----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/27/2011 11:12 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Wehrum, William L."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Admire, John D"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Grygar, Bill"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Adams, Jeffrey A"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Matt |
  |Todd"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Lisa Beal"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |05/27/2011 03:12 PM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Additional RICE MACT Information

Bob -- in preparation for our meeting with you next week on the RICE MACT, I'm
forwarding additional information on the DOT pipeline classification system.
We had thought that DOT/PHMSA had readily available and useful overview
materials on the system that you could use to better understand how it works.
On further review, we have not found anything suitable from DOT/PHMSA.

So, we are instead providing the two attached documents.  The first is a
summary and overview of the relevant rules.  The second is a set of diagrams
that illustrate how the rules should be applied.

In addition, you have asked for an estimate of how many large area source RICE
would be in Class 1 versus Classes 2, 3, and 4.  To get a sense of this, we
polled companies belonging to the various petitioners'
groups.  Although this is not a scientific survey, we believe that the results
should be representative for the sectors we represent.  Here are the results:

Total companies reporting:  17.

Total number of > 500 hp area source RICE reported:  4140.

Number of engines in Class 1:  3572 (86% of total).

Number of engines in other classes:  568 (14% of total).

We hope that you find this information useful.  Please don't hesitate to call
if you have questions or need more information.

Bill Wehrum
Partner
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hunton & Williams LLP

1900 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
www.hunton.com


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26097-26099]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09239]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2016 / Rules and
Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-1363; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-040-AD;
Amendment 39-18496; AD 2016-08-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36,
MU-2B-36A, and MU-2B-60 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as reports of cracks found in the attach fittings of the main
landing gear oleo strut. We are issuing this AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 6, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
1363; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries America, Inc., c/o Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc.,
4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: (972) 248-
3108, ext. 209; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://mu-2aircraft.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2016-1363.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650,
San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd. Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, and
MU-2B-60 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on
January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4217). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country.
    The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), which is the aviation
authority for Japan, has issued AD No. TCD-8595-2015, dated July 1,
2015 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) Models
MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2016-
1363.
    We have received reports of seven failures of the main landing gear
oleo strut attach fitting on certain MHI Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-
2B-36, MU-2B-36A, and MU-2B-60 airplanes. Investigation revealed that
the failures resulted from improper lubrication and/or hard landings,
which caused cracks to develop in the main landing gear oleo strut
attach fitting.
    Japan is the State of Design for MHI Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and
MU-2B-36 airplanes, which the MCAI AD applies to, and the United States
is the State of Design for MHI Models MU-2B-36A and MU-2B-60 airplanes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 4217, January 26,
2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (81 FR 4217, January 26, 2016) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 4217, January 26, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin
No. 243, dated June 30, 2015, and MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 105/32-017,
dated September 29, 2015. The service information describes procedures
for visually inspecting the lugs of the oleo attach fittings on both
sides for cracks, and if any visible cracks are found, replacing with a
new fitting. We also reviewed Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2
Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 171, FAA T.C.: No. 124/32-011, dated April
27, 2012, and MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 176, FAA T.C.: No. 128/
32-013, dated July 18, 2013. This service information specifies doing
repetitive ultrasound inspections of the main landing gear oleo upper
attach fittings for cracks and ensuring proper lubrication of the main
landing gear oleo fitting. 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 of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    We have determined that the repetitive visual inspections specified
in the MCAI are not adequate for detecting cracks in the main landing
gear oleo strut attach fitting. Repetitive ultrasonic inspections of
the main landing gear oleo strut attach fitting have been added into
the maintenance requirement manual for these airplanes, which is not
considered mandatory in the FAA's airworthiness regulatory system.
Therefore, we are incorporating that requirement through the rulemaking
process.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 95 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to
comply with the visual inspection requirement of this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the visual
inspection requirements of this AD on U.S. operators to be $40,375, or
$425 per product.
    We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product
to comply with the ultrasound inspection requirements of this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the ultrasound
inspection requirements of this AD on U.S. operators to be $24,225, or
$255 per product.
    Owner/operators have the option to do an ultrasound inspection in
lieu of the required visual inspection.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $5,220, for a cost
of $7,260 per product to replace the left-hand main landing gear oleo
strut. We have no way of determining the number of products that may
need this action.
    In addition, we also estimate that any necessary follow-on actions
will take about 45 work-hours and require parts costing $5,220, for a
cost of $9,045 per product to replace the right-hand main landing gear
oleo strut. We have no way of determining the number of products that
may need this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
1363; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 AD:

