[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53469-53470]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC22-15-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-592); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-592 (Standards of Conduct for Transmission
Provider and Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines), which will
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review
of the information collection requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due September 30,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-592 to OMB through
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB control number (1902-
0157) in the subject line. Your comments should be sent within 30 days
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Please submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No.
IC22-15-000) to the Commission as noted below. Electronic filing
through https://www.ferc.gov is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain; Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review
field,'' select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected] and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers and
Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0157.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-592 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses the information maintained and posted
by the respondents to monitor the pipeline's transportation, sales, and
storage activities for its marketing affiliates to deter undue
discrimination by pipeline companies in favor of their marketing
affiliates. Non-affiliated shippers and other entities (e.g., state
commissions) also use the information to determine whether they have
been harmed by affiliate preference and to prepare evidence for
proceedings following the filing of a complaint.

18 CFR Part 358 (Standards of Conduct)

    Respondents maintain and provide the information required by 18 CFR
part 358 on their internet websites. When the Commission requires a
pipeline to post information on its website following a disclosure of
non-public information to its marketing affiliate, non-affiliated
shippers obtain comparable access to the non-public transportation
information, which allows them to compete with marketing affiliates on
a more equal basis.

18 CFR 250.16, and the FERC-592 Log/Format

    This form (log/format) provides the electronic formats for
maintaining information on discounted transportation transactions and
capacity allocation to support monitoring of activities of interstate
pipeline marketing affiliates. Commission staff considers discounts
given to shippers in litigated rate cases.
    Without this information collection:
     the Commission would be unable to effectively monitor
whether pipelines are giving discriminatory preference to their
marketing affiliates; and
     non-affiliated shippers and state commissions and others
would be unable to determine if they have been harmed by affiliate
preference or prepare evidence for proceedings following the filing of
a complaint.
    Type of Respondents: Natural gas pipelines.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the annual
reporting burden and cost for the information collection as shown in
the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Burden'' is defined as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 CFR 1320.3.

                                        FERC-592--Estimated Annual Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                Annual number   Total number   Average burden &   burden hours &     Cost per
    Number of respondents       of responses    of responses       cost per        total annual   respondent ($)
                               per respondent                    response \2\          cost
(1)                                       (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).............  (3) * (4) = (5)       (5) / (1)
                                                          (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85...........................               1              85  117 hrs.;         9,945 hrs.;             $10,179
                                                                $10,179.          $865,215.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Commission staff estimate that the industry's hourly cost
for wages plus benefits is similar to the Commission's $87.00 FY
2021 average hourly cost for wages and benefits.

    Dated: August 25, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18792 Filed 8-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


APPENDIX H MODELED ATTAINMENT TEST SAN ANTONIO EAC REGION ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION MARCH 2004 H 2 Appendix H Table of Contents Page Modeled Attainment Test Methodology                   . H 3 Current Period                            H 3 Current Site Specific Design Values                 . H 3 Relative Reduction Factor                       H 4 Future Site Specific Design Values                 .. H 5 Modeled Attainment Test Results after Inclusion of Local Clean Air Strategy Implementation                          ... H 5 List of Tables Page Table H 1 Design Values at Monitors during Three year Period Straddling the Most Recent EI ( 1999)                  .. H 3 Table H 2 Design Values at Monitors during Three year Period Anticipated for Nonattainment Designation ( 2001   2003)          . H 4 Table H 3 Predicted Current and Future 8 hour Daily Maxima         H 4 Table H 4 Relative Reduction Factor by Monitor              H 4 Table H 5 Attainment Test Results at SAER Monitors           .. H 5 Table H 6 Modeled Attainment Test Results that Account for Implementation of Stage I Vapor Recovery                  .. H 6 H 3 MODELED ATTAINMENT TEST METHODOLOGY The modeled attainment test for the SAER was conducted by completing a series of steps that are described in EPA's Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8 hour Ozone NAAQS. These steps require identifying the " current period" to use in the attainment test, calculating the current site specific design value, calculating the relative reduction factor, and calculating the future site specific design values. The 2007 modeled data listed in the following tables are the predicted averages from the base case. Therefore, these results represent a preliminary attainment test conducted prior to modeling local clean air strategies.

Current Period To determine the current period to use in an attainment test, EPA guidance suggests reviewing monitored data for the three year period straddling the year represented by the most recently available emissions inventory and the three year period that is anticipated to be used to designate the area nonattainment. For the SAER, the most recently available emissions inventory is for the year 1999. Therefore, ozone measurements for the three year period between 1998   2000 represented one data set used in the analysis. The three year period anticipated for nonattainment designations is 2001   2003. The current monitored design values are selected based on the higher of the two estimates at each monitor.

Current Site Specific Design Values The current site specific design value was calculated at each monitor by identifying the fourth highest concentration in each of three consecutive years and determining the mean ( average) of the three year's data. The design values were computed for both three year periods, 1998 2000 and 2001 2003. Table H 1 provides the current design value by monitor for the 1998 2000 period. Likewise, table H 2 lists design values for the years 2001 2003. The highest design values, by monitor, when comparing the two tables are highlighted in yellow.

Table H 1. Design Values at Monitors during Three year Period Straddling the Most Recent EI ( 1999).

Monitoring Site 4th High 8 hr Daily Max. 1998 4th High 8 hr Daily Max. 1999 4th High 8 hr Daily Max. 2000 Average 4th High 8 hr Daily Max. CAMS 23 * 89 ppb 91 ppb 77 ppb 85.67 = 85 ppb CAMS 58 ** 87 ppb 87 ppb 80 ppb 84.67 = 84 ppb CAMS 59 *** 76 ppb 81 ppb 82 ppb 79.67 = 79 ppb CAMS 678 **** 84 ppb 70 ppb 77 ppb * At San Antonio Northwest CAMS 23 ( Marshall High School), the 1998 fourth highest reading was 89 ppb ( excusing May 7, 1998 as a smoke day, which had a value of 93 ppb). ** Camp Bullis CAMS 58 went online August 12, 1998 *** Calaveras Lake CAMS 59 went online May 14, 1998 **** CPS/ Trinity Pecan Valley CAMS 678 went online March 11, 1999 H 4 Table H 2. Design Values at Monitors during Three year Period Anticipated for Nonattainment Designation ( 2001   2003).

Monitoring Site 4th High 8 hr Daily Max. 2001 4th High 8 hr Daily Max. 2002 4th High 8 hr Daily Max. 2003 Average 4th High 8 hr Daily Max. CAMS 23 78 ppb 104 ppb 86 ppb 89.33 = 89 ppb CAMS 58 81 ppb 95 ppb 85 ppb 87 ppb CAMS 59 78 ppb 81 ppb 76 ppb 78.33 = 78 ppb CAMS 678 72 ppb 80 ppb 76 ppb 76 ppb 76 ppb Relative Reduction Factor The modeled attainment test also requires the calculation of a relative reduction factor ( RRF). The RRF is the ratio of the future 8 hour daily maximum concentration predicted near a monitor to the current 8 hour daily maximum concentration predicted near a monitor. Since the photochemical model uses a 4 km grid system, the area near a monitor was defined as the 7x7 array of grid cells surrounding the monitor. The predicted future and current 8 hour daily maximum concentrations are listed in table H 3.

