chemical X 161.50 1.18E 06 4.26E 05 Total daily intake of all foods* = 2,582 grams/ day Intake of Chemical X after subtracting intake from meat [ Calculation = intake from all foods  ( fraction of meat that is fish* chemical intake from all commercial meat)]

general population 1.13E 06 4.10E 05 sportfisher 1.13E 06 4.10E 05 subsistence fisher 1.06E 06 3.86E 05 * These estimates are weighted averages of intakes for males and females in two age groups: 25 30 year olds and 60 65 year olds This is a preliminary summary of a criteria document being prepared for the derivation of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) for the protection of human health from exposure to acrylonitrile. The calculated AWQC values presented in this draft are subject to revision pending inclusion of further information concerning exposure as well as possible changes in the toxicological information used to derive the criterion. AWQC ' RSD x BW DI % j 4 i ' 2 ( FI i x BAF i) Appendix H Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health: Acrylonitrile Summary T his criteria document updates the national criteria for Acrylonitrile using new methods and information described in the Federal Register Notice ( USEPA, 1998a) and Technical Support Document ( USEPA, 1998b) to calculate ambient water quality criteria. These new methods include approaches to determine dose response relationships for both carcinogenic and non carcinogenic effects, updated information for determining exposure factors ( e. g., values for fish consumption), exposure assumptions, and procedures to determine bioaccumulation factors. For more detailed information please refer to the U. S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) document for Acrylonitrile ( USEPA, 1998c).

Background Information The AWQC is being derived for acrylonitrile ( CAS No. 107 13 1). The chemical formula is C3H3N2. Acrylonitrile occurrence in environmental media is not well documented. Several regional and local drinking water surveys were found and one limited study analyzed ambient air samples. Limited information is also available on acrylonitrile migration into foods from packaging materials.

Acrylonitrile is largely used in the manufacture of copolymers for the production of acrylic and modacrylic fibers. Other major uses include the manufacture of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene ( ABS) and styrene acrylonitrile ( SAN) ( used in production of plastics), and nitrile elastomers and latexes. It is also used in the synthesis of antioxidants, pharmaceuticals, dyes, and surface active agents.

According to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) Toxic Release Inventory, the total release of acrylonitrile into the environment in 1990 by manufacturers, was 8,077,470 pounds. The two largest pathways of release were underground injection, which accounted for 61% ( or 4,925,276 pounds) of the total release, and emissions into the air, which accounted for 39% ( or 3,148,049 pounds) of the total release. Release of acrylonitrile into water bodies was reported at 3,877 pounds and release onto land was reported at 268 pounds. A baseline BAF of 1.5 was calculated for acrylonitrile. The baseline BAF was calculated using a value of 0.17 for the log Kow and 1.000 for the food chain multiplier ( FCM) at trophic level 4. A value of 0.17 was selected as a typical value of the log Kow for acrylonitrile ( USEPA 1998c). A value of 1.000 was selected as the FCM for trophic level 4, reflective of top predator fish based on a log Kow of 2.0 from USEPA ( 1998b). Using these data, the baseline BAF was calculated as: Kow * FCM = ( 100.17 )* 1.000 = 1.5 ( rounded to two significant digits).

Based upon sufficient evidence from animal studies ( multiple tumor types in several strains of rats by several routes) and limited evidence from human studies ( lung tumors in workers), positive mutagenicity, acrylonitrile is considered as a likely human carcinogen by any route. A linear approach is used for the low dose extrapolation.

AWQC Calculation For Ambient Waters Used as Drinking Water Sources The cancer based AWQC was calculated using the RSD and other input parameters listed below:

where:

RSD = Risk specific dose ( 1.6 x 10 6 mg/ kg day at 10 6 lifetime risk) BW = Human body weight assumed to be 70 kg DI = Drinking water intake assumed to be 2 L/ day FI = Fish intake at trophic level i, i= 2,3, and 4; total intake assumed to be 0.01780 kg/ day BAF = Bioaccumulation factor at trophic level i ( i= 2,3, and 4) equal to 1.03, 1.02, and 1.05 L/ kg tissue for trophic levels 2,3, and 4, respectively.

This yields concentrations of 5.5 x 10 5 mg/ L ( or 0.05 µ g/ L), for a 10 6 ( one in a million) lifetime cancer risk. This is a preliminary summary of a criteria document being prepared for the derivation of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) for the protection of human health from exposure to 1,3 dichloropropene. The calculated AWQC values presented in this draft are subject to revision pending inclusion of further information concerning exposure as well as possible changes in the toxicological information used to derive the criterion. For Ambient Waters Not Used as Drinking Water Sources When the water body is to be used for recreational purposes and not as a source of drinking water, the drinking water value ( DI above) is eliminated from the equation and it is substituted with an incidental ingestion value ( II). The incidental intake is assumed to occur from swimming and other activities. The fish intake value is assumed to remain the same. The default value for incidental ingestion is 0.01 L/ day. When the above equation is used to calculate the AWQC with the substitution of an incidental ingestion of 0.01 L/ day an AWQC of 4.0 x 10 3 mg/ L ( or 4.0 µ g/ L) is obtained for a 10 6 lifetime cancer risk.

