ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE ( EDC)

CAS No. 107 06 2 Docket No. OPPTS  42197C FINAL July 2002 \ çsE~ 0ST4~

Ui RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 MAR11 5: 03PM OPPT 2003 0010 0054 ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE ( EDC)

Docket No. OPPTS 42197C TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. CHEMICAL SUBJECT TO THE ECA 2 ifi. OBLIGATION OF SIGNATORY COMPANIES AND ROLE OF THE HAP TASK FORCE 2 IV. PURPOSE OF THE TESTINGPROGRAM 3 V. SCOPE OF THE TESTING PROGRAM 3 VI. DESCRiPTION OF THE TESTING PROGRAM 6 VU. EPA PROGRAM REVIEW OUTCOMES 7 Vifi. STANDARDS FOR CONDUCTING TESTING 9 IX. STUDY PLANS 10 X. MODIFICATIONS TO ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT 11 XI. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT .. 10 XII. EPA MONiTORING OF ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT TESTING .... 11 Xffl. SUBMISSIONS TO EPA 11 XIV. PUBLICATION ANDDISCLOSURE OF TEST RESULTS 11 XV. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION 12 XVI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMPANIES 12 XVII. SEVERABiLiTY OF ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT PROVISIONS .. 12 XVIII. FINAL AGENCY ACTION . 12 XIX. PUBLIC RECORD 13 XX. EFFECTIVENESS 13 XXI. RIGHTS OF THE COMPANIES 13 XXII. IDENTITY OF THE COMPANIES 14 XXIII. SIGNATURE 15 Table 1. REQUIRED TESTING, TEST STANDARDS, REPORTING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHYLENE DICHLORTDE 25 APPENDICES A. Flow Chart of Testing Program B. TSCA Guidelines with Annotations as Appropriate: B. 1 Acute Inhalation Toxicity with BAL and Histopathology B. 2 Acute Inhalation Neurotoxicity B. 3 Subchronic Neurotoxicity B. 4 Reproductive Toxicity C. PKIMECH Procedures and Route to Route Extrapolation Reporting: C. 1 Pharmacokinetic Studies for F344 Rats C. 2 Subchronic Toxicity C. 3 Subchronic Neurotoxicity C. 4 Reproductive Toxicity C. 5 PBPK Model Description and Coding C. 6 General Outline for Route to Route Extrapolation Reports D. Study Protocols: D. 1 Combined Acute Toxicity with BAL and Histopathology and Acute Neurotoxicity ( Inhalation) D. 2 Subchronic Neurotoxicity ( Oral) D. 3 Reproductive Toxicity ( Oral)

  11   APPENDICES   continued E. Existing Toxicity Studies: E. 1 Existing Macrophage Function Assay a) Sherwood et at. ( 1987) E. 2 Existing Subchronic Toxicity Study a) Daniel et at. ( 1994) E. 3 Existing Developmental Toxicity Studies a) Rao et at. ( 1980) b) Payan et al. ( 1995) E. 4 Existing Reproductive Toxicity Studies a) Alumot et at. ( 1976) b) Rao et at. ( 1980) c) Lane et at. ( 1982)

  111   I. INTRODUCTION Under the authority of section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA), 15 U. S. C. 2603, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and The Dow Chemical Company, Vulcan Materials Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Oxy Vinyls, LP, Georgia Gulf Corporation, Westlake Chemical Corporation, PPG Industries, Inc., Borden Chemicals & Plastics Operating Limited Partnership, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U. S. A. ( hereinafter collectively the Companies") enter into this enforceable consent agreement ( ECA). This ECA takes effect on the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register announcing the issuance of the testing consent order ( Order) that incorporates this ECA.

In EPA's proposed test rule for hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) published on June 26, 1996 ( 61 FR 33178), amended on December 24, 1997 ( 62 FR 67466) and on April 21, 1998 ( 63 FR 19694), EPA invited the submission of alternative testing proposals for HAPs that would apply pharmacokinetics studies and mechanistic data ( PKIMECH) to inform route to route extrapolation ofdata from studies acceptable to EPA that were performed by a route of exposure other than inhalation. Such proposals would be used to develop a tailored testing program to provide the data needs identified by EPA in the proposed HAPs rulemaking via an ECA process. This ECA resulted from negotiations conducted as a part of an ECA process for the HAP ethylene dichloride ( 62 FR 66626; December 19, 1997). The official record for this ECA, including the public version, is established under EPA docket control number OPPTS 42197C. The procedures for ECA negotiations are described at 40 CFR 790.22( b).