2016-08-19 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.: Amendment 39-18496;
Docket No. FAA-2016-1363; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-040-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 6,
2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU-
2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 airplanes, serial numbers 502 through
696, except 652 and 661, and Models MU-2B-36A and MU-2B-60
airplanes, serial numbers 661SA, and 697SA through 1569SA,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as reports of
cracks found in the upper attach fittings of the main landing gear
oleo strut. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the main
landing gear oleo strut attach fitting, which could cause the
landing gear to fail and result in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after June
6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months
after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs
first, do a visual inspection of the main landing gear oleo upper
attach fittings for cracks. Do the inspection following the
INSTRUCTIONS section in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2
Service Bulletin No. 243, dated June 30, 2015, and the INSTRUCTIONS
section in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin
No. 105/32-017, dated September 29, 2015, as applicable.
    (2) Before further flight after the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, if no signs of cracks are found,
lubricate the pin assembly attached to the main landing gear oleo
attach fitting as specified in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-
2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 171, FAA T.C.: No. 124/32-011, dated
April 27, 2012.
    (3) Within the next 100 hours TIS after doing the initial visual
inspection required in

paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or within the next 12 months after doing
the initial visual inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this
AD, whichever occurs first, do an ultrasound inspection of the main
landing gear oleo upper attach fittings for cracks as specified in
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No.
176, FAA T.C.: No. 128/32-013, dated July 18, 2013. This ultrasound
inspection may also be done in place of the visual inspection
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD if done within the next 100
hours TIS after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or
within the next 6 months after June 6, 2016 (the effective date of
this AD), whichever occurs first. Repetitively thereafter ultrasound
inspect the attach fittings every 600 hours TIS or 36 months,
whichever occurs first, and any time a hard landing or overweight
landing occurs.
    (4) Before further flight after any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, if no signs of cracks are found,
lubricate the pin assembly attached to the main landing gear oleo
attach fitting as specified in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-
2 Service News JCAB T.C.: No. 171, FAA T.C.: No. 124/32-011, dated
April 27, 2012, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service
News JCAB T.C.: No. 176, FAA T.C.: No. 128/32-013, dated July 18,
2013.
    (5) Before further flight after any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(3) of this AD where cracks are found,
replace the main landing gear oleo upper attach fittings following
the INSTRUCTIONS section in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2
Service Bulletin No. 243, dated June 30, 2015, and the INSTRUCTIONS
sections in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin
No. 105/32-017, dated September 29, 2015, as applicable. After
replacement, continue with the repetitive ultrasound inspection
requirements of paragraph (f)(3) and lubrication requirements of
paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-
143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San
Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) AD No. TCD-
8585-2015, dated July 1, 2015, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2016-1363.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No.
105/32-017, dated September 29, 2015.
    (ii) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No.
243, dated June 30, 2015.
    (iii) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB
T.C.: No. 176, FAA T.C.: No. 128/32-013, dated July 18, 2013.
    (iv) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service News JCAB
T.C.: No. 171, FAA T.C.: No. 124/32-011, dated April 27, 2012.
    (3) For Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd service information
identified in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America,
Inc., c/o Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle
Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext. 209;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://mu-2aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-1363.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 14, 2016.
Robert P. Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09239 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51044-51045]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2018.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                 Applicant          Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20784-N......................  CHEMTRADE PHOSPHOROUS     173.1(b), 173.3(a),       To authorize the
                                SPECIALTIES LLC.          173.24(b)(2),             transportation in commerce
                                                          173.24(c)(1)(i),          of damaged IBCs for the
                                                          173.29(a), 173.35(a),     purpose of cleaning,
                                                          173.242(d).               inspection, and repair.
                                                                                (mode 1).
20785-N......................  BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC....  173.306(a)(5)...........  To authorize transportation
                                                                                in commerce of non-
                                                                                specification plastic
                                                                                aerosol container to expel a
                                                                                flammable liquid (ethanol
                                                                                solution) and a non-
                                                                                flammable liquid. (mode 1).
20786-N......................  LEMAN AIR...............  173.185(a)..............  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of prototype lithium
                                                                                batteries by cargo-only
                                                                                aircraft. (mode 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-22017 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


DC_ DOCS\ 182920.2 [ W97] ADDENDUM TO PETITION TO REMOVE MIBK FROM THE HAP LIST Submitted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association Ketones Panel May 26, 1999 In April, 1997, the Ketones Panel ( Panel) of the Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA) submitted a petition asking the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to remove methyl isobutyl ketone ( MIBK) from the list of chemicals that are regulated as hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). Under Section 112, EPA is required to remove a substance from the HAP list if " there is adequate data on the health and environmental effects of the substance to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance may not reasonably be anticipated to cause any adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects." CAA § 112( b)( 3). This addendum briefly reviews the toxicity and exposure data on MIBK, including the results of supplemental air dispersion modeling studies recently conducted by the Panel, and explains why MIBK should be delisted as a HAP.

