Readers reviewing the synopsis of the Sierra Club petition in this summary (or, in the relevant section below) would be informed by an abbreviated specific list of issues identified by the Club (instead of the more generalized ""raised a number of issues about the protectiveness of the rule...' -- especially since the language of the rule emphasizes that a number of commenters "echoed"...concern..."
EPA provided a link to the Sierra Club petition.
1a
46
Ferris
Does "Information" in Step 5 include data?  Perhaps strengthening the language to "Data and Information..." is more supportive of the Agency's rationale.
EPA clarified that "information" includes data.
ESa
32
Ferris
Does "Information" in Step 5 include data?  Perhaps strengthening the language to "Data and Information..." is more supportive of the Agency's rationale.
EPA clarified that "information" includes data.
2
53
Ferris
The transition to this section should be clear.  It's not clear that this section is distinct from the prior rule discussion (the "Introduction").  This is a graphics issue.
EPA inserted a page break before Section 2 to be consistent with formatting of other sections.
3
93
Ferris
The transition to this section should be clear. It's not clear that this section is distinct from the prior rule discussion. This is a graphics issue.
EPA inserted a page break before Section 2 to be consistent with formatting of other sections.
4
108
Ferris
The transition to this section should be clear. It's not clear that this section is distinct from the prior rule discussion. This is a graphics issue.
EPA inserted a page break before Section 2 to be consistent with formatting of other sections.
5
156
Ferris
The transition to this section should be clear. It's not clear that this section is distinct from the prior rule discussion. This is a graphics issue.
EPA inserted a page break before Section 2 to be consistent with formatting of other sections.
6
174
Ferris
The transition to this section should be clear. This is a graphics issue.
EPA adjusted the formatting for section headers to make the transition to different sections more clear.
6c
202
Henshel
1.      page A-4  -  second paragraph  -  last line  -  "typically 120 days following promulgation" of what?
EPA added clarifying language to Section 3.4.
6c
203
Henshel
2.      Page A-4 still  -  last paragraph  -  5 lines down  -  please add examples here to each type of industry not subject to CAA regulation under the 2008 DSW rule.
EPA added clarifying language to Appendix A.
6c
204
Henshel
3.      Page A-6 third bullet  -  clarify if you mean leaks to only ground, to surface water, or also leaching to ground water  -  ie clarify
EPA added clarifying language to Appendix A.
6c
205
Henshel
4.      Page A-7 last bullet  -  capitalize OSH.
Typographical errors were corrected.
6c
206
Henshel
5.      Page A-8 first bullet  -  a great example of spaghetti writing.  Spaghetti writing makes the report more difficult to read for everyone, especially the lay person.
EPA added clarifying language to Appendix A.
6c
207
Henshel
6.      Page A-9 top of the page.  A mention of the differences in monitoring would be appropriate here.
The section at the top of A-9 discusses reporting and recordkeeping.  EPA determined that a discussion of monitoring would be out of place here.
6c
208
Henshel
7.      Page A-10  -  second full paragraph (starts... "Further...") -  This paragraph needs some clarification, and needs rewriting.
EPA added clarifying language to Appendix A.
6c
209
Henshel
8.      Page A-10 section 3.9 second two paragraphs.  These paragraphs are very unclear, and also seem to be internally inconsistent, as written.  Clarify in these paragraphs what is included in each type of exclusion.  A good example of a clearly written paragraph is the next paragraph (first paragraph of 3.10).  This paragraph includes a short but clear definition which enables the reader to comprehend the information provided more readily.  The reader does not have to go searching for the definition, which helps reduce reader confusion.
EPA added clarifying language to Appendix A.
6c
210
Henshel
9.      Page A-10 last paragraph, first sentence.  Add clarifying phrases  -  what kind of characteristics, and where are these listed.
EPA added clarifying language to Appendix A.
6c
211
Henshel
10.  Page A-11. First paragraph needs a sentence inserted clarifying what could be exempted.  Second paragraph needs clarification in the middle sentence  -  specify briefly or provide example (in parentheses) for conditions under which listed waste may not be determined to be hazardous waste.
EPA added clarifying language to Appendix A.
6c
212
Henshel
11.  Table A-11 page A-13 middle column, middle section  -  This is too dense for the average reader referring only to CFR citations and statutes (in inconsistent style no less).  Provide details or names for these sections and their overall regulation titles in clear, jargon-free writing.
No action was taken because the level of detail requested cannot be presented in a table.
6c
213
Henshel
12.  Table A-11  -  Overall  -  this table (and the report) lacks any discussion of the implication of these changes due to the adoption of the 2008 DSW rule.  An example might be to evaluate the implication of leaking containers, which (under the current vagueness of the 2008 DSW ruling language) might not be caught for up to 2 years, or maybe longer.  What kinds of exposures might be increased to what diameter population under this scenario?
No action was taken because the level of detail requested cannot be presented in a table The addition of an example, such as leaky containers would result in an inconsistent level of detail in the table.
6c
214
Henshel
13.  Page A -17  -  why the changed font size in column 1?
EPA made fonts consistent throughout the table.
6c
215
Henshel
14.  Page A-18.  Last paragraph in column 1.  Include a list of the 140 toxic and flammable regulated chemicals referred to here, and elsewhere in the report.  The easiest way to handle this might be a footnote, or adding the list to the appendices, and referring to the inserted list (footnote, endnote, or appendix) here and whenever else this list is referenced.
A reference to the CFR section where the chemicals are listed is provided.
6c
216
Henshel
15.  Page A-21 first column, second line  -  missing an article ("the" or "a") between "above" and "specified quantity".
EPA edited the table to include the missing articles.
6c
217
Henshel
16.  Page A-26  -  last column, first paragraph  -  this section (and its text tie-in) is just calling out for a discussion of the implications of lack of required training on personnel at the facility if exposures indeed rise.
Additional discussion would not fit into table format.  No action was taken.
6c
218
Henshel
17.  Page A-29 first column  -  need a space between paragraphs.
EPA added spaces between paragraphs throughout the document for consistency.
6c
219
Henshel
18.  Page A-30 third column, first word "these" needs clarification  -  to which regulations is the writer referring.  Do not expect the lay audience to know for sure.  Same point for page A-32 third column, last paragraph, second line and again page A-33 second line.
EPA adjusted the language in all places on the table where this occurs.
6c
220
Henshel
19.  Page A-34 third column second paragraph.  This very statement again seems to call out for a discussion of the implications of the lack of record keeping and exception reporting.  It is NOT sufficient to point out that the 2008 DSW rule changes the recording and record keeping requirements.
No action was taken as implications are discussed in the main body of the report.
6c
221
Henshel
20.  Page A-35 first column middle paragraph  -  clarify, provide more detail.  Similarly third column second paragraph  -  specify which excluded materials may not qualify as a DOT hazardous material, and provide some discussion of the potential implications of this from an EJ perspective.
No action was taken as implications are discussed in the main body of the report
6c
222
Henshel
21.  Page A-36 third column second paragraph  -  this again needs further discussion here and in the text on the possible implication of this change due to the 2008 DSW rules.  Specifically, would any residues from reclamation ever be potentially hazardous and NOT get identified as such through the 2008 DSW process.
No action was taken as implications are discussed in the main body of the report.
6c
223
Henshel
22.  Page A-37 GCE: is something missing here?  Seems like it.
EPA added the missing text.
6c
224
Henshel
23.  Page A-49 right hand column, second paragraph  -  use the full citation, not the abbreviated citation.  The full citation (ie using the same citation format throughout) is more understandable to the lay person.
EPA replaced the abbreviated citation with the full citation throughout the document.
6c
225
Henshel
24.  Page A-52 right column, top line "an SPCC" fix typo
Typographical errors were corrected.
6c
226
Henshel
25.  Page A-61 middle column, top paragraph.  Keep citation format consistent and summarize the legitimacy criteria in this paragraph, a footnote, or the next paragraph.
EPA made the citation format consistent throughout the document.  The table format does not have sufficient space for discussion of legitimacy criteria.
6c
227
Henshel
26.  Page A-63 right column.  Provide examples of potential problematic emissions that don't meet threshold criteria and don't meet other applicability criteria.  It would be great if the implications of the resultant exposure (were this to occur) be determined quantitatively, maybe at the mean/lower assumption (9.5 TPY single type HAP) and high assumption (24.95 TPY mixed HAP) levels.
Due to insufficient space in table format, examples were not given.  EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
228
Henshel
27.  Page A-64  -  right hand column  -  No one in this report is discussed how much might be released before anything would trigger the need to determine if a cleanup is needed.  Surely this would help explore the potential for a significant disproportionate impact occurring?
There is insufficient space in the table format to address this issue.
6c
229
Henshel
28.  Page A-68, right column, last sentence.  Where is the "note below"?  Probably better to put the note in a footnote on the same page or in the right hand column immediately after this paragraph.
EPA removed the reference to the "note below."
6c
230
Henshel