On December 26, 2000 ( 65 FR 81700) EPA announced the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program ( VCCEP) which is intended to provide data to enable the public to understand the potential health risks to children associated with certain exposures to commercial chemicals. EDC and some 22 other chemicals have been selected for inclusion in a pilot of VCCEP. Under the VCCEP, EPA asks that companies which manufacture andlor import chemicals selected for this pilot of VCCEP volunteer to sponsor Tier 1 of the program. The VCCEP pilot consists of three tiers, which a sponsor may conmiit to separately. EDC producers ( sponsors), as represented by the American Chemistry Council Vinyl Chloride Health Committee ( Health Committee), intend to voluntarily sponsor EDC in Tier 1 of the VCCEP pilot. Part of this commitment is being executed and implemented via this ECA through the HAP Task Force. The relationship between the Health Committee and the HAP Task Force is described in the June 25, 2001 letter of commitment to the VCCEP Tier 1 for ethylene dichloride, which is available in the EPA OPPTS Docket No. 42197B.

In the commitment letter EDC producers proposed to complete this ECA testing program before submitting risk and exposure assessments under the VCCEP. Results from this HAPs ECA testing program would provide data needed for the VCCEP and, where possible, could avert some or all of the overlapping requirements between the two initiatives. A concern expressed by the EDC producers was whether scheduled deliverables for the VCCEP will be considered timely if, due to the time needed for completing the ECA testing, the VCCEP 1 deliverables extended beyond the expected VCCEP timelines. EPA has accepted that the VCCEP Tier I deliverables could be submitted within twelve months following the completion of all testing to be conducted under this ECA. EPA understands that the test schedule set forth in this ECA includes some higher tier VCCEP toxicity studies and may also depend in part on EPA performing certain actions in a timely manner during the course of the testing. Additionally, events could occur that would cause the ECA test schedule to be extended beyond what is contemplated in the ECA. Any schedule changes would occur via the ECA modification procedures at 40 CFR 790.68 ( h), see also Part X. of this ECA. If the schedule for ECA testing is extended, the schedule for VCCEP commitments would he likewise extended.

II. CHEMICAL SUB. JECT TO THE ECA The subject of this ECA is the chemical substance ethylene dichloride ( EDC), CAS No. 107 06 2. The ethylene dichioride to be tested must he as pure as can be reasonably attained, hut must be at least 99.0 percent pure.

III. OBLIGATION OF SIGNATORY COMPANIES AND ROLE OF THE HAP TASK FORCE A. Testing will be sponsored by the Companies, which are responsible for complying with this ECA.

B. The Companies recognize that to implement this ECA, EPA will issue an Order under section 4 of TSCA that incorporates the terms of this ECA. The Companies agree that all terms of this ECA will take effect on the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register announcing the issuance of the Order that incorporates this ECA, and all applicable time periods will be treated as beginning on that publication date.

C. The Companies are members of the HAP Task Force, which represents the manufacturers of ethylene dichloride. The HAP Task Force will be responsible for coordinating and administering testing under this ECA and communicating with EPA about study plans, protocols, test standards, and other aspects of the testing program. In performing these functions, the HAP Task Force will be acting as the agent ofthe Companies for purposes of compliance and communication with EPA. EPA and the Companies recognize that, except for its role as agent as specified in this ECA, the HAP Task Force has no legal responsibility for complying with this ECA. Responsibility for complying with the ECA rests at all times with the individual Companies. IV. PURPOSE OF THE TESTING PROGRAM The purpose of the testing program specified in this ECA is to supplement available information in order to further characterize the potential for acute toxicity, subchronic toxicity. neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity and reproductive toxicity effects ofethylene dichloride from inhalation exposures. One component of this testing program will develop PK/ MECH data directed at characterizing the mode of action of ethylene dichloride. Such information, along with data from health effects studies acceptable to EPA and/ or from health effects studies to be conducted as part of this ECA testing program for ethylene dichloride, will be used to inform the route to route extrapolations that are specified in Table 1. EPA will also use the PK! MECH data to provide the basis for determining the feasibility and appropriateness of using a tailored approach to testing and whether route to route extrapolations can he used to meet inhalation testing requirements for ethylene dichloride that are identified in the proposed HAPs test rule, as amended.