Table H 3. Predicted Current and Future 8 hour Daily Maxima.

Monitoring Site Predicted 8 hour daily maximum ozone ( ppb)  1999 Predicted 8 hour daily maximum ozone ( ppb)  2007 CAMS 23 88 ppb 84 ppb CAMS 58 87 ppb 82 ppb CAMS 59 78 ppb 73 ppb CAMS 678 80 ppb 77 ppb Using the results of the most recent model, Run 18 Base Case B, the relative reduction factors were calculated for each monitor using the formula shown below. Table H 4 lists the RRF for each SAER monitor.

Future 8 hour daily maximum concentration near site I_ = Relative Reduction Factor Current 8 hour daily maximum concentration near site I Table H 4. Relative Reduction Factor by Monitor. Monitoring Site Relative Reduction Factor CAMS 23 .95 CAMS 58 .94 CAMS 59 .94 CAMS 678 .97 H 5 Future Site Specific Design Values The future site specific design values were calculated using the formula:

( DVF) I = ( RRF) I( DVC) I where ( DVC) I = the current design value at monitoring site I ( RRF) I = the relative reduction calculated near site I ( DVF) I = the estimated future design value for the time attainment is required Table H 5 lists the results of calculating a future design value for each monitoring site. The attainment test is passed when the future design value at each monitor is   84 ppb. As shown, the attainment test was passed for all SAER monitors.

Table H 5. Attainment Test Results at SAER Monitors.

Monitor Modeled Average Daily Maximum Ozone Concentration  1999 Modeled Average Daily Maximum Ozone Concentration  2007 RRF Current Design Value Future Design Value Pass / Fail Status CAMS 23 88 ppb 84 ppb 0.95 89 ppb 84 ppb Pass CAMS 58 87 ppb 82 ppb 0.94 87 ppb 82 ppb Pass CAMS 59 78 ppb 73 ppb 0.94 79 ppb 74 ppb Pass CAMS 678 80 ppb 77 ppb 0.97 77 ppb 74 ppb Pass MODELED ATTAINMENT TEST RESULTS AFTER INCLUSION OF LOCAL CLEAN AIR STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION The future design value results listed in table H 5 show that the 2007 future case model attains the 8 hour ozone NAAQS without resort to local control strategy implementation. However, the local SAER air quality planners, elected officials, and citizens have chosen to implement local control strategies to assure this attainment result.

As described in appendix K, three strategies have been chosen. The single locallyimplemented clean air strategy, Stage I vapor recovery, is creditable, enforceable, and permanent in the terms required for credit taken in the SIP.

Stage I vapor recovery for service stations of 25,000 gallons throughput of gasoline or more per month will be implemented and operational no later than December 31, 2005.

The attainment test was recalculated based on results of modeling Stage I vapor recovery in the 4 county SAER. Table H 6 provides the future design values when the impact of the vapor recovery strategy is taken into account. Although EPA guidance allows for truncation of decimals when calculating future design values, these results are listed to two decimal places so that the effect of implementing Stage I is more readily apparent. 1 1 Of 11 clean air strategies modeled, including ASM with OBD II, each resulted in less than 0.5 ppb reduction in local ozone concentrations. H 6 As demonstrated by this table, the implementation of Stage I vapor recovery as a local clean air strategy is projected to decrease ozone concentrations at all SAER monitors. Therefore, implementation of this strategy will provide an additional margin of safety to ensure the SAER attains the 8 hour NAAQS by 2007.

Table H 6. Modeled Attainment Test Results that Account for Implementation of Stage I Vapor Recovery.

Monitor Future Design Value ( ppb) RRF Future Design Value with Stage I ( ppb) Pass/ Fail Status CAMS 23 84.52 0.949 84.40 Pass CAMS 58 82.12 0.944 82.03 Pass CAMS 59 74.48 0.943 74.44 Pass CAMS 678 74.46 0.967 74.39 Pass In addition, should lower Reid Vapor Pressure to 7.2 pounds per square inch be available during the coming ozone seasons through negotiations which are ongoing at the time of this document submission ( late March 2004), SIP credit will be taken for this program also. See Appendix K, Analysis of Additional Evidence, for this discussion.

It is important to note that Transportation Emission Reduction Measures ( TERMs) can be quantified as SIP creditable reductions as well. While the quantity of reductions available for existing, ongoing, and programmed TERMs have not been calculated and included in the attainment demonstration of San Antonio's proposed revisions to the State Implementation Plan, local air quality planners are now researching measures to make the TERMs enforceable. The region is intent on making them enforceable and calculating SIP credit for them in coordination with the state and the local San Antonio / Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization. Even if SIP credit is not taken here for the secured TERMs projects in the region, the benefits of the reductions accrue as Additional Evidence that the San Antonio region will reach attainment. See Appendix K, Analysis of Additional Evidence, for this discussion.

Adopted in December 2002, state Senate Bill 5 and Senate Bill 7 include requirements for implementing Energy Efficiency / Renewable Energy Projects and for calculating resultant reductions in ozone precursor emissions through energy savings. These requirements are ongoing in Texas and highly effective in the San Antonio region. Although credit is not taken here for the Energy Efficiency / Renewable Energy Projects in the region, the benefits of the reductions accrue as Additional Evidence that the San Antonio region will reach attainment. With the completion of the work accomplished through a partnership described in Appendix K, Analysis of Additional Evidence, the San Antonio regional air quality planners will include the SIP credit available.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34021-34023]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14455]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0286; FRL-9318-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Control of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Glass Melting
Furnaces

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision
pertains to the control of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions
from glass melting furnaces. This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0286 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0286, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, 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-
2011-0286. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going
through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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
http://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 http://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 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On July 23, 2010, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a
revision to its State Implementation Plan for the control of
NOX from glass melting furnaces.