29.  Page A-82 on  -  It is great to have the summary of the Federal Regulations here.  However, the formatting and depth of each discussion is not consistent and needs to be made so.  For example, the most readable formats start with a sentence or two that talks about the relevant regulation(s) more broadly, and then includes a sentence that explains the relevance of the regulation to this report/study.
EPA will defer large-scale format changes until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
231
Henshel
30.  Page A-83 Second paragraph under "Legitimate recycling"  -  include a brief summary of the six criteria referred to here (and elsewhere) and not clearly defined.  The listing could be in the paragraph, in an offset list, in a separated inset box, or in a footnote.
There is insufficient space in the table format to address this issue.
6c
232
Henshel
31.  Page A-84  Top of the page  -  provide details about standards in 262.34 (d) and (e).  They are not clearly described anywhere.  Also maintain a consistent formatting for citations.
There is insufficient space in the table format to address this issue.
6c
233
Henshel
32.  Page A-94 Exports first paragraph last two sentences  -  a) remember to keep citations in consistent format.  B) To make this document most readable, summarize these requirements briefly.
All citations were updated to ensure a consistent format.  Requirements appear to be summarized adequately.
6c
234
Henshel
33.  Page A-96  -  No where is there a discussion of at what point in a chain of non-compliance would the chain of permission stop and oversight identify a problem that needs to be addressed.
This as an enforcement and compliance issue that would need to be addressed by individual EPA Regional or authorized state agencies.
6c
235
Henshel
34.  Page A-99 bullets under 5.3.3  In each bullet, first identify the key factors that determine whether processes fit as Program 1, 2 or 3 (i.e. defined for the appropriate bullet).  These three was to characterize a process are never clearly defined throughout this whole document.  This would seem to be the place to put those definitions.
EPA will defer large-scale format changes until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
236
Henshel
35.  Page A-106 5.8.2 line 3  -  TSDFs is an acronym that is never defined.
EPA added acronym definitions in the text and provided a glossary and a list of abbreviations and acronyms in an appendix.
6c
237
Henshel
36.  Appendix B is good to have, as is Appendix C and D.  Note that in Appendix B, and in a few other places, the writer uses the personal "we" instead of a noun.  This is formal writing and should not include any first person (personal) pronouns anywhere in the document.  Search to find the "we"s and rewrite to replace the personal pronoun with a clearer sentence using the impersonal 3rd person or noun.
EPA eliminated the use of "we" throughout the document.
6c
238
Henshel
37.  Page B-2 first paragraph.  Need to add a sentence that explains why it is important to understand what a "wastewater" versus a "nonwastewater" is.
Clarifying language was added to page B.2.
6c
239
Henshel
38.  Page B-3 table bottom:  POTW and NPDES is not defined here or elsewhere in the document.  Acronyms are best spelled out the first time they are used in any given chapter, and still it is kind to the read to provide a Table of Acronyms and Abbreviations, and spelling out of all acronyms in footnotes for any table in which they are used.
EPA added acronym definitions in the text and provided a glossary and a list of abbreviations and acronyms in an appendix.
6c
240
Henshel
39.  Appendix C is written like an abbreviated technical reference manual, but without the definitions usually included in such a manual.  Most of this section reads like a jargonfest, and is not accessible to the lay reader.
EPA will defer large-scale format changes until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
241
Henshel
a.       Identify all acronyms and abbreviations.  There's two in the second paragraph.
EPA added acronym definitions in the text and provided a glossary and a list of abbreviations and acronyms in an appendix. The second acronym is a reference code from the database used to develop the hazardous waste facility estimates, and has no direct English language definition.
6c
242
Henshel
b.      In the introductory section, explain by the K, F, U, P and D codes represent, how they are used, and how understanding the coding was needed for the environmental justice analyses.
Information was added to glossary.
6c
243
Henshel
c.       Explain all codes that have no other referent to explain them.  For example, on page C-5 top line, F037-F038 codes are referred to without placing them in any context or defining what these codes cover.
Information was added to glossary
6c
244
Henshel
d.      Table C-1 needs some additional explanation before it will be easily read by the lay reader.
EPA will defer large-scale format changes until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
245
Henshel
40.      Appendix D is written in a way that is essentially understandable.  However in two places, where groups are moved from the logical grouping to a not as obvious grouping, explanation is needed for why the move was made.  These points are on Page D-3 bottom of the page, and on Page D-5 top of the page.
EPA added explanatory sentences to clarify the change in grouping.
6c
246
Henshel
41.      Appendix E needs some clarifying verbiage written in easy to understand English.  The two ratios could, for example, be easily explained by one or two sentences.  The description of the tests are more theoretical in places.  Specific places that clarification is needed includes:
A new description of the Fischer's Exact test was provided.
6c
247
Henshel
a.       Page E-9 bottom of the last Fisher Exact Test paragraph, there is no explanation for why or when the minus sign is removed, nor where the minus sign is likely to show up and why.
A new description of the Fischer's Exact test was provided.
6c
248
Henshel
b.      Page E-10  -  it is not clear what the tables are for the various states.  Add clarifying language.
A new description of the Fischer's Exact test was provided.
6c
249
Henshel
Since these tests are not always run (but should be) the verbiage should include an explanation of why they are not run in some situations in the analysis and are run in other, apparently similar situation.
A new description of the Fischer's Exact test was provided.
Gb
19
Henshel
In no scenario was there a consideration of generators who consistently function in violation of the regulations once they start handling waste under the 2008 DSW rule.  As there are such companies, this would seem to be a scenario to include, or at least discuss, in an EJ analysis.
EPA expanded the discussion of compliance under DSW vs. HW regulations.
Gb
20
Henshel
No scenario considered the possibility of the impact on the community if a generator acting under the 2008 DSW rules goes out of business with accumulated, non-processed, possibly not appropriately contained excluded hazardous material waste on the property.  Yet this situation would only happen (legally) under the 2008 regulations, not under the previous HSM regulations.
EPA added a discussion of generators going out of business to Section 2.5.1 of document.
1a
50
Ferris
In addition to the advantage of adhering to RCRA's decades old cradle-to-grave protective framework, consider whether requiring a streamlined notice and record-keeping process for generators, receivers and recyclers of HSM benefit EPA and states e.g., monitoring, as well as data that shows the environmental and economic benefits of HSW exclusions?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2b
65
Daley
Without adequate record-keeping and environmental protection safeguards (streamlined requirements would not be objectionable), the international export exclusion/scenario is troubling re potential releases, impacts, whether or not the recipient nation has genuine knowledge of the contents and consents to the receiving the export; see e.g., Circle of Poison and pesticide regulation.
EPA expanded the discussion of exports in the scenarios.
6c
190
Ferris
Should record-keeping include quantities of HSW generated?  This data would be useful for emergency planning and response as well as helpful to determining economic and environmental benefit.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2a
57
Daley
Yes, the scenarios clearly define how EPA thinks facilities may react to the rule. Table 2.1 is particularly useful in outlining the baseline and potential changes based on the DSW Exclusions. I would however, like to know how the EPA developed these scenarios. Are these based on professional experience, or did the agency talk with the regulated community to get a sense of potential reactions to the DSW Exclusions?   If it is the latter, could the report provide more detailed information regarding the feedback from the regulated community?  If it is the former, it would add value to outline some of the ways in which that experience shaped the discussion / selection of the scenarios.
EPA added discussion of how scenarios were chosen to Section 2.1.
2a
60
Henshel
What is lacking overall from the analysis, from the Hazard Characterization step onward, is any discussion or analysis of the implications (i.e secondary consequences) of each of these assumptions (about the possibility of increased exposure) for total exposure and estimated changes in risk values for the potential EJ communities (ie those communities within 3 km of each facility, according to this report).
EPA added language throughout Section 2 on the possibility of increased exposure to communities as a result of hazards identified.
2c
73
Ferris
Does worker training (e.g., protection standards, labeling, handling) or the lack of it at relevant/specified facilities factor into the EPA hazard analysis?
Worker training is discussed in the regulatory comparison section.  No further action was required.
2c
74
Ferris
Does emergency response and planning, the existence or lack of these programs, factor into the EPA hazard analysis?  Similarly, does eliminating the requirement for a Manifest (or some version of a tracking mechanism) factor into possible increases or reductions in the emergency response preparedness and planning, enforcement or compliance monitoring?
Both emergency planning and the manifest are discussed in the regulatory comparison section. No further action was required.
2c
77
Ferris