Site Specific or Regional Adjustments to Criteria Several parameters in the AWQC equation can be adjusted on a site specific or regional basis to reflect regional or local conditions and/ or specific populations of concern. These include fish consumption, incidental water consumption as related to regional/ local recreational activities, BAF ( including factors used to derive BAFs, percent lipid of fish consumed by target population, and species representative of given trophic levels), and the relative source contribution. States are encouraged to make adjustments using the information and instructions provided in the Technical Support Document ( USEPA, 1998b).

REFERENCES USEPA. 1998a. Federal Register Notice: Proposed Water Quality Criteria Methodology Revisions; Human Health. ( See Attached Copy).

USEPA. 1998b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Derivation Methodology; Human Health. Technical Support Document. EPA/ 822/ B 98/ 005. July. ( See Attached Copy).

USEPA. 1998c. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health: Acrylonitrile. EPA/ 822/ R 98/ 006. July. This is a preliminary summary of a criteria document being prepared for the derivation of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) for the protection of human health from exposure to 1,3 dichloropropene. The calculated AWQC values presented in this draft are subject to revision pending inclusion of further information concerning exposure as well as possible changes in the toxicological information used to derive the criterion. AWQC ' RSD x BW DI % j 4 i ' 2 ( FI i x BAF i) Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health: 1,3 Dichloropropene ( 1,3 DCP)

Summary T his criteria document updates the national criteria for 1,3 DCP using new methods and information described in the Federal Register Notice ( USEPA, 1998a) and Technical Support Document ( USEPA, 1998b) to calculate ambient water quality criteria. These new methods include approaches to determine dose response relationships for both carcinogenic and non carcinogenic effects, updated information for determining exposure factors ( e. g., values for fish consumption), exposure assumptions, and procedures to determine bioaccumulation factors. For more detailed information please refer to the U. S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) document for 1,3 Dichloropropene ( 1,3 DCP) ( USEPA, 1998c).

Background Information The AWQC is being derived for 1,3 Dichloropropene ( CAS No. 542 75 6). The chemical formula is C3H4Cl2 and molecular weight is 110.98 ( pure isomers). At 25oC, the physical state of 1,3 DCP is a pale yellow to yellow liquid. Dichloropropene ( DCP) is used as soil fumigant in the United States to control soil nematodes on crops grown in sandy soils. The EPAs National Toxics Inventory data base reported air emissions of 18,820,000 pounds/ year in the U. S. ( USEPA, 1996a). Numerous studies have sampled for DCP ( and isomers) in drinking water, groundwater and surface waters across the U. S. ( Hall et al., 1987; Miller et al., 1990; RIDEM, 1990; Rutledge, 1987; STORET, 1992). All of these studies report concentrations of 1,3 DCP usually at or below the detection limits ( USEPA, 1998c).

The AWQC Bioaccumulation factor ( BAF) is 2.2 L/ kg of tissue for 1,3 DCP. This BAF is based on the total concentration of 1,3 DCP in trophic level four biota divided by the total concentration in water, assuming default values for the freely dissolved fraction and lipid content of consumed aquatic organisms.

The cancer risk evaluation of 1,3 DCP uses the new methods in the proposed cancer guidelines ( USEPA, 1996), which are described in the Federal Register Notice ( USEPA, 1998a) and in the Technical Support Document ( USEPA, 1998b). Based upon sufficient evidence from animal studies ( multiple tumor types in several species by oral, inhalation, and dermal routes), positive mutagenicity, and structural analogues, 1,3 DCP is considered " likely to be carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure." Based on the mutagenic mode of action, a linear low dose approach is recommended.

AWQC Calculation For Ambient Waters Used as Drinking Water Sources The cancer based AWQC was calculated using the RSD and other input parameters listed below:

where:

RSD = Risk specific dose 1.0 x 10 5 mg/ kg/ day ( 10 6 risk) BW = Human body weight assumed to be 70 kg DI = Drinking water intake assumed to be 2 L/ day FI = Fish intake at trophic level i, i= 2,3, and 4 total intake assumed to be 0.01780 kg/ day BAF = Bioaccumulation factor at trophic level i ( i= 2,3, and 4), equal to 2.32, 1.86, and 2.78 L/ kgtissue for trophic levels 2,3, and 4, respectively.

This yields a value of 3.4 x 10 4 mg/ L, or 0.34 µ g/ L ( rounded from 0.343 µ g/ L).