I. Background

    The SIP revision consists of a regulation to control NOX
emissions from glass melting furnaces. This SIP revision is based on
the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) control measure to reduce
NOX emissions from glass melting furnaces. The OTC members
include Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The OTC was created
under section 184 of the CAA to establish regulatory programs to reduce
ozone precursor emissions, which includes the reduction of
NOX emissions from glass melting furnaces.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision adds definitions and terms to Title 25 of the
Pennsylvania Code (25 Pa. Code) Chapter 121.1, relating to definitions,
used in the substantive provision of this SIP revision. In addition,
the SIP revision adds a new regulation pertaining to the NOX
emission standards in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129 (Standard of Sources)
sections 129.301 through 129.310 (Control of NOX Emissions
from Glass Melting Furnaces). The new regulation applies to an owner or
operator of a glass melting furnace that emits or has the potential to
emit NOX at a rate greater than 50 tons per year in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the local air pollution control
agencies in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties. The new regulation
consists of the following: (1) New definitions and terms; (2)
exemptions that the emission requirements do not apply during periods
of start-up, shutdown or idling, if the owner or operator complies with
the start-up, shutdown and idling requirements; (3) emission
requirements which provide the owner or operator of a glass melting
furnace to determine allowable NOX emissions by multiplying
the tons of glass pulled by each furnace; (4) start-up requirements
where the start-up exemption identifies the control technologies or
strategies to be used to minimize emissions; (5) shutdown requirements
where the duration as measured from the time the furnace operation
drops below 25 percent of the permitted production capacity or fuel use
capacity to when all emissions from the furnace cease, will not exceed
20 days; (6) idling requirements that provide the owner or operator
operate the emission control system whenever technologically feasible
during idling to minimize emissions; (7) compliance determination by
installing, operating and maintaining continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS); (8) compliance demonstration on a furnace-by-furnace
basis, facility-wide emissions averaging basis, or a system-wide
emissions averaging basis among glass melting furnaces; and (9)
reporting and recordkeeping requirements where the owner or operator
calculates and reports the CEMS data and glass production data used to
show compliance with the allowable NOX emissions limitations
on a quarterly basis no later than 30 days after the end of the
quarter. A detailed summary of EPA's review of and rationale for
proposing to approve this SIP revision may be found in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available on line at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0286.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision for the
control of NOX emissions from glass melting furnaces
submitted on July 23, 2010. This regulation will reduce emissions of
NOX from glass melting furnaces. The reduction of
NOX emissions will also help protect the public health from
high levels of ozone and fine particular matter (PM2.5), of
which NOX is a precursor component. The reduction of
NOX emissions also reduces visibility impairment and acid
deposition. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 proposed rule, pertaining to Pennsylvania's
control of NOX emissions from glass melting furnaces, 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 25, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-14455 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 10, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2004-17128

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________This serves as notice to the public of the
action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no
additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

Application of    AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC.,   filed  2/17/04 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, and Guadalajara, Mexico.

Applicant reps: Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER> DOT Analyst: Linda
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  March 10, 2004,   through
_March 10, 2006 .

Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and

Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

Conditions:   The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted to is subject
to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix
A of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period will begin June 10, 2004, American Eagle’s proposed start-up
date for these services.

________________________________________________________________________
_________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

						APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

											8/2003

   Under the U.S.-Mexico aviation agreement, up to two U.S. carriers may
be designated to serve a given city-pair market.  Currently, both Comair
and American Airlines, Inc. (American), hold a designation to serve the
Dallas/Ft. Worth-Guadalajara market.  American is using its authority,
but Comair’s authority has become dormant.  Under the circumstances
presented, including our desire to make maximum use of our bilateral
rights and in light of the fact that no party opposed American Eagle’s
application here, we will withdraw the designation of Comair and
designate American Eagle in its place.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36353-36355]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12940]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95085; File No. SR-ISE-2022-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend ISE
Options 4, Section 5, Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading

June 10, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On April 11, 2022, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend Supplementary Material .07 to Options 4, Section 5 to limit the
strike price intervals for certain Short Term Options Series with an
expiration date more than twenty-one days from the listing date. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on April 27, 2022.\3\ On June 1, 2022, the Exchange filed Amendment No.
1, which replaced and superseded the proposed rule change in its
entirety.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94773 (April 11,
2022), 87 FR 25065 (``Notice''). The Commission received comment
letters that are not germane to the proposed rule change and are
available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ise-2022-10/srise202210.htm.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the three examples
provided in the proposal for greater clarity. Because the changes in
Amendment No. 1 do not materially alter the substance of the
proposed rule change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues,
Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice and comment. Amendment No.
1 is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ise-2022-10/srise202210.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

Background

    Pursuant to Supplementary Material .03 to Options 4, Section 5, the
Exchange may open for trading certain option series that expire at the
close of business on each of the next five Fridays that are business
days and are not Fridays in which monthly options series or quarterly
option series expire (``Short Term Option Series Program'').
Supplementary Material .03(e) \5\ specifies the strike intervals for
the Short Term Option Series Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supplementary Material .03(e) of Options 4, Section 5
states, ``Strike Interval. During the month prior to expiration of
an option class that is selected for the Short Term Option Series
Program pursuant to this Rule (``Short Term Option''), the strike
price intervals for the related non-Short Term Option (``Related
non-Short Term Option'') shall be the same as the strike price
intervals for the Short Term Option. The Exchange may open for
trading Short Term Option Series on the Short Term Option Opening
Date that expire on the Short Term Option Expiration Date at strike
price intervals of (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is
less than $100, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between
$100 and $150 for all option classes that participate in the Short
Term Options Series Program; (ii) $0.50 for option classes that
trade in one dollar increments and are in the Short Term Option
Series Program; or (iii) $2.50 or greater where the strike price is
above $150.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reduce the density of strike intervals that would be listed in
later weeks, ISE amended Options 4, Section 5 to limit the intervals
between strikes

in equity options listed as part of the Short Term Option Series
Program, excluding Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and ETNs, that have an
expiration date more than twenty-one days from the listing date
(``Outer STOs'').\6\ The Strike Interval Proposal adopted Supplementary
Material .07 to Options 4, Section 5, which specifies the applicable
strike intervals for Outer STOs, and Supplementary Material .03(f),
which provides that the strike intervals for Outer STOs shall be based
on the table within Supplementary Material .07.\7\ Currently, the table
within Supplementary Material .07 to Options 4, Section 5 provides: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91930 (May 18,
2021), 86 FR 27907 (May 24, 2021) (SR-ISE-2021-09) (``Strike
Interval Proposal'').
    \7\ See supra note 6. See also Supplementary Material .03(f) of
Options 4, Section 5 and Supplementary Material .07 to Options 4,
Section 5.
    \8\ The Share Price would be the closing price on the primary
market on the last day of the calendar quarter and the Average Daily
Volume would be the total number of options contracts traded in a
given security for the applicable calendar quarter divided by the
number of trading days in the applicable calendar quarter The
Average Daily Volume would be the total number of options contracts
traded in a given security for the applicable calendar quarter
divided by the number of trading days in the applicable calendar
quarter. Beginning on the second trading day in the first month of
each calendar quarter, the Average Daily Volume shall be calculated
by utilizing data from the prior calendar quarter based on Customer-
cleared volume at The Options Clearing Corporation. For options
listed on the first trading day of a given calendar quarter, the
Average Daily Volume shall be calculated using the quarter prior to
the last trading calendar quarter. See Supplementary Material .07 to
Options 4, Section 5.

