  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	Appendix A: Toxicity Profile

Acute Neurotoxicity Study Executive Summary for Acute Reference Dose in
the General Population

In an acute neurotoxicity study (MRID No. 42793601), CD rats (15
rats/sex/dose) were exposed by whole body inhalation to 0, 30, 100 or
350 ppm MeBr vapor for 6 hours (equivalent to males: 0, 27, 90 or 314
mg/kg/day and females: 0, 30, 101, or 354 mg/kg/day).  Test animals were
observed for 16 days.  Functional observation battery (FOB) was
conducted at pre-test and days 1, 2, 8 and 15 post-treatment.  Motor
activity measurements was conducted at pre-test and days 1, 8 and 15
post-treatment.

Under the conditions of this study, MeBr did not produce any mortality,
body weight loss, gross or microscopic changes at all dose levels.
However, at 350 ppm, decreased activity, increase in number of animals
with drooping/half-closed eyelids and alertness as measured in a FOB
examination, decreased rears, decreased motor activity, increased
piloerection and decreased body temperature in males and females were
observed.  A slight decrease in hind-limb grip strength in males may
have been treatment-related.  Effects were transient and all animals
were assessed to be normal by 1 week post-exposure.  At 30 or 100 ppm,
no treatment-related effects on FOB or motor activity were observed.

This study is classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the
guideline requirement  (§81-81-8) for an acute neurotoxicity study in
rats.

Developmental Toxicity Study Executive Summaries for Selection of Acute
Reference Dose in Females 13-49 Years of Age

In a developmental toxicity study (MRID No. 41580401), pregnant New
Zealand White rabbits (26 animals/dose) were exposed by whole body
inhalation to 0, 20, 40 or 80 ppm MeBr vapor for 6 hr/day on Days 6-16
of gestation.  Mating was conducted using artificial insemination.
Based on the insemination record the females were inseminated with sperm
pooled from several bucks.

Maternal Toxicity

At 80 ppm, clinical signs of maternal toxicity including decreased
appetite, lethargy, right side head tilt, slight ataxia and slight
lateral recumbency were observed.  These signs were mostly observed in
three rabbits: #5427, #5428 and #5431.  One doe (#5428) in this
treatment group delivered on gestation day 27 and it was determined that
this early delivery may have been related to the toxicity that this
animal was experiencing.  In addition, a treatment-related, but not
dose-related, decrease in body weight was observed in the maternal
animals in the high dose group.  Three animals (# 5427, 5428, and 5431)
caused decrease in the mean body weights of the high dose group.  The
body weight loss of these animals prior to delivering their litters were
604, 464, and 136 g, respectively.  No clinical signs of toxicity were
present in the lower treatment groups.

Developmental Toxicity

The fetal data indicate an increase in the incidence of agenesis
(absence) of the gall bladder in the fetuses of the high dose group
(13/159) (8.2%) relative to the control group (2/190) (1.1%).  The
litter incidences of agenesis of the gall bladder were 5/19 (26.3%) in
the high dose group and 1/21 (4.8%) in the control group.  The litter
incidences of agenesis of the gall bladder in the low- and mid-dose
groups were 1/15 (6.7%) and 1/19 (5.3%), respectively.  The individual
animal data indicate 9 fetuses with missing gall bladder were from 4
does with maternal toxicity in the high dose group.  The litter
incidences of agenesis was seen in 6 fetuses from one litter (animal #
5427) and 1 fetus each from 3 litters [animal # 5428, 5431 and 5430].
One doe (animal # 5432) with no maternal toxicity had 4 fetuses with
missing gall bladder.  Two does (animal # 5426 and 5433) with maternal
toxicity (lethargy only) had normal fetuses.

In a repeated study, it was confirmed that the observed finding of
agenesis of the gall bladder was related to treatment and was not
attributed to a particular male used for artificial insemination.  The
incidence of agenesis of the gall bladder found in this repeat study is
similar to the incidence in the main study.  The incidence of agenesis
of the gall bladder in the fetuses were 4/92 (4.3%) in the high dose
group and 1/114 (0.9%) in the control group.  The incidence of agenesis
of the gall bladder in the litters were 4/14 (28.6%) in the high dose
group and 1/16 (6.3%) in the control group.  At 80 ppm, the signs of
severe maternal toxicity (lethargy, right side head tilt, slight ataxia
and slight lateral recumbency) were not observed in this repeat study.

At 80 ppm, the number of fused sternebrae were increased in the high
dose group (12.6%) when compared to the control group (0%).   In
addition, mean fetal body weight was slightly lower (4.4%;
non-statistically significant) compared to the control group.  Although
the nominal fetal weight decrement was not statistically significant,
the decrease is consistent with other effects occurring at the high
dose.

The data seemed to indicate that the failure of gall bladder development
was due to the direct effects of  MeBr and it might not be caused by the
parental influence.

This study is classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the
guideline requirement  (§83-3) for a developmental toxicity study in
rabbits.

Chronic/Carcinogenicity Study Executive Summaries for Selection of
Chronic Reference Dose in All Populations

In a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study (MRID 44462501),
micro encapsulated MeBr was administered to 4 groups of male and female
Crl:CD®(SD)BR rats for a period of 12 or 24 months (interim and main
study, respectively) in the diet at concentrations of 0 (diet control),
0 (placebo control), 0.5, 2.5, 50, or 250 ppm.  These concentrations
were equivalent to 0, 0.02, 0.11, 2.20 and 11.10 mg/kg/day in males and
0, 0.03, 0.15, 2.92 and 15.12 mg/kg/day in females.  Groups of 50 males
and 50 females were designated for the main study and were maintained on
the treated food for up to 104 weeks.  Groups of 20 males and 20 females
were sacrificed at 52 weeks in the diet control, placebo control, 50 ppm
group and the 250 ppm group.

Survival was not affected by the test substance in any of the treated
groups compared to either of the control groups.  No treatment-related
clinical signs or effects on hematology, serum chemistry, urinalysis, or
organ weight data were observed.  The test article did not produce
changes in ophthalmoscopic examinations for the treated groups compared
to the controls.  Macroscopic and microscopic evaluations of organs and
tissues at the interim and final sacrifices revealed only normal
age-related changes, changes that were observed with equal frequency in
the controls.  No treatment-related increase in tumor incidence was
found in this carcinogenicity study.

