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

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

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

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

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		September 6, 2012

SUBJECT:	Toxicology Scoping Document for the Registration Review of Phosphoric Acid Salts (iron phosphate, potassium phosphate, & dipotassium phosphate).

				Registration Review Case #: 	6027
				PC Code: 					034903, 076413, 176407
				CAS #:						10045-86-0, 7778-77-0,  7758-11-4
				Chemical Class: 				Biochemicals

FROM:		Sadaf Shaukat, Biologist
            Biochemical Pesticides Branch
            Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

TO:			Leonard Cole, Senior Regulatory Specialist
				Biochemical Pesticides Branch
            Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

ACTION REQUESTED

The following scoping document contains the human health assessment for the biopesticides Phosphoric acid salts
in support of the development of the Registration Review Work Plan.

Executive Summary

Based on the available data and information, the Agency does not foresee the need for new data or for new risk assessments for phosphoric acid salts.  Hazard and exposure information as well as Agency risk assessments on these chemicals were evaluated against current safety standards established by the Agency's scientific policies and regulations and it was determined that there is no need to conduct additional risk assessments.  The active ingredients naturally occurring, have a non-toxic mode of action, and are of low toxicity.  There is reasonable certainty of no harm to the general population from exposure to these chemicals in pesticide products when they are used according to label instructions.

I. Background

Phosphoric Acid Salts

As a pesticide, iron (ferric) phosphate is used in controlling snails and slugs on food crops and ornamentals at outdoor and indoor sites. Iron phosphate is a common chemical with a variety of uses, including as a human nutritional supplement and as an ingredient in fertilizer. It is applied to soil as part of a pellet that also contains bait to attract snails and slugs. When the pests eat the pellets, the iron phosphate interferes with calcium metabolism in their gut, causing the snails and slugs to stop eating almost immediately. They die three to six days later. (Iron Phosphate Fact Sheet, 2001)

The chemical was first registered by the Agency in 1997. There are currently four registered products containing the active ingredient. All four products are end-use products (EPs). Iron phosphate is the sole active ingredient in three of the products. Spinosad is an additional active ingredient for one of the products. There are no currently approved uses for this chemical as an inert ingredient in pesticide products.

As a pesticide, potassium phosphate is used as a fungicide against powdery mildew on food crops. It does have a toxic mode of action, so is therefore not classified as a biochemical. However, it is eligible for reduced data requirements because of its simple structure and natural occurrence. (Potassium Phosphate Fact Sheet, 2009)

The chemical was first registered by the Agency in 1998.  There are currently four registered products containing the active ingredient. All four products are EPs. Potassium phosphate is not the sole active ingredient in these products. Mono- and di- potassium salts of phosphorous acid or sulfur are additional active ingredient for the products. There are no currently approved uses for this chemical as an inert ingredient in pesticide products.

As a pesticide, dipotassium phosphate is also used as a fungicide against a broad spectrum of diseases including powdery mildew, leaf spot, root dot, downy mildew, etc. on turf, ornamentals, and non-bearing fruit and nut tree crops. It appears to have a mixed mode of action involving direct toxicity to the pathogen, aided by a boosting of the plant's defense mechanisms due to the fertilizing properties of the compound. (Dipotassium Phosphate Fact Sheet, 2002)

The chemical was first registered by the Agency in 2002.  There is currently one registered product containing the active ingredient. This product is an EP. Diotassium phosphate is not the sole active ingredient in this product. Mono- and di- potassium salts of phosphorous acid are the additional active ingredients for the product. There are no currently approved uses for this chemical as an inert ingredient in pesticide products.

II. Tolerances
40 CFR § 180.1191: Ferric phosphate; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the biochemical pesticide, ferric phosphate (FePO4, CAS No. 11045 - 86 - 0) in or on all food commodities. [62 FR 56105, Oct. 29, 1997].
40 CFR § 180.1193: Potassium dihydrogen phosphate; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
Potassium dihydrogen phosphate is exempted from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all food commodities when applied as a fungicide in accordance with good agricultural practices. [63 FR 43085, Aug. 12, 1998]

III. Incidents

According to the Incident Data System, there have been no reports of incidents resulting from the use of pesticide products containing potassium phosphate and dipotassium phosphate as active ingredients from January 1, 1992 to October 27, 2011.

There have been 50 reported incidents resulting from the use of pesticide products containing iron phosphate as the active ingredient.

IV. Toxicity Profile

Iron Phosphate

Sufficient data have been provided to fulfill the biochemical pesticide data requirements under 40 CFR 158.2050 for the current use patterns for iron phosphate.  The data available to the Agency are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Human Health Assessment Data Requirements for iron phosphate* (40 CFR § 158.2050)
                           Study/OCSPP Guideline No.
                                    Results
                         Toxicity Category/Description
                                     MRID
                           Acute oral toxicity (rat)
                                  (870.1100)

                             LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg

                                      IV
                                   44042704
                        Acute dermal toxicity (rabbit)
                                  (870.1200)

                  LD50 > 5,000 g/kg for males and females

                                      IV
                                   44042705
                       Acute inhalation toxicity	 (rat)
                                  (870.1300)

Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                        Primary eye irritation (rabbit)
                                  (870.2400)
Minimally  irritating. Minimal irritation of the conjunctivae, resolved within 48 hours.
                                      III
                                   44042706
                      Primary dermal irritation (rabbit)
                                  (870.2500)
No irritation observed
                                      IV
                                   44042407
                  Dermal sensitization  (Buehler-guinea pig)
                                  (870.2600)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                          Dermal sensitization (LLNA)
                                  (870.2600)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                             90-Day oral toxicity
                                  (870.3100)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                            90-Day dermal toxicity
                                  (870.3250)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                          90-Day inhalation toxicity
                                  (870.3465)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                                 Mutagenicity
                  (Bacterial reverse mutation test; 870.5100)
 Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                                 Mutagenicity
           (Unscheduled DNA synthesis in mammalian cells; 870.5550)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                                 Mutagenicity
          (In vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test; 870.5395)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                                 Mutagenicity
            (In vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test; 870.5300)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

                       Developmental toxicity (rabbits)
                                  (870.3700)
Waived. FDA regards iron phosphate as GRAS; it is abundant in nature, has low toxicity, is used as a nutritional supplement, and has low water-solubility.

[*]Results taken from studies performed on EPs; No data available on TGAI.

Potassium Phosphate

Sufficient data have been provided to fulfill the biochemical pesticide data requirements under 40 CFR 158.2050 for the current use patterns for potassium phosphate.  The data available to the Agency are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Human Health Assessment Data Requirements for Potassium Phosphate (40 CFR § 158.2050)
                           Study/OCSPP Guideline No.
                                    Results
                         Toxicity Category/Description
                                     MRID
                           Acute oral toxicity (rat)
                                  (870.1100)

         LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg for males and > 500 g/kg for females

                                      III
                                   44234202
                        Acute dermal toxicity (rabbit)
                                  (870.1200)

                  LD50 > 2,000 g/kg for males and females

                                      III
                                   44234203
                       Acute inhalation toxicity	 (rat)
                                  (870.1300)

 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                        Primary eye irritation (rabbit)
                                  (870.2400)
Practically non-irritating. No corneal opacity or iritis was noted during the study. One hour after test substance instillation, all animals exhibited conjunctivitis with clearance by 48 hours.
                                      III
                                   44234204
                      Primary dermal irritation (rabbit)
                                  (870.2500)
Non-irritant
                                      IV
                                   44234205
                  Dermal sensitization  (Buehler-guinea pig)
                                  (870.2600)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                             90-Day oral toxicity
                                  (870.3100)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                            90-Day dermal toxicity
                                  (870.3250)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                          90-Day inhalation toxicity
                                  (870.3465)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                                 Mutagenicity
                  (Bacterial reverse mutation test; 870.5100)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                                 Mutagenicity
           (Unscheduled DNA synthesis in mammalian cells; 870.5550)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                                 Mutagenicity
          (In vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test; 870.5395)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                                 Mutagenicity
            (In vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test; 870.5300)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

                       Developmental toxicity (rabbits)
                                  (870.3700)
 Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity, exempt from requirement of a tolerance

Dipotassium Phosphate

Sufficient data have been provided to fulfill the biochemical pesticide data requirements under 40 CFR 158.2050 for the current use patterns for dipotassium phosphate.  The data available to the Agency are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 3. Human Health Assessment Data Requirements for Dipotassium Phosphate* (40 CFR § 158.2050)
                           Study/OCSPP Guideline No.
                                    Results
                         Toxicity Category/Description
                                     MRID
                           Acute oral toxicity (rat)
                                  (870.1100)

                  LD50 > 5,050 mg/kg for males and females

                                      IV
                                   44815005
                        Acute dermal toxicity (rabbit)
                                  (870.1200)

                  LD50 > 5,050 g/kg for males and females

                                      IV
                                   44815006
                       Acute inhalation toxicity	 (rat)
                                  (870.1300)

                                 >2.97 mg/L

                                      IV
                                   44815007
                        Primary eye irritation (rabbit)
                                  (870.2400)
No corneal opacity; positive conjunctival irritation
                                      IV
                                   44815008
                      Primary dermal irritation (rabbit)
                                  (870.2500)
Very slight erythema on 2/6 rabbits one hour after patch removal with resolution by 24 hours
                                      IV
                                   44815009
                  Dermal sensitization  (Buehler-guinea pig)
                                  (870.2600)
                               Not a sensitizer

                                   44815010
                             90-Day oral toxicity
                                  (870.3100)
              Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity; non-food use

                            90-Day dermal toxicity
                                  (870.3250)
Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity; proposed use pattern will not result in prolonged exposure at concentrations that are likely to be toxic

                          90-Day inhalation toxicity
                                  (870.3465)
Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity; proposed use pattern will not result in prolonged exposure at concentrations that are likely to be toxic

                                 Mutagenicity
                  (Bacterial reverse mutation test; 870.5100)
Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity; very low nticipated human exposure, not structurally related to a mutagen

                                 Mutagenicity
           (Unscheduled DNA synthesis in mammalian cells; 870.5550)
Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity; very low anticipated human exposure, not structurally related to a mutagen

                                 Mutagenicity
          (In vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test; 870.5395)
Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity; very low anticipated human exposure, not structurally related to a mutagen

                                 Mutagenicity
            (In vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test; 870.5300)
Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity; very low anticipated human exposure, not structurally related to a mutagen

                       Developmental toxicity (rabbits)
                                  (870.3700)
Waived. Low acute mammalian toxicity; very low anticipated human exposure, not structurally related to a mutagen