For Ambient Waters Not Used as Drinking Water Sources When the water body is used for recreational purposes and not as a source of drinking water, the drinking water value is eliminated from the equation and it is substituted with an incidental ingestion value. The incidental intake is assumed to occur from swimming and other activities. The fish intake value is assumed to remain the same. The default value for incidental ingestion is 0.01 L/ day. When the above equation is used to calculate the AWQC with the substitution of an incidental ingestion of 0.01 L/ day an AWQC of 1.4 x10 2 mg/ L ( 14 µ g/ L) is obtained. This is a preliminary summary of a criteria document being prepared for the derivation of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) for the protection of human health from exposure to 1,3 dichloropropene. The calculated AWQC values presented in this draft are subject to revision pending inclusion of further information concerning exposure as well as possible changes in the toxicological information used to derive the criterion. Site Specific or Regional Adjustments to Criteria Several parameters in the AWQC equation can be adjusted on a site specific or regional basis to reflect regional or local conditions and/ or specific populations of concern. These include fish consumption; incidental water consumption as related to regional/ local recreational activities; BAF ( including factors used to derive BAFs , percent lipid of fish consumed by the target population, and species representative of given trophic levels); and the relative source contribution. States are encouraged to make adjustments using the information and instructions provided in the Technical Support Document ( USEPA, 1998b).

REFERENCES USEPA. 1998a. Federal Register Notice: Proposed Water Quality Criteria Methodology Revisions; Human Health. ( See Attached Copy).

USEPA. 1998b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Derivation Methodology; Human Health. Technical Support Document. EPA/ 822/ B 98/ 005. July. ( See Attached Copy).

USEPA. 1998c. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health: 1,3 Dichloropropene ( 1,3 DCP). EPA/ 822/ R 98/ 005. July. This is a preliminary summary of a criteria document being prepared for the derivation of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) for the protection of human health from exposure to HCBD. The calculated AWQC values presented in this draft are subject to revision pending inclusion of further information concerning exposure as well as possible changes in the toxicological information used to derive the criterion. AWQC ' RSD x BW DI % j 4 i ' 2 ( FI i x BAF i)

AWQC ' Pdp SF & RSC x BW DI % j 4 i ' 2 ( FI i x BAF i) Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health: Hexachlorobutadiene ( HCBD)

Summary T his criteria document updates the national criteria for HCBD using new methods and information described in the Federal Register Notice ( USEPA, 1998a) and Technical Support Document ( USEPA, 1998b) to calculate ambient water quality criteria. These new methods include approaches to determine dose response relationships for both carcinogenic and non carcinogenic effects, updated information for determining exposure factors ( e. g., values for fish consumption), exposure assumptions, and procedures to determine bioaccumulation factors. For more detailed information please refer to the U. S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) document for hexachlorobutadiene ( HCBD)( USEPA, 1998c).

Background Information The AWQC is being derived for hexachlorobutadiene ( CAS No. 87 68 3). The chemical formula is C4Cl6 and molecular weight is 260.76. At 25oC, HCBD is a colorless liquid. HCBD is used as a solvent in chlorine gas production, as an intermediate in the manufacture of rubber compounds and lubricants, and as a pesticide. The EPA's National Toxics Release Inventory data base reported total emissions to the environment in 1990 of 5,591 pounds/ year in the U. S., of which 4,906 pounds was to air. Numerous studies have sampled for HCBD in drinking water, groundwater and surface waters across the U. S. ( see USEPA 1998c for a summary). The vast majority of samples are at trace levels or below the detection limits ( DL . 0.1 m g/ L).

The AWQC Bioaccumulation factor ( BAF) is 620 L/ kg of tissue for HCBD. This BAF is based on the total concentration of HCBD in trophic level four biota divided by the total concentration in water, assuming default values for the freely dissolved fraction and lipid content of consumed aquatic organisms.

The cancer risk evaluation of HCBD uses the new methods described in the Federal Register Notice ( USEPA, 1998a) and in the Technical Support Document ( USEPA, 1998b). Based on a renal tumor finding in one chronic feeding study at one high dose in one species ( both sexes of Sprague Dawley rats), " via oral route, HCBD is considered as likely to be carcinogenic to humans only at very high exposure conditions, where significant renal toxicity occurs." There is some mutagenic activity in the presence of metabolic activation. Thus, a mutagenic mode of action cannot be ruled out. As a result, both the cancer based, linear low dose approach and the non linear margin of exposure approaches are used for deriving the AWQC.

AWQC Calculation For Ambient Waters Used as Drinking Water Sources The cancer based AWQC was calculated using the RSD and other input parameters listed below:

where:

RSD = Risk specific dose 2.5 x 10 5 mg/ kg/ day ( 10 6 risk) BW = Human body weight assumed to be 70 kg DI = Drinking water intake assumed to be 2 L/ day FI = Fish intake at trophic level i, i= 2,3, and 4; total intake assumed to be 0.01780 kg/ day BAF = Bioaccumulation factor at trophic level i ( i= 2,3, and 4) equal to 1,518, 2,389, and 1,294 L/ kg tissue for trophic levels 2,3, and 4, respectively.

