2000 Weakfish FMP Review 2000 REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WEAKFISH ( Cynoscion regalis)

Plan Review Team Heather Stirratt, ASMFC, Chair Rick Cole, DE Louis Daniel, NC Charles Lesser, DE Rob O'Reilly, VA October 2000 _______________________________________________________________________________________

2000 REVIEW OF THE ASMFC FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WEAKFISH ( Cynoscion regalis)

I. Status of the Fisheries Management Plan The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ( ASMFC) adopted its first Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish in 1985. Amendment # 1 to the FMP, which superseded the original plan, was adopted in 1992, and Amendment # 2 was adopted in October 1994. Weakfish are currently managed under the guidelines contained in Amendment 3, which was approved by the Commission in May 1996 and completely replaces all previous amendments.

file:/// G:/ OW/ OW% 20Docket% 201/ EDOCKETS/ Electr... 02 0049/ second% 20submission/ 5 2202/ 5 2202. htm ( 1 of 4) [ 3/ 26/ 2003 4: 23: 03 PM] 2000 Weakfish FMP Review The goals of Amendment # 3 are to utilize interstate management so that Atlantic coastal weakfish recover to healthy levels which will maintain commercial and recreational harvest consistent with self sustaining spawning stock and to provide for restoration and maintenance of essential habitat. The management objectives are: 1) to restore the weakfish population over a 5 year period; 2) to reach and maintain a target fishing mortality rate of 0.5; 3) to restore the expanded age and size structure; 4.) to achieve compatible and equitable management measures among jurisdictions; 5.) to promote cooperative interstate research, monitoring and law enforcement; 6) to promote identification and conservation of habitat; and 7) to establish standards and procedures for both the implementation of Amendment 3 and for determination of states' compliance with provisions of the management plan.

Weakfish are managed under this plan as a single stock throughout their coastal range. All states from Massachusetts to Florida and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission have a declared interest in the Weakfish FMP. Responsibility for the FMP is assigned to the Weakfish Management Board, Plan Review Team, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Sub Committee and Citizen's Advisory Panel.

II. Status of the Stock The status of the stock was updated in the fall of 1999 based upon new information and recommendations from SAW 26. The new stock assessment, as peer reviewed by the 30th Stock Assessment Review Committee ( SARC), confirms preliminary trends of increasing abundance, spawning stock biomass, expanding age structure, and decreasing fishing mortality rates. Data extending through terminal year 1998 was considered by the 30th SARC in determining current fishing mortality. The SARC approved 1998 fishing mortality estimate of 0.20 is below the management plan's projected 2000 rebuilding goal of F = 0.50. Caution should be afforded in acceptance of the SARC approved fishing mortality estimate in that terminal year estimates are commonly associated with higher degrees of scientific uncertainty.

In addition to the peer review, the ASMFC Technical Committee also reviewed the status of Weakfish stocks. The Technical Committee estimated fishing mortality to be around 0.28 for 1998. This estimate is also well below the management plan's projected 2000 rebuilding goal of F = 0.50. Caution should be afforded in acceptance of the Technical Committee approved fishing mortality estimate in that terminal year estimates are commonly associated with higher degrees of scientific uncertainty.

III. Status of the Fishery Commercial landings increased steadily from 7.1 million pounds in 1995 to 8.3 million pounds in 1998. A slight decrease in commercial landings occurred in 1999 ( 6.9 million pounds). Landings from North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey combined accounted for 55% of commercial landings in 1999, with 40% coming from North Carolina and New Jersey.

According to MRFSS, 1999 recreational harvest was 1,651,554 fish, or 3.1 million pounds, which represents a decline in number of fish from 1998 ( 2,386,345 fish) as well as a decrease in the weight from 1998 ( 4 million pounds). Recreational landings intensified by 120% between the years 1995 and 1998. Most of the increase was due to landings from the states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia. Landings from these states accounted for 90% of recreational landings in 1998.

IV. Status of Research and Monitoring North Carolina, New Jersey and Delaware conduct small trawl surveys to determine a juvenile index for weakfish. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina collect age, size and weight and CPUE data from large trawl surveys. North Carolina, Delaware, and Maryland monitor size and age composition of their commercial fisheries. Virginia also monitors sex, size, and age from commercial fisheries and sex and size from recreational fisheries. North Carolina samples juvenile abundance and continues to evaluate by catch in shrimp trawls equipped with BRDs.

The Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation is evaluating the overall finfish by catch in shrimp trawls. North Carolina and South Carolina, with the assistance from several other states and federal partners, are reviewing different file:/// G:/ OW/ OW% 20Docket% 201/ EDOCKETS/ Electr... 02 0049/ second% 20submission/ 5 2202/ 5 2202. htm ( 2 of 4) [ 3/ 26/ 2003 4: 23: 03 PM] 2000 Weakfish FMP Review aging methods for weakfish. Georgia is conducting fishery independent and fishery dependent sampling of shrimp trawl bycatch.

V. Status of Management Measures Each state is required to implement harvest reduction strategies designed to recover weakfish over a 5 year period. Restoration of historic age and size structure, as represented by the average percentage of fish numbers at each age from 1979 to 1994, is also a plan goal. Table 1 describes the necessary reductions under Amendment # 3 for fishing years 1996 2000. According to the 26th SAW, the projected fishing mortality for 1996 was achieved and according to the most recent stock assessment fishing mortality is below 0.50. However, the Board has discussed modifying the fishing mortality target to be consistent with the new stock assessment methods.

Table 1: Required reduction schedules for fishing mortality rates ( F) for Atlantic Coast weakfish, 1996  2000. All reductions in F are based on a 12 inch minimum size limit.

Fishing Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Projected F 1.27 1.27 1.01 0.76 0.50 Table 2 shows the average percentage of fish numbers at each age ( age 0 to 7 and older) from 1979 to 1994. The fishing year is currently defined as April 1 through March 31. A summary of state weakfish regulations for the 1999 recreational and commercial fishery is also included ( Appendix 1).

Table 2: Average percentage of fish numbers at each age ( age 0 to 7 and older) from 1979 to 1994. Data comes from the 1994 Virtual Population Assessment model.

Percentage of Weakfish at each Age 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and Older Average % 68.45 20.98 7.28 2.09 0.69 0.29 0.10 0.12 VI. Current State by State Implementation per Compliance Requirements as of ( fishing year established date)

As of October 11, 2000, all states were in compliance with Amendment # 3 to the Weakfish Fishery Management Plan. The states of Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia remain de minimis states as defined in Amendment # 3. Their landings for 1998 and 1999 are well below the standard for de minimis of 1% of coastwide commercial and recreational directed landings file:/// G:/ OW/ OW% 20Docket% 201/ EDOCKETS/ Electr... 02 0049/ second% 20submission/ 5 2202/ 5 2202. htm ( 3 of 4) [ 3/ 26/ 2003 4: 23: 03 PM] 2000 Weakfish FMP Review for 1998 and 1999. In addition, the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut also meet the standard for de minimis status.

VII. Status of Assessment Advise Upon conclusion of the 1999 Weakfish stock assessment peer review, the 30th SARC confirmed that fishing mortality in 1998 was below the management target for the year 2000 ( Ftarget = 0.5). The SARC also noted that while stock rebuilding is occurring, the size and age structure has not been fully restored. As a result, the 30th SARC recommended that managers maintain a low fishing morality rate to enhance age and size structure expansion. In accordance with these recommendations, the Technical Committee has recommended revised reference points of Ftarget= 0.31, Fthreshold= 0.5, and SSBthreshold= 20%= 14,400 metric tons for consideration in the development of Amendment 4.