*All acute tox requirements were waived for the TGAI; Results taken from studies performed on EP

VI. References

U.S. EPA Biochemical Fact Sheet for Iron Phosphate. Issued January, 2001. <http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-034903_01-Mar-01.pdf >

U.S. EPA Biochemical Fact Sheet for Potassium Phosphate. Issued January, 2001. <http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-076413_25-Nov-09.pdf >

U.S. EPA Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD) for Dipotassium Phosphate.  Issued March, 2003.
      <http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/decision_PC-176407_23-Mar-03.pdf>

cc:  S. A. Shaukat, L. Cole, BPPD Science Review File, IHAD/ARS
 	  S. A. Shaukat, FT, PY-S: 09/06/12


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

for

Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Industry Information Collection

EPA ICR number 2395.01, OMB Control number is 2060-NEW

RESPONSE TO COMMENT

On June 22, 2010, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register (75 FR
35454) announcing their intent to submit a request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for a new Information Collection Request
(ICR).  The ICR will be used to collect certain information from
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities potentially subject to the
National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities (Aerospace NESHAP).

	The notice included a request for comments on specific aspects of the
proposed ICR; we received two comments in response to the notice.
Comments were received from United Airlines (United) and the Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA).  Their comments and suggested responses to
those comments are summarized below.

I.  United Airlines

	Comment:  United is concerned that abrasive blasting may be further
regulated based on its inclusion in the draft ICR.  These operations are
generally exempt or excluded entirely from existing local regulations.

	The draft ICR requests information on metal finishing and depainting
activities already regulated under other existing NESHAP.  Including
these operations in the aerospace NESHAP would be duplicative and
burdensome.

	Response:  Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
stationary sources.  The first stage is to develop NESHAP for major
sources.  EPA is then required to review these technology-based
standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices,

processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8
years, under CAA section 112(d)(6).  The second stage in the regulatory
process focuses on reducing any remaining “residual” risk according
to CAA section 112(f).  CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine,
for source categories subject to certain CAA section 112(d) standards,
whether the emissions limitations provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.  The ICR will be used as a data gathering tool
for both technology review and the residual risk review of the Aerospace
NESHAP.  Additionally, we are evaluating whether operations exempted or
excluded from the Aerospace NESHAP should now be regulated.  Thus, we
must collect information for all operations at aerospace facilities, not
just those currently regulated under the Aerospace NESHAP.

	We do not intend to further regulate under the Aerospace NESHAP those
operations at aerospace facilities that are regulated under other
NESHAP.  We have amended the instructions for the ICR to clarify that
reporting is not required for operations regulated under NESHAP other
than the Aerospace NESHAP.  For example, even though the ICR requests
information on electroplating operations, reporting is not required for
chromium electroplating regulated under the Chromium Electroplating
NESHAP.

	The one exception is cleaning operations covered under the Halogenated
Solvent Cleaning NESHAP (40 CFR 60, subpart T).  The initial residual
risk analysis for the aerospace source category indicated that emissions
of certain halogenated solvents are significant drivers in the risk to
exposed populations near some aerospace facilities.  We suspect that
emissions of halogenated solvents may have been reported in the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) database as total halogenated solvent
emissions from the facility rather than distinguishing the halogenated
solvent emissions from each source category (e.g., Aerospace NESHAP and
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP).  For these reasons, it is
important that we have better data regarding the source of the
halogenated solvent emissions before we conduct the residual risk
analysis for both the Aerospace NESHAP and the Halogenated Solvent
Cleaning NESHAP.

	Comment:  The portion of the ICR related to composite materials does
not distinguish between HAP and non-HAP materials.  Requesting
information on non-HAP materials appears to be unnecessary and beyond
the scope of the Aerospace NESHAP.

	Response:  Throughout the ICR we request information on coatings,
solvents, resins, and cleaning materials.  Many of these materials will
contain no HAP.  We are requiring the ICR recipients to report these
non-HAP materials so that we can accurately assess the level of control
of HAP emissions that represents current technology in the industry.
Control of HAP emissions includes the use of low HAP and non-HAP
materials.  To assess the current level of control, we need to
understand where low HAP and non-HAP materials are available for a
specific operation.

	Comment:  At large aerospace facilities such as United’s San
Francisco Maintenance Center, wastewater is collected into a single
stream from numerous sources throughout the facility.  Separating out
the streams that originate from Aerospace NESHAP sources is likely
infeasible.

	Response:  We understand the complexity of wastewater systems at large
facilities.  When completing the ICR response forms, provide the
requested information to the best of your ability given the records and
information at your disposal or that are readily available.  You are not
required to perform additional testing for the purposes of this ICR.

	Comment:  United believes that the request for precise latitude and
longitude locations of emission sources is unduly burdensome and
unnecessary.  Instead, United believes that providing an accurate
facility map that identifies the location of emission sources, as well
as sensitive receptors outside the property line, would be adequate.

	Response:  Latitude and longitude coordinates are a necessary input
into the air dispersion models we will be using as part of the residual
risk analysis.  Precise location of emission points in relation to the
facility boundaries is an important factor in the analysis.  Therefore,
the latitude and longitude coordinates are required in your response to
the ICR.  We believe that adequate methods for determining latitude and
longitude coordinates are readily available, and the requirement to
supply this information is not overly burdensome for any one facility.

