[Federal Register: June 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 113)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28165-28166]
[DOCID:fr15jn09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0465]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Navy Pier Southeast Safety
Zone in Chicago Harbor during July 1, 2009 through July 29, 2009. This
action is necessary to protect vessels and people from the hazards
associated with fireworks displays. This safety zone will restrict
vessel traffic from a portion of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan
Zone.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.931 will be enforced from July 1,
2009 through July 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail BM2 Kraft, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the
Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL, 33 CFR
165.931 for the following events:
    (1) Navy Pier Wednesday Fireworks on July 1, 2009 from 9:15 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m.; on July 8, 2009 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on
July 15, 2009 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on July 22, 2009 from
9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on July 29, 2009 from 9:15 p.m. through
9:45 p.m.;
    (2) Navy Pier Saturday Fireworks on July 04, 2009 from 8:45 p.m.
through 9:30 p.m.; on July 11, 2009 from 10 p.m. through 10:40 p.m.; on
July 18, 2009 from 10 p.m. through 10:40 p.m.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or
his on-scene representative to enter, move within or exit the safety
zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone
shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port
or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.931 (72 FR
32520, June 13, 2007) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain
of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the
public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section
is suspended. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Lake Michigan on channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: June 2, 2009.
Bruce C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E9-13890 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


To: Sharlene Matten

From: Larry Antilla

Subject: September 8, 2006 Request for additional information.

VOLUME 2 SAMPLING AND TRAPPING DATA-SUPPLEMENT

TRAP DENSITY

NON-BT COTTON

1 trap per ten acres or 1 trap per field on fields less than ten acres.

BT

1 trap per forty acres on small contiguous blocks of fields with out
biological separation.

1 trap per eighty acres on large contiguous blocks of fields with out
biological separation.

TRAP PLACEMENT

Protocol calls for traps to be placed at or near the northeast corner of
the field in a protected location (near a permanent structure such as a
telephone pole). If a field has more than one trap, the traps are evenly
spaced and numbered in a counter clockwise manner. Traps are placed as
near to the field edge as possible while not obstructing the movement of
equipment in and out of the field. Traps are attached to a wooden survey
stake in order to maintain traps at canopy height.

TRAP SERVICE

Traps are regularly serviced once each week unless environmental
conditions are prohibitive i.e. moisture soaked terrain inaccessible by
4 wheel drive. When a trap is serviced the entire trap is removed and a
new trap with a new Pink Bollworm pheromone lure is placed in the trap.
The “old” trap is labeled with the service date and the crop stage.
Trap locations are bar-coded and each “new” trap is labeled with the
field number and trap number. Traps are baited a with rubber dispenser
impregnated with a 4 mg dose of Shinitsu Corporation Hexadecadienyl
acetate (Gossyplure, Pheromone) that has been subjected to field
bioassay for field activity by USDA personnel.

The traps removed from the field are transported to the field offices in
a protected manor for identification.

MOTH IDENTIFICATION

Traps are brought in from the field each week; identifiers stationed at
each field office inspect each trap. All Pink Bollworm moths are counted
and recorded as either “native” or “sterile”. The sterile pink
bollworms are dyed red through the media they are fed in the rearing
facility. The trapping date (date the trap was removed from the field),
field number, trap number and crop stage are all recorded along the
“native” and “sterile” counts for entry into the database. Any
questionable determinations regarding the identity of moths are
forwarded to the principle identifier.

At the discretion of program management and as readily available samples
for Dr. Tim Dennehy’s Extension Arthropod Resistance Management
Laboratory (EARML), moths are saved for testing related to BT resistance
or genetic identity. The moths collected for these functions are placed
in alcohol and kept in a freezer to protect from deterioration until
testing can be completed.

BOLL SAMPLING

Boll sampling is conducted on randomly selected fields or pairs of
fields throughout the program area to determine representative
infestation levels. When possible, a BT and a NON-BT field in close
proximity at the randomly selected location are included. The purpose of
this exercise is to approximate the approach taken in Arizona since 1998
wherein, randomly selected paired BT and NON-BT fields were intensively
sampled late season for comparative infestation levels and resistance
monitoring.

BOLL SAMPLING (continued)

Based on trapping information, history and targeted field inspection,
other fields are checked for boll infestation as needed. Program
personnel make these decisions by dedicating the majority of our
resources on field based activities whereby anomalies are isolated and
investigated to the benefit of the producers in the program. Due to the
targeted approach in this instance any findings are neither
representative nor random and therefore statistically not indicative of
program wide infestation levels.

Sampling each of the four thousand six hundred and twenty six fields
each week is not logistically or economically feasible and would
certainly be undesirable to producers in the program.

The initial boll survey sampling was performed for 4 sampling cycles (1
sample every other week). Additional sampling will be conducted using
boll boxes. Boll boxes data is much more reliable as bolls are picked
and then placed in boxes (cages) and stored at controlled temperatures
until any organisms inside the bolls have emerged and can be counted.

STERILE/NATIVE TRAPPING DATA

By statute, all growers within the program area must report NON-BT
cotton in a timely manner. BT cotton reporting is not legally required
and therefore must be ground proofed by program personnel. Circumstances
do exist wherein late planted or unreported cotton results in data
beginning the week after traps are deployed.

Trapping data is not a self contained gauge of populations. Pheromone
traps are subject to hindrance from many biological, environmental and
seasonal influences. Inherent variability in trapping information from
specific trap location data must be evaluated as an aggregate from
multiple data points to be meaningful per the maps provided by Dave
Bartel and the statistical data model. Moth numbers found in traps are
not directly proportionate to release levels on that field or the
surrounding area. Native populations in the program area are still very
high. Native and Sterile females produce pheromone which competes with
the traps. As the native populations become less significant the
pheromone traps will become more consistent population indicators as
individual data points. As discussed in the trapping section above,
there are periodic instance where traps cannot be accessed, in these
instances no data is available.

STERILE/NATIVE TRAPPING DATA-continued

As indicated in the trapping section of this document, BT fields are
grouped together in regards to trap allocation. Not every BT field has a
trap directly assigned to it however; traps are distributed through the
region to produce a representative sample of the region and all of the
fields therein. Trapping each BT cotton field individually is cost
prohibitive and logistically impossible within the constraints of the
Pink Bollworm Eradication Program. This approach is in strict contrast
to non eradication program grower practices where BT cotton is not
monitored with pheromone traps.

