LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 13 1 13.0 Ultraviolet Light 13.1 Introduction The use of ultraviolet ( UV) light for disinfection of drinking water is a relatively new application in the United States, although used for many years in the wastewater industry. UV disinfection is the process of irradiating water with UV light. The UV light is absorbed by the genetic material of microorganisms, damaging it and preventing the microorganisms from reproducing. UV has been found to be particularly effective against protozoa and bacteria.

In addition to this guidance manual, EPA developed the UV Disinfection Guidance Manual that contains detailed information of the design and operation of UV systems and the validation testing that must be conducted for compliance with the LT2ESWTR. This chapter summarizes the requirements for water systems using UV disinfection to achieve compliance with the LT2ESWTR.

13.2 Log Inactivation Requirements To receive credit for disinfection with UV light, the LT2ESWTR ( 40 CFR 141, Subpart W, Appendix D) requires utilities to demonstrate through validation testing that the UV reactor can deliver the required UV dose. The testing must determine a range of operating conditions that can be monitored by the system and under which the reactor delivers the required UV dose. EPA developed UV dose requirements for Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and virus that are used during the validation process ( see UV Disinfection Guidance Manual for dose requirements and application during validation).

Validation testing is not intended to be site specific, rather product specific. As a result, validation testing will likely be conducted by the manufacturer or third party and tested over a range of water quality and flow conditions. As long as the water system operates within those conditions tested, they are achieving the log inactivation credit demonstrated during the validation testing.

13.2.1 Monitoring Requirements In addition to reactor validation, the LT2ESWTR ( 40 CFR 141.729( d)) requires utilities to monitor for parameters necessary to demonstrate compliance with the operating conditions that were validated for the required UV dose. At a minimum, utilities must monitor each reactor for flow rate, lamp outage, UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, and any other parameters required by the State. Chapter 13  Ultraviolet Light LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 13 2 13.2.2 Reporting Requirements The LT2ESWTR requires utilities to report the following ( 40 CFR 141.730):

° Initial reporting  Validation test results demonstrating operating conditions that achieve the UV dose required for the inactivation credit desired for compliance with the LT2ESWTR.

° Routine reporting  Volume of water entering the distribution system that was not treated by the UV reactors operating under validated conditions on a monthly basis.

13.3 Toolbox Selection Considerations   Advantages and Disadvantages There are several advantages to using UV disinfection over other technologies for the inactivation of Cryptosporidium. UV is a relatively simple to use and highly effective technology for inactivating Cryptosporidium. Its main advantages include:

° Ability to achieve up to 3 log Cryptosporidium inactivation credit at relatively low operating costs ° Low cost technology for inactivation of Cryptosporidium, relative to other toolbox options for disinfection ° Produces no halogenated disinfection byproducts ° Easy to install and requires minimal operator attention or experience The disadvantages of UV disinfection include:

° A higher dose is required to inactivate virus. If a water system is seeking to obtain 4 log virus inactivation with UV disinfection, operating costs will be higher, possibly offsetting the lower capital costs.

° Does not provide a residual disinfectant to guard against regrowth or contamination in the distribution system.

° Lamp start up time after a power outage can be long, at which time the UV system is not operating within validated conditions and thus, not achieving the given log inactivation credit. Chapter 13  Ultraviolet Light LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 13 3 13.4 Design and Operational Considerations A UV disinfection system consists of the UV reactor and a control panel. The reactor consists of UV lamps, quartz sleeves, UV intensity sensors, quartz sleeve wipers, and temperature sensors. The quartz sleeves serve to insulate and protect the lamps. Some reactors come with automatic cleaning mechanisms for the quartz sleeves. Reactors are equipped with UV intensity monitors, flow meters, and occasionally UV transmittance meters to measure the dose being delivered. There are two primary types of lamps available, low pressure and medium pressure. Low pressure lamps emit light at one wavelength ( i. e., monochromatic) and operate with the mercury under a vacuum. Medium pressure lamps are polychromatic and operate at higher temperatures with the mercury at pressures of 100 to 10,000 Torr.

When considering UV disinfection as a treatment option the following design and operational issues should be addressed:

° Source water quality  Fouling of the lamp sleeves and other reactor equipment will affect the frequency of cleaning required and type of cleaning system. Fouling is dependent on hardness, alkalinity, lamp temperature, pH, and certain inorganic constituents ( e. g., iron and calcium).

° Power quality  The lamps operate continuously and as long as there is power to the lamps. The quality of power supply should be considered with UV systems. When the lamp loses power, even on the order of seconds, it requires several minutes to recharge, at which time no disinfection is occurring. An uninterruptible power supply ( UPS) is often recommended for UV systems to supply backup power during short power interruptions.

° Hydraulic needs and limitations  Headloss through a UV system is dependent on the specific reactor, piping configuration, and flow rate. Typical headloss ranges from 0.5 to 3.0 feet.

° Maintenance  Although maintenance requirements are low relative to other treatment processes, the UV system will need to be taken off line periodically to inspect and clean lamps and sleeves.


1 Hexachlorobenze Risk Characterization 3/ 4/ 05 Introduction Hexachlorobenzene ( HCB) is a recognized contaminant of several agricultural pesticides, as well as the wood preservative pesticide pentachlorophenol. Several non pesticidal sources of HCB also exist, including HCB as a by product or waste material in the production of several chlorinated solvents such as carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene.