This yields a value of 4.6 x 10 5 mg/ L, or 0.046 µ g/ L ( rounded from 0.0462 µ g/ L).

The AWQC using the margin of exposure approach was calculated using the following equation and input parameters listed below. This is a preliminary summary of a criteria document being prepared for the derivation of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria ( AWQC) for the protection of human health from exposure to HCBD. The calculated AWQC values presented in this draft are subject to revision pending inclusion of further information concerning exposure as well as possible changes in the toxicological information used to derive the criterion. where:

Pdp = Point of departure ( 0.054 mg/ kg/ day) SF = Safety factor of 300 RSC = Relative source contribution from air of 1.2 x 10 4 mg/ kg day, subtracted in this case BW = Human body weight assumed to be 70 kg DI = Drinking water intake assumed to be 2 L/ day FI = Fish intake at trophic level i, i= 2,3, and 4; total intake assumed to be 0.01780 kg/ day BAF = Bioaccumulation factor at trophic level i ( i= 2,3, and 4) equal to 1,518, 2,389, and 1,294 L/ kg tissue for trophic levels 2,3, and 4, respectively.

This yields an AWQC of 1.1 x 10 4 mg/ L ( 0.11 F g/ L).

For Ambient Waters Not Used as Drinking Water Sources When the waterbody is used for recreational purposes and not as a source of drinking water, the drinking water value is eliminated from the equation and it substituted with an incidental ingestion value. The incidental intake is assumed to occur from swimming and other activities. The fish intake value is assumed to remain the same. The default value for incidental ingestion is 0.01 L/ day. When the linear approach is used to calculate the AWQC with the substitution of an incidental ingestion of 0.01 L/ day a cancer based AWQC of 4.9 x 10 5 mg/ L ( or 0.049 µ g/ L, rounded from 0.0487 µ g/ L) is obtained. When the non linear margin of exposure approach is used with the substitution of an incidental ingestion of 0.01 L/ day, the AWQC is 1.2 x 10 4 mg/ L ( or 0.12 µ g/ L, rounded from 0.117 µ g/ L).

Site Specific or Regional Adjustments to Criteria Several parameters in the AWQC equations can be adjusted on a site specific or regional basis to reflect regional or local conditions and/ or specific populations of concern. These include fish consumption; incidental water consumption as related to regional/ local recreational activities; BAF ( including factors used to derive BAFs, percent lipid of fish consumed by the target population, and species representative of given trophic levels); and the relative source contribution. States are encouraged to make adjustments using the information and instructions provided in the Technical Support Document ( USEPA, 1998b). REFERENCES USEPA. 1998a. Federal Register Notice: Proposed Water Quality Criteria Methodology Revisions; Human Health. ( See Attached Copy).

USEPA. 1998b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Derivation Methodology; Human Health. Technical Support Document. EPA/ 822/ B 98/ 005. July. ( See Attached Copy).

USEPA. 1998c. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health: Hexachlorobutadiene ( HCBD). EPA/ 822/ R 98/ 004. July.