All fields have received sterile release every week on timetable with
minor variations due to weather and or chemical treatment. Chemical
treatment only affects sterile release on NON-BT cotton as BT cotton is
not treated with chemical or pheromone treatments. Sterile release has
been unremitting once sterile release began. No release days have been
compromised due to mechanical failure, moth supply or due diligence.
Sterile moths in excess of 1,137,012,553 have been released over Arizona
BT and NON-BT cotton as of September 5, 2006 within the Pink Bollworm
Eradication Program.

VOLUME 1 TREATMENT DATA TABLE 1-SUPPLEMENT

“PBW Pheromone rope” is synonymous with PB-Rope L
((Z,Z)-7,11-Hexadecadien-1-yl Acetate 46.7% (Z,E)-7,11-Hexadecadien-1-yl
Acetate 44.1%) (Gossyplure, Pheromone). PB-Rope L is a high rate
dispenser that is distributed throughout the field at a rate of 200
dispensers per acre. The dispensers are applied several different ways.
Dispensers are either hand tied to the plants, wrapped on a bamboo stick
and placed in the planted row by hand or, wrapped and on a bamboo stick
and mechanically inserted into the planted row. PB-Rope L is a 60-90
pheromone mating disruption treatment.

Dual indicates a dual treatment including a mating disruption pheromone
constituent such as NoMate PBW fiber ((Z,Z)-7,11 -Hexadecadien-1-01
acetate 3 .80% + (Z,E)-7,1 1- Hexadecadien-1-01 acetate 3.80%)
(Gossyplure, Pheromone) or NoMate PBW MEC ((Z,Z)-7,11- Hexadecadien-1-
yl Acetate 10.0% + (Z,E)-7,11- Hexadecadien-1 -yl Acetate 10.0%)
(Gossyplure, Pheromone) (Microencapsulated concentrate) and a chemical
component such as Lock-On.

Lock-On is a formulation of microencapsulated chlorpyrifos.

Cumulative trapping, treatment and sterile release data will be provided
at a later date. We hope that this information provided will be
sufficient to help you complete your review.

Arizona Cotton Research And Protection Council

3721 E. Wier Ave

Phoenix AZ, 85040

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  4


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 23826]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-08941]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74725; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend NASDAQ Rules 7014 and 7018

April 14, 2015.

Correction

    In notice document 2015-08941, appearing on pages 21778-21782 in
the Issue of Monday, April 20, 2015, make the following correction:
    On page 21781, in the third column, on the last line, ``May 8,
2015.'' should read ``May 11, 2015.''

[FR Doc. C1-2015-08941 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57646-57647]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on September 8, 2017 [82 FR 42573]. The agency received no
comments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. Wiacek at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43-419,
NRM-220, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Wiacek's telephone number is 202-
366-4801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: 49 CFR part 595--Make Inoperative Exemptions.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0635.
    Type of Request: Request for public comments on a previously
approved collection of information.
    Abstract: On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule (66 FR
12638) to facilitate the modification of motor vehicles so that persons
with disabilities can drive or ride in them as passengers. In that
final rule, the agency issued a limited exemption from a statutory
provision that prohibits specified types of commercial entities from
either removing safety equipment or features installed on motor
vehicles pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or
altering the equipment or features so as to adversely affect their
performance. The exemption is limited in that it allows repair
businesses to modify only certain types of Federally-required safety
equipment and features, under specified circumstances. The regulation
is found at 49 CFR part 595 Subpart C, ``Vehicle Modifications to
Accommodate People with Disabilities.''
    This final rule included two new ``collections of information,'' as
that term is defined in 5 CFR part 1320 ``Controlling Paperwork Burdens
on the Public'': Modifier identification and a document to be provided
to the owner of the modified vehicle stating the exemptions used for
that vehicle and any reduction in load carrying capacity of the vehicle
of more than 100 kg (220 lbs).
    Modifiers who take advantage of the exemption created by this rule
are required to furnish NHTSA with a written document providing the
modifier's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that
the modifier is availing itself of the exemption. The rule requires:
    ``S595.6 Modifier Identification.
    (a) Any motor vehicle repair business that modifies a motor vehicle
to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger
in, the motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the exemption
provided in 49 CFR 595.7 shall furnish the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    (1) Full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the motor
vehicle repair business.
    (2) Residence address of the motor vehicle repair business and
State of incorporation if applicable.
    (3) A statement that the motor vehicle repair business modifies a
motor vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride
as a passenger in, the motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the
exemption provided in 49 CFR 595.7.
    (b) Each motor vehicle repair business required to submit
information under paragraph (a) of this section shall submit the
information not later than August 27, 2001. After that date, each motor
vehicle repair business that modifies a motor vehicle to enable a
person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the
motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the exemption provided in
49 CFR 595.7 shall submit the information required under paragraph (a)
not later than 30 days after it first modifies a motor vehicle to
enable a person with a

disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle.
Each motor vehicle repair business who has submitted required
information shall keep its entry current, accurate and complete by
submitting revised information not later than 30 days after the
relevant changes in the business occur.''
    This requirement is a one-time submission unless changes are made
to the business as described in paragraph (b).

    Affected Public: Businesses that modify vehicles, after the first
retail sale, so that the vehicle may be used by persons with
disabilities.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,475 hours and $50.04.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 765.
    Comments are invited on: 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; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

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

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-26232 Filed 12-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21832-21834]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0017]

QAI Laboratories, Ltd. Application for Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of QAI
Laboratories, Ltd., for expansion of recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's
preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before May 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at: https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0026,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653,

200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand,
express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the
Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2013-0017). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the
OSHA Docket Office.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before May 30, 2019 to the Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support
and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that QAI Laboratories, Ltd. (QAI), is
applying for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. QAI requests the
addition of ten test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition
and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including QAI, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    QAI currently has two facility (sites) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with headquarters located at: QAI
Laboratories, Ltd., 3980 North Fraser Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5J
5K5. A complete list of QAI's scope of recognition is available at
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/qai.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    QAI submitted an application, dated August 4, 2017 (OSHA-2013-0017-
0009), to expand recognition to include ten additional test standards.
OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and
reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site
reviews in relation to this application.
    Table 1 lists the appropriate test standard found in QAI's
application to expand for testing and certification of products under
the NRTL Program.