VIII. Recommendations The Plan Review Team recommends that:

1. States continue to maintain harvest levels. 2. Review the Evaluation Manual and if necessary make changes that will clarify mortality adjustments and an appropriate baseline period. 3. The appropriateness of recreational creel limits should be examined and revised if necessary. 4. The criteria, procedures, and requirements for de minimis status should be revisited.

file:/// G:/ OW/ OW% 20Docket% 201/ EDOCKETS/ Electr... 02 0049/ second% 20submission/ 5 2202/ 5 2202. htm ( 4 of 4) [ 3/ 26/ 2003 4: 23: 03 PM]


                                    AGENDA

                  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
                SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHEMICALS (SACC)
                      PREPARATORY VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING
                                April 24, 2023
                            1:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.

              SACC WEB SITE: http://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review

                 DOCKET NUMBER: EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2022 - 0918

                  MEETING LOCATION: Online via Zoom Platform
                          (Register here  to attend)

                           PREPARATORY MEETING TITLE

                   Scope and clarity of charge questions for

Draft Proposed Principles of Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act and a Draft Proposed Approach for CRA of High-Priority Phthalates and a Manufacturer-Requested Phthalate.

                                Monday April 24, 2023

                                Monday April 24, 2023

1:00 P.M. 	Welcome to the Public and Administrative Remarks                                                                                Alaa Kamel, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official (DFO), Peer Review and Ethics Branch (PREB), Office of Program Support (OPS), US EPA

 1:10 P.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members                                                                                Daniel Schlenk, PhD, Chair, Science Advisory Committee on Chemical (SACC)

1:20 P.M.	Overview of the Draft Proposed Principles of Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act and a Draft Proposed Approach for CRA of High-Priority Phthalates and a Manufacturer-Requested Phthalate
            Anthony Luz and Maiko Arashiro, Existing Chemicals Risk Assessment Division (ECRA), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), US EPA

1:40 P.M. 	Oral Public Commenters (5 minutes each)

2:00 P.M. 	Discussion on the Scope and Clarity of Draft Charge Questions
 		SACC/EPA

3:50 P.M. 	Meeting Wrap Up


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37310-37311]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15351]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0132; FRL 9912-38-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Recordkeeping Requirements for Producers,
Registrants, and Applicants of Pesticides and Pesticide Devices Under
Section 8 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Recordkeeping Requirements for
Producers, Registrants, and Applicants of Pesticides and Pesticide
Devices under Section 8 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)'' (EPA ICR No. 0143.12, OMB Control No. 2070-
0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through June 30, 2014. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 14706) on March 17, 2014
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0132, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Stevenson, Office of
Compliance, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division,
Pesticides, Waste & Toxics Branch (2225A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Producers of pesticides must maintain certain records
with respect to their operations and make such records available for
inspection and copying as specified in section 8 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and in regulations
at 40 CFR part 169. This information collection is mandatory under
FIFRA section 8. It is used by the Agency to determine compliance with
the Act. The information is used by EPA Regional pesticide enforcement
and compliance staffs, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA), and the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) within the
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), as well as
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and other Federal agencies, States under
Cooperative Enforcement Agreements, and the public.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Producers of pesticides for sale or
distribution in the United States.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 169)
    Estimated number of respondents: 14,447 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual

    Total estimated burden: 28,894 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $3,500,508 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 5,694 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to the growth in the number of
respondents since the last ICR.

Spencer W. Clark,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-15351 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MARINE FUEL CONTAINMENT

A PERMANENT SOLUTION Welcome  INTRODUCTION This presentation outlines a history, a strategy,

and a viable technology option that address the needs and concerns of not only the Boat building community, but also the USCG, the ABYC and the EPA. to Miami  HISTORY Several years ago the USCG commissioned a study of corrosion in aluminum fuel tanks that exposed several uncontrollable factors that lead to subsequent tank failure.

In more recent years, the EPA quantifies hydrocarbon inventories from marine industry and cites previously performed USCG tests showing elevated emissions from Crosslink HDPE as much as 1.5 grams per gallon per day.

Which brings us to the reason we are all here today  How's your hotel?

  mine too. ECSI STRATEGY Nov 2001 Realizing a need, ECSI researched and developed a viable product solution for Marine industry fuel containment, including a real time dialogue with the EPA in an effort to develop a technology to achieve the proposed permeation standard of .08 g/ g/ day.

Oct 2003 ECSI test tank at Ann Arbor Michigan , comes in at .047g/ g/ day Jan 2004 Prototype, test, prove custom fabrication and custom molding feasibilities, test to ABYC standards.

Aug 2004 Begin construction of tanks and develop efficient production processes OK, get ready  TECNOLOGY OPTION The migration of hydrocarbon molecules must be controlled at a molecular level.

Due diligence by ECSI discovered a containment barrier compound commonly used in other industries, that can easily be adapted for marine fuel containment purposes.

This same compound keeps the fizz in pop bottles, stops supermarket meat from turning brown and provides permeation reduction in a host of industrial applications. This is where it gets interesting.. TECNOLOGY OPTION " They say the best things come in the smallest packages"

Nanomer Chemically Modified Montmorillonite for Nanocomposite Formulation In simple terms  treated volcanic ash, that when dispersed into an appropriate carrier matrix forms a torturous path for molecules with a propensity for rapid migration. See what I mean  Nanocomposites, when dispersed into a carrier matrix,

act somewhat like pages in a book. When a hydrocarbon molecule hits one page, it must then migrate sideways to find it's way through and ultimately slow or stall prior to exiting to the atmosphere. I like to call This slide

  Yee Ha!.. Bentonite ( Inorganic layered material)

Modified to polymer grade Montmorillonite Exfoliated an dispersed in appropriate Proportions to provide, amongst a host of other benefits a hydrocarbon migration Barrier. And you thought

The other slide was

Weird Unsaturated Polyester Nanocomposites Unsaturated polyester ( UPE) nanocomposites find application in fiber reinforced products used in the marine, transportation and construction industries. UPE nanocomposite additives are available from ECSI, Cocoa, FL. These products provide greater chemical resistance, especially to corrosive chemicals and sea water.

Depending on the specific corrosive tested, ASTM D 543 shows that Relative Uptakes can be reduced by 70%. UPE nanocomposites are also more dimensionally stable and fire resistant.

UPE/ fiberglass nanocomposites are being used for boat tanks and accessories. In addition to the above benefits, accessories are less prone to color fading. Sag control is another major benefit, also seen in epoxy formulations. If you took time to read this balloon

Be advised there will be

  Test ° 40% higher tensile strength ° 68% higher tensile modulus ° 60% higher flexural strength ° 126% higher flexural modulus ° Heat distortion temperature increased from 65o ( nylon 6) to 152oC ° Other researchers have observed the following properties in other clay nanocomposite systems:

° Increased solvent resistance ° Decreased thermal expansion coefficient ° Reduced permeability ° Flame retardant capability Benefits beyond hydrocarbon containment When used as an additive in the right proportions nanomer can provide structural integrity benefits which lend them to use for structural components such as marine fuel tanks Ok time to pay attention  February 2004 ECSI partnered with Nanocor to facilitate Nano technology introduction and implementation into the marine industry In simple terms  Nanocor knows Nanocomposites, ECSI knows marine fuel tanks! We have chosen good partners  TECNOLOGY OPTION " Let's talk Tanks"

Marine industry fuel tanks must be

Able to be custom fabricated and baffled, have low permeation, moldable, have zero corrosion, boat material compatible and able to be built at a low cost! We've done our homework  TECNOLOGY OPTION " Lets talk Tanks"

Fabricated Using an appropriate carrier matrix for our fuel barrier and compatible sub strait, we have successfully developed a custom fabrication process that allows for appropriate baffling, fitting placement and the usual mid production run changes.