Statistically significant treatment-related effects were observed on
body weights, body weight gains and food consumption in males and
females treated with 250 ppm of the test substance during the first 12
to 18 months of the study.  Males in the 250 ppm group had decreases of
5.5% in mean body weight compared to the diet control at week 2, by week
14 this decrease was 10% and remained consistently lower through week
70.  During the second year of the study these animals gradually
regained the weight and were comparable to controls at the end of the
study.  Females in the 250 ppm group had a decrease of 3.7% in mean body
weight compared to the diet control at week 2, by week 14 this decrease
was 8.3% and also remained consistently lower through week 57.  After
week 57 females in the 250 ppm group gained weight gradually and the
decreases disappeared by the end of the study (week 104) at which time
this group had mean body weight values that were similar to controls.
Mean body weight gain was markedly decreased during the first 18-months
of the study for animals treated with 250 ppm MeBr; decreases of 9-18%
and 12-21% were observed for males, and 7-22% and 11-19% were observed
for females when compared to the basal diet and placebo control groups,
respectively.  Males receiving 250 ppm had decreased food consumption
that ranged from 3.7 - 11.5 % for week 71-72, and females at this
concentration had decreases of 4.8 - 10.5% for week 54-55 compared to
their respective control groups.

This chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in the rat is
Acceptable/guideline and satisfies the guideline requirements for a
combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity oral study (§83-5) in rats.

Subchronic Inhalation Study Executive Summaries for Short- and
Intermediate Term Inhalation Risk

Executive Summary (5-7 week):

In a subchronic (5- to 7-week) inhalation toxicity study (MRID
43386802), MeBr (tech., 100% a.i.) was administered 7 hours/day, 5
days/week to 4 beagle dogs/sex/dose by whole body exposure at target
concentrations of 0, 5, 10/150, 25, 50 or 100 ppm (actual mean
concentrations 0, 5.3, 11.0/158.0, 26.0, 53.1 or 102.7 ppm; equivalent
to 0, 0.021, 0.043/0.614, 0.101, 0.206 or 0.399 mg/L), as follows:

5 Week sacrifice - 2 dogs/sex, 0 ppm group and all dogs, 25, 50 and 100
ppm groups, for 5 weeks (total 24 exposures);

7 Week sacrifice - 2 dogs/sex, 0 ppm group and all dogs, 5 ppm group for
7 weeks (total 34 exposures); and all dogs, 10/150 ppm group for 5 weeks
at 10 ppm (24 exposures), then at 150 ppm for 6 additional exposures and
terminated.  In addition to standard evaluations performed in a
guideline subchronic study, a neurological examination was performed by
a veterinarian after termination of exposures and serum bromide levels
were measured weekly.

5 Week sacrifice:

At 5.3, 11, or 26 ppm, there were no treatment-related effects on food
consumption, ophthalmological findings, hematology parameters, organ
weights or gross findings (Table 2).  However,  at  53.1 ppm, 2/8 dogs
showed decreased activity during exposure beginning day 14.  And, at
102.7 ppm, 3/8 dogs showed decreased activity beginning exposure day 9,
and by exposure day 12 and continued until sacrifice all dogs showed
decreased activity.  One male developed tremors on day 10.   In
addition, these dogs at 102.7 ppm lost body weight (9% less than
controls).   Cumulative weight loss of males and females were 0.6 kg and
1.0 kg, respectively.  The systemic toxicity NOAEL for 5 weeks (24
exposures) is 26 ppm.  The LOAEL is 53.1 ppm based on decreased
activity.

7 Week sacrifice:

In this study, MeBr at 5 ppm dose demonstrated an unresponsiveness in 1
female dog and unresponsiveness and depressed appearance in another
female at the end of 34 exposures.  However,  these effects are not
considered as treatment-related because these effects did not show clear
dose-response relationship (similar effects of unresponsiveness and
depressed appearance were not observed at higher exposure levels of
shorter duration) and were not corroborated with other findings.

No clinical signs of toxicity were observed at 26 ppm.  At 53 ppm,
decreased activity (lack of interest when approached) was first observed
in 2 dogs on day 14.  Thereafter, 1 to 4 of the dogs in that group
showed decreased activity on most exposure days.  At 103 ppm, 3 dogs
showed decreased activity on day 9; by day 12, all animals had decreased
activity during most of the remainder of the exposure period.  One
animal (sex not indicated) had tremors on day 10.  When exposure of
Group III animals (11 ppm) was increased to 158 ppm on exposure day 25,
decreased activity was observed in all animals beginning on day 27.  All
dogs were in poor condition by day 30, including one male that was
prostrate and had tremors.

This subchronic toxicity study is classified Acceptable/Non-Guideline
(§82-4) and fulfills the intent of the study.  A subchronic inhalation
study in the dog was not required by the US EPA for reregistration of
MeBr; this study was conducted as a range-finding study for a chronic
inhalation study in dogs to satisfy CDPR’s data requirements.

Executive Summary (6 week):

In a six-week nonguideline inhalation toxicity study (MRID 45722801),
four groups of beagle dogs consisting of 4 males and 4 females/group
were administered MeBr (Lot No: 1010PK15A; purity: 100% a.i.) by whole
body exposure at concentrations of 0, 5.3, 10, and 20 ppm (equivalent to
0, 1.8, 3.4 and 6.9 mg/kg/day).  The exposures were for seven hours/day,
five days/week for six weeks (total of 30 exposures).  There were no
compound related effects on mortality, clinical signs, body weight, food
consumption, spleen weights, or gross or histological pathology.
Functional observational battery and locomotor activity tests showed no
abnormalities relative to controls with one exception.  In this study,
one male at 10 ppm dose demonstrated an absence of proprioceptive
placing response, although no evidence of weakness in motor strength or
other signs of neurotoxicity was found.  These effects are considered
treatment-related because, all dogs also had the increased incidence
(not supported by statistics) of feces-findings (soft, mucoid feces,
and/or diarrhea) mostly later in the study.   At the 20 ppm dose, one
male and one female demonstrated an absence of proprioceptive placing
response due to treatment.  In addition, all dogs had the increased
incidence of feces-findings (soft, mucoid feces, and/or diarrhea) and 2
dogs at this dose showed higher incidence of discharge around the eyes
compared to the controls.