As a result of an agreement between the chemical manufacturers of pentachlorophenol and the EPA, manufacturers agreed to reduce hexachlorobenzene contamination of pentachlorophenol to no more than 75 parts per million. Surveillance monitoring of PCP samples have detected HCB at levels generally less than 50 ppm ( ATSDR, 2002).

The Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) has published RED documents for both Chlorothalonil and Dimethyl tetrachloroerephthalate, in which risks associated with potential exposure to HCB were assessed. While the level of risk for dietary and drinking water exposure to HCB contained within both chlorothalonil and and DCPA was below the Agency's level of concern, areas of concern were identified for both occupational and residential exposure to HCB. In response to these concerns, the Agency took specific measures to ensure that the level of risk would be made acceptable, either through the requirement of use of protective equipment in the occupational setting, or through cancellation of residential uses for these two pesticide chemicals. The risk assessment for HCB in PCP will focus primarily upon the use of PCP as a wood preservative pesticide and the potential exposure to HCB through this use. This risk assessment includes only occupational and residential exposures, as there are no dietary or drinking water concerns for PCP as a wood preservative antimicrobial pesticide.

The OPP has not requested specific toxicology studies on hexachlorobenzene as this chemical is not under the regulatory authority of OPP, but there are available scientific data in the peer reviewed literature which appear to adequately characterize the toxicity of hexachlorobenzene, especially a recent publication by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry on hexachlorobenzene ( ATSDR, 2002). In addition, the USEPA Office of Water ( OW) has published a health advisory document on hexachlorobenzene which contains numerous references to the scientific literature and which have been peer reviewed by OW prior to inclusion in the Health Advisory. Thus, hazard characterization will rely primarily upon previous work conducted by both the OPP's Health Effects Division as well as work by ATSDR and OW.

Hazard Characterization The toxicology of hexachlorobenzene is discussed in detail within the 1988 Drinking Water Criteria Document for Hexachlorobenzene, prepared by the U. S. EPA's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, and the ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobenzene, dated February 2001 Both assessments characterize the acute toxicity of HCB as low, with oral LD50 values in the range of 3500 10,000 mg/ kg in rats, 1700 mg/ kg in rats, 2600 mg/ kg in rabbits, and 4000 mg/ kg in mice.

Short term administration of hexachlorobenzene to rats ( 1000 mg/ kg/ day for 7 days) produced liver histopathology and altered histochemistry ( decreased porphyrin carboxylase activity) [ Kleiman de Pisarev et al., 1990]. Other liver enzymes ( delata aminolevulinate, ornithine decarboxylase) have also been shown to be significantly elevated and/ or decreased at similar dose levels over a short time franme ( 3 5 days) [ Rajamanickam and Padmanaban, 1974]. Feeding of hexachlorobenzene at 500 mg/ kg/ day in the diet for 5 days produced increased liver weight as well as increases in microsomal protein, RNA, 1 phospholipid content and NADPH cytochrome c reductase activity [ Rajamanickam and Padmanaban, 1974].

Subchronic administration of HCB to rats at doses from 0.5 mg/ kg/ day to 50 mg/ kg/ day resulted in increased liver weight and increased porphyrin levels in liver, kidney, and spleen. Increased mortality as well as neurologic symptoms ( tremors and ataxia) was observed at doses of 32 mg/ kg/ day and above. Female rats have ben shown to be more susceptible to the toxic effects of HCB than male rats, the difference being related to the faster biotransformation of HCB in females vs. males.

Hexachlorobenzene has also been shown to produce immunotoxic effects in several species of experimental animals. Administration of HCB via the diet at 0, 50, or 150 mg/ kg/ day to pregnant Wistar rats and continuation of pups on HCB diets until 5 weeks of age showed increases in serum IgM and IgG concentrations. Proliferation of high endothelial venules in lymph nodes and lymphoid hyperplasia of the splenic white pulp was observed in rats given HCB at 25 and 100 mg/ kg/ day for 3 weeks [ Vos et al., 1979]. Increased levels of highly carboxylated porphyrins in the spleen of female Wistar rats administered 50 mg/ kg HCB and increased porphyrins in the spleen of female Charles River rats administered 8 mg/ kg/ day for 15 weeks was observed [ Kuiper Goodman et al., 1977; Kennedy and Wigfield, 1990]. Decreased resistance to infection with Listeria monocytogenes and Trichinella spiralis was also noted in the pregnant rats receiving HCB. Alterations in cellular and humoral immunity have also been noted ( Vos et al., 1979a; Lose et al., 1978 a, b).