1000                                       2000                                       3000                                       4000                                       6000  20 or younger 7 4 3 3 6  21 7 4 4 3 6  22 7 4 4 4 6  23 7 5 4 4 7  24 7 5 4 4 7  25 8 5 4 4 7  26 8 5 5 4 8  27 8 5 5 5 8  28 8 5 5 5 8  29 8 5 5 5 9  30 8 6 5 5 9  31 8 6 6 5 9  32 9 6 6 6 10  33 9 6 6 6 10  34 9 6 6 6 10  35 9 6 7 7 11  36 9 7 7 7 11  37 9 7 7 7 12  38 10 7 7 7 12  39 10 7 8 8 12  40 10 7 8 8 13  41 10 8 8 8 13  42 10 8 9 9 13  43 11 8 9 9 14  44 11 8 9 9 14  45 11 8 10 10 15  46 11 9 10 10 15  47 11 9 10 11 16  48 12 9 11 11 16  49 12 9 11 11 16  50 12 10 11 12 17  51 12 10 12 12 17  52 12 10 12 13 18  53 13 10 13 13 18  54 13 11 13 14 19  55 13 11 14 14 19  56 13 11 14 15 20  57 13 11 15 15 20  58 14 12 15 16 21  59 14 12 16 16 21  60 or older 14 12 16 17 22 Appendix G to § 1910.95 - Monitoring Noise Levels Non-Mandatory Informational Appendix  This appendix provides information to help employers comply with the noise monitoring obligations that are part of the hearing conservation amendment.  What is the purpose of noise monitoring?  This revised amendment requires that employees be placed in a hearing conservation program if they are exposed to average noise levels of 85 dB or greater during an 8 hour workday. In order to determine if exposures are at or above this level, it may be necessary to measure or monitor the actual noise levels in the workplace and to estimate the noise exposure or "dose" received by employees during the workday.  When is it necessary to implement a noise monitoring program?  It is not necessary for every employer to measure workplace noise. Noise monitoring or measuring must be conducted only when exposures are at or above 85 dB. Factors which suggest that noise exposures in the workplace may be at this level include employee complaints about the loudness of noise, indications that employees are losing their hearing, or noisy conditions which make normal conversation difficult. The employer should also consider any information available regarding noise emitted from specific machines. In addition, actual workplace noise measurements can suggest whether or not a monitoring program should be initiated.  How is noise measured?  Basically, there are two different instruments to measure noise exposures: the sound level meter and the dosimeter. A sound level meter is a device that measures the intensity of sound at a given moment. Since sound level meters provide a measure of sound intensity at only one point in time, it is generally necessary to take a number of measurements at different times during the day to estimate noise exposure over a workday. If noise levels fluctuate, the amount of time noise remains at each of the various measured levels must be determined.  To estimate employee noise exposures with a sound level meter it is also generally necessary to take several measurements at different locations within the workplace. After appropriate sound level meter readings are obtained, people sometimes draw "maps" of the sound levels within different areas of the workplace. By using a sound level "map" and information on employee locations throughout the day, estimates of individual exposure levels can be developed. This measurement method is generally referred to as area noise monitoring.  A dosimeter is like a sound level meter except that it stores sound level measurements and integrates these measurements over time, providing an average noise exposure reading for a given period of time, such as an 8-hour workday. With a dosimeter, a microphone is attached to the employee's clothing and the exposure measurement is simply read at the end of the desired time period. A reader may be used to read-out the dosimeter's measurements. Since the dosimeter is worn by the employee, it measures noise levels in those locations in which the employee travels. A sound level meter can also be positioned within the immediate vicinity of the exposed worker to obtain an individual exposure estimate. Such procedures are generally referred to as personal noise monitoring.  Area monitoring can be used to estimate noise exposure when the noise levels are relatively constant and employees are not mobile. In workplaces where employees move about in different areas or where the noise intensity tends to fluctuate over time, noise exposure is generally more accurately estimated by the personal monitoring approach.  In situations where personal monitoring is appropriate, proper positioning of the microphone is necessary to obtain accurate measurements. With a dosimeter, the microphone is generally located on the shoulder and remains in that position for the entire workday. With a sound level meter, the microphone is stationed near the employee's head, and the instrument is usually held by an individual who follows the employee as he or she moves about.  Manufacturer's instructions, contained in dosimeter and sound level meter operating manuals, should be followed for calibration and maintenance. To ensure accurate results, it is considered good professional practice to calibrate instruments before and after each use.  How often is it necessary to monitor noise levels?  The amendment requires that when there are significant changes in machinery or production processes that may result in increased noise levels, remonitoring must be conducted to determine whether additional employees need to be included in the hearing conservation program. Many companies choose to remonitor periodically (once every year or two) to ensure that all exposed employees are included in their hearing conservation programs.  Where can equipment and technical advice be obtained?  