I. Health and Environmental Effects Data Because MIBK has been widely used for many years, its potential effects on human health and the environment have been extensively studied. This body of data is discussed at length in the Petition, and copies of the relevant studies were submitted to EPA along with the Petition. EPA recently reviewed the data on the potential health and environmental effects of MIBK to determine whether facilities should continue to report their MIBK releases under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA). Although EPA decided that releases of MIBK should continue to be reported under EPCRA because of MIBK's status as a volatile organic compound ( VOC), the Agency found that MIBK did not pose direct toxicity concerns.

In the Federal Register notice discussing the Agency's review of the MIBK data for purposes of the EPCRA decision, 1 EPA made the following statements:

  " MIBK has low acute and chronic ( systemic) toxicity in that effects occur only at high doses." 2   " MIBK exposure does not appear to be associated with genotoxicity in vitro or in vivo." 3   " MIBK has low direct environmental toxicity." 4 1 64 Fed. Reg. 8769 ( February 23, 1999).

2 Id. at 8772 3 Id. at 8770 4 Id. at 8772 DC_ DOCS\ 182920.2 [ W97] 2   " MIBK is of low concern with respect to aquatic toxicity based on measured toxicity data and quantitative structure activity relationship ( QSAR) analysis." 5   " There is low concern for a potential for developmental effects for the general population following acute inhalation exposures to MIBK." 6 Thus, the only concern raised by the Agency during its EPCRA review was that MIBK is a VOC and can therefore contribute to ozone formation. As the Agency has acknowledged, however, section 112( b)( 2) of the Clean Air Act makes it clear that a compound should not be listed as a HAP solely because it is a VOC. 7 II. Exposure Assessment Although MIBK has low toxicity, all chemicals can cause adverse effects at sufficiently high exposure levels. In considering whether MIBK should be delisted as a HAP, EPA must determine whether " emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition" of MIBK will produce high enough exposure levels to cause adverse effects. Based on input from Agency staff, the Ketones Panel conducted an extensive exposure assessment to determine whether the public is exposed to potentially hazardous levels of MIBK, or whether such exposures are likely to occur if MIBK is delisted as HAP. Based on this assessment, it is clear that MIBK cannot " reasonably be anticipated to cause any adverse effects to human health." The Panel also has conducted fugacity modeling ( Mackay Level I and Level III) to evaluate the environmental fate of MIBK emissions. These modeling exercises show that predicted environmental concentrations are orders of magnitude below levels of concern for potential adverse environmental effects. The results of the Panel's exposure assessments are summarized below.

A. Inhalation is the Only Potential Route of Significant Exposure In light of anticipated ambient concentrations ( described further below), it is clear that humans would not be expected to ingest any appreciable amounts of MIBK resulting from air emissions. Further, because of MIBK's ready biodegradation and volatilization from water, it is highly unlikely that humans will be exposed to significant levels of MIBK in drinking water. In addition, given its lack of persistence and low bioaccumulation potential, MIBK emitted to the air would be highly unlikely to concentrate in food sources. Finally, dermal absorption is likely to be insignificant compared to inhalation, because dermal absorption is a less efficient exposure route for humans and ambient concentrations of MIBK are not high enough to make this route toxicologically relevant. Thus, as explained further in the Petition, inhalation is the only route of human exposure with potential significance.

5 Id. at 8771 6 Id. at 8772 7 See Petition Section II. C. DC_ DOCS\ 182920.2 [ W97] 3 B. An Inhalation Reference Concentration ( RfC) is the Relevant Benchmark for Evaluating Exposure Levels It is well recognized that MIBK has low acute toxicity. Thus, in order to evaluate whether MIBK emissions may pose a human health risk, ambient concentrations of MIBK should be compared to an inhalation reference concentration ( RfC) for MIBK. An RfC is intended to represent the exposure level to which even a sensitive individual could be exposed for a lifetime without " an appreciable risk of deleterious effects." 8 The IRIS database does not currently include an inhalation reference concentration for MIBK. However, as explained in the Petition, the Ketones Panel has calculated an RfC for MIBK based on EPA's 1994 guidance. 9 The RfC is based on subchronic inhalation studies in rats and mice sponsored by the Ketones Panel as part of a testing program under Section 4 of TSCA. This study also was used by EPA to calculate the composite score for MIBK as part of the proposed relative hazard ranking for MIBK and other compounds under Section 112( g) of the Clean Air Act. Based on this study, the calculated RfC for MIBK is 2.4 mg/ m3. This RfC represents a conservative estimate of the concentration of MIBK in air to which an individual could be exposed for a lifetime without adverse effect, and is based on total uncertainty and modifying factors of 1,000. This RfC reflects MIBK's low chronic toxicity and, as discussed below, far exceeds anticipated human exposures.