Studies of HCB reproductive and developmental toxicity demonstrate that HCB crosses the placenta and is present in milk of nursing dams. In a 4 generation reproduction toxicity study ( Grant et al., 1977), doses of 16 and 32 mg/ kg produced increased mortality in maternal rats prior to weaning, reduced fertility index and decreased average litter size. All pups born alive at these 2 dose levels died within 5 days of birth. The NOAEL in this study was reported as 1 mg/ kg HCB. In another reproduction study ( Kitchin et al., 1982), female Spreague Dawley rats were fed diets containing 0, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 mg/ kg HCB and mated after 96 days to produce the first litter, and then bred 12 days after weaning of the first litter. Increased mortality was observed in both litters at 21 days post partum at all dose levels for both generations. Maternal toxicity was observed in the form of increased numbers of intraalveolar foamy histiocytes and hypertrophy and proliferation of the endothelial cells of pulmonary venules. There did not appear to be a NOAEL established in this study. In a study by Mendoza et al. ( 1978), a significant increase in liver weight was observed in pups nursed by dams who had been exposed to HCB in the diet at 4 mg/ kg for 2 weeks. This effect was reversible after transfer of the pups to control nursing dams. Bailey et al. ( 1980) examined the transfer of HCB to 3 nursing infant Rhesus monkeys from 3 mothers who had received HCB by gavage for 60 days at 64 mg/ kg/ day. Concentration of HCB in mothers' milk ranged from 7.51 186 ppm during dosing. The results of this study showed blood levels of HCB in the infant monkeys ( 0.42 49.44ppm) that exceeded those of the mothers ( 0.41 16.16ppm), and clinical signs of toxicity in infants while mothers were asymptomatic. In contrast to these results, there were no apparent effects of HCB on fetal development when HCB was administered to either pregnant rats at 5, 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/ kg on gestation days 6 16 or to rabbits at 0.1, 1.0, or 10 mg/ kg on days 1 27 of gestation. In a study designed to examine the contribution of hexachlorobenzene to fetal malformations observed 2 from administration of pentachlorobenzene, 100 mg/ kg/ day was administered by gavage to 10 pregnant CD 1 mice ( Courtney et al., 1976). The abnormalities observed in fetuses from this study ( cleft palate, small kidneys, enlarged renal pelvis) were concluded to be the result of HCB exposure.

More recent investigations into the developmental and reproductive effects of HCB reveal effects at the cellular level at lower doses of HCB than previously reported. For example, in a study by Bourque et al. ( 1995), twenty 6 13 year old female monkeys were randomly assigned to one of 5 treatment groups and received 0, 0.01, 0.1, 1.0, or 10.0 mg/ kg HCB administered by gelatin capsule for 13 weeks to examine changes in ovarian ultrastructural histology. The results of this study demonstrated that HCB in doses as low as 0.01 mg/ kg caused histological changes to primary ovarian follicles in monkeys. In a second study by Jarrell et al. ( 1993), sixteen sexually mature female cynomolgus monkeys ( 4/ group) were administered gelatin capsules orally once/ day in doses of either 0.0, 0.1, 1.0, or 10.0 mg hexachlorobenzene ( HCB)/ kg/ day for 90 days. The results of examination of ovaries showed a decline in the total number of oocytes and primordial follicles but no change in the number of antral and preantral follicles and corpea lutea. At increased dose levels the nuclear and nucleolar membranes became less distinct and oocyte nuclei became increasingly dense, granular, and misshapen. Vacuole cytoplamic increase and aggregated lysosomes were observed. All the above histological observations were perceptible in lose dose animals ( 0.1 mg/ kg/ day) but increased in severity in a dose dependant fashion.

Significant neurotoxicity has also been observed in animal studies with hexachlorobenzene, and neurotoxicity has been reported in adult animals without evidence of porphyrin accumulation or histological alterations. Electrophysiological alterations were observed in dogs which received HCB at approximately 50 mg/ kg/ day for 21 days [ Sundlof et al., 1981]. Reduced nerve conduction in the sciatic nerve as well as fibrillations and repetitive or pseudomyotonic discharges were observed in rats administered 40 mg/ kg/ day HCB for 20 weeks [ Sufit et al., 1986].

In a study by Lilienthal et al. ( 1996), 52 female Wistar rats were divided into 4 groups and administered diets containing 0, 4, 8, or 16 mg/ kg hexachlorobenzene ( HCB) for 90 days. Following the 90 days' treatment, 10 females per dose level were mated to untreated males, and exposure of mated females continued until PND 21 at which time the mothers were sacrificed. The offspring were then continued on the same dose levels as maternal rats until PND 150, at which time all rats were given control diet. Testing of male offspring was conducted on PN days 21 ( open field testing), PN 90 ( active avoidance learning), and PN 150 ( operant conditioning). The results of behavioral testing showed no effect of HCB exposure on open field activity in pups at any dose, but a dose related decrease in the post reinforcement pause was observed on PN day 150, and was statistically significant at both the 8 and 16 mg/ kg dose levels. The results of these studies suggest that HCB induces increases in activity levels and/ or affects learned responses in early post natal development in the absence of any overt signs of toxicity in maternal animals. In a study by Goldey and Taylor ( 1992), 3 groups of 10 virgin female rats were administered HCB in corn oil by oral gavage at 0.0, 2.5, or 25.0 mg/ kg body weight Two weeks following dosing, treated females were mated with non treated males and, at birth the litters were culled to 8 pups ( 4 males and 4 females when possible). Pups were weighed at PND 1,3,6,9,12,14, and 28 and weaned at PND 21. The following variables were studied in all pups: negative geotaxis reflex at PND 6, 8, and 10, olfactory 3 homing at PND 9, 10, and 11, and motor activity via home cage locomotor movement from PND 15 20. The acoustic startle reflex was measured in 2 male and 2 female pups per litter at PND 23 and again in the same pups at PND 90. Visual discrimination learning was assessed on PND 40. Motor activity of mature offspring was assessed at PND 60. Litters exposed maternally to HCB had significantly increased exploratory activity in home cage motor assessment when compared to control animals at PND 19 and 20. Acoustic startle reflex was significantly reduced in the higher HCB group than in the lower HCB and control groups. When acoustic startle reflex was reassessed at PND 90, males maternally exposed to 100 mg/ kg had an elevated response when compared to the 10 mg/ kg group and the control group; the 10 mg/ kg group also exhibited a significantly elevated response when compared to the control group. In females, only those maternally exposed to 100 mg/ kg exhibited a significantly higher response rate. Maternal exposure to HCB had no effect on PND 60 motor activity or visual discrimination. Tissue concentrations of HCB in rat pups were observed to peak around PND 4, with a decline observed thereafter to levels approximately 50% of peak values by PND 14. The results of this study indicates that maternal exposure to HCB induces hyperactivity in post natal rats in the absence of any other overt signs of toxicity in maternal animals.