Table 1--Proposed List Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in QAI's
                        NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 50........................  Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, Non-
                                Environmental Considerations.
UL 50E.......................  Enclosures for Electrical Equipment,
                                Environmental Considerations.
UL 467.......................  Grounding and Bonding Equipment.
UL 962A......................  Standard for Furniture Power Distribution
                                Units.
UL 1012......................  Standard for Power Units Other Than Class
                                2.
UL 1310......................  Standard for Class 2 Power Units.
UL 1573......................  Standard for Stage and Studio Luminaires
                                and Connector Strips.
UL 1951......................  Standard for Electric Plumbing
                                Accessories.
UL 60950-21..................  Information Technology Equipment--Safety--
                                Part 21: Remote Power Feeding.
UL 60950-23..................  Information Technology Equipment--Safety--
                                Part 23: Large Data Storage Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application
    QAI submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope
of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent
documentation, indicates QAI can meet the requirements prescribed by 29
CFR 1910.7 for expanding recognition to include the addition of these
ten test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above.
This

preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary
approval of QAI's application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether QAI meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL.
Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in
writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request
is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-3655, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2013-0017.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments,
the agency will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant QAI's application for
expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will
make the final decision on granting the application. In making this
decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings
prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Federal Register.
IV. Authority and Signature
    Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 7, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-09984 Filed 5-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13829-13830]
[DOCID:fr17mr06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PH06-14-000, et al.]

Alpena Power Resources, Ltd., et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate
Filings

March 9, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Alpena Power Resources, Ltd., Fletcher Investment, LLC

[Docket No. PH06-14-000]

    Take notice that on March 6, 2006, Alpena Power Resources, Ltd. And
Fletcher Investment, LLC filed a Petition for Waiver of the
Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005,
pursuant to 18 CFR 366.4 of the Commission's regulations on the basis
that it is confined substantially to a single state.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2006.

2. Alaska Energy and Resources Company

[Docket No. PH06-15-000]

    Take notice that on March 6, 2006, Alaska Energy and Resources
Company filed a Petition for Waiver of the Requirements of The Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.4(c)(1) of
the Commission's regulations on the basis that it is a single state
holding company.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2006.

3. National Grid Holdings One plc, and its Affiliated Holding Company
Subsidiaries

[Docket No. PH06-16-000]

    Take notice that on March 3, 2006, National Grid Holdings One plc
(NGH One) and its affiliated direct and indirect holding company
subsidiaries filed a Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(a)
and 366.4(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 24, 2006.

4. RGC Resources, Inc.

[Docket No. PH06-18-000]

    Take notice that on March 6, 2006, RGC Resources, Inc. filed a
Petition for Waiver of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(c) and 366.4(c)(1) of the
Commission's regulations on the basis that all of its public utility
operations occur in the state of Virginia.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2006.

5. Deutsch Bank AG, London Branch, DB Energy Trading, LLC

[Docket No. PH06-19-000]

    Take notice that on March 3, 2006, National Deutsche Bank AG,
London Branch and Deutsche Bank Energy Trading, LLC filed a Petition
for Exemption of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(a) and 366.3(b) of the
Commission's regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 24, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 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 comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 14 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3873 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14312-14313]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0195; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-08-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International, Inc. Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Honeywell International, Inc. ALF502L-2C; ALF502R-3; ALF502R-3A;
ALF502R-5; LF507-1F; and LF507-1H turbofan engines. This proposed AD
was prompted by two reports of engines experiencing uncontained release
of low-pressure (LP) turbine blades. This proposed AD would require
operational checks of the engine overspeed trip system. We are
proposing this AD to prevent LP turbine overspeed leading to
uncontained release of the LP turbine blades and damage to the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Honeywell International, Inc., P.O. Box 52181, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2181,
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site: http://portal.honeywell.com/wps/portal/aero. You may review copies of the referenced service information at
the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd.,
Lakewood, CA 90712; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0195;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-08-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received two reports of engines experiencing uncontained release
of LP turbine blades. Investigation revealed that the overspeed trip
system on both of these engines had a preexisting (latent) failure when
the fan decoupled from the LP turbine, due to a certain part failing in
the reduction gearbox. This condition, if not corrected, could result
in LP turbine overspeed leading to uncontained release of the LP
turbine blades and damage to the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Honeywell International, Inc. ALF502L Engine
Maintenance Manual Section 72-00-00, Inspection/Check-10, dated October
31, 2000; ALF502R Engine Manual Section 72-00-00, Inspection/Check-09,
dated July 31, 2000; LF507-1F Engine Manual Section 72-00-00,
Inspection/Check-08, Temporary Revision 72-146, dated November 3, 2006;
and LF507-1H Engine Manual Section 72-00-00, Inspection/Check-08, dated
September 30, 1999. The service information describes procedures for
operational checks of the overspeed trip system.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive operational
checks of the overspeed trip system.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 188 Honeywell
International, Inc. ALF502L-2C; ALF502R-3; ALF502R-3A; ALF502R-5;
LF507-1F; and LF507-1H turbofan engines, installed on airplanes of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about one work-hour to
perform an operational check of the overspeed trip system on each
engine. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost of this proposed AD for one
operational check of the overspeed trip system to U.S. operators, to be
$15,980.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Honeywell International, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2012-0195; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NE-08-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 8, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Honeywell International, Inc. ALF502L-2C;
ALF502R-3; ALF502R-3A; ALF502R-5; LF507-1F; and LF507-1H turbofan
engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by two reports of engines experiencing
uncontained release of low-pressure (LP) turbine blades. We are
issuing this AD to prevent LP turbine overspeed leading to
uncontained release of the LP turbine blades and damage to the
airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Initial Check of the Overspeed Trip System

    Within 30 operating hours after the effective date of this AD,
perform an initial check of the overspeed trip system, in accordance
with the applicable engine manual section listed in Table 1 of this
AD.