Initial testing on tanks built with this process withstood 13 lbs/ psi over a 24hour test period Passed impulse, slosh and drop test, with minimal visible fatigue We have all the answers  TECNOLOGY OPTION " Lets talk Tanks"

Molded Again using an appropriate carrier matrix for our fuel barrier and compatible molded sub strait, we have successfully developed an inexpensive custom molding process that facilitates high volume runs e. g.. entry level boats etc.

Average mold cost $ 2,500.00 Part rejection less than 8% of part cost.

Part rejection loss less than 2% Actual baffles not slosh ridges can be molded into substrate We've developed the   technologies of tomorrow.. TECNOLOGY OPTION Molded/ fabricated tank substrate Molded/ fabricated tank substrate Bonding agent Nano treated hydrocarbon barrier matrix Nano treated hydrocarbon barrier reinforced matrix TECNOLOGY OPTION Fitting placement Early prototypes used aluminum and stainless steel sandwich plates for fitting placement and installation.

Production models will utilize composite threaded openings to accommodate stainless steel or composite  fills, vents, sending units etc.

Nano treated threaded opening Tank substrate Bonding agent Fitting support block PRODUCT AVAILABILITY NANOMER Presently available through ECSI, a Cocoa Florida technology based product development and distribution company.

FUEL TANKS Presently built under license by Pompano Beach,

Florida. Tank you

for your attention Tank you

Not a typo!


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please see attachments

Copyrighted material may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder. ("Increased Survival of Western Corn Rootworm on Trasgenic Corn Within Three Generations of On-Plant Greenhouse Selection" )


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19919-19920]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07198]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9394-01-OMS]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) approval of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RIDEM) request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-
authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA approves the authorized program revisions/modifications as
of April 6, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley M. Miller, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Information Management, Mail Stop 2824T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the

programs covered by the application and will use electronic document
receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On March 21, 2022, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RIDEM) submitted an application titled Combined Air
Emissions Reporting System (CAERS) for revisions/modifications to its
EPA-approved programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic
reporting. EPA reviewed RIDEM's request to revise/modify its EPA-
authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the
application met the standards for approval of authorized program
revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In
accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to
approve RIDEM's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized
programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR is being published
in the Federal Register:

Part 52: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans (SIP/Clean
Air Act Title II) Reporting under CFR 50-52

    RIDEM was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Dated: March 31, 2022.
Jennifer Campbell,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2022-07198 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26751-26752]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10679]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108; FRL-9910-59-OAR]

Release of Final Policy Assessment Document Related to the Review
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing the availability of a final document
titled Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. The Policy Assessment (PA) has been prepared by
staff in the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
as part of the agency's ongoing review of the primary (health-based)
and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for lead (Pb). It presents analyses and staff conclusions
regarding the policy implications of the key scientific and technical
information that informs this review.

DATES: The PA will be available on or about May 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This document will be available primarily via the Internet
at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Deirdre Murphy, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
919-541-0729; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42
U.S.C. section 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list
certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those
pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in
her ``judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;'' ``the
presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse
mobile or stationary sources;'' and ``for which . . . [the
Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria. . . .'' Air quality
criteria are intended to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the
presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . .'' 42 U.S.C. section
7408(b). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. section 7409), the EPA
establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS
for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section
109(d) requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of
existing air quality criteria. The EPA is also required to periodically
review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS based on the revised
criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific
review committee ``shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and
the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . . .
and shall recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and
revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate. . .
.'' Since the early 1980's, this independent review function has been
performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
    Presently, the EPA is reviewing the NAAQS for Pb.\1\ The document,
whose

availability is being announced today, Policy Assessment for the Review
of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, presents analyses
and staff conclusions regarding the policy implications of the key
scientific and technical information that informs this review. The PA
is intended to ``bridge the gap'' between the relevant scientific
evidence and technical information and the judgments required of the
EPA Administrator in determining whether to retain or revise the
current standards. The PA builds upon information presented in the
Integrated Science Assessment for Lead prepared for this review by the
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) as well as scientific
and technical assessments from prior Pb NAAQS reviews, including
quantitative risk and exposure assessments developed in the last
review. A draft of the PA document was released for CASAC review and
public comment in January 2013 (78 FR 2394), and was the subject of a
CASAC review meeting on February 5-6, 2013 (78 FR 938). In preparing
the final PA, EPA has considered comments received from CASAC and the
public on the earlier draft document. This final PA document will be
available through the agency's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.
This document may be accessed in the ``Documents from Current Review''
section under ``Policy Assessments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA's call for information for this review was issued on
February 26, 2010 (75 FR 8934).

    Dated: May 2, 2014.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-10679 Filed 5-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63 [ R06 OAR 2005 NM 0005; FRL____ __]

Approval of the Clean Air Act Section 112( l) Program for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Delegation of Authority to the Albuquerque  Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY: The Albuquerque  Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board ( ABCAQCB)

has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAPs) for all sources ( both part 70 and non part 70 sources). These regulations apply to certain NESHAPs promulgated by EPA, as amended through July 1, 2004. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources in Indian Country. EPA is providing notice proposing to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to ABCAQCB.

DATES: Written comments must be received by [ Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jeff Robinson, Air Permits Section ( 6PD R),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202 2733.

Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/ courier by following the 2 detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule located in the final rules section of the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Air Permits Section,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division ( 6PD R), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202 2733, at ( 214) 665 6435, or at robinson. jeffrey@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving ABCAQCB's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain NESHAPs for all sources ( both Part 70 and non Part 70 sources). TCEQ has adopted certain NESHAPs into Texas' state regulations. In addition, EPA is waiving its notification requirements so sources will only need to send notifications and reports to ABCAQCB.

The EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final 3 those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7412.

______________ Dated: November 29, 2005 / s/ Carl E. Edlund Acting Regional Administrator Region 6


[Federal Register: June 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 111)]
[Notices]
[Page 32573-32577]
[DOCID:fr09jn08-40]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0273; FRL-8368-4]

Natural Rubber Latex Adhesives; Disposition of TSCA Section 21
Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On March 6, 2008, EPA received a petition from Michael J.
Dochniak under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
``to establish regulations prohibiting the use and distribution in
commerce of Hevea brasiliensis [italics added] natural rubber latex
adhesives having a total protein content greater than 200 micrograms
per [gram] dry weight of latex based on the American Society for
Testing and Materials method ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4).'' The petition
states: ``Implementation of an EPA regulation that guides adhesive
manufacturer's [sic] to use Hevea [b]rasiliensis [italics added]
natural-rubber-latex that satisfy[ies] ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4) may
affect the incidence and prevalence of latex allergy and allergy-
induced autism in neonates.'' For the reasons set forth in this notice,
EPA has denied the petitioner's request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Gerry Brown, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to you if you manufacture, process, import, or
distribute in commerce Hevea brasiliensis (Hevea) natural rubber latex
(NRL) adhesives. Potentially interested entities may include, but are
not limited to:
     Adhesive manufacturing, NAICS code 325520.
     Other chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers,
NAICS code 424690.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities that may be interested in this
action. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might be of interest to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding this action, consult the technical person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0273. All documents
in the docket are listed in the docket's index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.
     2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0273 at http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