                                                                       Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                $25 to less     $75 to less    $150 to less       $500 or
                   Tier                         Average daily volume       Less than $25     than $75        than $150       than $500        greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................  Greater than 5,000..........           $0.50           $1.00           $1.00           $5.00           $5.00
2.........................................  Greater than 1,000 to 5,000.            1.00            1.00            1.00            5.00           10.00
3.........................................  0 to 1,000..................            2.50            5.00            5.00            5.00           10.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the Strike Interval Proposal was
designed to reduce the density of strike intervals that would be listed
in later weeks within the Short Term Options Series Program by
utilizing limitations for intervals between strikes with an expiration
date more than twenty-one days from the listing date.\9\ However, there
may be instances where the allowable strike intervals under
Supplementary Material .07 and Supplementary Material .03(e) conflict,
potentially resulting in narrower strike intervals in those series with
more than twenty-one days from the listing date.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 13-14.
    \10\ See e.g., Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, Examples 1-3 at 8-
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .07 to
Options 4, Section 5, to state that when Supplementary Material .07 and
Supplementary Material .03(e) conflict, the greater interval would
apply. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a new sentence within
Supplementary Material .07 which states, ``To the extent there is a
conflict between applying Supplementary Material .03(e) and the below
table, the greater interval would apply.'' \11\ Supplementary Material
.03(e) would apply to Outer STOs only in the event that the interval
would be greater.\12\ The Exchange states that this rule change would
harmonize strike intervals as between inner weeklies (those having less
than twenty-one days from the listing date) and outer weeklies (those
having more than twenty-one days from the listing date) so that strike
intervals are not widening closer to expiration.\13\ The Exchange
provides Example 1 below to illustrate this point: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 7.
    \12\ See id. at 7-8.
    \13\ See id. at 14.
    \14\ See id. at 8. The Exchange provided three examples in
Amendment No. 1. See also supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1: Assume a Tier 1 stock that closed on the last day of Q1
with a quarterly share price higher than $75 but less than $150.
Therefore, utilizing the table within Supplementary Material .07, the
interval would be $1.00 for strikes added during Q2 even for strikes
above $150. Next, assume during Q2 the share price rises above $150.
Utilizing only the table within Supplementary Material .07, the
interval would be $1.00 even though the stock is now trading above $150
because the Share Price for purposes of Supplementary Material .07 was
calculated utilizing data from the prior calendar quarter. However, a
separate rule, Supplementary Material .03(e), provides that the
Exchange may list a Short Term Option Series at $2.50 intervals where
the strike price is above $150. In other words, there is a potential
conflict between the permitted strike intervals above $150. In this
example, Supplementary Material .07 would specify a $1.00 interval
whereas Supplementary Material .03(e) would specify a $2.50 interval.
As proposed, the Exchange proposes to apply the greater interval. The
greater interval would then be $2.50 as per Supplementary Material
.03(e) in this scenario. Therefore, the following strikes would be
eligible to list: $152.5 and $157.5. For strikes less than $150, the
following strikes would be eligible to list: $149 and $148 because
Short Term Options Series with expiration dates more than 21 days from
the listing date as well as Short Term Options Series with expiration
dates less than 21 days from the listing date would both be eligible to
list $1 intervals pursuant to Supplementary Material .07 and
Supplementary Material .03(e) of Options 5, Section 4.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the first sentence of
Supplementary Material .07 to provide, ``With respect to listing Short
Term Option Series in equity options, excluding Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares and ETNs, which have an expiration date more than twenty-one
days from the listing date, the following table, which specifies the
applicable interval for listing, will apply as noted within
Supplementary Material .03(f).'' \15\ The Exchange proposes to add the
phrase ``which specifies the applicable interval for listing'' to make
clear that the only permitted intervals are as specified in the table
within Supplementary Material .07, except in the case where
Supplementary Material .03(e) provides for a greater interval as
described above.\16\ The Exchange also proposes to update the reference
within this sentence from Supplementary Material .03(e) to
Supplementary Material .03(f), as paragraph (f) indicates when the
table within Supplementary Material .07 applies.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 6.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to delete the sentence from
Supplementary Material .07, which states, ``The below table indicates
the applicable strike

intervals and supersedes Supplementary Material .03(d) which permits
additional series to be opened for trading on the Exchange when the
Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet
customer demand or when the market price of the underlying security
moves substantially from the exercise price or prices of the series
already opened.'' \18\ The Exchange states that Supplementary Material
.07 is related to strike intervals, but does not supersede rules
governing the addition of option series.\19\ The Exchange further
states that Supplementary Material .07 and Supplementary Material
.03(d) do not conflict, and deleting the reference to Supplementary
.03(d) will avoid confusion.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at 10.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete the sentence from
Supplementary Material .03, which states, ``Notwithstanding the
limitations imposed by Supplementary Material .07, this proposal does
not amend the range of strikes that may be listed pursuant to
Supplementary Material .03, regarding the Short Term Option Series
Program.'' \21\ The Exchange states that while the range limitations
continue to be applicable to the table within Supplementary Material
.07, the strike ranges do not conflict with strike intervals and
therefore the sentence is not necessary.\22\ The Exchange further
states that Supplementary Material .03(f) otherwise indicates when
Supplementary Material .07 would apply.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 10-11.
    \22\ See id. at 11.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on August 1,
2022.\24\ The Exchange represents that it will issue an Options Trader
Alert to notify Members of the implementation date.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\26\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ which requires, among other
things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving this proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the Strike Interval Proposal was designed
to reduce the density of strike intervals that have an expiration date
more than twenty-one days from the listing date.\28\ In support of the
current proposal, the Exchange states it would result in a reduction of
the number of strikes listed in a manner consistent with the intent of
the Strike Interval Proposal, which was to reduce strikes which were
further out in time and would harmonize strike intervals for the Short
Term Option Series such that strike intervals would not widen as the
expiration date approaches.\29\ The Exchange further states that Strike
Interval Proposal continues to reduce the number of strikes listed on
ISE, allowing Lead Market Makers and Market Makers to expend their
capital in the options market in a more efficient manner, thereby
improving overall market quality on ISE.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 13-14.
    \29\ See id. at 14.
    \30\ See id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to apply the greater interval to Outer STOs
in cases where Supplementary Material .03(e) and .07 conflict serves to
increase, and thus limit, the intervals between strikes in those cases.
The proposal seeks to continue to focus more granular strike increments
on those series where they are more relevant, applicable, and likely
more in demand from customers and eliminate certain clusters of
relatively granular strikes in further out weekly series, consistent
with the Strike Interval Proposal.\31\ Further, the proposal would add
additional clarity to the Exchange's Short Term Option Series rules,
which should provide greater certainty as to the permitted strike
intervals and minimize confusion. The Commission believes that the
proposal is reasonably designed to effectuate the Exchange's goal of
balancing a reduction in the number of strikes in the Short Term Option
Series Program with the needs of market participants. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \32\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91125 (Feb.
12, 2021), 86 FR 10375 (Feb. 19, 2021) (SR-BX-2020-032) (Order
approving proposal by Nasdaq BX, Inc. to limit Short Term Options
Series intervals).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\33\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2022-10), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).
    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12940 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, February 5, 2021 2:10 PM
To:
Eric Stuart<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joe Green<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
updated list of EAF Facilities