C. The Highest Exposure Levels Are Found Around Stationary Sources As explained in the Petition, MIBK is a highly efficient solvent that dissolves a wide variety of resins and, therefore, is widely used in surface coatings, adhesives, and inks. 10 It also is used as a solvent in cleaning fluids and dewaxing agents, and as an extraction medium for fats, oils, waxes and resins. The vast majority of MIBK emissions are from industrial operations. Although it is also used in consumer products and in applications such as traffic paint, emissions from these products are widely dispersed and are not high enough to produce appreciable airborne concentrations. This fact is confirmed by ambient monitoring studies that are discussed more fully in the Petition. 11 In these studies, MIBK typically was not detected except in industrial areas where it was found in the low parts per billion range. Thus, based on information about the usage of MIBK and data from ambient air monitoring studies, it is clear that the highest exposure levels are found around stationary sources that emit MIBK.

8 See EPA Office of Research and Development, " Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Dosimetry," EPA No. 600/ 8 90/ 066F ( October 1994) at p. 1 3.

9 See Petition Section III. C. 7 and Appendix B.

10 In its EPCRA review, EPA noted that " MIBK has strong solvent power and is a good solvent for many natural and synthetic resins." 64 Fed. Reg. 8770.

11 See Petition Section IV. B. DC_ DOCS\ 182920.2 [ W97] 4 D. Sources Emitting Less than 144,000 Pounds a Year Cannot Realistically Pose a Risk The Panel retained an outside consulting firm, ENSR Corporation, to evaluate potential exposure levels from industrial releases. Based on consultations with Agency modelers, ENSR developed an approach for identifying the universe of sources that could potentially produce ground level concentrations that exceed the RfC. 12 As discussed below, this analysis shows that sources with annual emissions less than 144,000 pounds cannot realistically be expected to produce ground level concentrations of MIBK that exceed the RfC.

ENSR used the following approach, based on input from EPA staff, to make this determination. First, ENSR designed a near " worst case" hypothetical facility  a source configuration that would tend to maximize ground level concentrations of MIBK. In this model, all emissions are assumed to be emitted from a single vent located in the center of a small onestory building that is 5 meters high and 20 meters square. To maximize aerodynamic downwash ( and, consequently, ground level concentrations), the model also assumed that the vent is flush with the roof ( a release height of 5 meters) and that emissions have no momentum or buoyancy that would result in plume rise.

This configuration was then modeled using EPA's SCREEN3 model to determine maximum annual average ground level concentrations of MIBK. As discussed in the ENSR Report dated August, 1999,13 SCREEN3 indicates that, with this source configuration, the maximum ground level concentrations of MIBK would occur at a point located 18 meters from the downwind edge of the building. ENSR then determined that, in order to produce groundlevel concentrations of MIBK at this point that exceed the RfC, the facility would have to emit more than 144,000 pounds per year of MIBK.

There are several layers of conservatism built into this estimate, such that emissions much higher than 144,000 pounds per year probably would be required before any persons would be exposed to ambient concentrations of MIBK above the RfC. First, it is highly unlikely that human receptors would be found just 18 meters from the building edge. Under the screening approach used by ENSR, however, the distance to the site boundary is not relevant, since this approach is designed to predict maximum ground level concentrations regardless of whether they would occur on site or off site. Second, it would be difficult ( if not impossible) for a small building like the one assumed in the screening model to house even a moderate sized coating or other solvent based industrial operation. The actual source data gathered by ENSR indicates that facilities with significant solvent emissions are larger and have higher release heights than the model facility, and that emissions are usually released from several points rather than from a single vent  all of which would tend to produce lower ground level concentrations. Thus, it can be concluded with considerable confidence that sources which emit less than 144,000 12 The approach described here is the same approach used by the Panel to support the separate petition to remove methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK) from the HAP list.

13 A copy of ENSR's 1999 Study is attached as Appendix I to this Petition Addendum. DC_ DOCS\ 182920.2 [ W97] 5 pounds of MIBK cannot be expected to produce ground level concentrations that exceed the RfC, and thus cannot be expected to pose a risk to human health.

E. Modeling Results for All Sources Above 144,000 Pounds Show No Exceedances of the RfC ENSR has conducted two types of modeling to evaluate ambient concentrations of MIBK around all sources that reported more than 144,000 pounds of MIBK emissions in 1996. This analysis shows that predicted maximum off site concentrations are well below the RfC at all of these sources. ENSR has modeled 26 different facilities and found that none produced off site concentrations that would be anticipated to cause adverse health effects.