EPA believes that the PKIMECH studies designed to construct quantitative dosimetric characterization of the disposition and relevant response mechanisms with regard to ethylene dichioride, in conjunction with the studies and route to route extrapolation reporting that are specified in Table I and described in Appendices C through E to this ECA, will generate data needed by EPA to determine whether ethylene dichloride presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health from inhalation exposures. The data will also be used to implement several provisions of section 112 ofthe Clean Air Act, including determination of residual risk, estimation of the risks associated with accidental releases ofethylene dichloride, and deterniinations regarding whether substances should he removed from the Clean Air Act section 1 12( b)( l) list of hazardous air pollutants. In addition, the data will also be used by other Federal agencies ( e. g., the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission ( CPSC)) in assessing chemical risks and in taking appropriate actions within their programs. It is intended that the data generated under this ECA will satisfy the toxicological data needs for acute toxicity, subchronic toxicity, neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity and reproductive toxicity effects of ethylene dichioride identified in the amended proposed HAPs rulemaking.

V. SCOPE OF THE TESTING PROGRAM The Companies, through the HAP Task Force, will jointly conduct or provide for the performance of the testing program specified in this ECA. This testing program will consist of: I) conducting the testing listed in Table 1 in accordance with the test standards specified in Table I and described in Appendix B( 1 4) as annotated in Appendix D( 1  3) to this ECA (" Test Standards"), and performing the PBPK studies and route to route extrapolations specified in Table 1 and described in Appendix C( l 6) to this ECA; and 2) submitting the reports and documents specified in Table I in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Table I.

3 The use of PK! MECH data to support quantitative route to route extrapolation is a new approach for EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) in the TSCA section 4 Chemical Testing Program. It is essential to the success of this ECA testing program for EPA to ensure that the data used to inform the route to route extrapolations are of the highest quality. For this reason, a program review requirement has been incorporated into this ECA testing program ( see Part VI. C. and Part VII. A.  D. of this ECA).

EPA notes that the generation of PKIMECH data to support development of dosimetry ( e. g.; physiologically based pharmacokinetics  PBPK) models should be chemical specific and based on an understanding, to the degree possible, of the mode of action for the various endpoint toxicities. Modeling is an iterative process. The nature of chemical reactions between a xenobiotic agent and biological tissues, and the degree to which they are understood, have a profound influence on the scope of the modeling effort. A degree of uncertainty regarding the model structure can be clarified by validation of the predications of the PBPK dosimnetry model with appropriately designed experiments. New insights on important parameters and processes can then be additionally tested and used to further refine the mnodel. Because these chemical and toxicity specific attributes can affect both the type of PKIMECH data necessary to characterize disposition of a chemical and the type of model structure that would be adequate to describe it, EPA does not have guidelines available for the HAP Task Force to utilize. General guidance is available in a number ofreferences ( Woodruff et at., 1992'; Ultman, 19942; Andersen et at., I995~ Kohn, l997~ Buchanan et at., l997~). Key considerations for model structure include the degree of parameterization and whether the mnodel is to be used to extrapolate ( e. g., across species or across routes) versus interpolate data ( Woodruff et at., 1992).

The source of each model parameter value should be described, indicating whether it was: 1) obtained from prior literature ( copy of references cited to be provided by the HAP Task Force), 2) determined directly by a separate experiment described in the submitted report or peerreviewed paper, or 3) estimated by the fitting of model output to experimental data. Parameter estimates derived independently of tissue time course or dose response data are preferred ( Andersen et at., 1995). Determination by separate experiment is preferred, particularly for Woodruff. T. J.. F. Y. Bois. D. Auslander and R. Spear. 1992 . ~ Structureand parameterization of pharmacokinetics models: Their impact on model predictions. RiskAnal. 12: 189 201.