Mutagenicity data on HCB do not show a direct interaction with DNA. HCB was found to be negative for reverse mutation activity in Salmonella typhimurium strains TA100 and TA98 [ Siekel et al., 1991], and was also negative in a DNA repair assay using E. coli [ Siekel et al., 1991]. Despite the lack of direct genotoxic activity of HCB, this chemical has been shown to produce increased incidence of hepatomas, hemangioendotheliomas, and thyroid tumors in mice, hamsters, and rats ( Smith and Cabral, 1980; Cabral et al., 1979).

Dose Response Assessment Existing toxicology end points for characterization of risk from exposure to HCB consist of a chronic Reference Dose value of 0.0008 mg/ kg/ day and a published Q1* of 1.7 ( USEPA, 1991). The Agency has classified HCB as a B2 ( probable human) carcinogen, based on induction of tumors of the thyroid, liver, and kidney in three rodent species ( USEPA IRIS, 1996). The published Q1* value of 1.7 was originally calculated using a 2/ 3 animal to human scaling factor, and the Agency has recently switched to use of a 3/ 4 animal to human scaling factor. Therefore, the existing value of 1.7 is adjusted using the 3/ 4 scaling factor to give a value of 1.02 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1. ( HED memorandum from William Burnam dated June 21, 1995) For purposes of risk characterization from exposure to treated wood, non cancer endpoints are needed in order to characterize risk from dermal, incidental oral, and inhalation exposures to HCB, similar to what has been done for pentachlorophenol. The Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, has selected toxicity endpoints for HCB for use in exposure and risk assessments. These endpoints were selected using the available scientific literature on HCB. A summary of these endpoints is shown in the following table. 4 Toxicity Endpoints for Hexachlorobenzene Endpoint Dose/ UF Effect identified Study Selected Incidental Oral, Short Term NOAEL = 40 mg/ kg/ day body weight loss, hyperesthesia, tremors, convulsions in maternal rats at 60 mg/ kg/ day. Developmental toxicity  rat ( Khera, 1974)

Incidental Oral, Intermediate term NOAEL = 0.5 mg/ kg/ day increased incidence of liver porphyrin levels in female rats at 2 mg/ kg/ day 15 Week Oral Toxicity  Rat ( Kuiper Goodman et al, 1977)

Short Term ( Dermal) NOEL= 40 mg/ kg/ day body weight loss, hyperesthesia, tremors, convulsions in maternal rats at 60 mg/ kg/ day. Developmental Toxicity  Rat ( Khera, 1974)

Intermediate Term ( Dermal) NOEL= 0.5 mg/ kg/ day increased incidence of liver porphyrin levels in female rats at 2 mg/ kg/ day 15 Week Oral Toxicity  Rat ( Kuiper Goodman et al, 1977)

Long Term ( Dermal) NOAEL = 0.08 mg/ kg/ day hepatic centrilobular basophilic chromogenesis at 0.29 mg/ kg/ day Chronic Toxicity Rat ( Arnold et al., 1985)

Inhalation No route specific inhalation data were available for hexachloropbenzene. Therefore, in accordance with Agency policy, oral endpoints and route extrapolation were performed to assess inhalation risks as needed.

Oral Cancer Slope Factor Q*= 1.02 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 ( Extrapolated using a Q* of 1.7 mg/ kg/ day derived from a linearized multistage model to which a 3/ 4 scaling factor was applied: 1.7 x 0.6 = 1.02) B2 ( probable human carcinogen) based on data showing significant increases in liver and renal tumor incidences in hamsters and rats Sourced to EPA REDs for DCPA, November 1998, and Chlorothalonil, April 1999 and EPA's IRIS Database. The Agency typically will not allow non dietary risks to exceed 10  4.

Since oral endpoints were selected for HCB risk assessments, and the occupational exposures are attributed primarily to the dermal route, a dermal absorption value of 26.0 % was recommended for use in route to route extrapolations. Note that derived HCB doses used in the assessment are conservatively assumed to represent dermal exposure. A back calculation was performed to convert absorbed doses of PCP into equivalent HCB dermal doses: Absorbed short, intermediate, and long term PCP doses were multiplied by the ratio of HCB per batch of PCP ( 75 ppm) then adjusted by multiplying by the difference in dermal absorption between PCP ( i. e., 40%)( U. S. EPA, 1997a) and HCB ( i. e., 26%) ( i. e., .26/. 40 =. 65). 5 Exposure Assessment The occupational exposure assessment for HCB as a contaminant in pentachlorophenol treated wood has been assessed in detail in the companion human exposure chapter by Doreen Aviado. Tables 3 and 5 of the exposure chapter present details of the exposure doses and risks. Here, summary information is provided.