               Table 1--Applicable Engine Manual Sections
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ALF502L-2C Engines.................  Use Honeywell ALF502L Engine
                                          Maintenance Manual Section 72-
                                          00-00, Inspection/Check-10,
                                          1.B.(1) through 1.B.(3), dated
                                          October 31, 2000.
For ALF502R-3; ALF502R-3A; and ALF502R-  Use Honeywell ALF502R Engine
 5 Engines.                               Manual Section 72-00-00,
                                          Inspection/Check-09, 1.C.(1),
                                          dated July 31, 2000.
For LF507-1F Engines...................  Use Honeywell LF507-1F Engine
                                          Manual Section 72-00-00,
                                          Inspection/Check-08, Temporary
                                          Revision 72-146 1.B.(1)
                                          through B.(8), dated November
                                          3, 2006.
For LF507-1H Engines...................  Use Honeywell LF507-1H Engine
                                          Manual Section 72-00-00,
                                          Inspection/Check-08, 1.C.(1),
                                          dated September 30, 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(g) Repetitive Checks of the Overspeed Trip System

    (1) For ALF502L-2C engines, perform repetitive checks of the
overspeed trip system at 100-hour intervals of operation, in
accordance with the applicable engine manual section listed in Table
1 of this AD.
    (2) For ALF502R-3; ALF502R-3A; ALF502R-5; LF507-1F; and LF507-1H
engines, perform repetitive checks of the overspeed trip system once
every flight day, in accordance with the applicable engine manual
section listed in Table 1 of this AD.

(h) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a flight day is a 24-hour period
during which at least one flight is indicated.

(i) Signing Off of Daily Repetitive Checks

    Upon starting the daily repetitive checks, only one sign-off is
required attesting to the daily check implementation.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Baitoo,
Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
562-627-5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Honeywell International, Inc., P.O. Box 52181, Phoenix, AZ 85072-
2181, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site: http://portal.honeywell.com/wps/portal/aero. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 1, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2012-5790 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 173 (Friday, September 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55280-55281]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-66-000]

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.; Notice
of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On August 28, 2020, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL20-66-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2018), instituting an investigation into whether Tri-State
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.'s (Tri-State) to
determine whether Tri-State's Board Policy Nos. 101 and 115, Rate
Schedule No. 308, and the Member Project Contracts are just and
reasonable. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.,
172 FERC ] 61,172 (2020).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL20-66-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL20-66-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2019),

within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: August 31, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19611 Filed 9-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	September 1, 2009

Recommended Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk
Assessments of Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds:

EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT

Prepared by Risk Assessment Forum

NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS AN EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT.  It has not been formally
released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at
this stage be construed to represent Agency Policy.  It is being
circulated for comment on its technical accuracy and policy
implications.

NOTICE

	This report is an external draft for review purposes only and does not
constitute Agency policy.  Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

ABSTRACT

	This document describes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(U.S. EPA’s) updated approach for evaluating the human health risks
from exposures to environmental media containing dioxin-like compounds
(DLCs).  Dioxin and DLCs are structurally and toxicologically related
halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons.  Traditionally, the Toxic Equivalency
Factor (TEF) Methodology, a component mixture method, has been used to
evaluate human health risks posed by these mixtures.  The U.S. EPA
recommends the use of the consensus TEF values for
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and DLCs published in 2005 by the
World Health Organization.  The U.S. EPA recommends these TEFs be used
for all effects mediated through aryl hydrocarbon receptor binding by
the DLCs including cancer and non-cancer effects.  Using information
that summarizes the range of relative toxicities of the DLCs, the U.S.
EPA suggests that conduct of a sensitivity analysis be considered to
illustrate the impact the TEFs have on the predicted risk.  The U.S. EPA
will update these recommendations in the future based on the evaluation
of new toxicity data for the DLCs and the results of new consensus
processes undertaken to update the TEF approach.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	Page

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318882"  LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS	  PAGEREF _Toc209318882 \h  v

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318884"  LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF DIOXINS AND
DIOXIN-LIKE COMPOUNDS	  PAGEREF _Toc209318884 \h  vi

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318885"  KEY TERMS	  PAGEREF _Toc209318885 \h
vii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318886"  PREFACE	  PAGEREF _Toc209318886 \h  viii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318887"  AUTHORS, TECHNICAL PANEL AND REVIEWERS
PAGEREF _Toc209318887 \h  ix

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318888"  INTRODUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc209318888 \h
1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318889"  THE TEF METHODOLOGY	  PAGEREF
_Toc209318889 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318890"  BACKGROUND	  PAGEREF _Toc209318890 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318891"  RECOMMENDATIONS	  PAGEREF _Toc209318891
\h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318892"  CONCLUSIONS	  PAGEREF _Toc209318892 \h
16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318893"  REFERENCES	  PAGEREF _Toc209318893 \h
17

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc209318894"  APPENDIX A:  RECOMMENDED TOXICITY
EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (TEFs) FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS OF DIOXIN
AND DIOXIN-LIKE COMPOUNDS DOCUMENT REVIEWERS	A-  PAGEREF _Toc209318894
\h  1

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AHR	aryl hydrocarbon receptor

DLC	dioxin-like compound

ECEH 	European Centre for Environmental Health

ED50	effective dose that causes an effect in 50% of the test units

IPCS 	International Programme on Chemical Safety

NAS	National Academy of Science

ReP	relative potency or relative effect potency

ReP1997	World Health Organization ReP database developed in 1997

TCDD	2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

TEF	toxic equivalency factor

TEQ	toxic equivalence

U.S. EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

WHO	World Health Organization

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF DIOXINS AND DIOXIN-LIKE COMPOUNDS

Polychlorinated biphenyls:

TCB 		tetrachlorinated biphenyl

PeCB 		pentachlorinated biphenyl

HxCB 		hexachlorinated biphenyl

HpCB 		heptachlorinated biphenyl

OCB 		octachlorinated biphenyl

PCB 		polychlorinated biphenyl

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins:

TCDD 	tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

PeCDD 	pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

HxCDD 	hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

HpCDD 	heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

OCDD 	octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

PCDD		polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin

Polychlorinated dibenzofurans:

TCDF 		tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran

PeCDF 	pentachlorinated dibenzofuran

HxCDF 	hexachlorinated dibenzofuran

HpCDF 	heptachlorinated dibenzofuran

OCDF 	octachlorinated dibenzofuran

PCDF 	polychlorinated dibenzofuran

Key Terms

Dioxin-like: A description used for compounds that have chemical
structures, physico-chemical properties and toxic responses similar to
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).  Because of their
hydrophobic nature and resistance towards metabolism, these chemicals
persist and bioaccumulate in fatty tissues of animals and humans.
Certain members of the dioxin, furan, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
family are termed “dioxin-like” in this document and are assigned
TEF values.

Index Chemical: The chemical selected as the basis for standardization
of toxicity of components in a mixture.  The index chemical must have a
clearly defined dose-response relationship.  For DLCs, TCDD is typically
specified as the index chemical.