2 Ultman, J. S. 1994. Dosimetry modeling: Approaches and issues. lithal. Toxicol. 6: 59 71.

Andersen. ME.. H. J. Clewell, Eli and C. B. Frederick. 1995. Applying simulation modeling to problems in toxicology and risk assessment  A short perspective. Tox. AppI. Pharm. 133 187.

~` Kohn, M. C. 1997. The importance of anatomical realism for validation of physiological models of disposition of inhaled toxicants. Tox. Appl. Pharni. 147: 448 458.

~ Buchanan. JR.. L. T. Burka, and R. L. Melnick. 1997. Purpose and guidelines for toxicokinetic studies within the National Toxicology Program. Environ. 1 11th. Perspecr. 105( 5): 468 471.

4 critical target tissue parameters, such as partition coefficients. Model verification, the process of evaluating the sufficiency of the model for its intended purpose, should be demonstrated by showing the ability of the model to predict the behavior of experimental data different from those on which it was based. Model validation should demonstrate the ability of the model to predict the behavior of the system under conditions which test the principal aspects of the underlying hypothetical structure. Objective measures of variance ( e. g., statistical goodness of fit) that can be compared to residual variance are preferred, but accurate prediction of the general behavior of the data for the intended application ( e. g., a given range) may be a more important consideration. For this latter consideration, however, a factor of2 fold ( on average) will be a general criterion applied to determine " reasonable" agreemnent of the model with the experimental data.

The choice of which dose metric to use in the model to characterize a given endpoint toxicity should be based on some knowledge of the mode of action by which the toxic effects are induced. The mechanistic information does not necessarily have to be exhaustive hut can rather be i elated to general aspects of the nature and causes of a particular toxic interaction. Certainly route specific toxicity needs to he characterized, both the effects in the portal of entry as well as modulation of systemic dose at remote sites. PKIMECH data must be developed that correspond to the species, dose level, exposure regimen and vehicle ( e. g., intermittent corn oil gavage versus drinking water ad lib versus diet) of the toxicity data that are the object of the extrapolation. For the extrapolation of the chronic endpoint data, demonstration of periodicity during the experiments used to generate the PK/ MECH data is required. Periodicity, as defined in U. S. EPA ( 1994) 6, is achieved when the internal concentration ofthe dose metric ofinterest ( e. g., parent venous concentration) versus time profile is the same for 90% of the exposure period.

The rationale for the choice of various dose metrics should be provided.

Andersen et a!. ( 1995) published a table of characteristics of a good modeling paper and documentation; EPA will utilize these same reporting requirements. These include: ( 1) clear presentation of all equations; ( 2) clear definition of all variables and parameters; ( 3) clear definition of units to ensure proper dimensions; ( 4) definition ofcriteria to evaluate predictions or fits; ( 5) specification of the time, species, and exposure domain where the model is valid; and ( 6) discussion of the hypothesis testing and model discrimination as necessary. Graphical display of model fits to data are required; including both parent and metabolite( s) blood and target tissue time course data. A sensitivity analysis of the model must be conducted and documentation of model code with commnent fields must be provided. Computer hardware and software actually used in the application mnust be described. If specialized software functions must be referred to, they should be described sufficiently to enable someone unfamiliar with the software to understand their operation. Standard mathematical forms are preferred to software language functional forms.

6 U. S. EPA. 1994. Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. Office of Research and [) evelopment. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/ 600/ 8 90/ 066F.

5 VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE TESTING PROGRAM The testing program has four segments as follows: Tier I HAPs Testing; Tier I Program Review Testing; EPA Program Review; and Tier II Testing.