Does the EPA hazard analysis factor imposition (or not) of container integrity and container management standards into the determination of the potential or actual hazards associated with higher storage volumes, and/or higher concentrations of HSW?  What constitutes a safe "container?"  Does the analysis factor in whether making storage subject to controls, environmental monitoring and inspections increases or reduces community protection?
EPA added language to sections discussing storage that applied to containers.
2b
66
Henshel
a.      Unlikely" scenario 1: If the cost of recycling off-shore (Africa, China) are low enough, these lower costs will offset the additional costs of transportation to get the now excluded hazardous waste (which costs less also as an excluded waste, and one for which the same expensive containers do not have to be bought).  This is a reasonable scenario (not unlikely) unless the EPA provides calculations to prove that the costs of transportation would never be overcome by the reduced costs of recycling in Africa or China.  It is also disturbing that there is insufficient discussion and analysis of EJ concerns for the locations of the recycling plant and no discussion and analysis of EJ concerns for the locations where recycling is carried out in another country.  (This last sentence applies as well to the whole report.)
EPA elaborated on exports given existing scenarios rather than creating a new scenario only focused on exports of wastes to other countries.
2c
72
Ferris
Intervening prior to a release is clearly preferable  -  the possibility of enforcement action prior to a release would be protective and more likely in the event that there are clear regulations e.g., storage limitations, labeling requirements and requirements related to the integrity of storage containers and areas.
EPA added discussion on preventive enforcement to the enforcement section.
6c
187
Ferris
Is there sufficient analysis of the impacts of storing HSW in land-based units such as pits, ponds and lagoons. Should standard RCRA regulatory controls apply where HSW is stored in such land-based units?
EPA added language about the impacts of land-based storage units in the storage section.
2c
79
Henshel
Toxicity information: When applicable, endocrine disruption toxicity is not even mentioned.  Developmental toxicity of heavy metals would also seem to be an important, very sensitive effects indictor to mention.
Further research indicated that specific contaminates discussed did not include endocrine disruptors.
2c
80
Henshel
p 19 top of the page. There isn't mention of fugitive emissions (leaks at valves, escape at points of transfer) as part of the way in which hazardous materials/waste can be released.
The section described by the commenter discussed the activities that involve HSM.  Associated hazards, including fugitive emissions, are discussed on the following page.
4g
142
Daley
There is considerable selection bias or selection effect in the "notification" facilities and likely also in the damage facilities. It is likely that these early adopters (notification facilities) are significantly different (and non-randomly distributed) compared to the three remaining categories. Damage facilities are also likely to be systematically different. I am not sure exactly how to address this, but it seems like something that the agency needs to consider. Perhaps analyzing a comparison group of randomly selected and/or "matched" facilities could be useful, in addition to the broader state and national comparisons.
EPA added discussion on selection bias for both "notification" facilities and for "damage" facilities to Section 4.4.1.
6c
198
Henshel
Population level analysis table results seem to show that there is a numbers (sample size) bias in the level of statistical significance.  Once the notification facilities used in the analysis are pooled, or incorporate facilities from other states as will, to increase sample size, chances are that these results will also be significant in a pooled state analysis.  Thus the need to do both pooled state, and divided state, to assess how much of the sensitivity might be sample size.  It is also important to note that in regions with few Blacks, or few minorities, the minority population comparisons are always less of a driver than the low income analysis, as in these regions, are larger percentage of the low income community is white.  This is true in Indianapolis, where there is a significantly large percentage of poor whites.  In Northwest Indiana, however, there are more minorities, and minority population comparisons drive the EJ analysis results as strongly, or more strongly, than the low income analysis.
Discussion on the affects of uniform population distribution on the analysis was added to Section 6.1.4.
ESa
35
Henshel
The summary of Finding 4 should include some discussion of the other three categories not discussed in the executive summary (example, susceptible populations).  You might include leaking septics in the list on the top of page xiii (under multiple and cumulative effects), as leaking septics are more likely to be addressed more slowly, and thus pose a higher health risk, in low income communities.
Discussion on leaking septic tanks was added to the Executive Summary.  Discussion of additional vulnerability factors was not provided because analyses for these were not available.
5a
160
Ferris
Where does immigrant status factor into vulnerability factors?
Addition discussion on the immigrant status and English literacy was added to Section 5.1.4.
5c
171
Ferris
Immigrant status, particularly new immigrants and undocumented workers and residents constitute an important additional factor.
Addition discussion on the immigrant status and English literacy was added to Section 5.1.4.
5c
173
Henshel
Other health endpoints to consider include: low birth weight as a measure of embryonic development; some measure of endocrine disruption including, and particularly, thyroid disruption, although other endocrine function indices should also be considered, such as diabetes; and some measure of IQ in children, if this is available.
Review of the specific contaminants reviewed in Section 2 indicated that none were endocrine disruptors.  Other factors such as low birth weight will require additional analysis.  EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
2c
78
Ferris
Intermediate facilities and off-site HSM self policing may not be effective as a means to ensure protection of health and the environment in communities whether disproportionately affected or not.
EPA added additional discussion on strategies to mitigate impacts.
6c
201
Henshel
The proposed regulatory and implementation measures section needs solid expansion.  It's truly pitiful right now.  It should also be noted that without regulatory clarification of some of the weaknesses in the 2008 DSW rule, enforcement is only as strong as the environmental consciousness of the administration.  Even with revised regulation, enforcement and oversight is susceptible to political influence, just somewhat less so. Monitoring is not as much a part of the 2008 DSW rule, so how could monitoring data be used to help ensure facilities are not creating more of an exposure hazard for their communities under the new rule?
EPA expanded on the discussion of proposed regulatory and implementation measures in Section 6 in order to add clarity.
3c
106
Henshel
Other environmental justice analyses have used other diameters to define the proximate neighborhoods.  On studies of Indianapolis, especially, we have tested multiple diameters (all smaller than 3 km  -  0.5, 1 and 2 km) and typically found 2 km to be a good cut-off to define proximate communities.  It would seem that this question should be answered in the study, that is, that the study design would test multiple possible diameters (or donuts) around the facilities and determine which diameter provides the most sensitive distinction. It is quite possible that different types of facilities would have different cut-off diameters, based on differences in potential for dispersal/distribution of (excluded) hazardous waste (i.e. as liquid solvent waste or dust).
EPA determined that a 3-km radius is commonly used in EJ analyses. EPA will defer additional analyses, such as the sensitivity of the analysis to the diameter of the radius, until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
3c
107
Henshel
In conducting similar EJ analyses, using TRI facilities, we discovered that we had to truthed the facility addresses to the GPS coordinates by on the ground determination of whether the address listed for the facility was actually the address of the releasing facility or the address of company offices.  Even when the two buildings were on the same campus, and not separated by miles, the difference between the buildings (between the addresses) could be a significant distance (on a mile long campus, they could be a mile apart), and thus could affect which neighborhoods were included in the proximate circle.  From the information provided in chapter 3 about the methods used for obtaining GPS coordinates, it appears that this truthing was never done or even attempted for this analysis.  No efforts were apparently made to ascertain whether the listed address referred to the hazardous materials processing location or to the main offices.
EPA added language in Section 3 noting that verification of GIS coordinates was beyond the feasible scope of this analysis.
4g
144
Henshel
No  -  see comments above about problems with addresses linked to facilities that have corporate offices away from the processing facilities, even when the two buildings are on the same campus.
EPA added language in Section 3 noting that verification of GIS coordinates was beyond the feasible scope of this analysis.
4d
128
Henshel
It is also appropriate to use the more commonly used cut-off of 2x the poverty line, since even families at 2x the poverty line are struggling just to provide food and shelter these days.  The census determined poverty line (that is, above or below the threshold) does not include childcare costs, as one example of the kind of critical expenditures that enable both parents to work.  Thus it would be appropriate to test poverty threshold versus 2x*poverty threshold as the criteria for determining bias in representation of low income populations with regard to proximity to the HSM or DSW facilities.
EPA will defer additional analyses, such as alternative demographic characteristics, until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4e
135
Henshel