The LOAEL for MeBr was 10 ppm for male dogs and 20 ppm for female dogs
based on the absence of proprioceptive placing and the increased
incidence (not supported by statistics) of feces-findings (soft, mucoid
feces, and/or diarrhea).  The NOAELs was 5.3 ppm for male dogs and 10.0
ppm for female dogs.   This six-week inhalation toxicity study in beagle
dogs is Acceptable/Nonguideline and fulfills the intent of the study.

Use of the endpoint from the subchronic inhalation studies conducted in
dogs is appropriate for the exposure time period of 1day to 6 months.

Chronic/Carcinogenicity Inhalation Study Executive Summaries for Long
Term Inhalation Risk

In a chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study (MRIDs 41213301, 42418301,
44359101), 50 Wistar (Cpb:Wu) rats/sex/dose were exposed to MeBr (>98.8%
a.i.) by whole body exposure at concentrations of 0, 3, 30 or 90 ppm (0,
0.0117, 0.117 or 0.335 mg/L) for 127 weeks (males) or 129 weeks
(females).  Four additional groups of 10 animals/ sex/dose were also
included for sacrifice as follows:  (a) week 13, clinical
chemistry/hematology evaluations; (b) week 53, clinical
chemistry/hematology evaluations and gross/microscopic pathology; (c)
week 105, gross/microscopic pathology and (d) week 41, behavioral
evaluations (males only).  A reexamination of nasal cavity microscopic
lesions was later conducted by an independent reviewing pathologist and
the final diagnosis reached after discussion with the study pathologist
(MRID 44359101).  (The reexamination was not performed according to
recommended protocol for peer review and therefore the conclusions of
this review are based on the results from the original report).

	At 3 ppm, statistically significant increases in incidence (but not
severity) of basal cell hyperplasia of the nasal cavity were observed at
termination (27.0%, males and 31.7%, females, vs. 8.7% and 11.9%,
controls, respectively.  The severity of most lesions was very slight.

	At 30 ppm, severity as well as incidence of basal cell hyperplasia of
the nasal cavity was increased at termination (46.9%, males and 40.8%,
females).  The severity of lesions was slight or moderate.

	At 90 ppm, decreased survival (at termination, males 30% vs. 16%,
controls and females 14% vs. 30%, controls; statistically significant
only on a few occasions in each sex), decreased mean body weight (at
termination 5%, males; significant frequently during study and 12%,
females; significant throughout most of study after Week 4).  There were
also increased incidence of grossly visible hemothorax in animals found
dead or sacrificed in extremis, significantly increased incidence of
thrombus (43% vs. 10%, controls, males and 33% vs. 8%, females),
cartilaginous metaplasia (24% vs. 4%, controls, males) and moderate to
severe myocardial degeneration (73% vs. 41%, controls, females; not
significant in males - 84% vs. 65%).  Irritation of the esophagus and
forestomach may have been related to inadvertent ingestion of test
material (e.g., during grooming).  In males, increases in hyperkeratosis
of the esophagus (67% vs. 39%, controls; statistically significant) and
stomach (52% vs. 30%, controls; not significant) were observed.
However, in these males at 90 ppm, MeBr did not produce
treatment-related effects on clinical signs, hematology, clinical
chemistries, urinalysis parameters or behavioral parameters.

		There were no increases in the incidence of neoplastic lesions
attributed to exposure to MeBr in males or females.

	This chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study is classified
Acceptable/Guideline for 83-2(a) carcinogenicity study and satisfies the
guideline requirements for an inhalation carcinogenicity study in the
rodent.

Acute Toxicity Data on MeBr Technical

Guideline No.	Study Type	MRID # (s)	Results	Toxicity Category

870.1100	Acute oral

(MeBr in vegetable oil)	43510301

	LD50 = 120-160 mg/kg (males)

LD50 = 86 mg/kg (females)	II

870.1200	Acute dermal 	N/Ad	    N/Ad	N/A

870.1300	Acute inhalation 	Kato et al (1986)a 	LC50 = 3.03 mg/L, 4 hr
exposure	IV

870.2400	Primary eye irritation	Alexeef, G.; Kilgore, W. (1983)b and
Hezemans-Boer et al (1988)c	Severe irritation following accidental
exposure to humans	  I

870.2500	Primary skin irritation	Alexeef, G.; Kilgore, W. (1983) and
Hezemans-Boer et al (1988)	Severe irritation following accidental
exposure to humans	I

870.2600	Skin sensitization	N/Ad	     N/Ad	 N/A

a: Kato, N.; Morinobu, S.; Ishizu, S. (1986) Subacute inhalation
Experiment for MeBr in Rats. Industr. Health. 24: 87-103.

b: Alexeef, G.; Kilgore, W. (1983) MeBr.  In:  Gunther, F.; Gunther, J.,
ed.  Residue Reviews.  Residues of Pesticides and Other Contaminants in
the Total Environment, Vol. 88, p. 102-153.  New York, Springer Verlag.

c: Hezemans-Boer, M; Toonstra, J.; Meulenbelt, J.; et al. (1988)  Skin
Lesions Due to Exposure to MeBr.  Arch. Derm. 124:917-921.

d:  N/A (Not Available): Acute dermal toxicity and dermal sensitization
potential studies were not required because there is already a clear
evidence that severe irritation to skin occurs after acute dermal
exposure to MeBr.

Subchronic, Chronic and Other Toxicity Table

Guideline No./ Study Type	MRID No. (year)/ Classification /Doses	Results

870.3100

90-Day oral toxicity  in rats (peanut oil)	00154564 (1984)

classification: no DER available.	NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on slight hyperplasia of the stratified
squamous epithelium of the forestomach.  HDT was 50 mg/kg/day.

870.3150

4-week oral toxicity in rats (capsule)	43776401 (1995)

acceptable/non-guideline 	NOAEL = 0.835 mg/kg/day.

LOAEL = 7.99 mg/kg/day (HDT), based on slightly decreased body weight
gain and food consumption.

870.4300

Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity  in rats (micro capsulated)
44462501 (1997)

acceptable/guideline

0,  0.5, 2.5, 50, or 250 ppm (M: 0, 0.02, 0.11, 2.2, or 11.1; F: 0,
0.03, 0.15, 2.92, and 15.12 mg/kg/day for 24 months.	NOAEL =  50 ppm
(2.2 mg/kg/day for males and 2.92 mg/kg/day for females).  LOAEL = 250
ppm (11.1 mg/kg/day for males and 15.12mg/kg/day for females), based on
decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption in males
and females during the first 18 months of the study.