	Comment:  United made the following suggestions concerning the
information requested for control equipment:

Provide definitions and examples relevant to the aerospace industry for
each type of control device.

Provide a drop down list in the tables for selection of control device
type.

For fabric filters, include a choice for cartridge filters.  Place
method of cleaning and cleaning cycle frequency on separate lines and
include drop down lists of choices.  Since HEPA filters are frequently
used in the industry, perhaps a separate sheet could be included for
them.

The information requested for filters appears to be unnecessary and much
of it is not available.  United specifically mentioned inlet grain
loading, average stack opacity, and quantity of solid waste collected as
examples.  Each sheet should include an instruction that information not
known can be listed as “unknown” or N/A.

	Response:  We appreciate the commenter’s helpful suggestions
concerning the survey forms.  We will review the forms in light of these
comments and incorporate the suggestions as appropriate.

	Comment:  The notice included an estimate on the number of hours
required to complete the ICR.  United does not believe that the estimate
is accurate.  Due in part to the large number of materials used at
United’s San Francisco facility, along with the need to obtain and
analyze data sheets for materials not currently regulated under the
Aerospace NESHAP, United believes a more accurate estimate of the time
required to complete the ICR is four times the EPA estimate.

	Response:  We have reviewed our estimate of the level of effort
required to complete the ICR in light of this comment and a similar
comment from AIA.  We concur with the commenters that our original
estimate of the labor hours was low and revised our level of effort
estimates.  We used the midpoint of the labor hour estimates provided in
the AIA comments.  These values roughly correlated with United’s
suggestion that our estimate was off by a factor of four.  Our revised
estimate of the total industry burden for the ICR is now 227,700 labor
hours at a cost of $10,956,834.

II.  Aerospace Industries Association

	Comment:  The AIA believes that the level of effort required to respond
to the ICR may be formidable.  To reduce the burden, AIA suggests that
EPA perform a screening analysis be conducted to identify which sources
will have an impact on assessing risk.

	Response:  The history of the residual risk analysis for the aerospace
industry includes several air dispersion modeling efforts, including a
screening analysis.  We found that 35 out of 128 facilities modeled had
a cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million.  Based on these results, we
believe that the best course of action is to obtain the most current and
accurate emission and emission point data for all aerospace facilities
and perform at least one additional air dispersion modeling analysis
with these data.

	Comment:  Minor source aerospace facilities may be regulated under
subparts HHHHHH (paint stripping) and WWWWWW (plating and polishing).
The preambles to these rules state that the decision to include or
exclude operations was determined using the National Emissions Inventory
and the level of urban residual risk.  Thus, EPA has already evaluated
residual risk from these sources and requiring data from minor sources
is unnecessary.

	Response:  We are not requiring area sources to respond to the survey
and have amended the ICR instructions to make this clear.  However,
facilities that have taken enforceable permit restrictions to limit HAP
emissions to less than major source thresholds will have to respond to
the ICR.

	Comment:  Many aerospace facilities are located in local jurisdictions
that are stringently regulated.  AIA suggests that EPA contact
regulatory agencies in these jurisdictions to obtain emissions data and
risk determinations.

	Response:  As discussed previously, we have determined that the best
course of action is to model all aerospace facilities.  Only a limited
number of these facilities have had modeling performed by state or local
authorities, and there may not be consistency between these modeling
efforts.  Therefore, we do not believe obtaining available information
from state and local authorities would achieve the necessary goals of
the residual risk and technology review projects.

	Comment:  AIA believes that much of the information requested in the
ICR is not readily available and may not be pertinent to the current
rulemaking.  AIA recommends that EPA update the database created for the
risk and technology review with the data and subsequent updates that the
industry provided in 2007.

	Response:  As discussed previously, the data gathering effort will be
used for the residual risk and technology review project, among others.
The diverse data requirements of these efforts dictate the level of
detail we have specified in the ICR.  We have reviewed the ICR in light
of this and similar comments and believe that each question asked is
useful and justified.

	In response to the comment on the 2007 industry data, we did
incorporate that data into the database used for the residual risk
analysis.

	Comment:  AIA requests that EPA clarify the specific purposes for which
the ICR data will be used, including specific modeling programs and how
the ICR data will be used within those programs to ensure that results
obtained accurately portray facility operating conditions.  AIA also
suggests that EPA use a screening survey to limit the distribution of
the full ICR to only those facilities that pose a measurable risk
impact.

	Response:  As discussed above, we will be using the data collected with
the ICR to complete the air dispersion modeling for the residual risk
analysis, as well as to assess the current level of emission control
technology used by the industry.  The air dispersion modeling will rely
on the HEM-3 with AERMOD.

	Comments:  AIA suggests that EPA consider the following factors to
assure that the modeling programs accurately reflect operating
conditions and limit the collection in extraneous information:

Establish a minimum threshold for usage of HAP-containing materials.

Establish a minimum vapor pressure for HAP-containing materials.

Remove wastewater treatment operations from further consideration since
these operations primarily deal with metals in solution and have little
or no HAP emissions.

Clarify that laboratories and R&D operations are excluded.

Clarify that emission sources with no HAP emissions and materials that
contain no HAP are excluded from the ICR

Only spray-applied resins should be included for composite operations.

Autoclaves should be exempt from reporting because of low emissions.

Operations related to the manufacture and testing of electronic
components are covered by state regulations or the recently published
area source NESHAP and should be excluded from the ICR.