The analysis should be broken out by state for all the analyses, and similarly, the notification facility results could be summed across states, as was done for the other types of facilities, even though the states covered are small in number compared to the total number of states represented in the analyses for the other facilities.  That discrepancy should be pointed out in the legend.  Yet there needs to be some way to compare across analyses.  Only summing across states for most, and separating out one subset of data makes it hard to compare across results.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4d
125
Daley
Yes. A statistical analysis of these results is an appropriate method to understand patterns in administrative and community level data. These patterns can reflect social and environmental disparities and the EPA can consider these patterns for future decision making. Note however, that the analysis presented in Chapter 4 did not include a comparison between community (3 km buffer area) and county level characteristics. State, national, and urban and rural were examined, but county information was not analyzed in this section of the report. County level information and analysis would have added value to this report.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
183
Daley
In addition, it would be helpful to have county level comparisons for the community analysis. I am less certain that this addition would significantly change the conclusions, but it may strengthen the recommendations.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
Gb
11
Daley
Why are urban and rural comparison omitted for the damage case facilities?  Consistent analysis across categories is important. If the analysis cannot be performed for some reason, an explanation in the text would be helpful.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4e
137
Henshel
The first set of analyses for each facility type would be better and more clearly represented by box and whisker plots.  When using box and whisker plots, it is important to explain (for the lay audience) what data is represented in each part of the plots at some point in the chapter.  With that explanation, the box and whisker plots provide more information for the comparisons, and provide a visual sense of variability and bias around the means.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4h - 2
148
Daley
Option 2 has the strongest potential to add to the ability of the agency to draw inferences from their data sources. If statistical analysis indicates systematic socioeconomic and demographic differences in area with and without facilities, then this provides even stronger evidence of the distributional affects of decision making. In addition to this, it would be ideal if the agency could model cumulative environmental stressors in communities in a more integrated fashion. Rather than simply noting multiple stressors in the notification areas, provide some indication of cumulative stressors in the other categories as well (damage case facilities, hazardous waste, and non-hazardous industrial waste).
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4h - 2
149
Ferris
The reviewer is uncertain if this analysis will yield additional useful information other than another take on areas where disproportionate impacts occur.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4h - 2
150
Henshel
Yes  -  this provides a better comparison group  -  a counterfactual.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4h - 3
151
Daley
See 2. above.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4h - 3
152
Ferris
This comparison may yield information about metropolitan areas where disproportionate impacts exist.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4h - 3
154
Ferris
Do host metropolitan areas factor in rural areas where capacity, including staffing, to oversee HSM facilities may be more limited compared to urban and suburban areas.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4h - 3
155
Henshel
Yes, this also would be a very appropriate comparison to include.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4d
127
Henshel
Yes, statistical methods are appropriate in general.  However, a more sensitive analyses seems to be to break the demographics up (quartiles, quintiles) into some binned division of the total range, create donuts around the facility, and run the analyses as a regression of the demographics against proximity.  You are able to detect (significantly) more subtle shifting of demographics over time.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
Gb
21
Henshel
The methods for analysis of environmental justice impacts (as in biases in the siting) are not  as sensitive as might be obtained with using regression analysis and grouping the data into maybe quartiles rather than doing all analyses on data that has only been divided into two categories  (ie equivalent of yes/no data).
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
Ga
2
Daley
To fully understand the differential impact of the 2008 DSW final rule on low income and minority communities and populations, it would be helpful to have a meaningful baseline analysis. What if continuing to regulate HSM under RCRA has even greater environmental justice impacts?  The report and analysis do not provide that information. So, there is no way to identify if the 2008 DSW rule  -  while likely to have disproportional impacts  -  is an improvement over current reclamation and disposal practices under RCRA. I recognize this analysis would entail considerable work, but if HSM regulated under RCRA currently has even greater environmental justice impacts, then this would be very important to know this as decision making proceeds.
EPA believes that the regulatory comparison between hazardous waste regulations and the 2008 DSW rule already includes a qualitative discussion of the baseline impacts at hazardous waste, since the discussion includes the benefits of the 2008 DSW rule (which would mirror the "impacts" of hazardous waste regulations).  In addition, hazardous waste facilities are one of the categories in the demographic analysis. To address this comment, EPA added discussion to make this clearer.
Gc
22
Daley
It seems like the document is quite thorough. As noted in my response to question Ga, the document would be improved by a assessing the Environmental Justice impacts of the baseline  -  or RCRA's approach to HSM recycling and disposal.
Such baseline analysis is already captured in regulatory comparison and in the analysis of hazardous waste generators and recycling facilities.  EPA added discussion to make this clearer.
4b
118
Ferris
In disproportionately affected communities, the issue is not whether there will be impacts; rather the issue is what the full extent of the hazard impacts will be.
N/A
Ga
1
Daley
My overall assessment is that the report manages to present a very complex decision making process and analysis in a fairly clear and accessible fashion. The discussion of potential hazards and exposure pathways seems clear and complete. The eight scenarios are clearly laid out. There report is quite detailed. The main points seem to be that the 2008 Draft Solid Waste Final Rule (DSW) enables generators to store more hazardous secondary material (HSM) for a longer period of time, and provides no prescriptive standards to ensure safe containment. Transporters of waste and intermediate and reclamation facilities are also impacted in ways not necessarily analyzed in the initial consideration of the rule change. Decreased transparency and public participation provisions combined with deregulation of hazardous secondary material to encourage reclamation is likely to have differential impacts across the county. The findings from this report present the EPA with a challenge. Recycling hazardous secondary material presents significant health and environmental hazards, and the 2008 rule change is not uniformly health protective. According to this analysis, some communities will be more impacted than others, and this differential impact has direct environmental justice implications.
N/A
Ga
5
Henshel
In addition, the analysis never included taking the example situations (places where greater exposure by the neighbors could occur, for example) and quantifying the potential impact on the neighboring community (maybe within the 3 km diameter defined "proximity to site" area).  Using the basic approaches for predictive risk assessment, one would take the real situation, make assumptions for the average and high end of the range for the increased exposure situation, calculate the potential increased exposure to the chemicals, and then calculate the potential for increased risk, with average and high end assumptions.  At least one such scenario calculated for each situation identified as potentially increasing exposure under the new regulations would be helpful in determining just how critical revising the regulations would be.  It would have been even better to then recalculate the exposure and risk inherent in at least a few scenarios with the assumptions made under the recommendations for revision of the 2008 DSW rule, weak and non-specific as those recommendations were.
Assessment of the full extent of the impacts would require a formal risk assessment.  EPA did not pursue this because it would be too difficult to pick "example" scenarios that would cover the range of possibilities, and the analysis would be too sensitive to potential bias in upfront assumptions..
3
95
Ferris
Diversion of materials from the waste stream is beneficial (although on it face, without safeguards, reclamation falls short of environmental justice) and should be accompanied by adequate protections for health and the environment.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
ESb
39
Ferris
The benefits (per language in the Scenarios) don't balance the potential negative impacts. This could be more clearly set forth or demonstrated. Although the reviewer does not express agreement that any benefits would offset the potential hazards or actual hazards, more clarity or quantification of benefits would strengthen the analysis.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4d
129
Henshel
Given the neighborhoods in which these facilities are placed, it would seem to be appropriate to at least consider other toxic stressors, such as TRI facilities or road density as part of the EJ analysis looking at cumulative exposure potential (based on permit data for the HSM/potential DSW facilities for maximal exposure estimates).