No evidence of carcinogenicity

870.4100b

Chronic toxicity dogs

 (fumigated feed)	 43885201 (1996)

acceptable/guideline

 0, 0.5, 1.5 or 5 ppm (M: 0, 0.06, 0.13 or 0.27; F: 0, 0.07, 0.12 or
0.27 mg/kg/day for 12 months.	NOAEL/LOAEL > 5 ppm (HDT) (equivalent to
0.27 mg/kg/day)

It is noted that this study was conducted to establish a margin of
safety for human dietary exposure rather than to determine a LOAEL.

870.6200a

Acute neurotoxicity screening battery in CD rats

(Via inhalation) 	42793601 (1993)

acceptable/guideline

0, 30, 100 or 350 ppm, for 6 hrs

(M: 27, 90 or 314; F: 30, 101, or 354 mg/kg/day).  	NOAEL = 100 ppm

LOAEL = 350 ppm based on decreased activity and alertness as measured in
a functional observation battery examination, decreased motor activity
and decreased body temperature in males and females were observed.  A
slight decrease in hind-limb grip strength in males may have been
treatment-related.  Effects were transient and all animals were assessed
to be normal by 1 week post-exposure.

870.3700a

Prenatal developmental in Wistar rats

(via inhalation)	00102990 (1981)

acceptable/guideline

0, 20 or 70 ppm   (equivalent to 0, 20, or 71 mg/kg/day)–7 hrs/day; 5
days/wk	Maternal NOAEL/ LOAEL > 70 ppm (HDT).  Slightly increased
incidence/severity of interstitial nephritis at 70 ppm may represent
threshold effect.

Developmental NOAEL /LOAEL > 70 ppm (HDT)

870.3700b

Prenatal developmental in rabbits  (via inhalation)

	41580401 (1990)

acceptable/guideline

0, 20, 40, or 80 ppm  (equivalent to 0, 7.1, 14 or 28 mg/kg/day) - 6
hrs/day for 17 days	Maternal NOAEL = 40 ppm; LOAEL = 80 ppm based on
decreased appetite, lethargy, right side head tilt, ataxia and lateral
recumbency.

Developmental NOAEL = 40 ppm; LOAEL = 80 ppm based on agenesis of the
gall bladder, increased incidence of fused sternebrae and decreased
fetal body weight

870.6200b

Subchronic neurotoxicity screening battery

(via inhalation) in rats	42964301; 43077401

(1993)

acceptable/guideline

0, 30, 70 or 140 ppm 6 hr/day, 5 days/week –13 weeks (equivalent to
males:  0, 19, 45, or 90 mg/kg/day; females: 0, 22, 51, 101 mg/kg/day)
NOAEL = 30 ppm (F)

LOAEL = 70 ppm (F) based on decreased body weight and motor activity.

NOAEL = 70 ppm (M)

LOAEL = 140 ppm (M) based on decreased body weight, increased mortality
(2 animals), convulsions (2 animals affected), effects on several FOB
parameters and brain histopathology in males.

870.3465

Subchronic  Inhalation Toxicity in dogs	43386802 (1994)

acceptable/guideline

0, 5, 10/150, 25, 50 or 100 ppm (actual mean concentrations 0, 5.3,
11.0/158.0, 26.0, 53.1 or 102.7 ppm; equivalent to 1.43, 2.97/42.7,
7.02, 14.3, 27.7 mg/kg/day). 7 hours/day

Systemic toxicity for a 7 weeks (34 exposures)

 NOAEL (threshold) = <5 ppm.

 LOAEL (threshold)= 5 ppm (0.021 mg/L), based on decreased
responsiveness in females.

870.3800

Reproduction and fertility effects in CD rats

(via inhalation)	00160477 (1986)

acceptable/guideline

0, 3, 30, or 90 ppm for 6 hours/day

(equivalent to males: 0, 2.4, 24 or 73 mg/kg/day; females:  0, 2.8, 28
or 85 mg/kg/day)	Parental/Systemic NOAEL = 30 ppm

Parental/Systemic LOAEL = 90 ppm based on reduced body weight

Reproductive NOAEL = 3 ppm

Reproductive LOAEL = 30 ppm based on reduced pregnancy rates (23%, F2b)

Offspring NOAEL = 3 ppm

Offspring LOAEL = 30 ppm based on reduced pup weight on post-natal day
21 (F1a, F2a, F2b generations) ranging from 10-20%.

870.4300

Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity  (29-month) in rats (via
inhalation)–Wistar rats	41213301 (1987); 42418301; 44359101

acceptable/guideline

0, 3, 30 or 90 ppm (0, 0.0117, 0.117 or 0.335 mg/L)

(equivalent to males: 0, 1.9, 19 or 58 mg/kg/day; females:  0, 2.2, 22
or 65 mg/kg/day)	Local irritation NOAEL < 3 ppm (0.0117 mg/L); LOAEL = 3
ppm (0.0117 mg/L), based on increased incidence of basal cell
hyperplasia of the nasal cavity in both sexes.

Systemic toxicity NOAEL = 30 ppm (0.117 mg/L); LOAEL  = 90 ppm (0.335
mg/L), based on increased mortality, decreased body weight and relative
brain weight, hemothorax, increased incidence of thrombus, cartilaginous
metaplasia, myocardial degeneration and irritation of the esophagus and
forestomach.

No evidence of carcinogenicity

870.4300

Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity  in mice –B6C3F1

(via inhalation)–2 years

National Toxicology Program Study TR 385	42504101 (1992)

acceptable/guideline for carcinogenicity study.

0, 10, 33 or 100 ppm–6 hrs/day; 5 days/week (0, 11.8, 38.9 or 118
mg/kg/day) 	Local irritation NOAEL/LOAEL = not reported

Systemic toxicity NOAEL = 33 ppm (0.1279 mg/l); LOAEL = 100 ppm (0.3876
mg/l), based on mortality (males), neurological signs (abnormal posture,
tremors, ataxia, limb paralysis and emaciation) decreased body
weight/weight gain and microscopic lesions in the brain, heart, sternum
and olfactory epithelium.

No evidence of carcinogenicity

[No data on clinical chemistry, urinalysis, and gross findings]

Cytogenetic

 870.5395

Study type: Micro nucleus assay in mice and rats 	43786501 (1986?)