Occupational Handler Margins of Exposure and Risk Handler exposure to PCP wood preservatives, as product concentrates and treatment solutions, results in potential exposure to the HCB microcontaminant during handler operations in pressure treatment plants. The following handler scenarios for pressure treatment uses have been identified from the PCP biomonitoring and inhalation study entitled Inhalation Dosimetry and Biomonitoring Assessment of Worker Exposure to Pentachlorophenol During Pressure Treatment of Lumber ( PTF, 1999) further detailed in the PCP RED Human Exposure Chapter:

( 1a) Applying crystalline technical grade product Pressure Treatment Operator; ( 1b) Applying liquid formulation Pressure Treatment Operator; ( 2a) Applying crystalline technical grade product Pressure Treatment Assistant; and ( 2b) Applying liquid formulation Pressure Treatment Assistant Derived HCB doses used in the assessment were assumed to represent dermal exposure. Thus, a back calculation was performed to convert absorbed doses of PCP from the biomonitoring study into equivalent HCB dermal doses. Absorbed short, intermediate, and long term PCP doses were multiplied by the ratio of HCB per batch of PCP ( 75 ppm) then adjusted by multiplying by the difference in dermal absorption between PCP ( i. e., 40%) and HCB ( i. e., 26%) ( i. e., .26/. 40 =. 65).

As shown in the exposure assessment, there were no identified non cancer risks of concern for short, intermediate, or long term occupational exposures to HCB, i. e. calculated MOEs were > 100. There were also no identified cancer risks of concern for occupational handlers ( risks were in the range of E 7 to E 8).

Occupational Postapplication Margins of Exposure and Risk In the pressure treatment industry, postapplication exposure may result from typical work tasks associated with removing wet treated wood from treatment cylinders, reentry activities in treatment areas including maintenance of treatment equipment and cleanup, handling freshly treated wood to bore test core samples, stacking/ loading wet wood onto drip pads, and handling dry wood for storage or transport. The following postapplication exposure scenarios for pressure treatment uses have been identified from the PCP biomonitoring and inhalation study entitled Inhalation Dosimetry and Biomonitoring Assessment of Worker Exposure to Pentachlorophenol During Pressure Treatment of Lumber ( PTF, 1999) further detailed in the PCP RED Human Exposure Chapter: 6 ( 1) Pressure Treatment Loader Operator; ( 2) Pressure Treatment Test Borer; and, ( 3) Pressure Treatment General Helpers.

In addition, potential occupational postapplication exposures exist for electrical utility linemen in dermal contact with PCP treated utility poles during installation and/ or while working on in service poles The Agency has determined that Margins of Exposure ( MOEs) of 100 or greater are acceptable for assessment of non cancer risk from short, intermediate and long term exposure to HCB. MOEs for all scenarios evaluated showed no risks of concern for any of the occupational postapplication scenarios assessed ( i. e. calculated MOEs were all in excess of 100). In addition, for carcinogenic risk, none of the occupational postapplication scenarios assessed exceeded the Agency's level of concern ( i. e., E 4) for cancer aggregate risks and were within the E 8 range.

Residential Margins of Exposure and Risk Residential postapplication exposure to the HCB microcontaminant is unlikely to occur to adult and child populations as a result of contact with PCP treated wood products or through child contact with PCP contaminated soil via the dermal and oral route ( i. e., incidental ingestion of HCB microcontaminant residues through hand to mouth contact and direct soil ingestion). The Agency has not conducted an exposure and risk assessment for residential populations due to the following consideration:

° The opportunity for residential consumer contact is limited since PCP treated wood is not sold to the general public. Rather it is predominantly marketed for commercial installations as utility poles. Where utility poles are installed on home/ school or other residential sites, child contact via the dermal or oral routes is not anticipated since play activities with or around these pole structures would not normally occur and any incidental exposure would therefore be negligible.

Risk Characterization In two previous RED documents issued by the EPA, risks from exposure to HCB in the agricultural pesticides chlorothalonil and DCPA were assessed. In the DCPA RED document, chronic dietary and chronic drinking water risk from HCB exposure were assessed, as well as carcinogenic risk from occupational and residential exposures. As an impurity in DCPA, the worst case chronic dietary risk showed between 3 5% of the Reference Dose for HCB occupied by dietary sources of exposure. Carcinogenic dietary risk from HCB exposure was calculated as 7 x 10 7, using a Q* of 1.02 mg/ kg/ day 1. Occupational carcinogenic risk for commercial mixer/ loaders using a wettable powder formulation of DCPA was calculated as 1.9 x 10 4 for HCB.

For chlorothalonil, chronic dietary and drinking water non cancer risks were calculated for exposure to HCB present in chlorothalonil. Also, carcinogenic drinking water risk was also calculated. Aggregate risks for HCB were included for chronic non  cancer risk as well as chronic cancer risk. For HCB in chlorothalonil, chronic dietary risk was calculated to occupy 0.05% of the RfD for HCB in the highest exposed population ( children ages 1 6). Chronic carcinogenic risk was calculated as 2.4 x 10 7 for the U. S. population. Chronic non  cancer risk for HCB in drinking water was shown to occupy less than 1% of the RfD for HCB, while aggregate chronic no  cancer risk was also shown to occupy less than 1% of the RfD for HCB. Aggregate cancer risk for HCB in chlorothalonil was calculated as 2.4 x 10 7 7 mg/ kg/ day 1. Occupational cancer risk from HCB exposure was calculated as 2.8 x 10 5, which is below the Agency's level of concern.

Dietary Risk Use of pentachlorophenol as a wood preservative is restricted to non food uses. Therefore, from use of pentachlorophenol as a wood preservative, it is not expected that HCB will contribute to dietary risk.