Relative Potency (ReP): The ratio of the potency of a compound to the
standard toxicant in that specific study; a concept similar to toxic
equivalency but based on a single study, species, or matrix, etc., and
not averaged to obtain a general toxic equivalency value.

TEFs: TEFs are estimates of compound-specific toxicity relative to the
toxicity of an index chemical (typically, TCDD).  TEFs are the result of
expert scientific judgment using all of the available data and taking
into account uncertainties in the available data.

TEQ: Toxic equivalence (TEQ) is the product of the concentration of an
individual DLC in an environmental mixture and the corresponding TCDD
TEF for that compound.

PREFACE

	This document updates the U.S. EPA’s approach for evaluating the
human health risks from exposures to environmental media containing
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds (DLCs).  It is intended for guidance
only.  It does not establish any substantive “rules” under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other law and will have no binding
effect on U.S. EPA or any regulated entity.  Rather, it represents a
statement of current policy.  The U.S. EPA’s National Center for
Environmental Assessment developed the initial draft of this document,
which was then reviewed and completed by a Technical Panel under the
auspices of U.S. EPA’s Risk Assessment Forum.  The Risk Assessment
Forum was established to promote scientific consensus on risk assessment
issues and to ensure that this consensus is incorporated into
appropriate risk assessment guidance.  To accomplish this, the Risk
Assessment Forum assembles experts from throughout EPA in a formal
process to study and report on these issues from an Agency-wide
perspective.

AUTHORS, TECHNICAL PANEL AND REVIEWERS

	This document was prepared by authors from U.S. EPA’s Office of
Research and Development and was then reviewed and completed by a
Technical Panel under the auspices of U.S. EPA’s Risk Assessment
Forum.

AUTHORS

Belinda Hawkins, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH 45268

Janet Hess-Wilson, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH 45268

Glenn Rice (Document Co-lead), U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati,
OH 45268

Jeff Swartout, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH 45268

Linda Teuschler (Document Co-lead), U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati,
OH 45268

TECHNICAL PANEL

Randy Wentsel (Chair), U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
Office of the Assistant Administrator, Washington, DC 20460

David E. Cooper, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation, Washington, DC
20460

Michael DeVito, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711

Tala Henry, U.S. EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Assessment
Division, Washington, DC 20460

Margaret McDonough, U.S. EPA, Region 1, Boston, MA 02114

Marian Olsen, U.S. EPA, Region 2, New York, NY 10007

Glenn Rice, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH 45268

Dan Stralka, U.S. EPA, Region 9, San Francisco, CA, 94105

Linda K. Teuschler, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH 45268

Marlene Berg, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation, Washington, DC
20460

RISK ASSESSMENT FORUM STAFF

Seema Schappelle, U.S. EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, Washington,
DC 20460

Kathryn Gallagher, U.S. EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, Washington,
DC 20460

Gary Bangs, U.S. EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, Washington, DC
20460

Introduction

This document describes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(U.S. EPA’s) updated approach for evaluating the human health risks
from exposures to environmental media containing dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds (DLCs).  Dioxin and DLCs, including polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are structurally and toxicologically
related halogenated dicyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.  Because the
combined effects of these compounds have been found to be dose additive,
the U.S. EPA has recommended use of the Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF)
Methodology and the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) TEFs to
evaluate the risks associated with exposure to mixtures of these
compounds for human health (U.S. EPA, 1989, 2003) and ecological risk
assessments (U.S. EPA, 2008).  The WHO has used a process based on
scientific consensus to develop TEFs for mammals, birds, and fish and
has re-evaluated them on a schedule of approximately every five years
(Ahlborg et al., 1994; Van den Berg et al., 1998, 2006; also see WHO’s
website for the dioxin TEFs, available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/tef_update/en/"
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/tef_update/en/ ).  In this document,
the U.S. EPA is updating its human health approach by adopting the
mammalian TEFs for DLCs recommended in the WHO’s 2005 reevaluation of
TEFs for human exposures to DLCs (Van den Berg et al., 2006).

The TEF Methodology

This section briefly describes the TEF methodology, which is based on
the concept of dose addition.  Application of this methodology in human
health risk assessment has been described and reaffirmed for use by the
Agency in U.S. EPA’s Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (U.S. EPA, 2000).  Under dose addition,
the toxicokinetics and the toxicodynamics of all components are assumed
to be similar and the dose-response curves of the components of a
mixture are assumed to be similarly shaped.  Following these
assumptions, the combined toxicity of the individual components can be
estimated using the sum of their doses, which are scaled for potency
relative to that of another component of the mixture for which adequate
dose-response information is available (U.S. EPA, 2000).

In practice, the scaling factor for each DLC is typically based on a
comparison of its toxic potency to that of a designated index chemical.
For DLCs, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is typically
specified as the index chemical.  The index chemical is well-studied
toxicologically and must have a dose-response function to apply the
methodology to an environmental mixture.  The toxicological data
considered for these comparisons of toxic potency are from both in vitro
and in vivo studies as well as structure-activity relationships and are
based on the following classes of measure: biochemical changes, toxicity
and carcinogenicity.  A comparative toxicity measure from an individual
toxicity assay is termed an estimate of relative potency (ReP).  Based
on the RePs that may be estimated from multiple toxicological assays,
each individual PCDD, PCDF, and PCB is assigned a single scaling factor
termed the TEF.  By definition, the TEF for TCDD is 1.0 (U.S. EPA, 1989,
2000, 2003, 2008; Van den Berg et al., 1998, 2006).

To apply TEFs to an environmental mixture of DLCs, each individual
compound’s exposure concentration is multiplied by its specific TEF,
yielding the individual PCDD, PCDF, or PCB dose that is equivalent to a
dose of the index chemical, TCDD.  These TCDD equivalent doses are then
summed.  To estimate risk associated with the mixture, this sum, which
estimates the total index chemical equivalent dose for the mixture
components considered, is compared to the dose-response function for
TCDD.

Equation 1 is the formula for calculating exposure concentration for n
DLCs in a mixture in TCDD toxic equivalence (TEQ).  Exposure to the ith
individual PCDD, PCDF, or PCB compound is expressed in terms of an
equivalent exposure of TCDD by computing the product of the
concentration of the individual compound (Ci) and its assigned TEFi.
TEQ is then calculated by summing these products across the n DLCs
compounds present in the mixture.  The TEQ may be compared to the
dose-response slope for TCDD and used to assess the risk posed by
exposures to mixtures of DLCs.