Hello again  -  We updated our list of EAF so as to do some demographic analyses and for a small business determination. We have a list of 101 EAF now that I would like you to review. The yellow highlighted facilities are the additional companies that the economists found. The attached file shows the updated facility information and the economists' links and determination for number of employees. At the bottom of the list are facilities that appear closed or idle, and new facilities that may start soon (that you had previously identified for us as potential new sources).

We will be doing more analyses soon, so I'd appreciate you all looking over this list soon to make sure we do not have any facilities on the list that do not belong and also for any potential omissions or new sources. Thanks!

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

<< UPDATED-EAF-Facility_List-02-05-21.xlsx >>


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 Date: March 24, 2003 Chemical: 4 CPA PC Code: 019401 DP Barcode: D289044 Subject: 4 CPA   Evaluation of Endangered Species for the Tolerance Reassessment Decision ( TRED) Document for 4 CPA To: Anne Overstreet, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch III Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

From: Mark Corbin, Environmental Scientist Environmental Risk Branch 1 Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

Approved By: Sid Abel, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch I Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

Summary The Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( EFED) has prepared this summary of the potential risks to endangered species from the registered use of 4 chlorophenoxyacetic acid ( 4 CPA) in response to your request dated March 21, 2003. This memorandum is an addendum to the drinking water assessment completed by EFED dated September 11, 2002 for the Tolerance Reassessment Decision ( TRED) for 4 CPA previously submitted to the Special Review and Reregistration Division ( SRRD).

EPA determined in 1997 in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) that given the limited usage of this chemical in total annual pounds used and geographic area used there were unlikely to be risks to endangered species associated with 4 CPA. 4 CPA is limited to approximately 20 pounds per year use for indoor treatment of mung beans at a single production facility. Additionally, waste water discharges containing 4 CPA resulting from this registered use are subject to pre treatment requirements and are likely to be significantly diminished through this process. Any residues of 4 CPA leaving the production facility are likely to be further reduced ( if not eliminated) at a publically owned treatment works ( POTW) prior to entering surface water. Therefore, EFED believes that the exposures and risks to endangered species from the registered use of 4 CPA are likely to be low.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Air Quality Modeling Materials used in estimating CAPs and air
toxics for the final heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas rule

FROM:	Margaret Zawacki

		Assessment and Standards Division

		Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

DATE:		July 14, 2011

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit data files which were used
in the air quality modeling analyses for the final heavy-duty vehicle
greenhouse gas rule.  The air quality modeling analyses are discussed in
Section VII.D of the preamble, Chapter 8 of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) and in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document.  Information on the air quality modeling inventories is
discussed in Chapter 5 of the RIA.

Following is a list of the information contained on the enclosed disc,
which can be found at the US Docketing Center:

EPA West Building, Room 3334

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

- deposition DBF files folder: gridded annual nitrogen and sulfur
deposition difference data for 2030 baseline and HDGHG control scenario

- toxics DBF files folder:  gridded annual and seasonal (winter/summer)
toxics difference data for 2030 baseline and HDGHG control scenario

- Ozone_DVs_hdghg.xlsx:  county-level 8-hour max ozone Design Value
projections for 2030 baseline and HDGHG control scenario

- HDGHG_annualpm_DVs.xlsx:  county-level annual PM2.5 Design Value
projections for 2030 baseline and HDGHG control scenario

- HDGHG_AltdailyPM_dvs.xlsx:  county-level 24-hour PM2.5 Design Value
projections for 2030 baseline and HDGHG control scenario

- Vis_HDGHG.xlsx:  Class 1 Area visibility projections for the 20% worst
days for 2005 baseline, 2030 baseline and HDGHG control scenario

- CMAQv4.7.1_Release Notes.doc: RELEASE_NOTES for CMAQv4.7.1 from ORD,
Shawn Roselle

- met.2005.12EUS1.pdf:  Baker K. and P. Dolwick.  Meteorological
Modeling Performance Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Eastern U.S. 12-km
Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, February 2, 2009.

- met.2005.12WUS1.pdf:  Baker K. and P. Dolwick.  Meteorological
Modeling Performance Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Western U.S. 12-km
Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, February 2, 2009.

- met.2005.36US1.pdf:  Baker K. and P. Dolwick.  Meteorological Modeling
Performance Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Continental U.S. 36-km Domain
Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, February 2, 2009.

Attachments


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60269-60271]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0199]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Site, Point Ruston, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent regulated
navigation area (RNA) for all navigable waters within the area of lines
drawn from Dune Park downward to the Point Ruston Historic Ferry dock
on Commencement Bay, WA. This RNA is necessary to preserve the
integrity of protective sediment caps placed in multiple areas within
this waterway as part of the remediation process at the Commencement
Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Superfund Cleanup Site. This RNA prohibits activities which would
disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding, or
other activities that involve disrupting the integrity of the sediment
cap, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Puget Sound or
their Designated Representative. The RNA will not affect vessels
transiting or navigating within this waterway.

DATES: This rule is effective November 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0199 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Rob Nakama, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On December 6, 2021, the United States EPA Region 10 notified the
Coast Guard that it requests the establishment of an RNA or ``No Anchor
Zone'' for commercial vehicles within the Operable Unit 6 (OU6) Asarco
sediment cap in the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflat (CB-NT)
Superfund Site. This RNA will prohibit activities that could disrupt
the integrity of the engineered sediment caps that have been placed
within the OU6 Asarco sediment cap. These activities include vessel
grounding, anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding or other such
activities that would disturb the integrity of the sediment caps.
    In response, on June 8, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Regulated Navigation Area;
Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Site, Point Ruston,
Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA'' (87 FR 34834). There we stated why we
issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to this RNA. During the comment period that ended August 8,
2022, we received one comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Puget Sound
(COTP) has determined that establishing a permanent regulation
restricting activities such as anchoring, dragging, trawling, or other
activities will prevent disrupting the integrity of sediment caps
located within the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflat, WA.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published June
8, 2022. The comment was in support of the proposed rule. There are no
changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in
the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a RNA to prohibit certain activities
including anchoring, dragging, trawling, and other activities that
involve disrupting the integrity of sediment caps located within the
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflat, WA. No vessel or person would be
permitted to perform the aforementioned activities without obtaining
permission from the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound (COTP) or a
designated representative.