A. Tier I HAPs Testing: This testing will consist of the following endpoint testing, conducted by inhalation exposure, that EPA has deemed necessary to meet certain data needs identified in the proposed HAPs test rule, as amended: 1) acute toxicity testing with BAL and histopathology, and 2) acute neurotoxicity testing. EPA will not finalize the testing requirements for these Tier I HAPs Testing endpoints for ethylene dichloride as specified in the proposed HAPs test rule, as amended, because such testing will be conducted under this ECA. Furthermore, EPA considers the existing study by Sherwood et at. ( 1987), adequate to fulfill the macrophage function assay portion of the acute toxicity testing requirement ( see Appendix E. l). In addition, EPA considers the existing studies by Rao et at. ( 1980) and Payan et at. ( 1995), adequate to characterize the developmental toxicity of ethylene dichloride under the proposed HAPs rulemaking, as amended ( see Appendix E. 3). Thus, EPA will not finalize the testing requirements for the developmental toxicity and macrophage function assay Tier I HAPs testing endpoints for EDC as specified in the HAPs proposed rule as amended, because available studies are acceptable for HAPs purposes. Tier 1 testing for acute toxicity and acute neurotoxicity and the extant data for macrophage function assay and developmental toxicity testing are specified in the " Tier I HAPs Testing" segment of Table 1 and described in Appendix B( 1,2) as annotated in Appendix D( l), and Appendix E( 1,3).

B. Tier I Program Review Testing: This testing, specified in the " Tier I Program Review Testing" segment of Table 1 and described in Appendix C. 1, will develop PK! MECH data needed to inform about the acceptability of an alternate route to inhalation for Tier II testing. It will also develop and validate the dosimetry model of Gargas eta!. ( 1987; 1988) in rats and verify the ability of the model to perform quantitative route to route extrapolations, as described in Appendix C( 2 5) and as will be reported following guidance provided in Appendix C. 6. Data from this testing will be the subject of discussions at the EPA Program Review. While EPA believes that it is best to obtain this type of PK/ IVIECH data in conjunction with the testing specified in the Tier I HAPs Testing ( see Part VI. A.), these PK/ MECH data may also be obtained independently from stand alone studies. Specifically, the PKIMECH data will support: 1) oral to inhalation extrapolation of existing subchronic toxicity data in rats administered ethylene dichloride via corn oil gavage ( Daniel et at., l994)( see Appendix E. 2); 2) oral toinhalation extrapolation of subchronic neurotoxicity data in rats administered ethylene dichioride via drinking water ( see Tier II testing); and 3) oral to inhalation extrapolation of reproductive toxicity data in rats administered ethylene dichloride via drinking water ( see Tier II testing) and each dosing paradigm ofexisting reproductive toxicity studies by Alumot eta!. ( 1976), Rao et at. ( 1980), and Lane eta!. ( l982)( see Appendix E. 4). The PKIMECH data will also support model simulations to demonstrate validation and verification of PBPK models for route to route extrapolation in order to evaluate acceptability of oral drinking water exposure in rats in the Tier II testing for subchronic neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity.

6 C. EPA Programn Review: A program review will he conductedi by EPA to review the data collected fromn the Tier I Program Review Testing segment ( see Part Vi. B. of this ECA) and other studies acceptable to EPA that would be applied to route to route extrapolations, as indicated in footnotes 4, 6, and 8 ofTable I.

The purpose d) f the EPA Program Review will be to determine: ( 1) whether it is feasible and appropriate to apply Tier I Program Review Testing data and data from other studies acceptable to EPA to inform route to route extrapolations for endpoints listed in the Tier II Testing segment; ( 2) whether the data from the Tier I Program Review Testing segment ( see Part VI. B. of this ECA) provide a sufficient basis for conducting the endpoint testing and/ or the route to route extrapolations specified in the Tier II Testing segment; andlor ( 3) the nature and scope of any additional work that may be required prior to the commencement ofTier II Testing and extrapolation reporting ( e. g., additional PK/ MECH data as described in Part VII. of this ECA).

Opportunity for public participation in the EPA Program Review will be provided either by a request for written commnents or through an announcement of a public mneeting. EPA will publish the request for public comments and/ or the announcement of a public meeting in the Federal Register. Following the EPA Program Review, EPA will place in the record for this action a summary describing the EPA Program Review meeting, if such a mneeting is held!, a copy of comments received, and a copy of the letter sent to the HAP TASK FORCE informing it ofthe conclusions of EPA's Program Review.