The 1997 Study: In 1997, ENSR conducted site specific air dispersion modeling for all sources that had reported MIBK emissions of 300,000 pounds or more ( the 1997 Study). 14 ENSR contacted each of these facilities ( 13 based on 1994 TRI data) to gather information that could be used to model maximum off site concentrations and also obtained additional information from public sources ( including Title V permit applications). One facility was excluded because it discovered that it had incorrectly calculated its 1994 air emissions. ENSR obtained the necessary site data for 10 of the remaining 12 facilities, including the top two emitters. The remaining 2 facilities were modeled using a more generic approach described in the ENSR 1997 study report.

Using this data, ENSR performed an air dispersion modeling analysis for each facility using EPA's " Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing Risks Due to Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants" ( 1992). This approach uses three successively rigorous modeling techniques. Tier 1 requires only limited source information and an EPA look up table, and provides the most conservative predictions of maximum concentrations. Tier 2 requires additional source information and an EPA screening level computer program, and generates predictions that are somewhat more realistic than Tier 1 predictions. Tier 3, which requires extensive data from the source and uses EPA's most advanced dispersion modeling techniques, provides the most realistic predicted maximum concentrations. Because each successive tier provides a less conservative ( and more realistic) prediction, Tier 3 modeling was not performed for a facility if Tier 2 modeling predicted maximum annual concentrations below 1.0 mg/ m3.

The results of this study are detailed in the 1997 ENSR Report. Tier 3 modeling was performed for 5 sites, and this modeling showed that, for each of these facilities, predicted maximum off site concentrations were well below the calculated RfC. No facility had a Tier 3 maximum off site concentration above 0.5 mg/ m3. For the other 5 facilities included in the 1997 Study, Tier 2 concentrations were all below 1.0 mg/ m3. Because of the conservative nature of Tier 2 estimates, actual off site concentrations around these facilities are expected to be much lower than Tier 2 values.

14 A copy of ENSR's report of the 1997 Study was included with the Petition as Appendix I. DC_ DOCS\ 182920.2 [ W97] 6 The 1999 Study: ENSR has recently prepared a second study ( the 1999 Study) 15 that updates the 1997 Study based on more recent emissions data, and also examines all sources reporting air emissions greater than 144,000 pounds in the 1996 TRI database, excluding only those that had already been modeled in the previous study. This second ENSR study again demonstrates that there is not a single facility in the U. S. that produces off site concentrations of MIBK that are anticipated to exceed the health benchmark.

Only 9 facilities reported MIBK emissions at or above 300,000 pounds in 1996.16 All 9 facilities were addressed in the 1997 Study. As discussed in the 1999 Study, ENSR used a simple scaling approach to update the previous modeling for all 12 top emitters included in the previous study. Because emissions generally decreased from 1994 to 1996, predicted off site concentrations were lower than estimated in the earlier study in most cases. In all cases, predicted maximum off site concentrations remained substantially below the RfC. See 1999 Study, Table 1.

ENSR then evaluated all the other facilities that reported annual MIBK emissions of greater than 144,000 pounds on the 1996 TRI. For these sources ( those over 144,000 pounds that were not addressed in the 1997 report), ENSR used Tier 3 modeling, which involves the application of sequential meteorological data with the ISC Short Term model ( ISCT3). ISCT3 was applied to each of the sources with emissions greater than 144,000 pounds using site specific meteorological data downloaded from EPA's Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Wherever available, five years of meteorological data were simulated for each site, so that worst case dispersion climatology was used.

Because it was impractical to obtain site specific information other than meteorological data for each source, ENSR again used the conservative source receptor configuration used in the SCREEN3 modeling discussed above ( Section II. D). Thus, model runs were based on 1996 TRI emission rates using the very conservative assumptions that the source has a single roof level vent in the center of a one story building 5 meters high and 20 meters wide. Again, the parameters assumed no plume rise, and no consideration was given to whether the highest predicted impact was inside or outside facility boundaries. Notwithstanding the layers of conservatism built into this approach, the modeling showed that the maximum predicted concentration for each facility was below the calculated RfC. Thus, EPA can conclude with a great deal of confidence that there is no facility in the country that produces off site levels of MIBK that are anticipated to cause adverse health effects.

Further, to illustrate the conservative nature of the SCREEN3 Modeling, ENSR conducted SCREEN3 modeling for all facilities for which it had previously conducted Tier 3 modeling using site specific data. A comparison of results is presented in Table 4 of the 1999 15 The 1999 Study is included as Appendix I to this Petition Addendum.