 	(Eq. 1)

Background

Initially, U.S. EPA (1989) recommended the use of the TEF approach for
DLCs.  Due to limitations in the available toxicity data for the DLCs, a
number of additional assumptions were associated with this approach as
implemented.  Besides the inherent assumption of dose additivity, these
assumptions included: the applicability of extrapolations from
short-term bioassays to long-term health effects; similarities between
interspecies metabolism; appropriateness of high-dose to low-dose
extrapolations; and the constancy of TEF relationships for different
exposure routes, health endpoints and dose levels (U.S. EPA, 1989, 2000,
2003; see also Birnbaum and DeVito [1995] and Birnbaum [1999]).  To
capture the uncertainty in these assumptions, all TEFs were provided as
order-of-magnitude estimates, and the U.S. EPA described their
application as a “useful interim approach” (U.S. EPA, 1989).

A set of guiding criteria were developed subsequently for TEF approaches
(Barnes et al., 1991; U.S. EPA, 1991, 2000).  These criteria included
the development of TEFs through scientific consensus.  The assignment of
consensus TEFs for the DLCs has been reevaluated as new data have become
available (e.g., Ahlborg et al., 1994) and through consensus judgment of
expert panels (e.g., WHO deliberations detailed in Van den Berg et al.,
1998, 2006).  The TEF values published in Van den Berg et al. (1998)
were recommended for use by U.S. EPA in its National Academy of Science
(NAS) review draft dioxin reassessment (U.S. EPA, 2003).  In its review,
NAS supported the use of the TEF approach (NAS, 2006), stating that
“Even with the inherent uncertainties, the committee concludes that
the TEF methodology provides a reasonable, scientifically justifiable,
and widely accepted method to estimate the relative potency of DLCs.”

In 2005, a WHO expert panel updated TEF values for DLCs (Van den Berg et
al., 2006).  They reaffirmed the characteristics necessary for inclusion
of a compound in the WHO’s TEF approach (Van den Berg et al., 1998).
These include

structural similarity to polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins or
polychlorinated dibenzofurans;

capacity to bind to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR);

capacity to elicit AHR-mediated biochemical and toxic responses; and

persistence and accumulation in the food chain.

Van den Berg et al. (2006) also reevaluated the support for assuming
dose additivity and observing similarly shaped dose-response curves.
Evaluations of a number of studies of DLCs, including a mixture study
from the National Toxicology Program that evaluated neoplastic and
non-neoplastic endpoints (Walker et al., 2005), led the panel to state
that the observed toxicity is consistent generally with these two
assumptions underlying the TEF approach.  In addition, the NAS supported
the use of an additivity assumption in its report on U.S. EPA’s NAS
review draft dioxin reassessment (U.S. EPA, 2003), concluding that
“from an overall perspective, this assumption appears valid, at least
in the context of risk assessment” (NAS, 2006).

The TEF values were revised further by evaluating new toxicological data
in conjunction with in vivo ReP distributions formed using a mammalian
ReP database (Haws et al., 2006).  The database was comprised of ReP
values from all identified studies that could yield an estimate of an
ReP for a DLC; the RePs were not weighted according to study
characteristics (e.g., in vivo, in vitro, chronic, acute, etc.).  Haws
and collaborators extended the original WHO ReP database, developed at
the Karolinska Institute (ReP1997 database) in which some studies were
represented more than once in the form of dissertations, conference
proceedings, and/or peer-reviewed publications.  In the development of a
refined ReP database, Haws et al. applied a set of study exclusion
criteria to the ReP1997 database to identify RePs that likely provided
“the most representative measure of a biological response.”  If a
study met any of the exclusion criteria, the RePs derived from the study
were not included in the quantitative analyses of all RePs.  Haws et al.
(2006) modified the ReP1997 database using the following exclusion
criteria:

Replicate RePs, when RePs from the same original study were presented in
multiple publications

Multiple RePs from a single study that used different assays to measure
the same response.  In this case an effort was made to identify the
single most representative ReP from a study

Study included only a single dose level of test and/or reference
compound

Data omitted from the final peer-reviewed publication

Authors indicated in the original publication that the ReP is not valid
due to experimental problems

Data entry errors

ReP based on replicates in an in vitro study (average value calculated
and retained)

ReP based on non-AHR-mediated response

ReP based on non-mammalian species

Response for test or reference compound not statistically different from
controls and not biologically meaningful

Reference compound (e.g., TCDD) not included in study or in identical
study from the same laboratory

Multiple RePs derived from the same data using different calculation
techniques

Multiple RePs reported for laboratory validation study (samples sent to
two different labs for analysis and RePs calculated for both)

Multiple RePs calculated based on different test conditions

RePs based on data at end of study and at end of some extended recovery
period

ReP based on mixtures study

ReP from an unpublished study that could not be obtained

The most recent WHO TEFs were developed using a refined approach.  The
WHO expert panel considered data from Haws et al. (2006) who present a
statistical distribution of the RePs for each DLC, calculated from the
assembled in vivo and in vitro studies that were not eliminated by the
exclusion criteria.  For each individual DLC, the WHO expert panel
examined where the existing TEF value from Van den Berg et al. (1998)
fell within the in vivo ReP distribution developed in Haws et al.
(2006).  The panel then updated the TEF, or determined no change was
needed, based on its position in the ReP distribution, on new
toxicological data, and on expert judgment (Van den Berg et al., 2006).
Because the ReP distributions were unweighted, the TEFs were determined
using point estimates from toxicological studies, not by using specific
points within the ReP distributions.  A stepwise scale was used to
assign the TEFs using half order of magnitude increments on a
logarithmic scale (e.g., 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, etc.) instead of the increments
used in previous efforts (e.g., 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, etc.), with uncertainty
assumed to be at least + half a log.

Recommendations

The U.S. EPA recommends use of the consensus mammalian TEF values from
Van den Berg et al. (2006) in the assessment of human health risks posed
by exposure to mixtures of TCDD and DLCs.  These TEFs are presented in
Table 1.

The U.S. EPA agrees with Van den Berg et al. (2006) that the TEFs are
most appropriate for dioxin exposures via the oral exposure route and
that the bioavailability of DLCs encountered through other sources of
exposure need to be evaluated in risk analyses.  However, the TEFs may
be applied to other exposure routes, (i.e., dermal or inhalation) as an
interim estimate.  U.S. EPA recommends that, if considered in an
assessment, the fractional contribution of dermal and inhalation route
exposures to the predicted TEQ be identified.