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
5a
157
Daley
Yes. The agency has identified a wide range of stressors that can shape individual and community vulnerability. Additional resources that the agency could consider  - particularly if they embark on a more detailed county level comparison  -  include the county health rankings (http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/).
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
5c
170
Daley
If the country level examination is pursued, the agency might be able to rely upon data compiled under the country health rankings. Otherwise, the data presented in the report seems adequate.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
195
Henshel
Table 5.1 would allow for a very nice small cluster analysis (or principal component analysis) to look at which emissions and types of facilities link with which endpoints, and (using maybe MANOVA) incorporating transportation and health care availability would be interesting as confounding variables.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
2b
62
Daley
Is there a significant possibility that small businesses could be more vulnerable to sham recycling if many won't have the capacity and staffing to thoroughly assess recyclers?
EPA added discussion of "reasonable efforts" audits.  The supplementary text was added to Sections 2.5.2 and 5.1.4.
2c
70
Ferris
The selection of electric arc furnace dust and solvent wastes as national HSM proxies appears sound based on the analysis. Excluding used oil, non-ferrous metals and scrap metals from the hazard analysis, although associated with "damages cases?"
EPA added discussion on hazard characterization to Section 2.2.2.
3a
97
Ferris
Are the facilities that gave notice located; in disproportionately affected communities or not?  The recycling exclusions should not exacerbate impacts or exposures in these communities. A troubling compliance history could signal future endangerment of the health and the environment.
EPA added to the discussion in Section 6.1.4 to clarify the results of demographic analysis for notification facilities.
3b
99
Daley
I cannot comment directly on whether or not the annual marker of 25 tons of recyclable material is appropriate. The report provided limited justification for this cut off point, and while it seems reasonable, someone with more applied experience in waste management and reclamation may think otherwise
EPA added language to 3.2.3 to explain the 25-ton cut-off, and how the number of facilities might change with a 1-ton and 100-ton cut off.
3b
100
Ferris
Is the 25-ton threshold empirical?
EPA added language to 3.2.3 to explain the 25-ton cut-off, and how the number of facilities might change with a 1-ton and 100-ton cut off.
4b
116
Ferris
Have either the absence of these protections or the "real world" limitations on a community's ability to publicly participate been evaluated as an impact upon low income communities and communities of color?
EPA added discussion on public participation to the executive summary and conclusions.
4b
120
Ferris
Potential impacts associated with transportation of HSW warrant a closer look.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4e
132
Henshel
 There is a lot of detail provided for some of the analyses.  Other analyses (producing some of the results listed in the tables) do not have such clear or extensive or sometimes even any clear statement of how some calculations were made.  At the very least, a clear, jargonless description of how each column in each table was determined should be evident in the text in proximity to the tables.
EPA added additional descriptions to Section 4.
4e
133
Henshel
There needs to be an explanation of why some Fisher's analytical results are listed as N/A.
EPA added additional descriptions to Section 4.
5a
161
Ferris
Should whether the generator is a small business factor into community vulnerability?  For example, some small businesses could be less likely due to capacity to conduct in-depth due diligence or examinations of HSW facilities or how their wastes are recycled.
EPA added discussion on this topic to 2.5.2 and 5.1.4.
5b
166
Ferris
Ability to participate in the decision making process is a stated environmental justice vulnerability; however, this section states explicitly (in clear contradiction) that community input is not required of facilities or regulators.
EPA added discussion on this topic to 2.5.2 and 5.1.4.
6c
184
Daley
Finally, the report would also benefit from a clear assessment of compliance under RCRA and the DSW final rule. If there are no prescriptive standards for storing waste while waiting to reclaim/recycle, are facilities more likely to have accidents?
EPA added discussion on this topic to the Executive Summary and Conclusions sections.
6c
193
Ferris
Tribes, including Inuits, will need additional resources to staff and implement the DSW Rule. Should more cases on Native lands be included in the damages cases analysis?
EPA added discussion about Tribal representation to Section 4.2.2.
ESb
37
Ferris
The "Summary of Potential Impacts...Under Different Recycling Scenarios" is clear however the accuracy of the presumptions is challenged by the language on its face. Pursuant to Hazard Characterization, EPA demonstrates and discusses the highly hazardous nature of the 2 main sources of reclaimed hazardous secondary materials (hereafter HSM) upon which much of the Draft DSW Rule analysis is based in addition to the storage hazards including leaks, fires and explosions. Container standards do not appear to compare with the highly hazardous nature of the 2 main sources upon which much of the Draft DSW Rule analysis is based.
EPA added discussion to the Executive Summary.
4a
109
Daley
The census data that the EPA uses for this analysis is standard. Improvements would include relying upon the 2010 census numbers to more accurately reflect community composition. If possible, it would be ideal to be able to rely upon the American Community Survey (ACS) to obtain more detailed and temporal information on community change. However, I am not sure that the sample size for the ACS are adequate for this facility based approach. It may be that by drilling down to the facility level and relying upon survey rather than census data, introduces too much variability.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4b
121
Henshel
The same methods and break outs should have been carried out for all analyses.  There should not have been different protocols and analyses used for some types of facilities and not for others.  There should have been a break out of asian, black, other minority, and possibly immigrant populations for all facilities.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4e
136
Henshel
The same set of demographics should be tested for all types of facilities for all types of analyses.  There is no justification for cutting back to 4 categories of analysis for some analyses, and none is given.
EPA added descriptions of why additional demographics were analyzed for notification facilities.
4f
140
Ferris
Would assessment of an additional number of damages case affect the assumptions?
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4h - 3
153
Ferris
Has EPA evaluated additional damages cases?  Is the pool of 218 adequate to reveal the widest reasonable range of damages, potential damages and types of comparisons?
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
182
Daley
An environmental justice analysis of current regulatory practices for those states and facilities not adopting the 2008 DSW Final Rule would be helpful and may provide guidance if regulatory changes to the DSW rule are likely. The assumption seems to be that the status quo before the rule is neutral for communities of concern. Given the weight of the evidence in the environmental justice literature, this is not likely a reasonable assumption.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
188
Ferris
Does the DSW Rule consider the affects of tracking, monitoring and enforcement across multiple state lines or, nationally, whether HSW transport will operate smoothly across multiple state programs?  Is there favorable or negative impact on interstate commerce?
EPA added discussion on the analysis of interstate tracking, monitoring and enforcement in the conclusions section of the report.
6c
191
Ferris
Has EPA assessed profitability and the viability of end-use markets for various HSW and facilities?  Would lack of markets affect, encourage or discourage a facility from taking steps and investing in protecting health and the environment?
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
1a
43
Daley
Yes, the Introduction is clear. It is easy to follow and well organized.
N/A
1a
44
Ferris
Summary of DSW EJ Methodology is clear and concise with a couple of exceptions.
N/A
1a
49
Ferris
In view of the complexity of what is explained, Scenarios are clear
N/A
1a
51
Ferris
The threat of post facto CERCLA liability is not interchangeable with up-front environmental protection standards and requirements. This reviewer does not presume that the entire regulated community is villainous; however, any vigor/rigor that a generator, receiver, recycler might invest in environmental protection could wane as oversight and compliance requirements are reduced or eliminated.
N/A
1a
52
Henshel
No complaints.
N/A
2a
58
Ferris
The description of potential scenarios is clear.
N/A
2a
59
Ferris
The chart situated in the "Overview" section, which describes the 3 relevant exclusions is clear and concise. The applicability of RCRA (or not) is readily discernible from the scenarios.
N/A
2b
61
Daley
These scenarios seem plausible. They are described in clear and logical detail.
N/A
2c
67
Henshel
Two other possible scenarios to address are listed above under "general comments".
N/A
2c
68
Daley
Yes, EPA's analysis of the types and quantities of hazardous secondary material is clear. Figure 1 provides a clear justification for the focus on solvents and electric arc furnace dust.
N/A
2d
81
Daley
It seems as if EPA has noted many of the differences between hazardous waste regulations and the changes stemming from the 2008 Draft Solid Waste (DSW) Final Rule. Table 2.3 is a very detailed description of the eight likely scenarios and their impact on generators, transporters, and intermediate reclamation facilities. This material clearly communicates that there is likely to be substantial changes in the accumulation and storage of hazardous secondary material (HSM).
N/A
2d
85
Ferris