    The RNA would include all waters within Dune Park downward to the
Point Ruston Historic Ferry dock on Commencement Bay, WA, encompassed
by a line connecting the following points beginning at 47[deg]18'12.0''
N, 122[deg]30'26.0'' W onshore, thence 240 feet to position
47[deg]18'13.0'' N 122[deg]30'22.0'' W offshore, thence 2,900 feet to
position 47[deg]17'52.0'' N, 122[deg]29'53.0'' W offshore, thence 500
feet to position 47[deg]17'49.0'' N 122[deg]29'59.0'' W onshore. These
coordinates are based on World Geodetic System (WGS 84).
    The prohibition for anchoring, dragging, trawling, or other
activities that involve disrupting the integrity of sediment caps would
not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated with
remediation efforts in the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflat (CB-NT)
Superfund Sites, provided that the COTP is given advance notice of
those activities by the EPA. Vessels may otherwise transit or navigate
within this area without reservation.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the
RNA is limited in size and will not limit vessels from transiting or
using the waters covered, except for specified activities that may
damage the engineered sediment caps.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
RNA may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel
owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
permanent regulated navigation area for all navigable waters within the
area of lines drawn from Dune Park downward to the Point Ruston
Historic Ferry dock on Commencement Bay, WA. This rule prohibits
activities that would disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging,
trawling, spudding, or other activities that involve disrupting the
integrity of the sediment caps installed in the designated regulated
navigation area, pursuant to the remediation efforts of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other participants in the EPA
Superfund Cleanup Site. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.1344 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1344   Regulated Navigation Area; Commencement Bay Nearshore/
Tideflat Superfund Site, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following area is a regulated navigation
area (RNA): All waters within Dune Park downward to the Point Ruston
Historic Ferry dock on Commencement Bay, WA, encompassed by a line
connecting the following points beginning at 47[deg]18'12.0'' N,
122[deg]30'26.0'' W onshore, thence 240 feet to position
47[deg]18'13.0'' N 122[deg]30'22.0'' W offshore, thence 2,900 feet to
position 47[deg]17'52.0'' N, 122[deg]29'53.0'' W offshore, thence 500
feet to position 47[deg]17'49.0'' N 122[deg]29'59.0'' W onshore. These
coordinates are based on World Geodetic System (WGS 84).
    (b) Regulations. In addition to the general RNA regulations in
Sec.  165.13, the following regulations apply to the RNA described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (1) Prohibited activities include those that would disturb the
seabed, such as anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding, or other
activities that involve disrupting the integrity of the sediment caps
installed in the designated regulated navigation area, pursuant to the
remediation efforts of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and other participants in the EPA Superfund Cleanup Site. Vessels may
otherwise transit or navigate within this area without reservation.
    (2) The prohibition described in this section does not apply to
vessels or persons engaged in activities associated with remediation
efforts in the Middle Waterway Superfund Sites, provided that the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Puget Sound is given advance notice of those
activities by the EPA.

    Dated: September 28, 2022.
M.W. Bouboulis,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2022-21577 Filed 10-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


March 29, 2006 1 RISK SCREEN ON SUBSTITUTES FOR HALON 1301 TOTAL FLOODING FIRE EXTINGUISHERS OCCUPIED SPACES SUBSTITUTE: Uni Light This risk screen does not contain Clean Air Act ( CAA) Confidential Business Information ( CBI) and, therefore, can be disclosed to the public.

1. INTRODUCTION Ozone depleting substances ( ODS) are being phased out of production in response to a series of diplomatic and legislative efforts that have taken place over the past few years, including the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( CAAA). The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), as authorized by Section 612 of the CAAA, is developing a program to evaluate human health and environmental risks posed by alternatives to ODS. The main purpose of EPA's program, called the Significant New Alternatives Policy ( SNAP) program, is to identify acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for ODS in specific end uses.

EPA's decision on the acceptability of a substitute is based largely on the findings of a screening assessment of potential human health and environmental risks posed by the substitute in specific applications. EPA has already screened a large number of substitutes in many end uses within all of the major ODS using sectors, including refrigeration and air conditioning, solvent cleaning, foam blowing, aerosols, fire suppression, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilization. The results of these risk screens are presented in a series of Background Documents that are available in EPA's docket.

The purpose of this report is to supplement EPA's Background Document on the fire suppression and explosion protection sector ( hereinafter referred to as the Background Document). 1 This risk screen discusses potential human health and environmental risks posed by Uni Light, a water mist fire extinguishing system, which could replace Halon 1301 for use as a total flooding agent in occupied areas. According to the submitter, the typical application of Uni Light will be in machinery spaces onboard ships and off shore installations. The use of Uni Light in streaming applications is not addressed in this risk screen.

On July 28, 1995, EPA listed " Water Mist Systems using Potable Water or Natural Sea Water  as acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute." ( 60 FR 38731) That determination was based on the recommendations of a Health Panel convened to consider the potential physiological effects of inhaling very small droplets in fire and non fire scenarios. The Panel concluded that " water mist systems using pure water do not represent a toxicological or physiological hazard and are safe for use in occupied areas." The Panel recommended " that additives be evaluated on 1U. S. EPA, 1994. Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone Depleting Substances: Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection ( Halon Substitutes). Stratospheric Protection Division. March 1994. March 29, 2006 2 a case by case basis depending on the properties of the additive and the concentration at which it is used." EPA adopted the recommendations of the Panel by listing water mist systems composed of potable water and natural sea water as acceptable without restriction and requiring that " water mist systems containing additives different than those of potable water, and water mist systems comprised of mixtures in solution, must be submitted to EPA for SNAP review on a case by case basis."

The fire extinguishing product submitted under the name Uni Light contains a [] percent ( by mass) foam enhancement mixed with water. The foam consists of []. The composition of the foam enhancement is listed below in Table 1.

Table 1: Composition of the [] Foam Component of Uni Light Constituent Chemical Formula CAS # Percent of Total by Mass Section 2 of this report summarizes the results of the risk screen for Uni Light, Section 3 presents atmospheric modeling and potential environmental risks; Section 4 discusses occupational exposure during manufacture, installation and maintenance; Section 5 discusses exposure at end use; Section 6 assesses risks associated with general population exposure; and Section 7 assesses the emissions of volatile organic compounds. March 29, 2006 3 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Uni Light is recommended for SNAP approval as a total flooding agent for extinguishing fires in occupied spaces. Approval is specific to the water mist system with the foam formulation submitted with the application and evaluated in this risk screen. Any change to the either the individual constituents or composition of the foam blend may be considered a new formulation requiring SNAP review. Appropriate personal protective equipment ( PPE) should be worn during end use or, in the event of an accidental release, should be made available in a normally occupied space. PPE should include safety goggles, protective gloves, and a self contained breathing apparatus ( SCBA). Additionally, the risk screen indicates that the use of the proposed substitute will be less harmful to the atmosphere than the continued use of Halon 1301. Risk to the general population is expected to be negligible, and occupational exposure should not pose a problem if personal protective equipment is used. For applications of this and all other fire suppression equipment, ICF recommends that the applicable National Fire Protection Agency ( NFPA) standards be followed, including NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems and NFPA 16 Standard for Installation of Foam Water Sprinkler and Foam Water Spray Systems.