Dioxin and DLCs are associated with several different human health
effects.  The U.S. EPA recommends these TEFs be used for all cancer and
non-cancer effects that are mediated through AHR binding by the DLCs.
U.S. EPA recognizes that this issue will require further evaluation as
additional toxicity data become available.  Eventually,
endpoint-specific TEFs or separate TEFs for systemic toxicity and
carcinogenicity endpoints may need to be developed.

Van den Berg et al. (2006) also identified a number of candidate
compounds that may need to be included in future developments of TEFs
for DLCs:

PCB 37

Polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polybrominated dibenzofurans
(PBDFs)

TABLE 1

Recommended Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk
Assessment of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, Dibenzofurans and
Dioxin-Like Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Compound	TEF

PCDDs

2,3,7,8-TCDD	1

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD	1

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD	0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD	0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD	0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD	0.01

OCDD	0.0003

PCDFs

2,3,7,8-TCDF	0.1

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF	0.03

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF	0.3

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF	0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF	0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF	0.1

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF	0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF	0.01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF	0.01

OCDF	0.0003

TABLE 1 cont.

Compound	TEF

PCBs*

3,3',4,4'-TCB (77)	0.0001

3,4,4',5-TCB (81)	0.0003

3,3',4,4',5-PeCB (126)	0.1

3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (169)	0.03

2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB (105)	0.00003

2,3,4,4',5-PeCB (114)	0.00003

2,3',4,4',5-PeCB (118)	0.00003

2',3,4,4',5-PeCB (123)	0.00003

2,3,3',4,4', 5 -HXCB (156)	0.00003

2,3,3',4,4',5'-HxCB (157)	0.00003

2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB (167)	0.00003

2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB (189)	0.00003

Source: Van den Berg et al. (2006); WHO’s website on dioxin TEFs,
available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/tef_update/en/"
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/tef_update/en/ .

*Note:  TEFs that were previously assigned to PCB 170 and PCB 180
(Ahlborg et al., 1994) were withdrawn during the WHO-ECEH/IPCS TEF
re-evaluation in 1997, and a TEF for PCB 81 was established, such that
the number of PCB compounds with TEFs assigned was reduced from 13 to 12
(Van den Berg et al., 1998).

Mixed halogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins and mixed halogenated dibenzofurans

Hexachlorobenzene

Polychlorinated naphthalenes and polybrominated naphthalenes

Polybrominated biphenyls

U.S. EPA will consider an update of the recommendations in this document
when TEFs for these candidate compounds are developed.  At a minimum, if
occurrence or exposure data are available for these candidate compounds,
this information should be included in the risk analyses.

For analytic transparency, the U.S. EPA recommends that the fraction of
the TEQ attributable to each PCDD, PCDF, or PCB compound be identified
in the risk characterization and that the compounds making the largest
contributions to the TEQ be specified as appropriate to the assessment.
For example, U.S. EPA (2003) notes that the majority of the TEQ (based
on Van den Berg et al., 1998) from dietary exposures is typically
associated with the concentrations of only five compounds (i.e., TCDD,
1,2,3,7,8-PCDD, 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD, PCB 126) whose ReP
variability appears to be small relative to other compounds.  Thus, if
dietary exposures are important to the assessment being conducted, the
fraction of the TEQ attributable to these five compounds should be
presented and discussed in the risk characterization. In addition, the
implications of the fraction of the TEQ attributable to TCDD should be
discussed in the analyses because the dose-response data for TCDD are
used to evaluate risks, and the confidence in the risk estimate
increases with increases in the fraction of the TEQ attributable to
TCDD.

The U.S. EPA suggests that a sensitivity analysis be considered when
using TEFs in major risk assessments to illustrate the impact the TEFs
have on the predicted risk, which is consistent with good risk
assessment practices (U.S. EPA, 2000).  However, the U.S. EPA recognizes
that ranges and appropriate distributions of the uncertainty associated
with each TEF will need to be developed to facilitate the conduct of
advanced sensitivity analyses and uncertainty analyses.  Although
limited to the available ReP data (i.e., not necessarily an unbiased
sample of equivalent factors), the ReP ranges developed by Haws et al.
(2006) may provide a starting point for sensitivity analyses.

Haws et al. (2006) discuss the limitations of the current ReP database
for use in quantitative uncertainty analysis.  The RePs were calculated
using various approaches, ranging from comparing dose-response curves to
developing ratios of ED50s to estimating values from graphs of
dose-response data.  The RePs also represent a wide variety of study
types and endpoints, including biochemical changes, systemic toxicity
and carcinogenicity; some of these data may provide estimates that are
more consistent with individual PCDD, PCDF, or PCB compound toxicity at
higher levels of biological organization and such considerations will
need to be included in the development of a TEF distribution.  Finally,
they note a number of issues associated with the dose-response data
(e.g., non-parallel dose-response curves, differences in maximal
response among PCDD, PCDF, or PCB compounds within a study, incomplete
dose-response data due to insufficient dose levels).  Despite these
challenges, U.S. EPA recognizes that the development of a more refined
ReP database and additional examination of the uncertainties inherent in
a TEF process would improve TEF-based risk assessments.

Conclusions

The U.S. EPA recommends use of the consensus mammalian TEF values from
Van den Berg et al. (2006) in the assessment of human health risks posed
by mixtures of TCDD and DLCs (Table 1).  The U.S. EPA will update these
recommendations in the future based on the evaluation of new toxicity
data for the DLCs and the results of new consensus processes undertaken
to update the TEF approach.

References

Ahlborg, U.G., G. Becking, L. Birnbaum et al.  1994.  Toxic equivalency
factors for dioxin-like PCBs. Report on a WHO-ECEH and IPCS
consultation, December, 1993.  Chemosphere.  28(6):1049-1067.

Barnes, D., A. Alford-Stevens, L. Birnbaum, F. Kutz, W. Wood and D.
Patton.  1991. Toxicity equivalency factors for PCBs?  Qual. Assur.
1(1):70-81.

Birnbaum, L.S.  1999.  TEFs: a practical approach to a real-world
problem.  Hum. Ecol.  Risk Assess.  5:13-24.

Birnbaum, L.S. and M.J. DeVito.  1995.  Use of toxic equivalency factors
for risk assessment for dioxins and related compounds.  Toxicology.
105(2-3):391-401.