Acceptable/guideline

Dose range: 0, 154, 200, 260, 338 or 440 ppm (equivalent to 0, 0.597,
0.776, 1.008, 1.311 or 1.706 mg/L) for 6 hrs/day, 5 days/week for 14
days, or 10 exposures. 	The test was positive.

 Micro nucleus (MN) induction was evaluated in bone marrow of rats and
mice and in peripheral blood of mice.

Other Genotoxicity study

870.

Study Type: Rat testicular DNA alkaline elution assay

	43180201 (1994)

Acceptable/non-guideline

Dose range:  0, 75, 150 or 250 ppm (0, 291, 581 or 969 mg/m3) for 6
hr/day over 5 consecutive days	The test was positive.

870.7485

Metabolism and pharmacokinetics	International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) Monographs Vol 41, p198	Rats received a single gavage dose
(preparation of test solution was unspecified) of 24 mg/kg/b.w.
14C-MeBr.  Over a 3-day period, the radioactivity recovered  were as
follows:  carcass (14-17%), expired carbon dioxide (32%), urine (43%),
and feces (less than 3%).

 During a 6-hour exposure of rats to 4.75-9874 mg/cu.m 14C-MeBr vapor,
approximately 27-50% of the compound inhaled was absorbed.

870.6300

Developmental Neurotoxicity Study	46665001 (2004)

Acceptable/non-guideline

Dose Range: 0, 5, 25, or 50 ppm	Maternal NOAEL = 50 ppm; LOAEL = not
identified

Developmental NOAEL =5 ppm; LOAEL = 25 ppm based on decreased motor
activity on PND21

(*)   A new 90-day inhalation study in rodents is not required for
reregistration of MeBr.  Acceptable rat chronic inhalation toxicity
(MRIDs 41213301, 42418301; reviewed in HED doc. nos. 007017, 007845,
009843 and 14130) and rat 90-day inhalation neurotoxicity (MRIDs
42933901 and 43077401; reviewed in HED doc. no. 010820) studies have
been received.  These studies provide adequate descriptions of systemic
toxicity to rodents from inhalation exposures of intermediate duration.

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   1


Index for Initial Input Data Sets for the Directs + 413 to 433 Upgrade Option Baseline Closures ( baseclos. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37702 Pollutant Code Match to CAS Number ( poll2cas. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37703 Facility, POTW, and Reach Information ( fac_ info. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37704 Facility Size ( facsize. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37705 POTW Removals Rates and Pollutant Toxic Weights ( twf_ remr. sd2) . . . . . . . . 37706 Original Pollutant Data from ERG for Marine Waters ( prop2. wk4) . . . . . . . . . . 37707 Original Pollutant Data from ERG for Fresh Waters ( backup2. wk4) . . . . . . . . . 37708 Pollutant Data ( chemdata. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37709 Fishing Licenses ( fish_ lic. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37710 U. S. Shore Miles ( shoremi. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37711 Fish Advisories ( fishadv1. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37712 River Miles by County ( us_ rchmi. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37713 Reach State ( rchstate. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37714 Average Number of Fishing Days ( avgdfish. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37715 County Populations ( cntypop. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37716 Recreational Participation Percentages ( recpcts. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37717 POTW Sludge Criteria ( sldg_ cri. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37718 Lead Concentration in Fish Tissue ( ublook4. sd2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37719


[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 20073-20074]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-8908; 34-57638; File No. 265-24]

Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of SEC Advisory Committee on Improvements to
Financial Reporting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on
Improvements to Financial Reporting is providing notice that it will
hold a public meeting on Friday, May 2, 2008, at the Donald E. Stephens
Conference Center, Room 21, 5555 N. River Road, Rosemont, Illinois
60018. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. (CDT) and will be open to the
public. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov. Persons needing special accommodations to take part
because of a disability should notify a contact person listed below.
The public is invited to submit written statements for the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes hearing oral testimony from
panel participants regarding the Advisory Committee's developed
proposals and conceptual approaches, as presented in the Advisory
Committee's progress report dated February 14, 2008 (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/other/2008/33-8896.pdf), related to substantive
complexity and the standards-setting process; consideration of comment
letters received by the Advisory Committee; consideration of updates
from subcommittees of the Advisory Committee; and discussion of next
steps and planning for the next meeting.

DATES: Written statements should be received on or before April 25,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Written statements may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper statements in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File No. 265-24. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your statements more efficiently, please use only
one method. The Commission staff will post all statements on the
Advisory Committee's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oca/
acifr.shtml). Statements also will be available for public inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Kroeker, Deputy Chief
Accountant, or Shelly C. Luisi, Senior Associate Chief Accountant, at
(202) 551-5300, Office of the Chief Accountant, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6561.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, 10(a), James L.
Kroeker, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has approved
publication of this notice.

    Dated: April 9, 2008.
Nancy M. Morris,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-7893 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX).

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) were proposed on December 17, 1980 and promulgated on August 18, 1983, and amended on December 22, 1983. These standards apply to the total of all loading racks at bulk gasoline terminals which deliver liquid product into gasoline tank trucks and for which construction, modification or reconstruction commenced after the date of proposal. A bulk gasoline terminal is any gasoline facility which receives gasoline by pipeline, ship or barge, and has a gasoline throughput greater than 75,700 liters per day. The affected facility includes the loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other piping and valves necessary to fill delivery tank trucks. Volatile organic chemicals ( VOCs) are the pollutants regulated under this subpart.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make the following one time only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the date of the initial performance test; and the results of the initial performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports and records are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS.

Monitoring requirements specific to bulk gasoline terminals are listed in 40 CFR 60.505 of this subpart. These requirements consist mainly of identifying and documenting vapor tightness for each gasoline tank truck that is loaded at the affected facility, and notifying the owner or operator of each tank truck that is not vapor tight. The owner or operator must also perform a monthly visual inspection for liquid or vapor leaks, and maintain records of these inspections at the facility.

This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX. In general, any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part will maintain a file of these records, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such records. Records of all replacements or additions of components shall be kept on file for at least three years. The reporting requirements for this industry currently include only the initial notifications and initial performance test report listed above. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office.

In the development of this Information Collection Request ( ICR), we reviewed the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) " Terms of Clearance" ( TOC) section on the active ICR. There were no comments in the TOC section.