A. What Action is Requested Under this TSCA Section 21 Petition?

    On March 6, 2008, EPA received a petition from Mr. Michael J.
Dochniak under section 21 of TSCA ``to establish regulations
prohibiting the use and distribution in commerce of Hevea brasiliensis
[italics added] natural rubber latex adhesives having a total protein
content greater than 200 micrograms per [gram] dry weight of latex
based on the American Society for Testing and Materials method ASTM
D1076-06 (Category 4).'' The petition states: ``Implementation of an
EPA regulation that guides adhesive manufacturer's [sic] to use Hevea
[b]brasiliensis [italics added] natural-rubber-latex that satisfy[ies]
ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4) may affect the incidence and prevalence of
latex allergy and allergy-induced autism in neonates'' (Ref. 1).
    NRL is a naturally occurring polyisoprene elastomer obtained almost
exclusively from the Hevea tree indigenous to South America but now
grown for commercial purposes principally in Asia and Africa. NRL
adhesives comprise a very small portion of the adhesives industry. They
are grouped by the U.S. Census under the ``natural base glues and
adhesives'' product category, which comprises the smallest share (< 3%)
of the U.S. adhesive manufacturing industry. Adhesives manufacturers
produce a wide range of products, including adhesives, caulks,
lubricants, and sealants, and adhesives are used in a wide variety of
industries. The U.S. adhesive industry is dominated by synthetic
adhesives like acrylics, epoxide resins, vinyls, and synthetic rubbers
such as polychloroprene and styrene-butadiene, the most common
substitute for natural rubber adhesives. Most synthetic adhesives are
derived from coal, natural gas, oil, or petroleum (Ref. 2).
    ASTM D1076-06, Standard Specification for Rubber-Concentrated,
Ammonia Preserved, Creamed, and Centrifuged Natural Latex, is a
standard specification, not a method, although methods are referenced
in the standard. ASTM International (ASTM), formerly the American
Society for Testing and Materials, is a voluntary standards development
organization, http://www.astm.org/ABOUT/aboutASTM.html (last visited
April 28, 2008). ASTM D1076-06 covers requirements for four categories
of ``first grade concentrated natural rubber latex'' (Ref. 3). Category
4, ``Centrifuged, or centrifuged and creamed, guayule latex, or other
natural rubber latex, containing less than 200 [micro]g total protein
per gram dry weight of latex, with ammonia or other hydroxide, with
other necessary preservatives and stabilizers,'' requires that the
latex contain no more than 200 micrograms ([micro]g) total protein per
gram (dry weight) of latex utilizing ASTM Test Method D5712 and no
detectable Hevea antigenic protein utilizing ASTM Test Method D6499-07
(Ref. 4). The latter test method, Standard Test Method for the
Immunological Measurement of Antigenic Protein in Natural Rubber and
Its Products, ``covers an immunological method to determine the amount
of antigenic protein in natural rubber and its products'' (Ref. 4).
According to ASTM, ``[a]lthough this method detects antigenic proteins,
it should not be considered as a measure of allergenic proteins,''
because ``[c]orrelation of protein/antigen levels with the level of
allergenic proteins has not been fully established'' (Ref. 4).

B. What Support Does the Petitioner Offer for this Request?

    The petitioner provided the following exhibits to support his
petition:
    1. Exhibit A: Ylitalo, Leea. Natural Rubber Latex Allergy in
Children. University of Tampere Medical School.
According to this study (abstract), the prevalence of NRL allergy in
children admitted for inhalant or food testing (total number of
children in the study, 3,269) was found to be 1%, based upon skin prick
test analysis. EPA recognizes that latex protein can cause
sensitization and allergic disease in certain children and adults, and
epidemiological studies show varying rates of prevalence in adults and
children.
    2. Exhibit B: Blanco, Carlos, Latex-Fruit Syndrome, Current Allergy
and Asthma Reports. 3:47-53. 2003.
This publication reviews evidence indicating that latex and food
allergens cross react immunologically.
    3. Exhibit C: Palomares, O. et al. 1,3 B-glucanases as candidates
in latex-pollen-vegetable food cross-reactivity. Clinical and
Experimental Allergy. 35:345. 2005.
This abstract also shows evidence of fruit, vegetables, and latex
cross-reactivity.
    4. Exhibit D: Latex in Food Packaging Risk. Available on-line at:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/latex.html.
This is a news article reporting that consumer groups were calling for
warning labels on food packaging containing latex.
    5. Exhibit E: Dochniak, M.J. Autism spectrum disorders-Exogenous
protein insult Medical Hypothesis (2007), doi:10.1016/
j.mehy.2007.01.060.
This is an article written by the petitioner hypothesizing that
increased latex allergen exposure may have affected the incidence of
allergy-induced autism. The article presents only a hypothesis that is
unsupported by any scientific study or data.
    6. Exhibit F: U.S. Patent 7,784,281 (Ichikawa, et al.).
This patent discusses a method for reducing the allergenic protein
content in Hevea NRL using digestive enzymes.
    7. Exhibit G: Hayes, B. H. et al. Evaluation of Percutaneous
Penetration of Natural Rubber Latex Proteins. Toxicological Sciences.
56, 262-270. 2000.
According to this article, the skin can be a plausible route for latex
sensitization and a major exposure route when it is damaged (e.g., cuts
and abrasion). Other routes would include contact via mucosal surfaces
and inhalation exposure.
    8. Exhibit H: H. B. Fuller Co. website literature on Hevea
brasiliensis water based adhesives. Available on-line at: http://
www.hbfuller.com/adhesives/technologies/water/000525.shtml#NR.
    9. Exhibit I: Henkel Consumer adhesive literature. Natural rubber
latex adhesive.
Both Exhibit H and Exhibit I show that at least some manufacturers do
not display latex allergy protein warnings on their packaging.
    10. Exhibit J: Niggeman, B. et al. Development of latex allergy in
children up to 5 years of age-a retrospective analysis of risk factors.
Pediatric Allergy [and] Immunology. 9:36-39. 1998

(International Standard Serial Number (Library of Congress) (ISSN):
0905-6157).
According to this study (abstract), besides the number of operations
and an atopic disposition, there were no other definite factors for
developing sensitization or allergy to latex in children up to 5 years
of age. In general, risk groups for latex allergy are atopics and
people frequently in contact with latex gloves, such as the medical
profession and patients needing multiple surgeries.

C. What Are the Legal Standards Regarding TSCA Section 21 Petitions and
TSCA Section 6 Rules?

    Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition ``set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary'' to issue the
rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21
implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the
requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a
court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in
the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA
section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). The petition does not
state under which provision of TSCA the request would be satisfied, and
only TSCA section 6 appears to be applicable. Accordingly, EPA has
relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and section 6 to evaluate
this petition.
    In order to promulgate a rule under TSCA section 6, the
Administrator must find that ``there is a reasonable basis to conclude
that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or
disposal of a chemical substance or mixture . . . presents or will
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.''
15 U.S.C. 2605(a). This finding cannot be made considering risk alone.
In promulgating any rule under TSCA section 6(a), the statute requires
that the Administrator consider:
     The effects of such substance or mixture on health and the
magnitude of the exposure of human beings to such substance or mixture.
     The effects of such substance or mixture on the
environment and the magnitude of the exposure of the environment to
such substance or mixture.
     The benefits of such substance or mixture for various uses
and the availability of substitutes for such uses.
     The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the
rule, after consideration of the effect on the national economy, small
business, technological innovation, the environment, and public health.
15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1).
    Furthermore, the control measure adopted is to be the ``least
burdensome requirement'' that adequately protects against the
unreasonable risk. 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).
    Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides the standard for judicial
review should EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TSCA section
6(a): ``If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court
by a preponderance of the evidence that ... there is a reasonable basis
to conclude that the issuance of such a rule ... is necessary to
protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of
injury,'' the court shall order the Administrator to initiate the
requested action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B).