D. Tier IT Testing: This segment will consist ofadditional endpoint testing not included in the Tier 1 HAPs Testing segment, as specified in Table 1 and! described in Appendix B ( 3 4) as annotated in Appendix D( 2 3). Specifically this testing will consist oforal subchronic neurotoxicity testing and oral reproductive effects testing. Tier II will also consist of route toroute extrapolation reporting for existing subchronic toxicity data of Daniel ci at. ( 1994), the subchronic neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity data obtained from Tier II testing, and extant data from reproductive toxicity studies by Alumot et at. ( 1976), Rao et at. ( 1980), and Lane et al. ( 1982), as specified in Table 1 and Appendix C( 2 4) and reported following guidance provided in Appendix C. 6. Following a successful outcome of the EPA Programn Review ( see Section Vu. A. andl B. l. a.), EPA will not finalize inhalation testing requirements for these Tier II testing endpoints for ethylene dichloride, as specified in the amended proposed HAPs test rule, because the data required under the HAPs rulemaking will be developed under this ECA.

VII. EPA PROGRAM REVIEW OUTCOMES The EPA Program Review segment can result in several possible outcomes, described below.

7 A. EPA Accepts Tier I Program Review Testing Data: EPA may determine that the Tier I Program Review Testing data can be used to inform and support TierII testing for any or all of the endpoints and/ or associated route to route extrapolation reporting for ethylene dichloride that are specified in Table 1. In such an instance, EPA will notify the Companies in writing that Tier II endpoint testing and route to route extrapolation reporting must be conducted for: subchronic toxicity, subchronic neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity for ethylene dichloride. In addition, EPA will not finalize the testing requirements for these endpoints for ethylene dichloride as specified in the proposed HAPs test rule, as amended.

B. EPA Identifies Limitations in the Tier I Pro. vam Review Testin. g Data: EPA may determine that additional Tier I Program Review Testing is needed before any or all of the Tier II endpoint testing and/ or associated route to route extrapolation reporting that are specified in Table 1 for ethylene dichloride can be conducted. In such an instance, EPA will inform the Companies by letter that additional Tier I Program Review Testing is needed and a copy ofthis letter will be placed in the record for this action. EPA may initiate technical discussions with the Companies on this matter.

( 1) Agreement on Additionat Tier I Program Review Testing: IfEPA and the Companies agree to the additional testing, modifications to the relevant Test Standards specified in the Tier I Program Review Testing section of Table 1 and described in the associated appendices for the relevant Test Standards may be made according to the procedures contained in 40 CFR 790.68 ( see Part X ofthis ECA). The additional Tier I Program Review Testing will be conducted in accordance with these modifications. The data resulting from this additional testing will be reviewed to determine if such data meet EPA needs. This review may include one or more meeting( s) between the Companies and EPA. Opportunity for public participation will be provided either by a request for written comments and/ or through an announcement ofa public meeting. Following such meeting( s), EPA will place in the record for this action a summary of each meeting along with a copy of the comments received.

( a) Additional Tier I Program Review Testing Meets Data Needs: If and when the Tier I Program Review Testing data are determined to be acceptable to EPA, EPA will inform the Companies by letter that the datafrom the Tier I Program Review Testing can be used as a basis to inform and support Tier II Testing for any or all of the endpoints and associated route to route extrapolation reporting for ethylene dichloride that are specified in Table 1. In addition, the letter will indicate that EPA will not finalize the inhalation testing requirements for these Tier II Testing endpoints for ethylene dichloride as specified in the proposed HAPs test rule, as amended. A copy ofthe letter will be placed in the record for this action.

( b) Additionat Tier I Prox~ ramReview Testink Does Not Meet Data Needs: If, at any point, EPA determines that the Tier I Program Review Testing data, as supplemented by the additional Tier I Program Review Testing data, cannot be used to inform and support Tier II testing for any or all ofthe endpoints andlor associated route to route extrapolations for 8 ethylene dichloride that are specified in Table 1, then the outcome described in Part. VU . C. below will apply to these endpoints.

( 2) Failure to Agree on Additional Needed Tier I Program Review Testing: If the Companies and EPA do not agree to the additional Tier I Program Review Testing that EPA has determined to be needed, the outcome described in Part VII. C. below will apply to these endpoints.