3. ATMOSPHERIC MODELING This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to atmospheric integrity posed by the use of Uni Light as a total flooding agent in occupied areas. According to the applicant, the active ingredients released are liquids at standard temperature and pressure and have no ozonedepleting potential ( ODP) and a negligible atmospheric lifetime ( ALT). Therefore, the use of Uni Light will be less damaging to the atmosphere than continued use of Halon 1301.

4. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AT MANUFACTURE The Uni Light foam enhancement is manufactured using an automated production process. This prevents manufacturing personnel from direct exposure to any of the Uni Light chemical constituents. Although contact is typically avoided, workers may be exposed to chemicals during a manufacturing accident. In case of an accidental release, the applicant claims that both audible and visual alarms will be activated to warn workers. Workers that may be exposed to any chemicals during an accidental release or spill are recommended to take precautionary measures to minimize risk. Protective gloves and goggles should be worn to protect the skin and eyes and a SCBA should be worn to avoid breathing vapor. After an accidental spill, the area should be well ventilated and any material should be collected with an inert absorbent and disposed of as hazardous waste.

5. EXPOSURE AT END USE In order to evaluate exposure at end use, ICF has evaluated the compounds contained in the Uni Light foam additive. The information for these compounds is presented below: March 29, 2006 4 5a. [] Exposure at End Use [] has a low toxicity during acute oral exposure or single inhalation ( Bingham et al. 2001). It has also been demonstrated that exposure does not result in any adverse developmental effects ( Bingham et al 2001, HSDS 2004), which is a concern with other structurally similar chemicals. Even though the health concerns associated with exposure to [] appear to be low, exposure to humans was modeled because [] is considered the most toxic constituent of the Uni Light foam additive and composes []% of Uni Light, the highest concentration of all of the constituents.

A reasonable release scenario was constructed to model a release of Uni Light into an occupied space where the system would typically be installed. The typical application of Uni Light will be in machinery spaces onboard ships and off shore installations ( Submitter). The following information was provided by the Submitter and was used to model potential exposure of an individual to Uni Light at the time of release:

  Water mixed with Uni Light is discharged for 300 seconds ( s) from the Uni Light System;   The rate of discharge is [] g/ m3/ s or [] mg/ m3/ s;   The material released is []% ( by mass);   The average size room ( ship machine room) where Uni Light would be released is 14 m3   Uni Light particles will completely settle in 60s; and   The Uni Light System discharges pure water after release of foam for a minimum of 10 minutes. This water discharge will help " scrub" the air ( submitter) and flush the foam into the bilge system ( a waste pump system located on board a ship or in an off shore location). The table below summarizes the concentrations of [] by time interval during a release based on information provided by the applicant.

Table 2: Concentration of [] in typical During Release at End Use Time Interval ( s) Concentration 0 60 Concentration increases in the room. It is assumed that this is a constant rate of [] mg/ m3/ s 60 300 Concentration in the room reaches a steady state concentration of [] mg/ m3 300 360 The system begins to discharge pure water. The concentration is assumed to decreases at a constant rate of [] mg/ m3/ s as particles settle. At 360s, the concentration returns to 0 mg/ m3.

Exposure Modeling Exposure to [] was modeled to determine the safety of the Uni Light system during a release. In order to model human exposure the following assumptions were made:

  All aqueous particles of [] inhaled are available for dissolution and uptake in the pulmonary region of the lungs; and March 29, 2006 5   The average ventilation rate of a 70 kg, 18 30 year old male in moderate activity is 1.74 m3/ hr ( US EPA 1997).

It was assumed that all aqueous particles containing [] inhaled will enter the bloodstream. The amount of [] that enters the body was estimated using the following information and calculation below:

C = [] concentration = [] mg/ m3 T1 = 0 60s time interval = 0.017hr T2 = 60 300s time interval = 0.067hr T3 = 300 360s time interval = 0.017 hr I = Inhalation rate = 1.74m3/ hr 0.5 = Target concentration scaling factor Maximum Exposure = ( 0.5 * C * T1 * I) + ( C * T2* I) + ( 0.5 * C * T3* I) = ( 0.5 * [] mg/ m3 * 0.017hr* 1.74m3/ hr) + ([] mg/ m3 * 0.067h * 1.74m3/ hr) + ( 0.5* [] mg/ m3 * 0.017h * 1.74m3/ hr)

= [] mg Using this equation, it is estimated that the maximum amount of [] that a 70 kg, 18 30  year old male could be exposed to during a standard release of Uni Light would be [] mg.

US standard setting organizations ( OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH) have not established a standard for []. Therefore a German occupational TWA of 100 mg/ m3 set by the Federal Republic of Germany Maximum Concentration Values in the Workplace ( MAK) has been chosen ( ACGIH 2000). Using this value, ICF estimated the maximum amount assumed to be safe when inhaled by a worker on a daily basis ( 8 hour day, 5 days/ week). The value was estimated using the following information and calculation:

CTWA= maximum occupational exposure concentration= 100 mg/ m3 T8hr= 8 hour exposure= 8 hr I= inhalation rate= 1.74mg/ m3 Maximum ExposureTWA = ( CTWA* T8hr* I) = ( 100 mg/ m3* 8hr* 1.74 m3/ hr)

= 1392mg/ day Using this equation, the maximum amount of [] that an individual should be exposed to is 1392 mg/ day. The maximum amount of [] that a 70 kg, 18 30 year old male would be exposed to during a 300s discharge of Uni Light is well below this estimated amount. The above value is used to estimate a safe daily dose and is a value deemed to be protective of chronic occupational exposure to this compound. Because the exposure scenario of concern for Uni Light in this risk screen is an accidental release which is an acute or one time exposure, there is a sufficient margin of safety above the factor of [] calculated using the chronic exposure TWA value. March 29, 2006 6 5b. [] Exposure at End Use Exposure to the [] in Uni Light is not expected to pose a significant risk to workers or bystanders. As with the above constituent, US standard setting organizations have not set standards for these agents because they have been assumed ` safe.' The German MAK has set a standard for [] which is a TWA of 1000 mg/ m3 ( ACGIH 2000). This value is 10 fold greater than the MAK standard for []. [] is only []% of the total mass of Uni Light and therefore the potential exposure is estimated to be considerably ( two orders of magnitude) less than the TWA of 1000 mg/ m3 and therefore exposure should not be a health concern.