Noise monitoring equipment may be either purchased or rented. Sound level meters cost about $500 to $1,000, while dosimeters range in price from about $750 to $1,500. Smaller companies may find it more economical to rent equipment rather than to purchase it. Names of equipment suppliers may be found in the telephone book (Yellow Pages) under headings such as: "Safety Equipment," "Industrial Hygiene," or "Engineers-Acoustical." In addition to providing information on obtaining noise monitoring equipment, many companies and individuals included under such listings can provide professional advice on how to conduct a valid noise monitoring program. Some audiological testing firms and industrial hygiene firms also provide noise monitoring services. Universities with audiology, industrial hygiene, or acoustical engineering departments may also provide information or may be able to help employers meet their obligations under this amendment.  Free, on-site assistance may be obtained from OSHA-supported state and private consultation organizations. These safety and health consultative entities generally give priority to the needs of small businesses. Appendix H to § 1910.95 - Availability of Referenced Documents  Paragraphs (c) through (o) of 29 CFR 1910.95 and the accompanying appendices contain provisions which incorporate publications by reference. Generally, the publications provide criteria for instruments to be used in monitoring and audiometric testing. These criteria are intended to be mandatory when so indicated in the applicable paragraphs of § 1910.95 and appendices.  It should be noted that OSHA does not require that employers purchase a copy of the referenced publications. Employers, however, may desire to obtain a copy of the referenced publications for their own information.  The designation of the paragraph of the standard in which the referenced publications appear, the titles of the publications, and the availability of the publications are as follows:                              Paragraph designation                              Referenced publication                                 Available from -  Appendix B "List of Personal Hearing Protectors and Attenuation Data," HEW Pub. No. 76-120, 1975. NTIS-PB267461 National Technical Information Service, Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.  Appendix D "Specification for Sound Level Meters," S1.4-1971 (R1976) American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.  § 1910.95(k)(2), appendix E "Specifications for Audiometers," S3.6-1969 American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.  Appendix D "Specification for Octave, Half-Octave and Third-Octave Band Filter Sets," S1.11-1971 (R1976) Back Numbers Department, Dept. STD, American Institute of Physics, 333 E. 45th St., New York, NY 10017; American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. The referenced publications (or a microfiche of the publications) are available for review at many universities and public libraries throughout the country. These publications may also be examined at the OSHA Technical Data Center, Room N2439, United States Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210,<PHONE_NUMBER> or at any OSHA Regional Office (see telephone directories under United States Government - Labor Department). Appendix I to § 1910.95 - Definitions  These definitions apply to the following terms as used in paragraphs (c) through (n) of 29 CFR 1910.95.  Action level - An 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels measured on the A-scale, slow response, or equivalently, a dose of fifty percent.  Audiogram - A chart, graph, or table resulting from an audiometric test showing an individual's hearing threshold levels as a function of frequency.  Audiologist - A professional, specializing in the study and rehabilitation of hearing, who is certified by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association or licensed by a state board of examiners.  Baseline audiogram - The audiogram against which future audiograms are compared.  Criterion sound level - A sound level of 90 decibels.  Decibel (dB) - Unit of measurement of sound level.  Hertz (Hz) - Unit of measurement of frequency, numerically equal to cycles per second.  Medical pathology - A disorder or disease. For purposes of this regulation, a condition or disease affecting the ear, which should be treated by a physician specialist.  Noise dose - The ratio, expressed as a percentage, of (1) the time integral, over a stated time or event, of the 0.6 power of the measured SLOW exponential time-averaged, squared A-weighted sound pressure and (2) the product of the criterion duration (8 hours) and the 0.6 power of the squared sound pressure corresponding to the criterion sound level (90 dB).  Noise dosimeter - An instrument that integrates a function of sound pressure over a period of time in such a manner that it directly indicates a noise dose.  Otolaryngologist - A physician specializing in diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the ear, nose and throat.  Representative exposure - Measurements of an employee's noise dose or 8-hour time-weighted average sound level that the employers deem to be representative of the exposures of other employees in the workplace.  Sound level - Ten times the common logarithm of the ratio of the square of the measured A-weighted sound pressure to the square of the standard reference pressure of 20 micropascals. Unit: decibels (dB). For use with this regulation, SLOW time response, in accordance with ANSI S1.4-1971 (R1976), is required.  Sound level meter - An instrument for the measurement of sound level.  Time-weighted average sound level - That sound level, which if constant over an 8-hour exposure, would result in the same noise dose as is measured. [39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 46 FR 4161, Jan. 16, 1981; 46 FR 62845, Dec. 29, 1981; 48 FR 9776, Mar. 8, 1983; 48 FR 29687, June 28, 1983; 54 FR 24333, June 7, 1989; 61 FR 9236, Mar. 7, 1996; 71 FR 16672, Apr. 3, 2006; 73 FR 75584, Dec. 12, 2008]