Audits of reclaimers are not the same as or superior to periodic inspections or other agency oversight.
N/A
3a
96
Daley
EPA's approach to identifying facilities that are likely to begin recycling hazardous secondary material seems reasonable. I cannot think of another category to include. Out of the categories presented (already notified; damage facilities; currently generating hazardous secondary material, and facilities that may easily expand or switch to reclamation because of the DSW final rule), the last three categories seem more useful to understanding likely environmental justice impacts. With only 40 facilities providing notification at the time of the report, it is likely that "street level" implementation will be driven by the larger population of facilities rather than early adopters.
N/A
3a
98
Henshel
no comment, outside this reviewer's area of expertise
N/A
3b
101
Henshel
no comment, outside this reviewer's area of expertise
N/A
3c
102
Daley
EPA is defining a community as a 3 kilometer circle or buffer around one of the facilities included in this analysis. The agency then uses census information to apportion socio-economic and demographic ratios within this radius. This method is superior to simply using standard census divisions such as census tracts, blocks, or even zip code aggregation.
N/A
3c
103
Daley
The operational definition of "a community" is challenging and the environmental justice literature has numerous empirical studies at different levels of analysis, sometimes providing conflicting and competing results. Thus, using a measure of community with stronger measurement validity is important. Like all measurements, this is not a perfect representation of "a community", but it is a much improved measure over more traditional approaches, i.e., studies that rely upon preexisting census designations to ascertain community characteristics. Increasingly, a 3 kilometer radius is becoming a standard approach to improving the precision of community measures in environmental justice and public health research.
N/A
3c
105
Ferris
EPA synchronizes with Professor Paul Mohai and Professor Robin Saha who are doing cutting edge demographic analysis. Their work shows increasing disproportionality, for example, nationally, people of color now make up the majority of those living within 3-km of such facilities and that where facilities cluster they make up over two-thirds. These are the highest concentrations of people of color ever reported from a national study of the distribution of hazardous waste facilities. Furthermore, when applying their recommended statistical analysis, it was found that racial disparities persist even when controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income, housing values, education, and employment status.
N/A
4a
111
Henshel
Using census data is standard protocol for many EJ analyses.
N/A
4b
114
Ferris
Without RCRA status or Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) protections, communities will many facilities are not required to get a permit, provide notice and opportunity to comment, address public input, monitor or be subject to protective container standards or storage time limits. These are baseline historic protections that, while they do exist, as regards most environmental statutes, they haven't been updated to reflect the "real world" since original passage.
N/A
4b
115
Ferris
Furthermore, taking advantage of existing public participation mandates commonly requires a massive investment of usually volunteer community resources to engage in a process that is time consuming and expensive and in which, comparatively, the private sector and government stakeholders have extensive resources and dedicated staff.
N/A
4c
124
Henshel
It appears, yes.
N/A
4e
130
Daley
The statistical analysis seems to be properly done. As far as I can tell, these are conditional probability calculations. It is a relatively straightforward and simple approach. While I am not a statistician, it seems like a reasonable way to approach the analysis. It provides the agency with two types of information: the chances that a facility exists in a buffer area given the demographic and socio-economic composition (threshold risk),  and the probability of a particular demographic or socioeconomic composition given the likelihood of facilities (the demographic ratio).
N/A
4f
138
Daley
Yes, I think the assumptions are accurately presented. Footnotes 34  -  37 are important components in the analysis. The report very clearly outlines data sources and how the information is aggregated together. As already noted, the distributional assumptions of the areal apportionment method should be more fully explained.
N/A
4f
139
Ferris
Assumptions appear accurate; however at this reading, this reviewer cannot determine whether they are thorough.
N/A
4f
141
Henshel
[No response provided]
N/A
4g
143
Ferris
Uncertainties in the data input in the analysis appear to be appropriate.
N/A
4h - 1
145
Daley
See 2. below.
N/A
4h - 1
146
Ferris
The reviewer is uncertain if this analysis will yield additional useful information without an assessment of additional cases.
N/A
4h - 1
147
Henshel
Your meaning is not fully clear in this question, and it is not clear what analyses you would do to address this question, and how you would break up the data.  I am also concerned that the number of facilities in each group might then be so small as to really decrease power to detect significant differences.
N/A
5a
158
Ferris
The description of other factors that may affect vulnerability is accurate.
N/A
5a
159
Ferris
The DSW Rule contains sound baseline vulnerability factors.
N/A
5a
163
Henshel
[No response provided]
N/A
5b
164
Ferris
The broader discussion is helpful. The report is complex, removing the broader discussion will not simplify the report tremendously. The broader discussion, however adds thoughtful detail and clearly communicates the challenges confronting public and private decision makers.
N/A
5b
167
Ferris
The section is clear that lower participation levels can translate into experiencing greater negative impacts since "their input has not been considered fully, particularly if competing interests are set forth more effectively."
N/A
5b
169
Henshel
It is better to keep the discussion broader.  In this kind of document, it is important to include the negative results as well as the positive results.
N/A
5c
172
Ferris
Unfunded mandates would affect EPA ability to ensure compliance if enforcement is left to states that don't have the budget to inspect, monitor, notify the public or implement public involvement.
N/A
6a
175
Daley
Yes, the conclusions seem to stem directly from the analysis presented in the report.
N/A
6a
176
Ferris
The analysis and conclusions are extensive.
N/A
6a
178
Henshel
Yes, the results support EPA's conclusions, but likely not as well, currently, as they might with more extensive EJ analysis carried out on the data.
N/A
6b
179
Daley
Yes, I think the agency has clearly differentiated between the community level analysis  -  comparing the 3 km buffer area to state, national and urban and rural areas, and the population level analysis  -  exploring the threshold risk ratio and the demographic ratio for a larger set of categories (minority, poverty, American Indian and Alaska Native, and children under 5).
N/A
6b
180
Ferris
The differences between community level and population level analysis are clear.
N/A
6b
181
Henshel
I think so, but I am not fully sure that my answer comes from the readability and clarity of the explanations  -  I suspect my familiarity with the information is affecting my comfort with the descriptions.
N/A
ESa
28
Ferris
The Executive Summary is very clear and readable.
N/A
ESa
29
Ferris
The material is complex and dense which is to be expected in an agency rulemaking.
N/A
ESb
36
Daley
Yes, the Executive Summary provides an accurate summary of the more detailed material presented in the report.
N/A
ESb
42
Henshel
See above comments.  But yes, the Executive Summary does provide a reasonably accurate view of the findings and conclusions of this analysis.
N/A
Ga
3
Ferris
Generally, the DSW Rule is read-able and clear.
N/A
Gb
14
Ferris
Generally, information in the DSW Rule presented is clear and appears to be accurate.
N/A
Gc
23
Ferris
The DSW Rule is an extensive document with significant analysis and extensive data.
N/A
Gc
24
Henshel
This is a nice review of the data.  This is a nice first analysis.  Improvements can be made.  This question is a perfect example of the redundancy that could be avoided.
N/A
Ga
6
Henshel
Readability.  Unfortunately, this document is pretty standard for an EPA document.  If the audience is only technical, the document is usable and readable. If the audience is intended to be the EJ communities and include a non-technical audience, this document is dense and difficult to read.  There is also a lot of "spaghetti" logic  -  explanations that are internally referencing without sufficient definition of terms or acronyms.  The document is missing some key components that would make it more readable.  These include:
N/A
Ga
9
Henshel
Utility.  This analysis and report does demonstrate that there already is a bias in the location of the facilities that already produce hazardous waste, and this includes a bias in the facilities that might utilize this rule to increase storage time and volume of exempted otherwise hazardous materials.  The environmental justice analysis could have been more complete.  Further discussion of other approaches are included below. The report does make reasonably recommendations for some of the ways that the environmental justice concerns might by reduced, although the discussion of these abbreviated comments was both vague and needed elaboration.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
4b
112
Daley
Yes. The EPA has selected appropriate characteristics to analyze in this report. I think it would be a stronger analysis if along with "children under five", "adults over 65" were included in the detailed analysis in chapter 4. Given the demographic transitions of the baby boomers into an elderly population, it will become more critical to understand differential exposure for susceptible  populations at both ends of the spectrum.
EPA will defer additional analyses until after publication of the 2011 proposed rule.
6c
196
Henshel
The chapter analyses seem to be ignoring the risk ratio data. Since the "full" set of analyses (ie Fishers Exact Test, for example) did not actually carry out the full set of analyses (separating out Black and Asian, for example), it seems that the results might have been stronger with the additional analyses.