5c. [], [], Exposure at End Use ICF believes that exposure to [] and [], are not expected to pose a significant risk to workers or bystanders. US standard setting organizations have not set standards for these agents because they have been assumed ` safe.' Both [] and [] are surfactants that may cause skin and eye irritation in high concentrations, but are not expected to cause any systemic effects at the concentration individuals may be exposed to during a release. These surfactants are most commonly used in shampoos and soaps and are classified as " generally recognized as safe" by the Food and Drug Administration. When exposure to a surfactant occurs it is recommended that individuals remove contaminated clothing, rinse their eyes and skin after an exposure.

6. GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE Uni Light is not expected to cause a significant threat to human health in the general population when used as a flooding agent in occupied areas. The only possible general population exposure to Uni Light will be during discharge of fire extinguishers in machine rooms onboard ships and in off shore installations. Uni Light could be used on cruise ships where the general population will be effected. However, Uni Light will primarily be used in offshore facilities and commercial ships only populated with workers where the general public will not be exposed.

Fire fighters and those exposed to Uni Light during release should wear full protective clothing, including self contained breathing apparatus ( SCBA). Individuals should follow the precautionary measures describes in Section 5c and equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use. When the recommended safety precautions are followed, no significant adverse health effects should result.

6a. AMBIENT AIR Uni Light is not expected to pose a significant threat to human health in the general population in the ambient air concentrations. All chemical constituents of the Uni Light foam are liquids at standard temperature and pressure and therefore will not volatilize into air contaminants. As was mentioned earlier, the Uni Light System discharges pure water after release of foam for a minimum of 10 minutes. This water discharge will help " scrub" the air ( submitter) and flush the foam into the bilge system ( a waste pump system located on board a ship or in an off shore March 29, 2006 7 location). Therefore, Uni Light is not expected to be a safety concern for ambient air contamination.

6b. SURFACE WATER Systems containing Uni light will be used in machinery spaces onboard ships and off shore installations. After a discharge, the foam is collected by an automatic bilge system and only discharged from the vessel off shore. The Material Safety Data Sheets ( MSDS) submitted by the applicant indicates that [] and [] should not be allowed to enter drains or be released into the environment. US federal maritime regulations designate three types of discharge " zones" in U. S. waters. Over three miles offshore, one may discharge waste directly overboard. Inside the threemile limit, it is illegal to dump bilge water or other sewage. This waste must be contained onboard and treated or discharged at a pump out station. Furthermore, the applicant claims that discharge of these chemicals at the concentrations released during end use should not be a concern. As long the Uni light is used on ships and off shore installations, it is not expected that drinking water supplies will be contaminated because the Uni Light waste product will not be released in coastal areas. In addition, [] is listed as having a low ecologic toxicity and environmental persistence as an aqueous solvent by the EPA ( U. S. EPA 2004).

6c. SOLID WASTE All constituents of the Uni Light system are liquids, so the only solid waste generated is from absorbent materials used to clean spaces after release. [] is regulated as a controlled substance by the Toxic Substance Control Act ( TSCA). Therefore, all materials used to clean spaces after an accidental should be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste in accordance with federal, state, or local requirements.

7. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ANALYSIS In Chapter 7 of the Background Document, EPA estimated the impact of potential increases in volatile organic compound ( VOC) emissions from the use of substitutes for ozone depleting substances ( U. S. EPA 1994). It was shown that VOC emissions from substitutes for Halon 1301 in fire extinguishing systems are likely to be insignificant compared to VOC emissions from all other sources ( i. e., both anthropogenic and biogenic). The constituents of Uni Light all have very low volatility and therefore are also not expected to contribute significantly to VOC emissions.

REFERENCES ACGIH. 2000. Guide to Occupational Exposure Values: 2000. ACGIH, Inc., Cincinnati. p. 42.

Bingham, E; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, CH. ( eds.). 2001. Patty's Toxicology, 5th Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

HSDB. 2004. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, TOXNET. National Library of Medicine. Specialized Information Services. < http:/// toxnet. nlm. nih. gov TOXNET> March 29, 2006 8 NFPA. 2000. Standard on Clean Fire Extinguishing Systems.

Uni Light SNAP Submission. 2005. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 17, 2005.

U. S. EPA. 2004. Aqueous and Semi Aqueous Solvent Chemicals: Environmentally Preferable Choices. < http:// www. epa. gov/ oppt/ solvents/ finlchr4. htm>. U. S. EPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/ 600/ P 95/ 002Fa. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August 1997.

U. S. EPA. 1994b Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone Depleting Substances: Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection ( Halon Substitutes). Stratospheric Protection Division. March 1994. March 29, 2006 9 Appendix A: Toxicity of Uni Light through Dermal Exposure Dermal exposure and skin absorption to Uni light should not be a safety concern for workers handling the substance or individuals exposed at end use. Two of the constituents, [] and [] are surfactants that are commonly used in shampoos and soaps. They are also classified by the Food and Drug administration as " generally recognized as safe ( GRAS)."

Dermal exposure to [] is discussed in Patty's Toxicology 5th Edition, which states, "[] present practically no health hazards in industrial handling and use. They are not significantly irritating to the eyes, skin, or mucous membranes " It discusses a study on [] that found that the dermal LD50 of [] could not be established because the lethal dose would have been extremely high ( Bingham et al. 2001) and an unpublished study by Dow Chemical Company, which found that a single dermal dose of 20g/ kg had no adverse effects. Other studies mentioned examined the subchronic effects of dermal exposure. Most of these found that subchronic dermal exposure had no adverse effects ( Bingham et al. 2001). One study did raise health concerns, but was difficult to evaluate because it also studied diet deficiency and lacked a control group ( Bingham et al. 2001).

Dermal exposure to [] is also discussed in Patty's Toxicology 5th Edition, which states that, "[] has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes." [] is commonly used in cleaning products and coatings, so dermal exposure is typically the most common route of exposure in the US. The EPA issued a TSCA ruling in [], which required dermal subchronic and dermal neurotoxicity studies ( U. S. EPA []). Patty's Toxicology reports that, " The results of these studies confirmed that [] presents little risk of systemic toxicity " One dermal acute toxicity study on rabbits and guinea pigs found that exposure to pure [] caused slight skin irritation ( Bingham et al. 2001). A rabbit study found that exposure to 0.1mL of pure [] can cause eye irritation and temporary tissue damage ( Bingham et al. 2001). The study also found that irritation decreased as [] was diluted and no irritation was detected when rabbits were exposed to a 5% solution.

References Bingham, E; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, CH. ( eds.). 2001. Patty's Toxicology, 5th Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

U. S. EPA. [], Final test rule on [] and []. Fed. Reg. [].