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 56728]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19895]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78587; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the
First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Domestic ETF and the First Trust
Horizon Managed Volatility Developed International ETF Under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600

August 16, 2016.
    On June 16, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Domestic ETF and
the First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Developed International ETF.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on July 6, 2016.\3\ On July 18, 2016, the Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received
no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78191 (June 29,
2016), 81 FR 44056.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing
in its entirety. Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2016-87/nysearca201687-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is August 20, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates October 4, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-NYSEArca-2016-87), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19895 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


United Sates FORM APPROVED Environmental Protection Agency OMB NO. 2070 0078 Washington, DC 20460 Pesticide Report for Pesticide Producing and Device Producing Establishments Section 7, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, ( 7 U. S. C. 136e)

Note: Read all instructions before completing. Production and distribution/ sales volumes information reported on this form is treated as business confidential.

1. Mailing Address 8. EPA Est. No.

9. Establishment Name 2. City 3. State or Country 4. Zip Code 10. Site Address 5. Name of Establishment Officer 6. Title 7. Date ( Mo., Day, Year) 11. City 12. State or Country 13. Zip Code 14. Telephone Number 16.

15. Signature of Establishment Officer PESTICIDE PRODUCTION INFORMATION 17. Product Code ( If " 4" and chemical, attatch formulation per instructions. If " 4" and Device, go to Item 19) 18. EPA Product Registration Number 19. Product Name 20. Product Classification 21. Product Type 22. Market Sold To 23. Use Classification 24. Unit of measure: P= Pound G= Gallons K= Kilograms L= Liters T= Tons U= Units 25. Amount Produced, Repackaged or Relabeled Last Year 26. Amount Sold or Distributed Last Year  US 27. Amount Sold or Distributed Last Year  Foreign 28. Amount To Be Produced, Repackaged, Relabeled This Year 17. Product Code ( If " 4" and chemical, attatch formulation per instructions. If " 4" and Device, go to Item 19) 18. EPA Product Registration Number 19. Product Name 20. Product Classification 21. Product Type 22. Market Sold To 23. Use Classification 24. Unit of measure: P= Pound G= Gallons K= Kilograms L= Liters T= Tons U= Units 25. Amount Produced, Repackaged or Relabeled Last Year 26. Amount Sold or Distributed Last Year  US 27. Amount Sold or Distributed Last Year  Foreign 28. Amount To Be Produced, Repackaged, Relabeled This Year 17. Product Code ( If " 4" and chemical, attatch formulation per instructions. If " 4" and Device, go to Item 19) 18. EPA Product Registration Number 19. Product Name 20. Product Classification 21. Product Type 22. Market Sold To 23. Use Classification 24. Unit of measure: P= Pound G= Gallons K= Kilograms L= Liters T= Tons U= Units 25. Amount Produced, Repackaged, or Relabeled Last Year 26. Amount Sold or Distributed Last Year  US 27. Amount Sold or Distributed Last Year  Foreign 28. Amount To Be Produced, Repackaged, Relabeled This Year CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET ( ) THIS IS PAGE ____ OF _____

EPA Reviewer EPA Office Postmark Date or Report Received Date Date Reviewed 29. Reporting Year 2001 EPA Form 3540 16 ( Rev. 08 01) Previous editions are obsolete.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45826-45827]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2019-0025]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for
Comment; National Emergency Medical Services Information System
(NEMSIS)

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on February 1, 2019. One comment was received
during the 60-day comment period. The comment was submitted by a
national EMS organization and was supportive of the National Emergency
Medical Services Information System and NHTSA's continued collection of
emergency medical services data from U.S. States and Territories.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NHTSA, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Eric Chaney, Office of Emergency
Medical Services (NPD-400), Room W44-318, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Chaney's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to
its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: National Emergency Medical Services Information System
(NEMSIS)--State Submission to National EMS Database.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0717.
    Type of Request: Collection of Emergency Medical Services Data.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established by Congress to
save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to motor
vehicle crashes through education, research, safety standards, and
enforcement activity. Within NHTSA, the Office of Emergency Medical
Services is responsible for advancing a national vision for emergency
medical services (EMS) through the development and implementation of
targeted projects to benefit patient care, EMS practitioner safety and
support of EMS research. The NHTSA Office of EMS also coordinates with
the Federal and state highway safety community to ensure that EMS is
equipped and prepared to carry out its mission of preventing death and
reducing serious injuries after traffic crashes. NHTSA is proposing to
continue voluntary collection of limited EMS information from U.S.
States and Territories. There are no Federal mandates or requirements
for submission of EMS information from U.S. States and Territories. The
information is transmitted from local EMS agencies to State EMS data
systems, and then onto NHTSA's National EMS Database via an automated
``machine-to-machine'' process that uses Web Services. The information
is transmitted from the point-of-care to states and NHTSA's National
EMS Database in near real-time. The information collected by the
National EMS Database is a de-identified subset of the data already
being collected for use by state and territorial EMS Offices. The
National EMS Database collects information that describes EMS agencies,
the activation and response of individual EMS units to an emergency,
emergency care provided on scene and during transport to a health
facility, transport decision, disposition of the patient and incident,
and EMS system times such as response time. Personal identifiable
information (PII) such as the patient's name, patient's home address,
patient's date of birth, patient's social security number, and
patient's medical record number are not collected by the National EMS
Database. The information collected by the National EMS Database is
available to the public. The National EMS Database provides NHTSA's
Office of EMS with information necessary to inform national EMS and
first responder programs, projects, and initiatives; and determine the
impact EMS has on highway safety and post-crash care. The information
is also used by EMS and public health researchers to develop evidence
for best practices in EMS operations and prehospital clinical care, and
by local EMS agencies and state offices of EMS for performance
improvement and benchmarking.
    Affected Public: State Governments.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
    Respondents include one representative from each State, populated
Territory and the District of Columbia.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Number of Responses: N/A.
    Estimated Individual Burden: 18 hours.
    The Individual Burden for each of the 56 respondents is 18 hours
per year. It is estimated that each respondent will spend an additional
1.5 hours per month ensuring a subset of data from the existing State
Dataset is transmitted to the National Dataset.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,008.
    Total burden hours are estimated based upon ongoing electronic
submissions from each respondent, with machine to machine transmittal.
NHTSA estimates that this information collection will involve 56
respondents spending approximately 18 hours providing information for
NEMSIS. Therefore, the total annual burden estimate is 1,008 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $50,954.
    NHTSA estimated the total annual burden cost using the total
average compensation costs for State, Territorial and local government
workers of $50.55 per hour as reported by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics in December 2018. Therefore, the total cost associated with
the 1,008 burden hours is $50,954. There are no additional anticipated
costs to respondents or record keepers, beyond what they have already
set up to meet their own State needs for this information.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35; and delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jon Krohmer,
Acting Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-18781 Filed 8-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65874-65875]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 145