	Response:  Due to the complexity of factors involve with air dispersion
modeling, we do not believe we can make an accurate assessment of risk
solely from the amount of a HAP-containing material used or the amount
of HAP emissions.  If an accurate estimate of risk could be achieved
from product usage or emissions data, air dispersion modeling would not
be needed.  However, factors such as toxicity, emission point
characteristics, and climatic data affect the risk assessment and
necessitate the need to use modeling programs such as HEM-3.

	Concerning which operations to include or exclude from ICR reporting,
we believe the ICR instructions clearly define which operations to
include in the responses.

	Comment:  AIA believes that the EPA’s burden estimate is
significantly understated.  While the burden may not necessarily be
related to facility size, AIA members estimated the burden to be 150-200
hours for small facilities, 200-400 hours for medium facilities, and
400-500 hours for large facilities.  Additionally, a combination of
in-house and consulting services may be required to complete the
questionnaire.  AIA believes the true labor costs to be in the range of
$150-200 per labor hour.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter.  As stated previously, we have
revised our labor hour level of effort estimates reflecting the
recommendations received from both commenters; we used the midpoint of
the labor hour estimates provided in the AIA comments which roughly
correlate with United’s suggestion that our estimate was off by a
factor of four.  Our revised estimate of the total industry burden for
the ICR is now 227,700 labor hours at a cost of $10,956,834.  However,
we continue to use the labor cost values from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, National Compensation Survey, Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2007.  While labor costs may
vary among facilities, we believe the BLS data accurately portrays labor
costs for the industry as a whole.

	Comment:  Due to the level of effort required to complete the survey,
AIA requests that EPA provide a 90-day response time.

	Response:  We understand that responding to the ICR is a large
undertaking.  However, EPA has strict deadlines for completing this
project and must have responses to the ICR within the timeframe provided
in order to have adequate time to thoroughly and completely analyze the
ICR responses.  In addition, we met with the industry on December 18,
2009 to discuss the specific data needed and made the draft ICR
available to the public on June 22, 2010.  Facilities that know or
suspect that they will be required to respond to the ICR should at their
earliest convenience begin to assess the required data and work with
their suppliers to obtain the data.

	Comment:  In addition to the factors listed above for assuring the
modeling effort reflects actual operating conditions, AIA provided
additional suggestions to reduce the burden of the ICR:

Establish calculation criteria for concentration ranges of HAP
constituents as listed on product data sheets and material safety data
sheets.

EPA should provide guidance for how to address constituents listed as
proprietary on product data sheets and material safety data sheets.

Form J-10, which requests information on ventilation systems, appears to
be overly burdensome particularly for buildings that do not use or store
HAP-containing materials.

	AIA also provided a listing of issues needing clarification specific to
many of the ICR forms.

	Response:  We appreciate the helpful suggestions for clarifying the ICR
forms.  We will review each of these comments and modify the forms
accordingly.

	We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for us to provide
definitive guidelines on how to interpret concentration ranges or
proprietary information as reported on product literature.  We urge each
respondent to work with their suppliers to obtain the data needed to
respond to the ICR.

 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

DRAFT

For Internal Deliberative Use Only


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62702-62703]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0087]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated September 5, 2014, Rouge Valley Terminal Railroad Corporation
(RVTC) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a
waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223, Safety Glazing
Standards--Locomotives, Passenger Cars and Cabooses. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0087.
    RVTC petitioned for a waiver of compliance for one locomotive from
the requirements of 49 CFR 223.11, Requirements for existing
locomotives, that requires certified glazing in all locations. The
subject locomotive is a leased Electro-Motive Diesel Model SW1200
locomotive built in 1949 and bearing the number WRIX 82. This
locomotive is operated over 9.5 miles of RVTC track and 2 miles of
Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad track (for interchange of freight
cars), all within the Medford Industrial Park in White City, OR. Speeds
do not exceed 10 mph. It is equipped with glazing that meets an ASI
rating of AS-1. This locomotive has been operating over the same
trackage under a glazing waiver per Docket Number FRA-2005-23332,
issued to former operator White City Terminal and Utility Railway, for
the last 8 years with no incidents of vandalism to the glazing or any
other railroad property. This new waiver petition was necessitated by a
change in corporate ownership. RVTC also cites economic

conditions in its request to continue use of the locomotive as
presently equipped.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by December 4, 2014 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2014.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2014-24747 Filed 10-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 17 (Friday, January 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8644-8645]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01827]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO SEC File No. 270-606,
OMB Control No. 3235-0670