Discussion of risk ratio data was added to the statistical analysis section.
4e
134
Henshel
 Why are the same charts repeated twice?  Is this necessary?
Additional discussion was added to Section 4 to clarify charts.
4a
110
Ferris
EPA synchronizes with Professor Paul Mohai and Professor Robin Saha who are doing cutting edge demographic analysis. Their work shows increasing disproportionality, for example, nationally, people of color now make up the majority of those living within 3-km of such facilities and that where facilities cluster they make up over two-thirds. These are the highest concentrations of people of color ever reported from a national study of the distribution of hazardous waste facilities. Furthermore, when applying their recommended statistical analysis, it was found that racial disparities persist even when controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income, housing values, education, and employment status.
N/A
4c
123
Ferris
EPA synchronizes with Professor Paul Mohai and Professor Robin Saha who are doing cutting edge demographic analysis. Their work shows increasing disproportionality, for example, nationally, people of color now make up the majority of those living within 3-km of such facilities and that where facilities cluster they make up over two-thirds. These are the highest concentrations of people of color ever reported from a national study of the distribution of hazardous waste facilities. Furthermore, when applying their recommended statistical analysis, it was found that racial disparities persist even when controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income, housing values, education, and employment status.
N/A
4d
126
Ferris
EPA synchronizes with Professor Paul Mohai and Professor Robin Saha who are doing cutting edge demographic analysis. Their work shows increasing disproportionality, for example, nationally, people of color now make up the majority of those living within 3-km of hazardous waste facilities and that where facilities cluster they make up over two-thirds. These are the highest concentrations of people of color ever reported from a national study of the distribution of hazardous waste facilities. Furthermore, when applying their recommended statistical analysis, it was found that racial disparities persist even when controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income, housing values, education, and employment status.
N/A
4e
131
Ferris
EPA synchronizes with Professor Paul Mohai and Professor Robin Saha who are doing cutting edge demographic analysis. Their work shows increasing disproportionality, for example, nationally, people of color now make up the majority of those living within 3-km of hazardous waste facilities and that where facilities cluster they make up over two-thirds. These are the highest concentrations of people of color ever reported from a national study of the distribution of hazardous waste facilities. Furthermore, when applying their recommended statistical analysis, it was found that racial disparities persist even when controlling for socioeconomic factors such as income, housing values, education, and employment status.
N/A
2
54
Ferris
The discussion of hazards associated with mainly the 2 selected vectors is clear. Hazards are extensive in contrast to reducing the levels of regulatory oversight provided by RCRA. Should all 4 legitimacy factors should be mandatory in view of the hazards?  What about release reporting?  Should releases be grounds for losing exclusion and HSW status?  How is a significant release determined?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2
55
Ferris
In view of the stated hazards, could managing HSW as a valuable commodity influence the generator, receiver, recycler and affect compliance?  This goes to the concept of legitimacy. Would the mandating a showing of economic value militate in favor of safeguards against releases, spillage?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2
56
Ferris
If wastes that are going to be recycled as hazardous as wastes that are not recycled, are both equally likely to be mishandled?  Are the regulatory and enforcement tools provided by the DSW Rule commensurate with the task of ensuring compliance?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
3
94
Ferris
Does the large number of damages cases support granting the transfer-based exclusion?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2b
63
Daley
The DSW Rule could inadvertently encourage mismanagement while transitioning materials into the recycling stream. Does the Rule apply where HSW is recycled into even more toxic products?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2b
64
Daley
Should notice be the hazard quid pro quo for the exclusions which provide the benefit of different (reclamation), streamlined treatment of HSW?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2c
71
Ferris
How and when does enforcement after a "significant" release occur?  How is the determination made as to what constitutes a significant release?  Which party has the burden of proof?  It would seem that placing the burden of proof on the party that causes or is responsible for the release should bear the burden of proof opposed to, for example, the governmental entity.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2c
75
Ferris
Would streamlined, but standardized HSW reporting on a Manifest or comparable document be feasible, e.g., for state and local government, the industry?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2c
76
Ferris
Compliance with financial assurance can be a high hurdle given conditions imposed by the environmental insurance market. All parties under this rule should be required to comply with financial assurance. Would requiring management standards for reclamation facilities that don't have RCRA permits strengthen the DSW Rule by increasing or reducing the potential for environmental releases and/or disproportionate negative impacts?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2d
82
Ferris
The threat of post facto CERCLA liability is not interchangeable with up-front environmental protection standards, notice and record-keeping requirements. Streamlined record, keeping, tracking and monitoring would contribute to ensuring that toxic wastes are not dumped illegally dumped in disproportionately affected communities and would contribute to ensuring that HSW is safely delivered to the recycling facility.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2d
83
Ferris
The DSW Rule could be characterized, to some extent, as industry self-certification on HSW, which contrasts sharply with RCRA's historic cradle-to-grave framework and preventative approach to hazardous waste management and disposal.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
2d
84
Ferris
Generators and third party reclaimers must file notices  -  they should be required or the HSW should be treated as hazardous waste.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
4b
113
Ferris
Is the preventative approach a reasonable starting point when evaluating harm to the environment and public health.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
4b
117
Ferris
Notice requirements inform communities, the public and municipalities about how HSW is being managed and recycled. How would the public learn about releases, spillage without notice, monitoring, recordkeeping; how would they advocate safeguards or alternatives?  Streamlined requirements would be preferable to none.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
4b
119
Ferris
Should recyclers be required to demonstrate a history of compliance prior to benefiting from the exclusions?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
5b
168
Ferris
Does the importance and/or benefit of recycling override the value of public participation especially where disproportionality is an issue?  Additionally, the studies show that facilities which have notified already show multiple facilities, higher disease incidence and a dearth of hospitals in the 3-km area.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
6a
177
Ferris
Arguably, DSW Rule conclusions supporting exclusion of HSW from RCRA protections are not thoroughly supported by the analysis as it pertains, in particular, to multiple (disproportionate?) impacts, potential hazards and public participation.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
6c
185
Ferris
Specific and explicit storage timeframes and container requirements would facilitate safer handling by reducing the prospects for potential explosions, spills and other uncontrolled releases of HSM.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
6c
186
Ferris
Off-site reclamation  -  regulatory safeguards that ensure proper management of HSW while on-site and during shipment are important.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
6c
189
Ferris
What constitutes "reasonable effort" is not clear. This may not be a sufficiently high bar to deter mismanagement of HSW and could encourage high risk conduct.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
6c
192
Ferris
Does the DSW Rule facilitate broad adoption by the states and state implementation?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
6c
194
Ferris
Encouraging recycling should be possible while retaining a reasonable assurance of regulatory protection for health and the environment.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
ESb
38
Ferris
The Scenarios chart shows several instances involving movement or activity related to HSM where it appears that various historic RCRA safeguards are not required see e.g., certain scenarios under Scenario 3; Scenario 5; Scenario 6; Scenario 7; Scenario 8) without, it could be said, on balance, assuring a regulatory atmosphere that influences the regulated community to handle HSW in ways that prevent hazards. Comparatively, streamlined notice and recordkeeping would both facilitate emergency planning and response and protect human health and the environment.
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)
ESb
41
Ferris
Regarding DSW Rule controversies about disproportionate negative impacts and exposures, would these communities feel more protected (versus adding to the burden of already cumulative pollution) if HSW were handled similar to those substances categorized under Universal Wastes?
N/A (comment on 2008 DSW rule)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 52751-52753] [FR Doc No: 2018-22150]