III. Disposition of Petition

    The petition does not set forth facts sufficient to establish that
it is necessary to issue a rule prohibiting the use and distribution in
commerce of Hevea NRL adhesives having greater than 200 [micro]g total
protein per gram of latex and no detectable Hevea antigenic protein. In
particular, the petition does not set forth, as required by TSCA
sections 6 and 21, facts sufficient to support a finding that Hevea NRL
adhesives that do not meet the ASTM standard pose an unreasonable risk.
The petition does not present facts establishing that latex adhesives
containing any specific level of protein present an unreasonable risk.
Nor does the petition set forth facts indicating that prohibiting Hevea
NRL adhesives not meeting the ASTM standard would be effective in
reducing the incidence of latex allergies, or that doing so would be
the least burdensome requirement to protect against any unreasonable
risk from latex.
    While the petitioner provides some documentation to support the
petition (see Unit II.B.), this documentation is minimal and
insufficient to show a reasonable basis to find unreasonable risk. For
example, while petition Exhibits A, G, and J seem to support the
assertion that NRL latex sensitization and allergies occur in children,
this information does not show that the NRL adhesives pose an
unreasonable risk. Moreover, the petitioner only speculates that
``[i]mplementation of an EPA regulation that guides adhesive
manufacturers to use Hevea [b]rasiliensis [italics added] natural-
rubber-latex that satisfy ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4) may [emphasis
added] affect the incidence and prevalence of latex allergy and
allergy-induced-autism in neonates.'' The only exhibit that purports to
show a link between Hevea NRL and infant autism is an article that was
written by the petitioner and published in Medical Hypotheses (Ref. 5).
The article presents only a hypothesis that is unsupported by any
scientific study or data. Moreover, neither this article nor any other
factual information provided in the petition address the contribution
of adhesives to any risk that might exist.
    NRL allergies have been the subject of considerable Federal
Government evaluation. In March 2000, for example, the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) received a petition requesting that
the CPSC issue a rule declaring that NRL and products containing NRL
are strong sensitizers under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act
(FHSA) so that these products would require labeling. See the Federal
Register issue of March 21, 2000 (65 FR 15133). The CPSC conducted an
extensive review and issued a decision in June 2004 rejecting the
petition (Ref. 6). Among other things, CPSC concluded that the
incidence of NRL allergy in the general population was very low (below
1%), that many consumer products contain NRL, and that ``in spite of
the prevalence of NRL in consumer products, there are few documented
cases of reactions to NRL-containing consumer products,'' most of which
involved medical devices\1\ (The CPSC did not distinguish between Hevea
and non-Hevea NRL, but nearly all commercial NRL is Hevea). The CPSC
noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had issued rules
requiring labeling for medical devices containing NRL, citing 21 CFR
801.437. FDA, however, has not limited protein content in, or
prohibited, NRL (Ref. 7). See also the Federal Register issue of
September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51021). In general, the CPSC concluded, most
individuals only experience mild symptoms and ``most incidents of life-
threatening NRL-induced anaphylaxis are associated with invasive
surgical or other medical procedures, not with consumer products''
(Ref. 6). The CPSC determination suggests that the risks associated
with NRL, principally Hevea

NRL, are relatively insubstantial, and does not support a conclusion
that any risk is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A substantial proportion, if not most, products of concern
containing Hevea NRL may not be subject to TSCA. Among other things,
medical devices, food, food additives, food packaging, and cosmetics
do not fall within EPA's authority under TSCA section 6. TSCA
section 6 provides the authority to regulate chemical substances and
mixtures. The term ``chemical substance,'' however, ``does not
include - ... (vi) any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or
device (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C.A. 321]) when manufactured,
processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a food, food
additive, drug, cosmetic, or device.'' 15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(B)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition provides little information on the factors that must
be considered for a TSCA section 6 rulemaking. The petition does not
explain why it specifically targets adhesives. The only documentation
supporting the petition related to NRL adhesives was a product brochure
and a Material Safety Data Sheet included as exhibits (petition
Exhibits H and I) to show that two companies had not included antigenic
protein warnings on their packaging. The petition does not discuss any
special risks posed by NRL adhesives (in comparison to other NRL
products or other adhesives), does not describe the contexts in which
one might be exposed to NRL adhesives or why those exposures are of
concern to the general population, and does not provide any other
information on why adhesives are of particular concern.
    The petition does not provide any factual information on the
magnitude of exposure to Hevea NRL or Hevea NRL adhesives that do not
meet the ASTM standard or on the benefits of Hevea NRL or Hevea NRL
adhesives that do not meet the ASTM standard for various uses. Other
than noting the existence of substitutes, the petitioner provides no
factual information on the availability of substitutes. The petitioner
provides no factual information on the reasonably ascertainable
economic consequences of prohibiting the use and distribution in
commerce of Hevea NRL adhesives not meeting the ASTM standard. In
particular, the petition contains little information on the relative
importance of Hevea NRL adhesives as a source of infant exposure.
    As for the regulation that the petition seeks (i.e., to prohibit
the use and distribution in commerce of Hevea NRL adhesives that do not
meet the ASTM Standard D1076-06 (Category 4)), the petition does not
provide any evidence that ASTM Standard D1076-06 represents a safe or
otherwise appropriate level of allergen in NRL. The threshold amount of
NRL allergen needed to sensitize a person, or to produce an allergic
reaction, is not known and, as ASTM Test Method D6499-07 states,
antigenic proteins should not be considered a measure of allergenic
proteins because a correlation between antigenic protein levels and the
level of allergenic proteins has not been fully established (Refs. 4,
8, 9, and 10). In addition, each NRL protein has different antigenic
properties, and individuals do not react uniformly to each allergenic
protein (Ref. 12). As the CPSC has pointed out, without knowing the
threshold amount, it is not possible to differentiate between products
that would cause sensitization or allergic reaction and products that
would not (Ref. 6). Moreover, it would be difficult for Hevea NRL
adhesives products to meet the ASTM standard because the referenced
test method for detecting antigenic Hevea proteins is very sensitive
and it is difficult to prepare Hevea NRL such that the level of
antigenic protein would be low enough to be undetectable by the
referenced method (Ref. 13). In addition, the petitioner has not
provided evidence showing that prohibiting Hevea NRL that did not meet
this standard would be the least burdensome requirement.
    In addition, a regulation requiring reduced protein content in
Hevea NRL adhesives is unlikely to significantly contribute to reducing
Hevea NRL allergy in the general population. The groups considered most
at risk for Hevea NRL allergy are atopic individuals (who have a
genetic predisposition to allergies), individuals with certain food
allergies, and medical professionals and patients who undergo multiple
surgeries (who come into repeated contact with latex gloves or other
latex medical equipment) (Refs. 8, 9, 11, and 12).
    Another factor to consider for a TSCA section 6 rulemaking is the
availability of substitutes. Petitioner has requested that EPA ban
products that do not meet the ASTM standard. Although, for some
products, there are substitutes to Hevea NRL that do meet the ASTM
standard, the petition does not present facts establishing that
substitutes of NRL meeting this standard are technically feasible to
use with or as adhesives, that they are safer than Hevea NRL, or that
the substitutes are effective or economical for use in or as adhesives.
The petitioner mentions in the petition that procedures, such as
aqueous washing or treatment with digestive enzymes can be used to
reduce the antigenic protein content in Hevea NRL (see Exhibit F). This
washing or treatment could be a substitute to Hevea NRL that does not
meet the ASTM standard, but these methods can be expensive, may produce
latex with inferior physical, chemical, or mechanical properties, or
significant quantities of proteins may still remain in the latex (Ref.
14). As for other substitutes (that do not involve procedures for
reducing protein content), sources other than Hevea trees can be used
to make NRL. For example, NRL can be obtained from the guayule plant
(Parthenium argentatum). Petitioner has provided no information on the
cost or feasibility of producing guayule NRL. In addition, guayule NRL
may not be a satisfactory substitute for Hevea NRL for purposes of
reducing the incidences of allergic reactions. Although, the proteins
present in guayule NRL may not cross-react with IgE antibodies from
subjects allergic to NRL obtained from Hevea NRL, there is still some
concern that the proteins present in guayule NRL could also sensitize
some individuals and cause allergic reactions (Refs. 15 and 16).
Finally, latex-free synthetic alternatives are also available, but
these alternatives are more expensive and may not perform as well as
Hevea NRL (Ref. 14). As evidence that substitutes may create their own
risks, many synthetic elastomers contain traces of carcinogens, and the
production of vinyl gloves, a major substitute for latex gloves,
increases the risk of dioxin releases into the atmosphere (Ref. 2).