Haws, L.C., S.H. Su, M. Harris et al.  2006.  Development of a refined
database of mammalian relative potency estimates for dioxin-like
compounds.  Toxicol. Sci.  89(1):4-30.

NAS (National Academy of Science).  2006.  Health Risks from Dioxin and
Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment.  National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11688"
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11688 .

U.S. EPA.  1989.  Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated
with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and
-Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
EPA/625/3-89/016.

U.S. EPA.  1991.  Workshop Report on Toxicity Equivalency Factors for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls Congeners.  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.  EPA/625/3-91/020.

U.S. EPA.  2000.  Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.  EPA/630/R-00/002.  August.

U.S. EPA.  2003.  Chapter 9. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF) for Dioxin
and Related Compounds in Part II: Health Assessment for
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds in
Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  NCEA-I-0836.
December.

U.S. EPA.  2008.  Framework for Application of the Toxicity Equivalence
Methodology for Polychlorinated Dioxins, Furans, and Biphenyls in
Ecological Risk Assessment.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.  EPA/100/R-08/004.  June.

Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A.T. Bosveld et al.  1998.  Toxic
equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and
wildlife.  Environ. Health Perspect.  106(12):775-792.

Van den Berg, M., L.S. Birnbaum, M. Denison et al.  2006.  The 2005
World Health Organization re-evaluation of human and mammalian toxic
equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds.  Toxicol.
Sci.  93(2):223-241.

Walker, N.J., P.W. Crockett, A. Nyska et al.  2005. Dose-additive
carcinogenicity of a defined mixture of "Dioxin-like Compounds.”
Environ. Health Perspect.  113(1):43-48.APPENDIX A

RECOMMENDED TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (TEFs) FOR HUMAN

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS OF DIOXIN AND DIOXIN-LIKE COMPOUNDS

DOCUMENT REVIEWERS

INTERNAL PEER REVIEWERS

Mike DeVito, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711

Lynn Flowers, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC 20460

Glenn Suter, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH 45268

 Additional reviewers are listed in Appendix A.

 For further information on the chemical structures of these compounds,
see U.S. EPA (2003, 2008).

 The term “relative effect potency” (ReP) also is used at times.  We
distinguish this term from ‘relative potency factors’ (RPF) method,
which is a general dose additive method described in U.S. EPA (2000).

 The  ReP1997 database was used in the WHO-European Centre for
Environmental Health (ECEH)/International Programme on Chemical Safety
(IPCS) TEF evaluation in 1997 and included not only published
manuscripts, but also manuscripts in press, conference proceedings,
theses, dissertations, and unpublished studies through June of 1997 that
compared compounds to TCDD or PCB 126.  Since the ReP1997 database was
intended to be all inclusive, some studies are represented more than
once in the form of dissertations, conference proceedings, and/or
peer-reviewed publications.

 Note that the TEF for 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF changed from 0.5 to 0.3 from Van
den Berg et al., 1998 to 2006, respectively.

An ED50 is an effective dose that causes an effect in 50% of the test
units.

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of
pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines.  It has not been formally disseminated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  It does not represent and should not
be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

 PAGE   xiv

 PAGE   ii

 PAGE   10

 PAGE   18

A- PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 23553]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-1870-000]

Shawnee Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Shawnee Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 5, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website 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>.

    Dated: May 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10692 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25901-25903]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10339]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0271; FRL-9664-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of the 1980 Consent Order for the Maryland Slag
Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision removes a 1980
Consent Order issued to the Maryland Slag Company (now known as
MultServ). The 1980 Consent Order is no longer required to satisfy any
applicable Federal regulations and the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is
approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 2, 2012 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 1, 2012. If EPA
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0271 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0271, Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director
for Policy and Science, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP00, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0271. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at 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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 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 electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at
the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies
of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Maryland Slag Company (now MultiServ) operates a blast furnace
slag processing plant at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation's (now ISG
Sparrows Point) steel mill located in Sparrows Point, Baltimore County.
Hot metal slag from Bethlehem Steel's blast furnace that is not
processed by the Atlantic Cement Company's (now LaFarge North America)
granulated slag cement plant is allowed to cool before being sent to
the Maryland Slag processing facility. At the slag processing facility,
slag is reduced in size with a crusher and segregated into different
group sizes by a screening operation. The processed slag material is
used as an aggregate material in road construction and parking lots.
The slag processing facility is subject to the requirements under SIP-
approved regulation COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B(1) which prohibits the discharge
of fugitive particulate matter emissions from iron and steel production
installations unless reasonably available control measures are employed
to minimize emissions.
    In 1980, the Atlantic Cement Company proposed to construct a slag
cement processing facility within the confines of the Bethlehem Steel
Corporation's Sparrows Point steel mill. At the time of the proposed
project, the Sparrows point area was nonattainment for total suspended
particulates (TSP). In order to construct the plant, the Atlantic
Cement Company was required to secure particulate matter emission
offsets. These offsets were obtained from the Maryland Slag Company and
were formalized and made enforceable in the October 31, 1980 Consent
Order. The October 31, 1980 Consent Order was approved as a SIP
revision by EPA on September 8, 1981 (41 FR 44757).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On February 13, 2007, the Maryland Department of the Environment
submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of a
request to remove the Consent Order, issued on October 31, 1980, to the
Maryland Slag Company (now MultiServ). The Consent Order provided
particulate matter offsets from the Maryland Slag Company to the
Atlantic Cement Company. The 1980 Consent Order is no longer necessary
because the affected facilities are no longer located in a
nonattainment area for TSP, and the Atlantic Cement Company (now
Lafarge North America) was re-permitted in 2001 demonstrating
compliance with the more stringent national ambient air quality
standard for particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less
(PM10). In addition, the Maryland Slag Company (now
MultiServ) has reduced its annual PM emissions by reducing the material
it processes from one million tons annually in 1980 to less than
100,000 tons annually today.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving MDE's February 13, 2007 SIP revision to remove the
October 31, 1980 Consent Order issued to the Maryland Slag Company (now
MultiServ) because it is no longer required to satisfy any applicable
Federal regulations and the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is publishing this
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on July 2, 2012 without further notice unless EPA receives
adverse comment by June 1, 2012. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct

costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 2, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action to remove the 1980 Consent Order for the
Maryland Slag Company may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: April 12, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entry for Maryland Slag Co.

[FR Doc. 2012-10339 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P