========================================================================

Rules and Regulations

                                                Federal Register

________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents

having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed

to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published

under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2018 /

Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0553; Product Identifier 2017-NM-138-AD; Amendment

39-19446; AD 2018-20-12]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, Model DHC-

8-200 series airplanes, and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This AD

was prompted by reports of arcing and smoke emanating from the

windshield, caused by loose or damaged windshield heater terminal lugs.

This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to

incorporate maintenance review board (MRB) tasks for general visual

inspections of the windshield moisture seal. This AD also requires re-

torqueing the windshield heater terminal lugs, applying a coating to

the windshield heater screw heads, doing a chemical cleaning of the

wiring and components, doing a visual inspection of the wiring and

components, doing an operational test of the pilot's and co-pilot's

windshield heating system, and repair if necessary We are issuing this

AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 23, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 23,

2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,

contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt

Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;

fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet

http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the

FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.

For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call

206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-

0553.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-

0553; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains

this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and

other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-

5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John P. DeLuca, Aerospace Engineer,

Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch,

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-

7369; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR

part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.,

Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, Model DHC-8-200 series

airplanes, and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in

the Federal Register on July 6, 2018 (83 FR 31493). The NPRM was

prompted by reports of arcing and smoke emanating from the windshield,

caused by loose or damaged windshield heater terminal lugs. The NPRM

proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program to

incorporate MRB tasks for general visual inspections of the windshield

moisture seal. The NPRM also proposed to require re-torqueing the

windshield heater terminal lugs, applying a coating to the windshield

heater screw heads, doing a chemical cleaning of the wiring and

components, doing a visual inspection of the wiring and components,

doing an operational test of the pilot's and co-pilot's windshield

heating system, and repair if necessary.

    We are issuing this AD to address loose terminal lugs and terminal

lugs damaged due to fluid ingress between the windshields and side

window posts, which could lead to burning of the lugs and cracking of

the windshields, and could ultimately cause a loss of cabin pressure,

resulting in an emergency descent.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation

authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-25, dated July 31,

2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness

Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for

certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes,

Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes, and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes.

The MCAI states:

    There have been several reports of arcing and smoke emanating

from the windshields. Investigation of these incidents revealed that

de-icing fluid and water could enter between the windshields and

side window posts, leading to possible damage of the windshield

heater terminal lugs creating arcing and smoke. In addition,

investigation also revealed that the windshield heater terminal lugs

tend to loosen over time. Loose terminal lugs could also have a

similar effect of arcing and smoke. Both events could lead to

burning of the lugs and, due to the excessive heat, cracking of the

windshields. If not corrected, these conditions could cause a loss

of cabin pressure resulting in an emergency descent.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-

0553.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing

this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The Air Line

Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its support for the

NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and

determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting

this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We

have determined that these minor changes:

     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the

NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was

already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-30-41, Revision A, dated

March 24, 2017. This service information describes procedures for re-

torqueing the windshield heater terminal lugs and applying Humiseal

coating to the screw heads of the windshield heater, doing a chemical

cleaning and general visual inspection of the wiring and components,

and doing an operational test of the windshield heating system.

    Bombardier has also issued the following service information, which

describes airworthiness limitation tasks for a general visual

inspection of the windshield moisture seal. These documents are

distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

     de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated August 5, 2017.

     de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated August 5, 2017.

     de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated March 15, 2017.

    This service information is reasonably available because the

interested parties have access to it through their normal course of

business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 63 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.

                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators

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

3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................              $0             $255          $16,065

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

* Table does not include estimated costs for revising the maintenance or inspection program.

    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection

program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we

recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the

past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per

airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program

changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-

operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90

work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide

cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to

issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the

authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,

describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General

requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing

regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator

finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within

the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition

that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this

rulemaking action.

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the

Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by

FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is

normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but

during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the

authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and

associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order

13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various

levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive

Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or

negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by

reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0

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

directive (AD):

2018-20-12 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19446; Docket No. FAA-

2018-0553; Product Identifier 2017-NM-138-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, -

106, -201, -202,

-301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial

numbers 003 through 672 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and rain

protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of arcing and smoke emanating

from the windshield, caused by loose or damaged windshield heater

terminal lugs. We are issuing this AD to address loose terminal lugs

and terminal lugs damaged due to fluid ingress between the

windshields and side window posts, which could lead to burning of

the lugs and cracking of the windshields, and could ultimately cause

a loss of cabin pressure, resulting in an emergency descent.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,

unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the

existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to

incorporate the applicable task identified in paragraphs (g)(1),

(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD into the applicable program support

manual (PSM) identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD,

which is included in the existing maintenance or inspection program.

The initial compliance time for the tasks are within 1,600 flight

hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date

of this AD.

    (1) de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated August 5, 2017.

    (2) de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated August 5, 2017.

    (3) de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated March 15, 2017.

           Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD--PSM to Update

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

                                             Maintenance requirements

             Airplane model                        manual (MRM)

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

DHC-8-102, -103, and -106...............  PSM 1-8-7

DHC-8-201 and -202......................  PSM 1-82-7

DHC-8-301, -311, and -315...............  PSM 1-83-7

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

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,

inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or

intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)

in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of

this AD.

(i) Cleaning, Inspection, Re-Torqueing, Sealant Application, and

Operational Test

    Within 8,000 flight hours or 60 months, whichever occurs first

after the effective date of this AD: Perform a chemical cleaning of

the wiring and components, do a general visual inspection of the

wiring and components for signs of cracking, erosion, wear, or other

damage, re-torque the windshield heater terminal lugs, apply

Humiseal coating to the screw heads of the windshield heater, and do

an operational test of the pilot's and co-pilot's windshield heating

system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-30-41, Revision A, dated March 24,

2017. If the operational test fails, before further flight, do

corrective actions, repeat the test, and do applicable corrective

actions until the operational test is passed. If any cracking,

erosion, wear, or other damage is found, before further flight,

repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch,

FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier,

Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the

DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by

paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the

effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-30-41,

dated March 31, 2016.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New

York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this

AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal

inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.

If sending information directly to the manager of the certification

office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational

Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,

Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before

using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal

inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the

local flight standards district office/certificate holding district

office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD

to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be

accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO

Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by

the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information

(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-25, dated July 31,

2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD

docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching

for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0553.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact John P. DeLuca,

Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section,

FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,

NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not

incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in

paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the

incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed

in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do

the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-30-41, Revision A, dated March

24, 2017.

    (ii) de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated August 5, 2017.

    (iii) de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated August 5, 2017.

    (iv) de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Task Card

Task Number 5610/01, ``General Visual Inspection of the Windshield

Moisture Seal,'' dated March 15, 2017.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact

Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt

Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;

fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet

http://www.bombardier.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport

Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call

206-231-3195.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated

by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at

NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 20, 2018.

John P. Piccola,

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification

Service.

[FR Doc. 2018-22150 Filed 10-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P