IV. Comments Received

    EPA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing receipt
of this TSCA section 21 petition and inviting public comment on or
before May 12, 2008 (Ref. 17). EPA received seven timely comments. Of
the seven comments received, two were from trade groups, three were
from manufacturers, one was from ASTM International, and one from an
individual.
    One brief comment, from a manufacturer of latex and latex-free
bandages, supported the petition ``because it would go a long way in
preventing allergic reactions that have become more common among health
care workers,'' but did not provide any additional information (Ref.
18).
    Another comment, from a manufacturer of guayule natural rubber
latex products, commented that it is presently not possible for Hevea
NRL to meet the ASTM D1076-06 Category 4 standard, that only guayule
can meet the standard, and that, even if the total protein present in
Hevea NRL could be reduced to the level in the Category 4 standard,
remaining proteins could still present a risk of allergic reaction to
the final product. The commenter suggested that a ban is, therefore,
not practical and that any proposed ban should, at least, be phased in
to permit time for development of substitutes and/or only target
adhesives to which children are exposed (Ref. 19).
    The other five comments opposed the petitioned action and/or
discussed the inappropriateness of the ASTM standard for addressing the
concerns stated in the petition.
    The comment from ASTM International (from the Chairman of the

subcommittee that maintains ASTM D1076-06), for example, noted that the
Category 4 standard specified in the petition was added for NRL from
botanical sources other than Hevea and that ASTM D1076-06 does not
apply to ``compounded latex concentrates,'' such as adhesives (Ref.
20).
    The Pressure Sensitive Tape Council noted many of the same issues
discussed in this unit, including concerns similar to ASTM's regarding
the appropriateness of the standard, the lack of facts supporting the
petitioner's autism hypothesis, and the unexplained focus on Hevea NRL
adhesives as opposed to the many other uses of Hevea NRL (gloves,
sports equipment, carpet backing, balloons, rubber bands, handles on
tools, and clothing elastics) (Ref. 21).
    The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) noted the lack of
evidence of a link between Hevea NRL exposure and autism, commenting
that in the long history of NRL harvest and use, and in the course of
multiple government inquiries into latex allergy, no one had observed a
link between NRL and autism. The RMA also commented that the petition
did not cite any evidence that allergens in NRL adhesives are being
transported to the human body and described differences in exposure
potential between dipped latex products (such as medical gloves,
balloons, and condoms) and dry rubber products (such as tires, hoses,
belts, and balls). The RMA also commented that the primary route of
consumer exposure to adhesives would be through medical bandages,
which, as a medical device, would fall under the jurisdiction of FDA.
Finally, the RMA criticized the use of some of the references in
petitioner's Medical Hypotheses paper, commenting that several
references did not in fact support the petitioner's hypothesis (Ref.
22).

V. References

    1. Dochniak, Michael J. Citizen Petition under TSCA to prohibit the
use of Hevea-Brasiliensis natural rubber latex adhesives in the United
States, wherein said adhesives have a protein content greater than 200
micrograms per dry weight of latex. February 26, 2008.
    2. EPA, OPPT, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division (EETD).
Profile: Natural Rubber Latex Adhesives. May 7, 2008.
    3. ASTM. ASTM D1076-06. Standard Specification for Rubber-
Concentrated, Ammonia Preserved, Creamed, and Centrifuged Natural
Latex. June 2006.
    4. ASTM. Active Standard: D6499-07. Standard Test Method for the
Immunological Measurement of Antigenic Protein in Natural Rubber and
Its Products. Available on-line at: http://enterprise.astm.org/
REDLINE--PAGES/D6499.htm (last visited May 13, 2008).
    5. Dochniak, Michael J. Autism spectrum disorders-Exogenous protein
insult, Medical Hypotheses (2007), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2007.01.060.
    6. CPSC. Letter from Todd Stevenson, Secretary, U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, to Debra Adkins, responding to her petition
HP 00-2 requesting CPSC to issue a rule adding NRL to the list of
strong sensitizers. June 4, 2004.
    7. FDA. FDA Clears Glove Made from New Type of Latex. FDA News.
April 23, 2008.
    8. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
NIOSH Publication No. 97-135: Preventing Allergic Reactions to Natural
Rubber Latex in the Workplace (June 1997).
    9. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food Advisory
Committee Meeting, Additives and Ingredients Subcommittee. Latex Glove
Background Report. August 2003.
    10. Northwestern University, Office for Research Safety, Laboratory
Safety, Office of the Vice President for Research. Allergic Reactions
to Latex Gloves. Available on-line at: http://
www.research.northwestern.edu/ors/labsafe/latex.htm (last visited May
13, 2008).
    11. CPSC. Memorandum from Jacqueline Elder, Assistant Executive
Director for Hazard Identification and Reduction, to Todd Stevenson,
Secretary, re: Additional Information on Petition on the Natural Rubber
Latex (HP 00-2). April 1, 2004.
    12. CPSC. Briefing Package, Petition Requesting that Natural Rubber
latex be declared a Strong Sensitizer (HP00-2). October 2003.
    13. European Commission, Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products
and Medical Devices. Opinion on natural rubber latex allergy. June
2000.
    14. U.S. Patent 5,741,885.
    15. Siler, D.J.; Cornish, K.; and Hamilton, R.G. Absence of cross-
reactivity of IgE antibodies from subjects allergic to Hevea
brasiliensis latex with a new source of natural rubber latex from
guayule (Parthenium argentatum). Journal of Allergy Clinical
Immunology. 98: 895-902. 1996.
    16. U.S. Patent 6,054,525.
    17. EPA. Hevea brasiliensis Natural Rubber Latex Adhesives; TSCA
Section 21 Petition; Notice of Receipt. Federal Register (73 FR 22368,
April 25, 2008) (FRL-8361-3). Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr.
    18. Comment from Andover Healthcare, Inc. May 12, 2008.
    19. Letter from the Yulex Corp. May 7, 2008.
    20. Letter from ASTM International. May 7, 2008.
    21. Letter from the Pressure Sensitive Tape Council. May 9, 2008.
    22. Letter from the Rubber Manufacturers Association. May 12, 2008.