16 A table showing the distribution of 1996 TRI data across reporting ranges is attached as Appendix II to this Petition Addendum. This table can be compared to table 4 in the Petition ( p. 41) which presents the same analysis based on 1994 TRI data. Note also the previous discussion in this Addendum concerning one facility that overstated its 1994 emissions. DC_ DOCS\ 182920.2 [ W97] 7 ENSR Study, and it shows that modeling results based on site specific data typically are five toten fold ( or more) below the SCREEN3 modeling results based on conservative default assumptions. This comparison adds to the confidence that no facilities have emissions that produce fenceline concentrations above the RfC.

F. It is Highly Unlikely that Future Emissions of MIBK Will Produce Levels of Concern If MIBK is removed from the list of HAPs, use of MIBK may increase. For several reasons, however, MIBK emissions are unlikely to increase substantially. First, MIBK will continue to be regulated as a VOC. If a company wishes to increase its usage of MIBK substantially, it likely will trigger either new source review ( NSR) or prevention of significant deterioration ( PSD) permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act. In either case, the facility would be required to install control technology to minimize emissions. Even if a facility does not trigger NSR or PSD review, VOC emissions are subject to other types of federal and state regulation that will limit increases in MIBK emissions.

Second, MIBK is used primarily in paints and coatings and, to a lesser extent, in inks and adhesives. In these and other solvent applications, MIBK is rarely used by itself. Typically, MIBK is part of a solvent blend that must be carefully formulated to achieve the proper performance characteristics, including such things as evaporation rate, surface tension, solvent balance, and flash point. Although there is flexibility to increase the use of MIBK in many solvent blends, there are inherent limits on the amount of MIBK ( or any other single solvent) that can be used in any formulation.

Finally, modeling data discussed above show that, even if MIBK emissions were to increase significantly, ambient concentrations would be expected to remain well below levels of concern. Actual monitoring data in a number of areas, including industrial areas, indicate that ambient concentrations of MIBK are extremely low. The air dispersion modeling studies conducted by ENSR show that, in most cases, estimated maximum annual off site concentrations around facilities emitting MIBK should be below the RfC by an order of magnitude or more.

In obtaining these modeled ambient concentrations, ENSR used a very conservative source receptor configuration, the same configuration used in Screen3 modeling. Model runs were based on a hypothetical industrial source with a single roof level stack at 5 m. The effect of plume rise was negated by setting stack temperature to ambient, the stack diameter to 0.01 m and the exit velocity to 0.01 m/ sec. The MIBK concentrations obtained using these conservative assumptions are considerably higher than would be obtained using site specific source receptor data. To evaluate the effect of using such conservative assumptions, ENSR again ran the dispersion models for facilities previously addressed in ENSR's 1997 dispersion modeling study, this time both with and without site specific data. The inclusion of site specific data in the evaluation of these facilities reduced the predicted maximum annual MIBK concentrations by a factor of 6 to 28. The results in table 3 would be in all likelihood similarly reduced with the inclusion of more realistic site specific source receptor data. Therefore, even significant increases in MIBK emissions would not pose an appreciable risk to human health or the environment. DC_ DOCS\ 182920.2 [ W97] 8 G. Fugacity Modeling Results Demonstrate that Environmental Concentrations of MIBK Are Orders of Magnitude Below Levels of Concern for Environmental Effects The Panel also has recently performed fugacity modeling ( Mackay Level I and Level III) to evaluate the fate of MIBK in air, water, soil and sediment. 17 The results of this modeling can be used to determine whether environmental concentrations might be expected to approach levels of concern for environmental effects. Similar to the ENSR studies, very conservative assumptions were used. Even so, the most conservative case shows environmental concentrations of MIBK as follows: air, 192 ng/ m3; soil, 0.00891 ng/ g; sediment, 0.00315 ng/ g; and water, 7.791 ng/ L. These concentrations are well below levels that might be expected to pose hazards to human health or the environment. Stated differently, the PEC/ PNEC ratio18 in every case is several orders of magnitude below the target of one.

The fugacity modeling does not address transformation products, but this is not a likely source of concern because the principal transformation product is believed to be acetone, 19 which is not listed as a HAP. Further, any degradation products of MIBK in air would be produced far downwind from facility boundaries, after the emissions have been greatly dispersed and MIBK concentrations have become vanishingly small.

III. Conclusion The potential for MIBK to cause adverse effects on human health or the environment has been extensively studied. The body of data demonstrates that MIBK has low acute and chronic toxicity as well as low environmental toxicity. Extensive modeling studies have been conducted using multiple conservative assumptions to estimate maximum ambient concentrations that may result from industrial releases. These modeling results consistently demonstrate that ambient concentrations are well below levels of concern for health or environmental effects. Accordingly, MIBK meets the criteria for removal from the HAPs list.