Drinking Water Risk Behavior of HCB in surface and ground water is expected to be the same as that previously described in the chlorothalonil RED, i. e. contamination of groundwater is unlikely due to the high binding potential of HCB to soil and sediment. This can also be expected from wood preservative use of PCP where the treated wood may come into contact with soil. Therefore, as for PCP, there is not expected to be any significant contribution to drinking water risk from HCB present in PCP, as it has not been previously been of concern from HCB present in the food use pesticides chlorothalonil and DCPA, and the incremental contribution to the environment of HCB present in PCP treated lumber is not expected to add to the risk already calculated for HCB.

Short, Intermediate, and Chronic Aggregate Risk Similar to that of pentachlorophenol, as there is no significant contribution through the diet or drinking water from the wood preservative use, an aggregate assessment is not necessary for HCB.

Cumulative Risk Section 408 of the FFDCA stipulates that when determining the safety of a pesticide chemical, EPA shall base its assessment of the risk posed by the chemical on, among other things, available information concerning the cumulative effects to human health that may result from dietary, residential, or other nonoccupational exposure to other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. The reason for consideration of other substances is due to the possibility that low level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect as would a higher level of exposure to any of the other substances individually. A person exposed to a pesticide at a level that is considered safe may in fact experience harm if that person is also exposed to other substances that cause a common toxic effect by a mechanism common with that of the subject pesticide, even if the individual exposure levels to the other substances are also considered safe. Hexachlorobenzene is a known porphyrinogenic agent, which is characterized by increased activity of ALA synthase and decreased activity of uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase ( ATSDR, 2002). The exact mechanism of porphyria induction is not known with certainty, although some data suggest that the severity of induced porphyria is increased by co administration of HCB with the major metabolites pentachlorophenol and tetrachlorohydroquinone ( ATSDR, 2002). With regard to carcinogenicity, it has been suggested that accumulation of iron in the liver may potentiate development of hepatic tumors by HCB ( ATSDR, 2002). Further research is needed to determine whether hexachlorbenzene has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. 8 Endocrine Disruption The Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA; 1996) requires that EPA develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances ( including all pesticides and inerts) " may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect...." Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP).

Hexachlorobenzene is known to cause multiple adverse effects on the endocrine system ( ATSDR, 2002). These changes include decreased serum thyroxine, increased serum parathyroid hormone, decreased release of corticosterone from the adrenal gland, and changes in estradiol/ progesterone levels in females. Effects on ovarian and adrenal hormones have been hypothesized to reflect alterations in steroidogenesis in these tissues, possibly as a result of lipid peroxidation of mitochondrial membranes ( ATSDR, 2002). 9 References ATSDR, 2002: Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobenzene. September, 2002.

Bailey et al. ( 1980): Transfer of hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls to nursing infant rhesus monkeys: enhanced toxicity. Environ. Res. 21: 190 196.

Bourque et al. ( 1995): Ultrastructural changes in ovarian follicles of monkeys administered hexachlorobenzene. Am J. Vet Res 56( 12): 1673 1677.

Cabral et al. ( 1979): Carcinogenesis of hexachlorobenzene in mice. Int. J. Cancer 23: 47 51.

Courtney et al. ( 1976): The effects of pentachloronitrobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, and related compounds on fetal development. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 35: 239 256.

Goldey, ES and Taylor, DH ( 1992): Developmental neurotoxicity following premating maternal exposure to hexachlorobenzene in rats. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 14: 15 21.

Grant et al. ( 1977): Effect of hexachlorobenzene on reproduction in the rat. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 5: 207 216.

Jarrell et al. ( 1993): Hexachlorobenzene toxicity in the monkey primordial germ cell without induced porphyria. Reprod. Toxicol. 7: 41 47.

Kennedy, SW and Wigfield, DC ( 1990): Dose response relationships in hexachlorobenzene induced porphyria. Biochem. Pharmacol. 40: 1381 1388.

Kitchin et al. ( 1982): Offspring mortality and maternal lung pathology in female rats fed hexachlorobenzene. Toxicol.

Kleiman de Pisarev et al.( 1990): Thyroid function and thyroxine metabolism in hexachlorobenzeneinduced porphyria. Biochem. Pahrmacol 39: 817 825.

Kuiper Goodman et al.( 1977): Subacute toxicity of hexachlorobenzene in the rat. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol 40: 529 549.

Lilienthal et al. ( 1996): Impariment of schedule controlled behavior by pre and postnatal exposure to hexachlorobenzene in rats. Arch. Toxicol. 70: 174 181.

Loose et al. ( 1978): Impaired host resistance to endotoxin and malaria in polychlorinated biphenyl and hexachlorobenzene treated mice. Infect. Immun 20: 30 35.

Mendoza et al. ( 1978): Effects of hexachlorobenzene or hexabromobenzene on body and organ weights of preweanling rats after a reciprocal transfer between the treated and control dams. J. Agric. Food Chem. 26: 941 945. 10 Rajamanickam, C. and Padmanaban, G. ( 1974): Biochemical effects of hexachlorobenzene. Indian J. Biochem Biophys. 11: 119 122.

Siekel et al. ( 1991): A genotoxicological study of hexachlorobenzene and pentachloroanisole. Teratogenesis, Carcinogen. Mutagen. 11: 55 60.

Smith AG and Cabral JR ( 1980): Liver cell tumors in rats fed hexachlorobenzene. Cancer Lett. 11: 169 172.