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 201
(17 CFR 242.201) and Rule 200(g) (17 CFR 242.200(g)) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 201 is a short sale-related circuit breaker rule that, if
triggered, imposes a restriction on the prices at which securities may
be sold short. Rule 200(g) provides that a broker-dealer may mark
certain qualifying sell orders ``short exempt.'' The information
collected under Rule 201's written policies and procedures requirement
applicable to trading centers, the written policies and procedures
requirement of the broker-dealer provision of Rule 201(c), the written
policies and procedures requirement of the riskless principal provision
of Rule 201(d)(6), and the ``short exempt'' marking requirement of Rule
200(g) enable the Commission and self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs'') to examine and monitor for compliance with the requirements
of Rule 201 and Rule 200(g).
    In addition, the information collected under Rule 201's written
policies and procedures requirement applicable to trading centers helps
ensure that trading centers do not execute or display any impermissibly
priced short sale orders, unless an order is marked ``short exempt,''
in accordance with the rule's requirements. Similarly, the information
collected under the written policies and procedures requirement of the
broker-dealer provision of Rule 201(c) and the riskless principal
provision of Rule 201(d)(6) helps to ensure that broker-dealers comply
with the requirements of these provisions. The information collected
pursuant to the ``short exempt'' marking requirement of Rule 200(g)
also provides an indication to a trading center when it must execute or
display a short sale order without regard to whether the short sale
order is at a price that is less than or equal to the current national
best bid.
    It is estimated that SRO and non-SRO respondents registered with
the Commission and subject to the collection of information
requirements of Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) incur an aggregate annual
burden of 2,908,309 hours to comply with the rules and an aggregate
annual external cost of $120,000.
    Any records generated in connection with Rule 201's requirements
that trading centers and broker-dealers (with respect to the broker-
dealer and riskless principal provisions) establish written policies
and procedures must be preserved in accordance with, and for the
periods specified in, Exchange Act Rules 17a-1 for SRO trading centers
and 17a-4(e)(7) for non-SRO trading centers and registered broker-
dealers. The

amendments to Rule 200(g) and Rule 200(g)(2) do not contain any new
record retention requirements. All registered broker-dealers that are
subject to the amendments are currently required to retain records in
accordance with Rule 17a-4(e)(7) under the Exchange Act.
    Compliance with Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) is mandatory. We expect
that the information collected pursuant to Rule 201's required policies
and procedures for trading centers will be communicated to the members,
subscribers, and employees (as applicable) of all trading centers. In
addition, the information collected pursuant to Rule 201's required
policies and procedures for trading centers will be retained by the
trading centers and will be available to the Commission and SRO
examiners upon request, but not subject to public availability. The
information collected pursuant to Rule 201's broker-dealer provision
and the riskless principal exception will be retained by the broker-
dealers and will be available to the Commission and SRO examiners upon
request, but not subject to public availability. The information
collected pursuant to the ``short exempt'' marking requirements in Rule
200(g) and Rule 200(g)(2) will be submitted to trading centers and will
be available to the Commission and SRO examiners upon request. The
information collected pursuant to the ``short exempt'' marking
requirement may be publicly available because it may be published, in a
form that would not identify individual broker-dealers, by SROs that
publish on their Web sites aggregate short selling volume data in each
individual equity security for that day and, on a one-month delayed
basis, information regarding individual short sale transactions in all
exchange-listed equity securities.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: January 17, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01827 Filed 1-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57169-57170]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4608-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Montana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Montana (FEMA-4608-DR), dated August 13,
2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued August 13, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 13, 2021, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Montana resulting from straight-line winds on June 10, 2021 is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Montana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jon K. Huss, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Montana have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Dawson, Garfield, McCone, Richland, and Roosevelt Counties for
Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Montana are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling;

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22384 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37224-37226]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0258; Project Identifier AD-2020-01565-T;
Amendment 39-21637; AD 2021-14-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of burned Boeing Material
Specification (BMS) 8-39 urethane foam found in certain locations on
the airplane; investigation revealed that the fire-retardant properties
degrade with age. This AD requires inspecting the insulation blankets
in certain areas of the forward cargo compartment for exposed BMS 8-39
urethane foam, not encapsulated by a protective fire resistant barrier,
and for seal integrity, and replacing the BMS 8-39 urethane foam and
seal if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 19, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 19,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0258.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0258; 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, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations 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: Julie Linn, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin
Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2021 (86 FR 19160).
The NPRM was prompted by reports of burned BMS 8-39 urethane foam found
in certain locations on the airplane; investigation revealed that the
fire-retardant properties degrade with age. In the NPRM, the FAA
proposed to require inspecting the insulation blankets in certain areas
of the forward cargo compartment for exposed BMS 8-39 urethane foam,
not encapsulated by a protective fire resistant barrier, and for seal
integrity, and replacing the BMS 8-39 urethane foam and seal if
necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address degraded BMS 8-39
urethane foam used in seals, which may fail to maintain sufficient
halon concentrations in the cargo compartments to extinguish or contain
fire or smoke, and may fail to prevent penetration of fire or smoke in
areas of the airplane that are difficult to access for fire and smoke
detection or suppression, which could result in loss of control of the
airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.

None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin
747-25-3725 RB, dated October 27, 2020. This service information
specifies procedures for doing a general visual inspection of the
insulation blankets in the area between station (STA) 960 and STA 1000
on the left and right sides of the forward cargo compartment for
exposed BMS 8-39 urethane foam, not encapsulated by a protective fire
resistant barrier, and seal integrity, and replacing any BMS 8-39
urethane foam that is found exposed and any seal that does not have
acceptable integrity for a smoke barrier. 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

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 109 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............................  3 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $255         $27,795
                                         hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that are required. The FAA has no way of determining
the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Labor cost                            Parts cost                      Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85 per         Minimal.......................  $85 per finding.
 finding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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:

2021-14-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21637; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0258; Project Identifier AD-2020-01565-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 19, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400D,
and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 747-25-
3725 RB, dated October 27, 2020.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of burned Boeing Material
Specification (BMS) 8-39 urethane foam found in certain locations on
the airplane; investigation revealed that the fire-retardant
properties degrade with age. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
degraded BMS 8-39 urethane foam used in seals, which may fail to
maintain sufficient halon concentrations in the cargo compartments
to extinguish or contain fire or smoke, and may fail to prevent
penetration of fire or smoke in areas of the airplane that are
difficult to access for fire and smoke detection or suppression,
which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 747-25-3725 RB, dated
October 27, 2020, do all applicable actions identified in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Requirements Bulletin 747-25-3725 RB, dated October 27,
2020.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-25-3725, dated October 27, 2020, which is referred to
in Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 747-25-3725 RB,
dated October 27, 2020.