C. EPA Determines TailoredApproach to HAPs Testing is not Feasible: EPA may determine that the tailored approach to HAPs testing set forth in this ECA, for any or all Tier I Program Review Testing as applied to any or all Tier II endpoint testing and associated route toroute extrapolations, is not feasible. In such an instance, EPA will notify the Companies by certified letter or Federal Register notice. The notification will include the reason( s) for the determination and will be placed in the record for this action. If EPA issues such a notification for any endpoint( s), the Companies' obligations to conduct testing or associated route to route extrapolations for that endpoint( s) as described under this ECA are terminated. EPA may pursue testing for such endpoint( s) under the HAPs rulemaking, a new rulemaking, or develop a separate ECA for the purpose of obtaining the needed data, as appropriate.

D. Other Possibte Outcomes: If the EPA Program Review or Tier II endpoint testing and associated route to route extrapolations do not result in any ofthe outcomes described above, EPA and the Companies may modify this ECA according to the procedures contained in 40 CFR 790.68 ( see Part X. of this ECA).

VIII. STANDARDS FOR CONDUCTING TESTING A. Testing for specific toxicity endpoints ( acute toxicity, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity) must be conducted in accordance with the Test Standards listed in Table 1 and described in Appendix B( l 4) as annotated in Appendix D( 1 3) to this ECA. Certain provisions of these Test Standards are considered to be mandatory and are referred to as " requirements". These requirements are identified by the use of the word " shall" in the text of the Test Standard.

Provisions that are not mandatory, and are therefore only recommended, are identified by the use of " should" statements. In the event such " should" provisions are not followed, the Companies will not be deemed by EPA to be in violation of this ECA and will not be subject to penalties or other enforcement actions, as described in Part XI. ofthis ECA. However, in such cases, EPA will use its professionaljudgement to determine the scientific adequacy and validity of the test results and any repeat testing that is determined by EPA to be necessary will be required either under a separate ECA or pursuant to a rule promulgated under section 4( a) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2603( a).

9 For the purpose of this ECA, the words " will" and " must," if they appear in the Test Standards, are considered equivalent to the word " shall" and therefore delineate a test requirement to be followed or met.

B. The development of PK/ MECH data to be used in this ECA testing program must be conducted in accordance with the guidance outlined in Appendix C( 1 4) of this ECA. The development and application of P1K/ N/ TECH data is expected to be an iterative process and, as such, the final details of the testing may not be included in the presently available Test Standard( s). For the purposes of this ECA, Appendix C( l 4) will be the " Test Standard( s)" for testing specified in Table 1 under Tier I Program Review Testing and Tier U Route to Route Extrapolation Reporting. The PK/ MECH data development under this ECA will be the subject of discussions at the EPA Program Review, described in Part VI. C. and Part VII. A.  D. of this ECA.

C. The Companies, through the HAP Task Force, and EPA will consult in a good faith effort to consider the need for Test Standard modifications if either EPA or the Companies desire such modifications. Modifications to this ECA will be governed by 40 CFR 790.68 ( see Part X. of this ECA).

D. All testing required by this ECA must be conducted in accordance with the EPA Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP) Standards contained in 40 CFR part 792.

E. All final reports must be submitted by the Companies to EPA by the dates specified in Table 1 unless otherwise authorized by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 790.68. Interim status reports describing the status of all studies to be performed under this ECA testing program must be submitted by the Companies to EPA every six months beginning six months from the effective date ofthis ECA and until the end of the ECA testing program. These interim reports should contain information such as a summary of the interim status of each study being performed under this ECA testing program, a description of significant activities andlor difficulties experienced during the interim, and an explanation of the actions taken in response to difficulties. See Part Xffl. of this ECA regarding submissions to EPA.

IX. STUDY PLANS The Companies, through the HAP Task Force, will submit a study plan to EPA for each test conducted pursuant to this ECA prior to the initiation of testing in accordance with 40 CFR 790.62. ( For this ECA, EPA will not require the study plans to be submitted " no later than 45 days prior to the initiation of testing," as specified at 40 CFR 790.62( a)). The content of the study plans submitted to EPA will comply with 40 CFR 790.62( b). Modifications to the study plans will be governed by the procedures of 40 CFR 790.62( c). All study plans will become part of the official record ( Docket Control Number OPPTS 42197C).