17 The modeling results and analysis are presented in a report prepared by Dr. Charles Staples of Assessment Technologies, Inc. A copy of this report is attached as Appendix III to this Petition Addendum.

18 This is the ratio of the predicted exposure concentration ( PEC) to the predicted no effect concentration ( PNEC) in each environmental medium. A PEC/ PNEC ratio below one signifies that exposures are below conservatively calculated safe levels.

19 P. H. Howard, Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals Vol. II., 341 348 ( 1990).


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36320-36321]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0234; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-90]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Gold Beach, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface at Gold Beach Municipal Airport,
Gold Beach, OR. The airspace supports the airport's transition from VFR
to IFR operations. The first area extends upward from 700 feet above
the surface and the second area extends upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 10, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov//air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you
can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the
authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103.
Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to
assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft
and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Gold Beach
Municipal Airport, Gold Beach, OR, to ensure the safety and management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 17791; March 31, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0234 to
establish Class E airspace at Gold Beach Municipal Airport, Gold Beach,
OR. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface at the Gold Beach Municipal Airport, Gold Beach,
OR. The airspace supports the airport's transition from VFR to IFR
operations.
    The first airspace area extends upward from 700 feet above the
surface within a 6.3-mile radius to the airport, and within 1 mile each
side of the 325[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.3-
mile radius to 9.3 miles northwest of the airport.
    The second airspace area extends upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface within a 15-mile radius of the Gold Beach Municipal Airport,
excluding that airspace that extends beyond 12 miles from the coast.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Gold Beach, OR

Gold Beach Municipal Airport, OR
    (Lat. 42[deg]24'55'' N, long. 124[deg]25'30'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 1 mile each side
of the 325[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.3-
mile radius to 9.3 miles northwest of the airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 15-mile
radius of Gold Beach Municipal Airport, excluding that airspace that
extends beyond 12 miles from the coast.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 10, 2020.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-12901 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


" Johnston, A. Todd" < ajohnston@ nma. org>

07/ 24/ 2006 08: 01 PM T o Jason Burnett/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA c c S u b j e c t Assessment of New Studies on Coarse PM Jason,

As you know, we do not believe the scientific data indicates that regulation of coarse PM is warranted under the NAAQS. We understand that EPA is now pointing to a number of " newer" studies to support its claim that coarse PM should be regulated. We asked Dr. Jonathan Borak, with Yale University's School of Medicine, to review and provide comment on those studies. Thus far, he has been able to review three:

* Schins RPF et al. ( 2004): Inflammatory effects of coarse and fine particulate matter in relation to chemical and biological constituents. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 195: 1 11.

* Veranth JM et al. ( 2004): Inflammatory cytokines and cell death in BEAS 2B lung cells treated with soil dust, lipopolysaccharide, and surfacemodified particles. Toxicological Sciences 82: 88 96.

* Veranth JM et al. ( 2006): Correlation of in vitro cytokine responses with the chemical composition of soil derived particulate matter. Environmental Health Perspectives 114: 341 349.

With respect to these studies, Dr. Borak concludes: " these studies indicate the complexity of understanding the physiological response to particulate exposures. They explore the underlying mechanisms that might explain those responses, but their study methods do not reflect the reality of human inhalational exposure, they administered doses that far exceeded those associated with realistic ambient exposures, and they can not be readily extrapolated to such ambient exposures. . . These studies may provide a basis for better understanding particulate toxicity and they certainly deserve follow up study, but they can not currently serve as the basis for setting human exposure limits."

Dr. Borak's written comments are attached for your review.

Dr. Borak will continue to look at these and other studies recently identified in the interagency review process as supporting the proposition that a coarse PM NAAQS is necessary to protect public health. We submit these three studies do not support EPA's theory.

I will forward the results of his additional assessments as soon as I receive them.

Todd Johnston National Mining Association 202 463 2668


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22872]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR13-16-001; Docket No. PR13-17-001; Not Consolidated]

 TexStar Transmission, LP; TEAK Texana Transmission Company, LP;
Notice of Filings

    Take notice that on April 5, 2013, the applicants listed above
submitted an amendment to the December 6, 2012, baseline filing of
their Statement of Operating Conditions for services provided under
Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (``NGPA'').
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 18, 2013.