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-8744; Amdt. No. 145-31]
RIN 2120-AK86

Repair Stations; Response to Public Comments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date and response to
public comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date and adopts as final
the interim final rule published on July 27, 2016, and responds to the
comments received on that interim final rule. The rule removed the
requirement that a repair station with an airframe rating provide
suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model
aircraft listed on its operations specifications. The FAA also revised
its general housing and facilities regulation to provide that a repair
station's housing for its facilities, equipment, materials, and
personnel must be consistent not only with its ratings, but also with
its limitations to those ratings. Finally, the FAA added an additional
general purpose limited rating to cover maintenance work not covered by
the existing 12 limited rating categories.

DATES: Effective September 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this action, see ``How To
Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Susan Traugott Ludwig, Aircraft Maintenance
Division, Repair Station Branch, AFS-340, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued an interim final rule on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 49158)
to revise its repair station rules to remove the one-size-fits-all
requirement of Sec.  145.103(b) and provide an additional limited
rating category to cover work not addressed by the existing 12
categories. These actions will assist the repair station industry by
eliminating the costly housing requirement that is not necessary in
many cases.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received two comments from the Aeronautical Repair Station
Association (ARSA) and Airbus. ARSA stated that it fully supported the
agency's actions as the regulations were unclear and needed to be
updated. ARSA noted that although the changed rule still does not
distinguish between repair stations working on completed aircraft and
those working on airframe components, the removal of specified housing
for airframe ratings will certainly allow for performance-based
compliance. ARSA also requested the FAA consider removing Sec.
145.61(b) in its entirety. ARSA asserted that it seems

the language in Sec.  145.61(a) alone would be sufficient to ensure
appropriate ratings and limitations could be determined without the
list in Sec.  145.61(b). ARSA stated the reinstitution of paragraph
(b)(13) is merely a specific acknowledgement of the general language in
Sec.  145.61(a). ARSA also specifically requested that the agency not
deem its observation as opposition to the interim final rule, rather, a
suggestion for consideration.
    The FAA agrees with ARSA's comment that the removal of specified
airframe rated housing requirements will allow for performance-based
compliance. The FAA notes ARSA's suggestion to remove Sec.  145.61(b)
in its entirety and may consider it in a future rulemaking effort.
Airbus requested clarification on the correct title for Sec.  145.205,
Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed for
certificate holders under parts 121, 125, and 135, and for foreign
persons operating a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage under
part 129. Airbus noted the word ``performed'' is spelled ``per-formed''
in the interim final rule and spelled ``performed'' in the electronic
Code of Regulations (eCFR). Airbus asked which format was correct.
    The FAA notes the title in the eCFR is correct.

Conclusion

    After consideration of the comments submitted in response to the
interim final rule, the FAA has determined that no further rulemaking
action is necessary. Therefore, amendment No. 145-31 remains in effect.

How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using
the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
    Accordingly, the interim rule published July 15, 2016 (81 FR
49158), is adopted as final without change.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on September 21, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-23121 Filed 9-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51611-51612]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1963]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1963, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) patrick<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
patrick<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities

with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Kauai County, Hawaii
 Project: 18-09-0029S Preliminary Date:
              May 24, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kauai County...........................  Kauai County Department of
                                          Public Works, 4444 Rice
                                          Street, Lihue, HI 96766.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-21052 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 91101-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 35841]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration, Notice of Actual Construction or
Alteration, Project Status Report

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 14, 2014, vol. 79, no. 71, pages 20965-20966. The
FAA uses the information collected on form 7460-1 to determine the
effect a proposed construction or alteration would have on air
navigation and the National Airspace System (NAS), and the information
collected on form 7460-2 to measure the progress of actual
construction.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0001.
    Title: Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, Notice of
Actual Construction or Alteration, Project Status Report.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 7460-1 and 7460-2.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 49 USC Section 44718 states that the Secretary of
Transportation shall require notice of structures that may affect
navigable airspace, air commerce, or air capacity. These notice
requirements are contained in 14 CFR Part 77. The information is
collected via FAA forms 7460-1 and 7460-2.
    Respondents: Approximately 110,325 airports.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 22,425 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-14690 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P