List of Subjects

     Environmental protection, Antigenic proteins, Asperger syndrome,
Autism, Health, Hevea brasiliensis natural rubber latex adhesives,
Infants and children.

    Dated: June 3, 2008.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. E8-12850 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53633]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23154]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0631; FRL-9977-66-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; ICR Submitted to OMB
for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Disclosure Requirements (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the
following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Disclosure Requirements (EPA ICR Number 1710.08 and OMB Control No.
2070-0151). This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR,
which is currently approved through October 31, 2018. EPA received one
comment in response to the previously provided public review
opportunity issued in the Federal Register of December 20, 2017. With
this submission, EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public
review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2017-0631, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Wilkins, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404-T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in
detail the information collection activities and the related burden and
cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in
the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October
31, 2018. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: Section 1018 of the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4852d) requires that sellers and
lessors of most residential housing built before 1978 disclose known
information on the presence of lead-based paint and lead-based paint
hazards, and provide an EPA approved pamphlet to purchasers and renters
before selling or leasing the housing. Sellers of pre-1978 housing are
also required to provide prospective purchasers with ten days to
conduct an inspection or risk assessment for lead-based paint hazards
before obligating purchasers under contracts to purchase the property.
The rule does not apply to rental housing that has been found to be
free of lead-based paint, zero-bedroom dwellings, housing for the
elderly, housing for the handicapped, or short-term leases. The
affected parties and the information collection-related requirements
related to each are described below:
    1. Sellers of pre-1978 housing must attach certain notification and
disclosure language to their sales/leasing contracts. The attachment
lists the information disclosed and a statement of compliance by the
seller, purchaser and any agents involved in the transaction.
    2. Lessors of pre-1978 housing must attach notification and
disclosure language to their leasing contracts. The attachment, which
lists the information disclosed and a statement of compliance with all
elements of the rule, must be signed by the lessor, lessee and any
agents acting on their behalf. Agents and lessors must retain the
information for three years from the completion of the transaction.
    3. Agents acting on behalf of sellers or lessors are specifically
required by Section 1018 to comply with the disclosure regulations
described above.
    Respondents may claim all or part of a notice confidential. EPA
will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality
only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures
in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Persons engaged in selling or
leasing certain residential dwellings built before 1978, or who are
real estate agents representing such parties.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (see 40 CFR part
790).
    Estimated number of respondents: 21,504,926 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 5,952,344 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $130,067,754 (per year), which includes $0
annualized capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 514,832 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in
the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease to the estimated
number of respondents based on updates to data sources, and revisions
based on market factors.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-23154 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 219 (Thursday, November 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71931-71934]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2067]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Location and  case     Chief executive officer  of                                   Online location of  letter of map                           Community
         State and county                   No.                      community              Community map  repository                 revision                Date of  modification      No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado:
    Denver.......................  City and County of     The Honorable Michael B.        Department of Public Works,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 11, 2021.........       080046
                                    Denver (20-08-         Hancock, Mayor, City and        201 West Colfax Avenue,        advanceSearch.
                                    0372P).                County of Denver, 1437 North    Denver, CO 80202.
                                                           Bannock Street, Room 350,
                                                           Denver, CO 80202.
    Eagle........................  Town of Basalt (20-08- Mr. Ryan Mahoney, Manager,      Town Hall, 101 Midland         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 26, 2021.........       080052
                                    0275P).                Town of Basalt, 101 Midland     Avenue, Basalt, CO 81621.      advanceSearch.
                                                           Avenue, Basalt, CO 81621.
    Eagle........................  Unincorporated areas   Mr. Jeff Schroll, Eagle County  Eagle County Engineering       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 26, 2021.........       080051
                                    of Eagle County (20-   Manager, P.O. Box 850, Eagle,   Department, 500 Broadway       advanceSearch.
                                    08-0275P).             CO 81631.                       Street, Eagle, CO 81631.
    El Paso......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Mark Waller,      Pikes Peak Regional            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 16, 2021.........       080059
                                    of El Paso County      Chairman, El Paso County        Development Center, 2880       advanceSearch.
                                    (20-08-0369P).         Board of Commissioners, 200     International Circle,
                                                           South Cascade Avenue, Suite     Colorado Springs, CO 80910.
                                                           100, Colorado Springs, CO
                                                           80903.
Connecticut:
    Fairfield....................  Town of Darien (20-01- The Honorable Jayme J.          Planning and Zoning            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 22, 2021.........       090005
                                    0611P).                Stevenson, First Selectman,     Department, 2 Renshaw Road,    advanceSearch.
                                                           Town of Darien Board of         Darien, CT 06820.
                                                           Selectmen, 2 Renshaw Road,
                                                           Room 202, Darien, CT 06820.
    New Haven....................  Town of Branford (20-  The Honorable James B.          Engineering Department, 1019   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 15, 2021.........       090073
                                    01-0799P).             Cosgrove, First Selectman,      Main Street, Branford, CT      advanceSearch.
                                                           Town of Branford Board of       06405.
                                                           Selectmen, 1019 Main Street,
                                                           Branford, CT 06405.
Florida:
    Bay..........................  City of Panama City    The Honorable Mark Sheldon,     Building Division, 116 South   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 28, 2021.........       120013
                                    Beach (20-04-1474P).   Mayor, City of Panama City      Arnold Road, Panama City       advanceSearch.
                                                           Beach, 116 South Arnold Road,   Beach, FL 32413.
                                                           Panama City Beach, FL 32413.
    Bay..........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Philip ``Griff''  Bay County Planning and        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 16, 2021.........       120004
                                    of Bay County (19-04-  Griffitts, Chairman, Bay        Zoning Department, 840 West    advanceSearch.
                                    4735P).                County Board of                 11th Street, Panama City, FL
                                                           Commissioners, 840 West 11th    32401.
                                                           Street, Panama City, FL
                                                           32401.
    Collier......................  City of Marco Island   Mr. Mike McNees, Manager, City  Building Services Department,  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 22, 2021.........       120426
                                    (20-04-4781P).         of Marco Island, 50 Bald        50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco     advanceSearch.
                                                           Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL   Island, FL 34145.
                                                           34145.
    Hillsborough.................  City of Tampa (20-04-  The Honorable Jane Castor,      Planning and Development       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 8, 2021..........       120114
                                    0296P).                Mayor, City of Tampa, 306       Department, 1400 North         advanceSearch.
                                                           East Jackson Street, Tampa,     Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33607.
                                                           FL 33602.
    Hillsborough.................  Unincorporated areas   Ms. Bonnie M. Wise,             Hillsborough County            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 8, 2021..........       120112
                                    of Hillsborough        Hillsborough County             Development Services           advanceSearch.
                                    County (20-04-         Administrator, 601 East         Department, 601 East Kennedy
                                    0296P).                Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, FL    Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33602.
                                                           33602.
    Lake.........................  City of Leesburg (20-  Mr. Al Minner, Manager, City    Planning and Zoning            https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 13, 2021.........       120136
                                    04-0931P).             of Leesburg, 501 West Meadow    Department, 204 North 5th      advanceSearch.
                                                           Street, Leesburg, FL 34748.     Street, Leesburg, FL 34748.
    Lake.........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Leslie Campione,  Lake County Public Works       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 13, 2021.........       120421
                                    of Lake County (20-    Chair, Lake County Board of     Department, 323 North          advanceSearch.
                                    04-0931P).             Commissioners, 315 West Main    Sinclair Avenue, Tavares, FL
                                                           Street, Tavares, FL 32778.      32778.
    Lee..........................  Town of Fort Myers     The Honorable Ray Murphy,       Community Development          https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 19, 2021.........       120673
                                    Beach (20-04-3679P).   Mayor, Town of Fort Myers       Department, 2525 Estero        advanceSearch.
                                                           Beach, 2525 Estero Boulevard,   Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach,
                                                           Fort Myers Beach, FL 33931.     FL 33931.