    Dated: April 11, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09010 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45167-45168]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18048]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9839-5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Cannon Engineering Corp.
(CEC), Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Cannon Engineering Corp. (CEC),
Superfund Site (Site) located in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of Massachusetts, through the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP), have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than five-year
reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Derrick Golden, EPA Region 1--New England, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912 or
Rudy Brown, EPA Region 1--New England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100,
Mail Code ORAO1-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912.
     Hand delivery: Derrick Golden, EPA Region 1--New England,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07-4, Boston, MA 02109-
3912 or Rudy Brown, EPA Region 1--New England, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Mail Code ORAO1-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (M-F,
9-5), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through  http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Records Center, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday-Friday: 9:00
a.m.-5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday--Closed, and
Bridgewater Public Library, 15 South Street, Bridgewater, MA 02324,
508-697-3331, Monday-Wednesday: 9:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m., Thursday: 10:00
a.m.-5:00 p.m., Friday: 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., Saturday: 10:00 a.m.-2:00
p.m., Sunday: Closed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Derrick Golden, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 New England, 5
Post Office Square, Mail code OSRR07-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912, (617)
918-1448, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of Cannon Engineering Corp. (CEC), Superfund Site without
prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a
noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct
final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If
we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not
take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive
adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of
Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address
all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on
this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment
period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 18, 2013.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2013-18048 Filed 7-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 67602-67603]
[DOCID:fr29no07-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8499-9; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0971]

An Exploratory Study: Assessment of Modeled Dioxin Exposure in
Ceramic Art Studios

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Peer-Review Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
an external peer-review workshop to

review the external review draft document titled, ``An Exploratory
Study: Assessment of Modeled Dioxin Exposure in Ceramic Art Studios''
(EPA/600/R-06/044A). The draft document was prepared by the National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of
Research and Development. The purpose of this report is to describe an
exploratory investigation of potential dioxin exposures to artists/
hobbyists who use ball clay to make pottery and related products.
Dermal, inhalation and ingestion exposures to clay were measured at the
ceramics art department of Ohio State University in Columbus, OH.
Estimates of exposure were made based on measured levels of clay in the
studio air, deposited on surrogate food samples and on the skin of
artists. EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of
pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination.
    On October 4, 2007, EPA announced a 45-day public comment period on
the draft document (72 FR 56756). The public comment period has closed
as of November 19, 2007. The public comment period and the external
peer-review panel workshop are separate processes that provide
opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the document.
All public comments submitted have been forwarded to EPA's contractor,
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), and provided to the external peer-
review panel members prior to the workshop for consideration during
discussions at the workshop.
    In preparing a final report, EPA will consider the public comments
submitted to EPA's docket during the public comment period, and the
comments and, recommendations from the external peer-review workshop,
including any oral public comments made at the workshop.

DATES: The peer-review panel workshop will begin on Wednesday, January
16, 2008, at approximately 9 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. Members of the
public may attend the peer-review panel workshop. Time will be set
aside on the morning of January 16, 2008 for registered attendees who
wish to make brief oral comments (for more information refer to the
instructions for registration below).

ADDRESSES: Eastern Research Group (ERG), an EPA contractor for external
scientific review, will convene an independent panel of experts and
organize and conduct the peer-review workshop to review this draft
document. The peer-review workshop will be held at the Navy League
Building, 2300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
    Observers may attend the peer-review workshop through a
registration process by calling ERG's conference line between the hours
of 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. EST at<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at (800)
803-2833, or by faxing a registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER> (please
reference the ``Dioxin/Cermics Peer-Review Panel Workshop'' and include
full address and contact information) or by sending an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Subject line: Dioxin/Ceramics Peer-Review Panel

Workshop; Body: include full address and contact information). Pre-
registration is strongly recommended as space is limited, and
registration will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. The
deadline for pre-registration is Monday, January 7, 2008. If space
allows, registrations will continue to be accepted after this date,
including on-site registration. Time will be set aside to hear comments
from observers, and individuals will be limited to a maximum of five
minutes during the morning of the day of the workshop. When you
register, please inform ERG that you wish to make comments during the
comment period.
    The draft document, ``An Exploratory Study: Assessment of Modeled
Dioxin Exposure in Ceramic Art Studios,'' is available primarily via
the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment(s home
page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available

from the NCEA Information Management Team; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name,
mailing address, and the document title, ``An Exploratory Study:
Assessment of Modeled Dioxin Exposure in Ceramic Art Studios''. Copies
are not available from ERG and copies will not be available at the
workshop.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding information,
registration, and logistics for the external peer-review workshop
should be directed to Eastern Research Group, 110 Hartwell Avenue,
Lexington, MA 02421-3136; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at
(800) 803-2833; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you need technical information about the document, please
contact John Schaum, National Center for Environmental Assessment
(NCEA); telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: November 21, 2007.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
 [FR Doc. E7-23158 Filed 11-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P