Approximately 40 sources ( i. e., bulk terminals with a gasoline throughput greater than 75,700 liters/ day) are currently subject to the standard. Due to consolidation of several industry refiners, no new sources are expected to become subject to the standard over the next three years.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The Clean Air Act ( Act) provides authority to the Agency to establish standards to control air pollution and to ensure compliance with promulgated regulations through adequate recordkeeping and reporting by the affected industries ( i. e., respondents). The regulations include the New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) under section 111 of the Act, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) which includes the original NESHAP standards and the more recent Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) or NESHAP MACT standards under section 112 of the Act, and emission guidelines for the designated types incinerators under section 129 of the Act.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard( s) are used by regulatory agencies, the public and the regulated community for a variety of reasons including the determination of the respondent's compliance status, analytical studies to demonstrate compliance trends, and evaluations regarding the efficacy of the promulgated regulations.

The required recordkeeping and reporting are also used to: 1) certify compliance with the regulations; 2) determine the respondent's compliance with the designated emission limitation( s); 3) notify regulatory agencies when a standard is violated; 4) evaluate continuous compliance through the use of emission or operational parameter monitors; and 5) ensure that plant personnel are following the required procedures and are periodically trained, as indicated.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication The standards do not require the duplication in the collection and reporting of information. If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 70 FR 24020) on May 6, 2005. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations We have reviewed our internal data sources and discussed the industry growth rate with the rule contacts for this industry category at the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) and Norbert Dee at the Environmental Program of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association in Washington, D. C. In addition, the Agency has initiated additional reviews on the sector to evaluate any residual risk from this regulation and determine if there is a need to change any of the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The effect of less frequent collection would be a decrease in the margin of assurance that facilities are achieving the emission reductions mandated by the Clean Air Act ( CAA) through the promulgation of the applicable regulations. In addition, the likelihood of detecting the poor operation and maintenance of control equipment decreases and the detection of noncompliance becomes problematic.

3( e) General Guidelines Neither the reporting nor recordkeeping requirements violate the regulations established by Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) at 5 CFR part 1320, Section 1320.5. However, most NESHAP standards and a few NSPS standards require records to be kept more than three years. In general, these standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications, for five years. The five year record retention requirement is consistent with the permit program at 40 CFR part 70, and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based.

For the present rule, though the retention of records for three years of all replacements or additions of components and for two years of monthly leak inspections and notification reports at the terminal allow EPA to establish the compliance history of the respondent for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions The recordkeeping and reporting requirements do not contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code( s) and corresponding North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) for the respondents are listed below.

Regulation SIC Codes NAICS Codes New Source Performance Standards, 40 CFR, part 60, subpart XX, Bulk Gasoline Terminals 5171 42271 This table is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be regulated by this standard. To determine whether the standard applies to a particular entity, review the applicability provisions in the standard.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX Bulk Gasoline Terminals.

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Notification of construction or reconstruction 40 CFR 60.7( a)( 1) Notification of actual date of initial startup 40 CFR 60.7( a)( 3) Notification of physical or operational change 40 CFR 60.7( a)( 4) Maintaining records of startups, shutdowns or malfunctions. 40 CFR 60.7( b) Notification of performance test. 40 CFR 60.8( d) Notifying the owner or operator of each nonvapor tight gasoline truck loaded 40 CFR 60.502( e)( 4)

Reports Reporting performance test results. 40 CFR 60.8( a)

A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative. 40 CFR 60.7( b) Record the tank identification number as each gasoline tank truck is loaded. 40 CFR 60.502( e)( 2)

Record each leak detected during each calendar month inspection of control equipment during loading operations. 40 CFR 60.502( j)

Record of documentation for tank truck vapor tightness  kept on permanent record. 40 CFR 60.505( a)

Record of monthly leak inspection required under 60.502( j) for 2 years. 40 CFR 60.505( c)

Record of notifications under 60.502( e)( 4) for 2 years. 40 CFR 60.505( d) Records of replacement parts or additions for 3 years. 40 CFR 60.505( f) Annual update of records of tank truck vapor tightness. 40 CFR 60.505( b)

Electronic Reporting At the present, many respondents to CAA standards use monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data. Although personnel at the affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at the plant site.

Also regulatory agencies, in cooperation with the respondents, continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.

( ii) Respondent Activities Read instructions Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 2A, 2B, 21, 25A, 25B, and 27, and repeat performance tests if necessary Write the notifications and reports listed above Enter information required to be recorded above Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information Adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements Training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information Transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information Regulatory agencies, to the extent possible, are relying more on automated techniques such as electronic submissions of reports, and are improving their tracking systems and database systems to enhance the use of these techniques. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used. At this time, it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting. 5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts one or more of the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the information required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX:

Observes initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary Reviews notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry Audits facility records Inputs and maintains data in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) database 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The required data and reports can be evaluated on site by conducting a partial compliance evaluation, full compliance evaluation or inspection, or through an off site review of compliance monitoring records and reports. Evaluation reports and inspection results are maintained by the Agency or delegated authority.

The results of these evaluations are entered into the Air Facility Subsystem ( AFS) which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and delegated authorities can retrieve and analyze the data.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility A majority of the affected facilities are large entities ( i. e., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. Specifically, sources are required to maintain records of its operations at the terminal, however, no periodic reports are required to be submitted.

The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1, attached. 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 13,168 hours. The annual burden to industry is shown in Table 1. The labor hours in Table 1 are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the standard, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial $ 97.46 ($ 46.41 + 110%) Technical $ 83.71 ($ 39.86 + 110%) Clerical $ 42.55 ($ 20.26 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational and Industry Group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the subject standards is labor cost which is addressed elsewhere in this ICR. There are no capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous monitoring equipment. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor( s) and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance cost to industry over the next three years of the ICR is zero because no continuous monitoring equipment is required by this regulation. This is shown on the OMB 83 I form in section 14 as follows: block 4( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs; block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M); block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs There is no Agency burden associated with this standard. The lack of an annual Agency labor burden is based on the assumption that there will be no new bulk gasoline terminals submitting initial notifications during the next three years, and the fact that this rule does not require sources to submit periodic reports. The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is shown in Table 2, attached.

The Agency annual cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $ 56.02 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6) Technical $ 41.57 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) Clerical $ 22.50 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2005 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports Year ( A) Number of New Respondents 1 ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 0 0 40 0 40 2 0 0 40 0 40 3 0 0 40 0 40 Average 0 0 40 0 40 1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities. In this standard existing respondents have already submitted initial notifications.