Sundlof et al. ( 1981): Sub acute toxicity of hexachlorobenzene in female beagles, including electroencephalographic changes. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 23: 92 96.

Sufit et al. ( 1986): Decreased conduction velocity and pseudomyotonia in hexachlorobenzene fed rats. IARC Sci. Publ. 77: 361 362.

Vos et al. ( 1979): Effect of hexachlorobenzene on the immune system of rats following combined preand postnatal exposure. Drug Chem. Toxicol 2: 61 76.

USEPA, 1991: Drinking Water Criteria Document for Hexachlorobenzene. Prepared for Office of Water by Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH.

USEPA, 1991: Integrated Risk Information System. Hexachlorobenzene.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 79881]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2361-056]

Allete, Inc.; Notice of Waiver Period for Water Quality
Certification Application

    On December 19, 2022, Allete, Inc. submitted to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a
Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed
with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Minnesota PCA), in
conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6
and section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby
notify the Minnesota PCA of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 5.23(b).

Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: December 14, 2022
Reasonable Period of Time To Act on the Certification Request: One year
(December 14, 2023)

    If the Minnesota PCA fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request on or before the above date, then the agency
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: December 21, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28254 Filed 12-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36074-36075]
[DOCID:fr02jy07-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Form 1, Rules 6a-1 and 6a-2; SEC File No. 270-0017; OMB Control
No. 3235-0017.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the
``Act'') sets forth a regulatory scheme for national securities
exchanges. Rule 6a-1 (17 CFR 240.6a-1) under the Act generally requires
an applicant for initial registration as a national securities exchange
to file an application with the Commission on Form 1. An exchange that
seeks an exemption from registration based on limited trading volume
also must apply for such exemption on Form 1. Rule 6a-2 (17 CFR 240.6a-
2) under the Act requires registered and exempt exchanges: (1) to amend
the Form 1 if there are any material changes to the information
provided in the initial Form 1; and (2) to submit periodic updates of
certain information provided in the initial Form 1, whether such
information has changed or not. The information required pursuant to
Rules 6a-1 and 6a-2 is necessary to enable the Commission to maintain
accurate files regarding the exchange and to exercise its statutory
oversight functions. Without the information submitted pursuant to Rule
6a-1 on Form 1, the Commission would not be able to determine whether
the respondent met the criteria for registration or exemption set forth
in Sections 6 and 19 of the Act. Without the amendments and periodic
updates of information submitted pursuant to Rule 6a-2, the Commission
would have substantial difficulty determining whether a national
securities exchange or exempt exchange was continuing to operate in
compliance with the Act.
    The respondents to the collection of information are entities that
seek registration as a national securities exchange or that seek
exemption from registration based on limited trading volume. After the
initial filing of Form

1, both registered and exempt exchanges are subject to ongoing
informational requirements.
    Initial filings on Form 1 by new exchanges are made on a one-time
basis. The Commission estimates that it will receive approximately
three initial Form 1 filings per year and that each respondent would
incur an average burden of 47 hours to file an initial Form 1 at an
average cost per response of approximately $4517. Therefore, the
Commission estimates that the annual burden for all respondents to file
the initial Form 1 would be 141 hours (one response/respondent x three
respondents x 47 hours/response) and $13,551 (one response/respondent x
three respondents x $4517/response).
    There currently are ten entities registered as national securities
exchanges and two exempt exchanges. The Commission estimates that each
registered or exempt exchange files one amendment or periodic update to
Form 1 per year, incurring an average burden of 25 hours to comply with
Rule 6a-2. The Commission estimates that the annual burden for all
respondents to file amendments and periodic updates to the Form 1
pursuant to Rule 6a-2 is 300 hours (12 respondents x 25 hours/response
x one response/respondent per year) and $27,960 (12 respondents x
$2330/response x one response/respondent per year).
    Compliance with Rules 6a-1 and 6a-2 and Form 1 is mandatory for
entities seeking to register as a national securities exchange or
seeking an exemption from registration based on limited trading volume.
Information received in response to Rules 6a-1 and 6a-2 and Form 1
shall not be kept confidential; the information collected is public
information. As set forth in Rule 17a-1 under the Act,\1\ a national
securities exchange generally is required to retain records of the
collection of information for at least five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 22, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-12662 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4828-4831]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1177; Project Identifier AD-2021-00570-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of burned Boeing
Material Specification (BMS) 8-39 urethane foam, which is a material
with fire-retardant properties that deteriorate with age. This proposed
AD would

require replacing certain BMS 8-39 foam pads with Nomex felt in certain
areas, removing certain BMS 8-39 foam pads in a certain area (which
includes a general visual inspection to find BMS 8-39 foam pads), and
inspecting the corner seals to determine if the corner seals were
replaced, and replacing affected corner seals. This proposed AD would
also prohibit the installation of BMS 8-39 urethane foam seal in
certain locations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 17,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1177.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1177; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Linn, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin
Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-1177; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00570-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Julie
Linn, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems
Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has received reports of burned BMS 8-39 urethane foam, a
material with fire-retardant properties. The fire-retardant properties
of BMS 8-39 urethane foam deteriorate with age. The degraded material
can be an unacceptable fire fuel source for a fire if exposed to an
ignition source. The degraded material in the seals will compromise
Halon and smoke retention and fire blocking, which could result in the
inability to keep sufficient Halon concentrations within the cargo
compartment or contain fire or smoke. These conditions, if not
addressed, could result in penetration of smoke or fire into the flight
compartment, leading to possible loss of control of the airplane.