    Monroe.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Heather           Monroe County Building         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 19, 2021.........       125129
                                    of Monroe County (20-  Carruthers, Mayor, Monroe       Department, 2798 Overseas      advanceSearch.
                                    04-4173P).             County Board of                 Highway, Suite 300,
                                                           Commissioners, 500 Whitehead    Marathon, FL 33050.
                                                           Street, Suite 102, Key West,
                                                           FL 33040.
    Orange.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Jerry L.          Orange County Planning and     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 12, 2021.........       120179
                                    of Orange County (20-  Demings, Mayor, Orange          Development Department, 4200   advanceSearch.
                                    04-1076P).             County, 201 South Rosalind      South John Young Parkway,
                                                           Avenue, 5th Floor, Orlando,     Orlando, FL 32839.
                                                           FL 32801.
    Osceola......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Viviana Janer,    Osceola County Building        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 12, 2021.........       120189
                                    of Osceola County      Chair, Osceola County Board     Department, 1 Courthouse       advanceSearch.
                                    (20-04-1076P).         of Commissioners, 1             Square, Suite 1400,
                                                           Courthouse Square, Suite        Kissimmee, FL 34741.
                                                           4700, Kissimmee, FL 34741.
    Palm Beach...................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Dave Kerner,      Palm Beach County Department   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 29, 2021.........       120192
                                    of Palm Beach County   Mayor, Palm Beach County, 301   of Planning, Zoning and        advanceSearch.
                                    (19-04-6690P).         North Olive Avenue, Suite       Building Department, 2300
                                                           1201, West Palm Beach, FL       North Jog Road, West Palm
                                                           33401.                          Beach, FL 33401.
Montana: Lewis and Clark.........  City of Helena (20-08- The Honorable Wilmot Collins,   City Hall, 316 North Park      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 28, 2021.........       300040
                                    0095P).                Mayor, City of Helena, 316      Avenue, Helena, MT 59623.      advanceSearch.
                                                           North Park Avenue, Room 323,
                                                           Helena, MT 59623.
New Hampshire:
    Rockingham...................  Town of Salem (20-01-  Mr. Christopher A. Dillon,      Town Hall, 33 Geremonty        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 19, 2021.........       330142
                                    0650P).                Manager, Town of Salem, 33      Drive, Salem, NH 03079.        advanceSearch.
                                                           Geremonty Drive, Salem, NH
                                                           03079.
    Strafford....................  City of Dover (20-01-  The Honorable Robert Carrier,   Planning Department, 288       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 26, 2021.........       330145
                                    0517P).                Mayor, City of Dover, 288       Central Avenue, Dover, NH      advanceSearch.
                                                           Central Avenue, Dover, NH       03820.
                                                           03820.
North Carolina:
    Henderson....................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Grady Hawkins,    Henderson County               https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Nov. 17, 2020.........       370125
                                    of Henderson County    Chairman, Henderson County      Administration Building, 100   advanceSearch.
                                    (20-04-2036P).         Board of Commissioners, 1       North King Street,
                                                           Historic Courthouse Square,     Hendersonville, NC 28792.
                                                           Suite 1, Hendersonville, NC
                                                           27102.
    Johnston.....................  Town of Wilson's       The Honorable Jim Uzzle, Jr.,   Town Hall, 100 Railroad        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 4, 2021..........       370262
                                    Mills (20-04-2016P).   Mayor, Town of Wilson's         Street, Wilson's Mills, NC     advanceSearch.
                                                           Mills, P.O. Box 448, Wilson's   27593.
                                                           Mills, NC 27593.
    Johnston.....................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Ted G. Godwin,    Johnston County Planning       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 4, 2021..........       370138
                                    of Johnston County     Chairman, Johnston County       Department, 309 East Market    advanceSearch.
                                    (20-04-2016P).         Board of Commissioners, P.O.    Street, Smithfield, NC
                                                           Box 1049 Smithfield, NC         27577.
                                                           27577.
Oklahoma:
    Payne........................  City of Stillwater     The Honorable Will Joyce,       Development Services           https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 22, 2021.........       405380
                                    (20-06-0276P).         Mayor, City of Stillwater,      Department, 723 South Lewis    advanceSearch.
                                                           723 South Lewis Street,         Street, Stillwater, OK
                                                           Stillwater, OK 74047.           74047.
    Payne........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Kent Bradley,     Payne County Administrative    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 22, 2021.........       400493
                                    of Payne County (20-   Chairman, Payne County Board    Building, 315 West 6th         advanceSearch.
                                    06-0276P).             of Commissioners, 506 Expo      Street, Suite 203,
                                                           Circle South, Stillwater, OK    Stillwater, OK 74074.
                                                           74074.
Tennessee:
    Shelby.......................  City of Memphis (20-   The Honorable Jim Strickland,   Engineering Division, 125      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 27, 2021.........       470177
                                    04-1185P).             Mayor, City of Memphis, 125     North Main Street, Room 677,   advanceSearch.
                                                           North Main Street, Room 700,    Memphis, TN 38103.
                                                           Memphis, TN 38103.

    Shelby.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Lee Harris,       Shelby County Department of    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 27, 2021.........       470214
                                    of Shelby County (20-  Mayor, Shelby County, 160       Engineering, 6463 Haley        advanceSearch.
                                    04-1185P).             North Main Street, Memphis,     Road, Memphis, TN 38134.
                                                           TN 38103.
Texas:
    Bell.........................  City of Temple (20-06- The Honorable Tim Davis,        Department of Public Works,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 16, 2021.........       480034
                                    2105P).                Mayor, City of Temple, 2        Engineering Division, 3210     advanceSearch.
                                                           North Main Street, Suite 103,   East Avenue H, Building A,
                                                           Temple, TX 76501.               Suite 107, Temple, TX 76501.
    Denton.......................  City of Sanger (20-06- The Honorable Thomas Muir,      City Hall, 201 Bolivar         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 25, 2021.........       480786
                                    1045P).                Mayor, City of Sanger, P.O.     Street, Sanger, TX 76266.      advanceSearch.
                                                           Box 1729, Sanger, TX 76266.
    Denton.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Andy Eads,        Denton County Public Works,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 25, 2021.........       480774
                                    of Denton County (20-  Denton County Judge, 110 West   Engineering Department, 1505   advanceSearch.
                                    06-1045P).             Hickory Street, 2nd Floor,      East McKinney Street, Suite
                                                           Denton, TX 76201.               175, Denton, TX 76209.
    Guadalupe....................  City of San Marcos     The Honorable Jane Hughson,     Engineering Department, 630    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Dec. 31, 2020.........       485505
                                    (20-06-3176P).         Mayor, City of San Marcos,      East Hopkins Street, San       advanceSearch.
                                                           630 East Hopkins Street, San    Marcos, TX 78666.
                                                           Marcos, TX 78666.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-24976 Filed 11-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P