(h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 747-25-3725
RB, dated October 27, 2020, uses the phrase ``after the Original
Issue date of Requirements Bulletin 747-25-3725 RB,'' this AD
requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Julie Linn,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(k) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 747-25-3725
RB, dated October 27, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 25, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15027 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


International Chamber of Shipping

12 Carthusian Street   London EC1M 6EZ

Tel +44 20 7417 8844

Fax +44 20 7417 8877

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     HYPERLINK http://www.marisec.org  www.marisec.org       HYPERLINK http://www.shippingfacts.com  www.shippingfacts.com

02 December 2009

To: 		CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT SUB COMMITTEE  	CE(09)29

Copy:		Marine Committee

All Full and Associate Members (for information)

THE USE OF LOW SULPHUR FUELS – INDUSTRY GUIDANCE NOTES

Action required:   ICS has received a number of Guidance notes and notices on the use of low sulphur fuels that may be of interest to Members, these various documents are attached as Annexes to this circular; Members may wish to further distribute this guidance as they find appropriate.

David H. Tongue

Marine Manager

International Chamber of Shipping Limited. Registered in England No. 2532887 at the above address


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	EPA/ATA Meeting

FROM:	Richard Naylor

Drinking Water Protection Branch

TO:	Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0025.

At the request of the Air Transport Association (ATA), a meeting was
arranged by Mark Pollins, Director, Water Enforcement Division, Office
of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA), Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).  It was held on May 28, 2009, at EPA headquarters (see attached
attendance list).  ATA requested the meeting primarily to discuss the
following:

1)   Data in support of the rulemaking approach that ATA plans to
submit;

Transition from the Administrative Orders on Consent to the Aircraft
Drinking Water Rule (ADWR);

Issues with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) not providing an
approved list of watering points.

At the beginning of the meeting, Mark Pollins announced that EPA could
not discuss the Final ADWR. It was noted that the public comment period
had closed and the Agency’s version of the final rule was currently
under review by OMB.  It would be difficult for EPA at this late stage
to consider any new comments; however, ATA should submit any additional
comments to EPA as soon as possible.

Sampling Data Observations

- ATA clarified that the sampling data observations it was making today
were based on AOC data that were already in EPA’s possession.

- Though ATA found that the data confirmed that the overall approach to
water system maintenance was working, ATA observed that there was no
correlation between more frequent disinfection and flushing and lower
total coliform (TC)-positive occurrence rates.  They explained that air
carriers with a “well-run” maintenance program have low TC-positive
hit rates.  ATA requested that the rule provide flexibility for air
carriers to disinfect and flush an aircraft less frequently based on
good monitoring results.  ATA said this will create an incentive for air
carriers to have a “well-run” maintenance program.

- ATA also observed a higher TC-positive occurrence rate in samples
taken from lavatories compared to samples taken from galleys.  They
believed that TC samples were a “less reliable” measure in
lavatories than in galleys.  They are concerned about the required
corrective actions in response to TC-positive occurrences.

AOCs and Transition

- EPA/OECA explained that the orders will stay in effect during the
transition period between final publication of the rule and the
compliance date in the regulations.  In the interim, EPA will allow air
carriers to modify or re-open their orders to clarify their duties
during the transition period and define sampling and response procedures
based on the final rule.  Air carriers may also choose to keep the terms
of their original orders in the transition period.

- EPA/OECA plans to continue its enforcement role when the rule comes
out.  OECA offered to meet with ATA members to discuss enforcement
during the transition period.

FDA Watering Point Issues

- ATA is concerned that there is no list of approved FDA watering
points.  FDA explained that it maintains an Official Establishment
Inventory (OEI) of firms and facilities that it inspects which contains
aircraft watering points and service areas.  However the OEI is not
publicly available in a list form that the airlines would prefer.  FDA
agreed to work with ATA to develop and make available an up-to-date list
of approved watering points.

- ATA is also concerned about the consequences to air carriers when a
watering point problem is identified during an FDA inspection.  FDA
agreed to work with ATA to update the inspection guidance to increase
consistency across FDA inspections. FDA confirmed for ATA that the FDA
inspector does not have the authority to ground aircraft based on
watering point violations.

Schedule

In response to ATA, EPA stated that the final rule is scheduled to be
published in late September 2009.  About that time, EPA expects to
publish a revised Draft ADWR Technical Guidance Manual for review and
comment.  Also, EPA said it will provide training on implementing the
ADWR following publication of the final ADWR.