Related AD

    The FAA issued AD 2013-11-04, Amendment 39-17464 (78 FR 33193, June
4, 2013) (AD 2013-11-04), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100,
747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes; and Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and
-300ER series airplanes. For Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER
series airplanes, AD 2013-11-04 requires replacing certain seals made
of BMS 8-39 urethane foam in accordance with Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2012,
which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation
by reference as of July 9, 2013 (78 FR 33193, June 4, 2013). AD 2013-
11-04 resulted from operator or in-service reports of burned BMS 8-39
urethane foam, and a report from the airplane manufacturer indicating
that airplanes were assembled, throughout various areas of the airplane
(including flight deck and cargo compartments), with seals made of BMS
8-39 urethane foam. The FAA issued AD 2013-11-04 to address the failure
of urethane seals to maintain sufficient halon concentrations in the
cargo compartments to extinguish or contain fire or smoke, and to
prevent penetration of fire or smoke in areas of the airplane that are
difficult to access for fire and smoke detection or suppression.
    This NPRM proposes to require additional actions for certain Model
767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, in accordance with
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 4,
dated April 26, 2021. This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2013-
11-04. Rather, the FAA has determined that a stand-alone AD would be
more appropriate because the additional work applies only to Model 767-
200, -300,

-300F, and -400ER series airplanes having certain configurations.

Actions Since AD 2013-11-04 Was Issued

    Since AD 2013-11-04 was issued, the FAA has determined that
replacement or removal of certain BMS 8-39 urethane foam pads and an
inspection of certain corner seals is necessary for certain Model 767-
200, -300, -300F, and -400ER airplanes that are in AD 2013-11-04. This
proposed AD would only require the actions for Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, identified as Group 1, Configuration
4; Group 2, 3, 12, and 13, Configuration 3; Group 14, Configuration 1
and 3; Group 15, Configuration 2; and Group 17, Configuration 3 and 4,
in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 4,
dated April 26, 2021. This proposed AD addresses the unsafe condition
only for these airplanes as identified in paragraph (c) of this
proposed AD. Therefore, this proposed AD would not supersede AD 2013-
11-04.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-
0381, Revision 4, dated April 26, 2021. This service information
specifies, among other actions, procedures for replacing certain BMS 8-
39 foam pads with Nomex felt in the forward and aft crown area,
removing certain BMS 8-39 foam pads in the crown area (which includes a
general visual inspection to find BMS 8-39 foam pads) for certain
airplanes, inspecting the corner seals to determine if the corner seals
were replaced, and replacing affected corner seals. The required
actions depend on requirements for use and location of the BMS 8-39
urethane foam in the airplane. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in
ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already. This proposed AD would also
prohibit the installation of affected parts. For information on the
procedures, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1177.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 396 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost              Parts cost            product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (1 airplane)..........  33 work-hours x $85   $0.....................          $2,805          $2,805
                                    per hour = $2,805.
Replacement of foam pad with       29 work-hours x $85   Negligible *...........           2,465         889,865
 Nomex felt (361 airplanes).        per hour = $2,465.
Removal (34 airplanes)...........  29 work-hours x $85   $0.....................           2,465          83,810
                                    per hour = $2,465.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parts are Nomex felt, adhesive, and tapes. There are no kits for this required action.

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                      Labor cost                Parts cost             Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of corner seals........  1 work-hour x $85 per   Up to $3,848.............  Up to $3,933.
                                      hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2021-1177; Project Identifier AD-
2021-00570-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by March 17, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified as Group 1, Configuration 4; Group 2, 3, 12, and 13,
Configuration 3; Group 14, Configuration 1 and 3; Group 15,
Configuration 2; and Group 17, Configuration 3 and 4; in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 4, dated
April 26, 2021.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of burned Boeing Material
Specification (BMS) 8-39 urethane foam, and a report from the
airplane manufacturer that airplanes were assembled with seals
throughout various areas of the airplane (including flight deck and
cargo compartments) made of BMS 8-39 urethane foam, a material with
fire-retardant properties that deteriorate with age. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address degraded BMS 8-39 urethane foam used in
seals, which may fail to maintain sufficient halon concentrations in
the cargo compartments to extinguish or contain fire or smoke, and
may result in penetration of smoke or fire into the flight
compartment, leading to possible loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(1), (2), (3), or (4)
of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 4,
dated April 26, 2021.
    (1) For Group 1, Configuration 4, airplanes; and Group 2, 3, 12,
and 13, Configuration 3, airplanes: Replace BMS 8-39 foam pads in
the forward and aft crown area with Nomex felt.
    (2) For Group 14, Configuration 1 and 3, airplanes; and Group
15, Configuration 2, airplanes: Remove BMS 8-39 foam pads in the
crown area.
    (3) For Group 17, Configuration 3, airplanes: Replace BMS 8-39
foam pads in the forward and aft crown area with Nomex felt, inspect
the corner seals to determine if the corner seals were replaced and
if any corner seals were not replaced, within 72 months after the
effective date of this AD, replace affected corner seals.
    (4) For Group 17, Configuration 4, airplanes: Inspect the corner
seals to determine if the corner seals were replaced and if any
corner seals were not replaced, within 72 months after the effective
date of this AD, replace affected corner seals.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a BMS
8-39 urethane foam seal on any airplane in any location identified
in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision
4, dated April 26, 2021.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed
to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Julie Linn,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on January 4, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-01856 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P