To avoid double counting respondents, column D is subtracted. The average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is shown in column D. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents. The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses ( A) Information Collection Activity ( B) Number of Respondents That Submit Responses ( C) Number of Responses ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( BxC)+ D Initial Notifications 0 0 0 0 Report of Performance Test 0 0 0 0 Periodic Reports 0 0 0 0 Records of operations 40 0 40 40 Total 40 The number of Total Annual Responses is shown in column E. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor burden and cost to industry may be found in Table 1, attached.

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is shown in Table 2, attached.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

( i) Respondent Tally The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 329 hours ( rounded) per response.

The total annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entity are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Cost.

( ii) The Agency Tally The average annual Agency burden hours and cost over next three years is shown in Table 2, attached. 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The increase in labor burden to industry from the most recently approved ICR from 11,420 to 13,168 is due to adjustments. This increase in labor burden is due to a correction of the frequency of recording leaks detection inspection data from one occurrence per year to monthly occurrences as required by the rule, and the inclusion of labor hours for the management and clerical employees. The total industry cost also increased from $ 631,983 to $ 1,062,809, as a result of these changes and the use of an updated technical labor rate.

The reason for an increase in labor hours is due to a correction of the frequency of recording leaks detection inspection data from one occurrence per year to monthly occurrences per year as required by the rule. In addition, the burden calculation for the renewal of this ICR includes labor hours for the management and clerical employees, as well as updated labor rates for technical employees.

There were no capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring for the renewal of the ICR, therefore, there is no change in this burden category.

There was no Federal Government burden associated with the review of initial notifications and performance test reports by new sources; therefore, there is no change in this burden category.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 329 hours ( rounded) per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; to train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2005 0017, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2005 0017 and OMB Control Number 2060 0006 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX) ( Renewal)

Burden item ( A) Person

hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Person

hours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical person

hours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical person

hours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Cost, $ b 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Acquisition, Installation,

and Utilization of Technology and Systems N/ A 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 1 1 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 B. Required activities:

i. Initial Performance tests c 60 1 60 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 ii. Repeat Performance tests c 60 0.2 12 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 iii. Monitoring of operations and equipment: d Included in 5E D. Gather Existing Information Included in 4B and 5E E. Write report a, c i. Notification of compliance status 2 1 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Burden item ( A) Person

hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Person

hours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical person

hours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical person

hours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Cost, $ b ii. Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 iii. Notification of construction/ modification a 2 1 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 iv. Notification of Performance Test 2 1 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 v. Reports of performance test results Included in 4B vi. Operation and maintenance reports N/ A vii. Semi annual reports e N/ A 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions Included in 4A B. Plan activities Included in 4B C. Implement activities Included in 4B D. Develop record system N/ A E. Time to enter and transmit information: Monitoring of operations includes: f 1.5 50 75 40 3,000 150 300 Burden item ( A) Person

hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Person

hours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical person

hours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical person

hours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Cost, $ b i. Records of startup,

shutdown, malfunction, etc. $ 278,514 ii. Records of tank identification numbers 0.1 2,100 210 40 8,400 420 840 $ 770,839.20 iii. Leak detection records of monthly control equipment inspections 0.1 12 1.2 40 48 2.4 4.8 $ 4,456.22 F. Time to train personnel N/ A G. Time for audits N/ A TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST 11,448 572.4 1,148 $ 1,062,809.42 TOTAL LABOR HOURS ( Rounded) 13,168 $ 1,062,809 Assumptions:

a There are an estimated 40 respondents which are subject to this standard. We have assumed that there will be no new net growth for this industry over the three year period of this ICR. In addition, we have assumed that there will be no new lines constructed over the three year period.

b This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 97.46 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 83.71 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 42.55 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c We have assumed that all sources are in compliance with initial rule requirements including initial performance test. We have assumed that usually 20 percent of the sources would repeat performance tests due to failure.

d Monitoring of operations includes: 1) implementation of Standard Operating Procedures ( SOP) for operation and maintenance of control equipment; 2) records of tank identification numbers; and monthly leak detection inspection of control equipment.

e There will be no semi annual reports. f We have assumed that recordkeeping will take sources the following: records of SSM will occur once per week or 50 times per year; 6 minutes or 0.1 hour to enter each tank identification number; and an average of six tank trucks loading each day of 350 days of a year ( 6x350 days per year= 2,100). Table 2. Annual Burden and Cost for The Federal Government:

NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX) ( Renewal)

Activity ( A) EPA person

hours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per plant per year ( C) EPA person

hours per plant per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical person

hours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Cost, $ b Initial Notifications c 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Reports of performance test results c 8 1.2 9.6 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Semi annual reports d N/ A Subtotal Burden and Cost 0 0 0 $ 0.00 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST ( rounded) 0 $ 0 Assumptions:

a We have assumed that there are approximately two respondents currently operating in the United States. It is estimated that no additional respondents will become subject to the regulation in the next three years based on information available on the sector.

b This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses: Managerial rate of $ 56.02 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6), Technical rate of $ 41.57 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6), and Clerical rate of $ 22.50 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6). These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) A 2005 General Schedule@ which excludes locality rates of pay.

c We have assumed that all existing sources are in compliance with the initial rule requirements.

d Not applicable. The rule does not required periodic reports.


[Federal Register: November 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 221)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66679-66681]
[DOCID:fr16no06-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0059; FRL-8242-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; State Implementation Plan Revision for Burlington Industries,
Clarksville, VA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision consists of
the removal of a Consent Agreement (Agreement) currently in the SIP for
the control of sulfur dioxide emissions from Burlington Industries
located in Clarksville, Virginia. This Agreement has been superseded by
a federally enforceable state operating permit that imposes operating
restrictions on the facility's boilers and the shutdown of the
remainder of the facility. This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on December 18,
2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0059. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the

electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (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 through http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy for public inspection 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
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon McCauley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 11, 2006 (71 FR 39330), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed
approval of the removal of an Agreement from the Virginia SIP. The
Agreement was written for the control of emissions of sulfur dioxide
from the Burlington Industries facility located in Clarksville,
Mecklenburg County, Virginia. This Agreement has been superseded by a
federally enforceable state operating permit dated May 17, 2004, which
imposes operating restrictions on the facility's boilers and the
subsequent shutdown of the remainder of the facility. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by Virginia on July 12, 2004.
    Other specific requirements of the SIP revision for Burlington
Industries, Clarksville, Virginia and the rationale for EPA's proposed
action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No
public comments were received on the NPR.

II. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The

legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties
either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for
which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides,
subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of
environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations
pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses
such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate
measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental
Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege
that protects from disclosure documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary
environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to
documents or information (1) that are generated or developed before the
commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate
a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.'' Therefore,
EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will
not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent
with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also
determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect
only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the removal of the Consent Agreement for
Burlington Industries, Clarksville, Virginia as a revision to the
Virginia SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will 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,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules

of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5
U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding
today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability establishing source-specific requirements for one named
source.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 16, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action, to approve the removal of the Consent
Agreement for Burlington Industries, Clarksville, Virginia, may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.

(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 3, 2006.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

Sec.  52.2420  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entry for Burlington Industries.

[FR Doc. E6-19272 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54137-54138]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0545; Airspace Docket No. 22-AEA-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace, Class E Surface airspace,
and Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class D airspace at
Martin State Airport, Baltimore, MD. This action replaces the Baltimore
Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Collocated Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC) with the term Point of Origin. Also, this action
removes unnecessary verbiage from the descriptor header. In addition,
this action makes an editorial change replacing the term Airport/
Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal
descriptions of associated Class D and E airspace and makes the
editorial change replacing the term Notice to Airmen with the term
Notice to Air Missions. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety
and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Goodson, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it amends airspace in Baltimore, MD, to support IFR operations in
the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 32103, May 27, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0545 to
amend Class D airspace, Class E Surface airspace, and Class E Airspace
Designated as an Extension to Class D airspace at Baltimore, MD.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the

proposal to the FAA. One comment was received via email from Commander
(CDR) Bradford Wallace, Navy Representative, Eastern Service Area, FAA
(AJV-E23). CDR Wallace was concerned that the editorial change
replacing the Baltimore VORTAC with the term Point of Origin in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) made it sound like neither
navigational aids (NAVAIDS) still exist. Emails were sent to CDR
Wallace explaining that the FAA is progressing to a `Point of Origin'
where NAVAIDS currently are used to describe airspace, and the FAA
feels this action will help in the future as ground based navigational
aids do become decommissioned.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    The FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class D airspace, Class E
Surface airspace, and Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to
Class D airspace at Martin State Airport, Baltimore, MD. This action
replaces the Baltimore VORTAC with the term Point of Origin. Also, this
action removes unnecessary verbiage from the descriptor header. In
addition, this action makes an editorial change replacing the term
Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal
descriptions of associated Class D and E airspace and makes the
editorial change replacing the term Notice to Airmen with the term
Notice to Air Missions.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
Paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and
Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA MD D Baltimore, MD [Amended]

Martin State Airport, MD
    (Lat. 39[deg]19'32'' N, long. 76[deg]24'50'' W)
Point of Origin
    (Lat. 39[deg]10'16'' N, long. 76[deg]39'41'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Martin State Airport and
within 4.4 miles each side of a 14.7-mile radius arc of the Point of
Origin extending clockwise from the Point of Origin's 030[deg]
radial to the Point of Origin's 046[deg] radial, excluding that
airspace within the Washington Tri-Area Class B airspace area and
Restricted Areas R-4001A and R-4001B when they are in effect, and
Restricted Area R-4001C, which is continuously active up to 10,000
feet MSL. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air
Missions. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA MD E2 Baltimore, MD [Amended]

Martin State Airport, MD
    (Lat. 39[deg]19'32'' N, long. 76[deg]24'50'' W)
Point of Origin
    (Lat. 39[deg]10'16'' N, long. 76[deg]39'41'' W)

    That airspace within a 5.2-mile radius of Martin State Airport
and within 4.4 miles each side of a 14.7-mile radius arc of the
Point of Origin extending clockwise from the Point of Origin's
030[deg] radial to the Point of Origin's 046[deg] radial, excluding
that airspace within the Washington Tri-Area Class B airspace area
and Restricted Areas R-4001A and R-4001B when they are in effect.
This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class
D.

* * * * *

AEA MD E4 Baltimore, MD [Amended]

Martin State Airport, MD
    (Lat. 39[deg]19'32'' N, long. 76[deg]24'50'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 4 miles
each side of a 134[deg] bearing from Martin State Airport extending
from the 5.2-mile radius of Martin State Airport to 9.2 miles
southeast of the airport, excluding that airspace within the
Washington Tri-Area Class B airspace area and Restricted Areas R-
4001A and R-4001B when they are in effect. This Class E airspace
area is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time
will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 29, 2022.
Lisa Burrows, Manager,
Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-18939 Filed 9-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 110)]
[Notices]
[Page 32319-32320]
[DOCID:fr06jn08-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

May 29, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP07-310-002.
    Applicants: Mojave Pipeline Company.
    Description: Mojave Pipeline Company submits its Refund Report.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080527-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 4, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-388-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company LP submits Four Revised
Sheet 20 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, to become
effective 3/27/08.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-389-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
First Revised Sheet 33C et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised
Volume 1, to become effective 6/26/08.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP08-79-001.
    Applicants: Mardi Gras Midstream, L.L.C.
    Description: Mardi Gras Midstream, LLC. submit its agreement with
Temple Inland, showing the applicable rates and terms and conditions of
service.
    Filed Date: 05/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080509-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Thursday, June 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP08-393-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico filed a joint
abbreviated application for an order approving abandonment by sales and
issuing limited jurisdiction certificates of public convenience and
necessity and for grant of related waivers of Public Service Company of
New Mexico.
    Filed Date: 05/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080512-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Thursday, June 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP08-406-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company and
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation submit a joint application
for permission and approval to abandon Columbia Gulf's Rate Schedules
X-53 et al.
    Filed Date: 5/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080522-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Thursday, June 5, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a

compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12697 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13064]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04986]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 27, 2014, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. This meeting is a reschedule of a postponed meeting
announced in the Federal Register of January 8, 2014 (79 FR 1384),
originally scheduled for February 13, 2014.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31, the Great Room, White Oak Conference Center (Rm. 1503), Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due
to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person for More Information: Kristina Toliver, Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site
at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss biologics license application
(BLA) 125468, serelaxin injection, submitted by Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corp., as a treatment to improve the symptoms of acute
heart failure through reduction of the rate of worsening of heart
failure.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 24, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before March 21, 2014. Time allotted for
each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by March 24, 2014.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristina Toliver at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-04986 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P