EPA/ATA Meeting – May 28, 2009

Attendance List

Timothy Pohle, ATA

Thomas Richichi, Consulting Attorney for the ATA

Mark Pollins, OECA

Joseph Theis, OECA

Everett Volk, OECA

Melissa Katz, Intern, OECA

Carrie Wehling, Office of General Counsel

Richard Naylor, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)

Allison Watanabe, OGWDW

Dean Davidson, FDA

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65933-65935]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0216]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 7 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective October 31, 2012. The exemptions
expire on October 31, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On September 12, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (77 FR 56261). That notice listed 7 applicants' case
histories. The 7 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 7 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but

have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and
demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 7 exemption applicants
listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the
vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including corneal
scarring, fibrotic scarring, a traumatic ruptured globe, amblyopia, and
loss of vision. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Four of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The three individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 4 to 22 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 7 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 4 to 44
years. In the past 3 years, none of the drivers was involved in crashes
or convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the September 12, 2012
notice (77 FR 56261).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 7 applicants, none of the drivers was involved in crashes or
convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 7 applicants listed in the notice of
September 12, 2012 (77 FR 56261).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her

ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of
the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 7
individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to
drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 7 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Donald L. Blakeley II (NV), Paul M. Griffey (MO), Roger S.
Hardin (AL), Stephen J. Hodge (ME), Matthew J. Mantooth (KY), James J.
Monticello (IN), and Michael J. Wells (NC) from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49
CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: October 24, 2012.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-26733 Filed 10-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 206)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65572-65574]
[DOCID:fr26oc10-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0807; FRL-9209-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Ohio Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving amendments to the Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) relating to the consolidation of Ohio's Ambient Air Quality
Standards (AAQS) into Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the
Clean Air Act. On April 8, 2009, and August 11, 2009, Ohio EPA adopted
amendments to various rules in the OAC to consolidate the state's AAQS.
On September 10, 2009, Ohio EPA requested from EPA approval of
amendments to the OAC with the intent to consolidate Ohio's AAQS into a
single rule to provide greater accessibility for the regulated
community and to the citizens of Ohio. EPA is approving the request
because the revisions clarify the state's rules and thus better serve
the purpose of providing for meeting these standards.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 27, 2010,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 26, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0807, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0807. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone
Melissa M. Barnhart, Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa M. Barnhart, Environmental
Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. Review of the Request.
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On April 8, 2009, and August 11, 2009, Ohio EPA adopted amendments
to various rules in the OAC to consolidate the state's AAQS. Prior to
April, 2009, Ohio's AAQS were found in several of the 35 chapters of
the OAC that are dedicated to Air Pollution Control. The wide
scattering of these standards in the various chapters often caused
confusion among the regulated community, requiring them to perform
extensive searches to find individual standards. The intent of this
rulemaking effort is to consolidate Ohio's AAQS into a single rule to
provide greater accessibility for the regulated community and to the
citizens of Ohio.

II. Review of the Request

    Ohio requests that EPA approve the reorganization of the AAQS as
they apply to Ohio's SIP. Incorporating the air quality standards into
Ohio's SIP helps assure that violations of the NAAQS are addressed.
Consolidation of the various air quality standards into a single rule
helps achieve that purpose by making the standards easier to find.
Therefore, EPA is approving the following Ohio Administrative Code
rules: 3745-17-03 ``Measurement methods and procedures.'', 3745-17-14
``Contingency plan requirements for Cuyahoga and Jefferson counties.'',
3745-18-03 ``Attainment dates and compliance time schedules.'', 3745-
23-01 ``Definitions.'', 3745-23-02 ``Methods of measurement.'', 3745-
25-01 ``Definitions.'', 3745-25-02 ``Ambient air quality standards.'',
3745-25-03 ``Air pollution emergencies and episode criteria.'', 3745-
25-04 ``Air pollution emergency emission control action programs.'',
and 3745-25-05 ``Air pollution emergency orders.''.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving amendments to the OAC relating to the
consolidation of Ohio's AAQS into Ohio's SIP. We are publishing this
action without prior proposal because we view this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However,
in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed.
This rule will be effective December 27, 2010 without further notice
unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by November 26,
2010. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested
in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note
that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or
section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not
receive any comments, this action will be effective December 27, 2010.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 27, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(151) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (151) On September 10, 2009, Ohio EPA submitted amendments to the
OAC with the intent to consolidate Ohio's Ambient Air Quality Standards
into a single rule to provide greater accessibility for the regulated
community and to the citizens of Ohio. EPA is approving the request
because the revisions clarify the state's rules and thus better serve
the purpose of providing for meeting these standards.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-03 ``Measurement methods
and procedures.'', effective April 18, 2009.
    (B) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-14 ``Contingency plan
requirements for Cuyahoga and Jefferson counties.'', effective April
18, 2009.
    (C) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-18-03 ``Attainment dates and
compliance time schedules.'', effective April 18, 2009.
    (D) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-23-01 ``Definitions.'',
effective April 18, 2009.
    (E) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-23-02 ``Methods of
measurement.'', effective April 18, 2009.
    (F) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-25-01 ``Definitions.'',
effective April 18, 2009.
    (G) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-25-02 ``Ambient air quality
standards.'', effective April 18, 2009.
    (H) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-25-03 ``Air pollution
emergencies and episode criteria.'', effective August 21, 2009.
    (I) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-25-04 ``Air pollution
emergency emission control action programs.'', effective April 18,
2009.
    (J) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-25-05 ``Air pollution
emergency orders.'', effective April 18, 2009.
    (K) April 8, 2009, ``Director's Final Findings and Orders'', signed
by Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
    (L) August 11, 2009, ``Director's Final Findings and Orders'',
signed by Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-26963 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P