10 X. MODIFICATIONS TO ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT EPA and the Companies recognize that in some instances modifications to the schedule in Table 1 may be needed in view ofuncertainties in developing PKIMECH data. Modifications to this ECA, if any, will be made according to the procedures contained in 40 CFR 790.68.

XI. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT The Companies acknowledge that a violation of the requirements ofthis ECA will constitute a " prohibited act" under section 15( 1) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 26 14( 1), and will trigger all provisions applicable to a section 15 violation. In addition, noncompliance with any term of this ECA by any Company will constitute conduct " in violation of this Act" under section 20( a)( 1) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 26l9( a)( l), and could result in a citizen's civil action.

Under the penalty provisions of section 16 of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2615, and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U. S. C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U. S. C. 3701 note, as implemented by 61 FR 69360 ( December 31, 1996), a non complying Company could be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 27,500 per violation, with each day in violation potentially constituting a separate violation under section 15. Knowing or willful violations may lead to the imposition of criminal penalties, or a fine ofnot more than $ 27,500 for each day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. In addition, EPA could enforce this ECA pursuant to section 17 of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2616, by seeking an injunction to compel adherence to the requirements of this ECA.

XII. EPA MONITORING OF ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT TESTING EPA may conduct monitoring activities of the testing conducted under this ECA such as laboratory inspections and study audits, as permitted under section 11 of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2610.

XIII. SUBMISSIONS TO EPA All data submitted to EPA under this ECA will be identified by the Docket Number: OPPTS 42197C and the name: ethylene dichloride. Six ( 6) copies of all submissions under this ECA will be provided to EPA at the address specified in 40 CFR 790.5( b).

XIV. PUBLICATION AND DISCLOSURE OF TEST RESULTS All results of testing conducted pursuant to this ECA will be announced to the public by EPA in accordance with the procedures specified in section 4( d) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2603( d).

11 Disclosure by EPA of data generated by such testing will be governed by section 14( b) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 26 13( b), and 40 CFR part 2.

XV. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION Any claims of confidentiality for information submitted under this ECA will be made under the terms of40 CFR 790.7. If no claim of confidentiality is made by the submitter ofthe information at the time of submission, the information will be deemed by EPA, in accordance with 40 CFR 790.7, to be public, and may be made available to the public without further notice to the submitter. Information claimed as confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR part 2 established pursuant to section 14 of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2613.

XVI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMPANIES A. The Companies are bound by the terms of this ECA and the provisions of40 CFR 790.62 and 790.65.

B. The Companies will comply with the notification requirements of section 12( b)( 1) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 261 1( b)( 1), and 40 CFR part 707, subpart D, if they export or intend to export ethylene dichloride. Any other person who exports or intends to export ethylene dichloride will be subject to these export notification requirements upon promulgation of an export notification rule for ethylene dichloride under section 12( b)( 1) of TSCA.

C. Ifethylene dichloride becomes subject to a rule promulgated under TSCA section 5( a)( 2), 15 U. S. C. 2604( a)( 2), governing significant new uses of ethylene dichloride, then the Companies will be subject to the data submission requirements imposed by section 5( b)( l)( A) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2604( b)( l)( A), as if the testing under this ECA had been required by a TSCA section 4 test rule.

XVII. SEVERABILITY OF ENFORCEABLE CONSENT AGREEMENT PROVISIONS In the event that one or more provisions of this ECA are determined by a court decision to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this ECA will not be presumed to be valid, and EPA will either initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require testing or publish in the Federal Register the reasons for not initiating such a proceeding.

XVIII. FINAL AGENCY ACTION Issuance of this ECA by EPA constitutes final EPA action for purposes of 5 U. S. C. 704.

12 XIX. PUBLIC RECORD EPA has established a public record which will contain this ECA, the Order that incorporates this ECA, the Federal Register notice announcing issuance of the Order incorporating this ECA, and any and all relevant information, subject to the confidentiality provisions of section 14( h) of TSCA and 40 CFR part 2. The official record for this ECA, including the public version, which does not include any information claimed as CBI, has been established under docket control number OPPTS 42197C.

XX. EFFECTIVENESS This ECA may be signed in separate counterparts. This ECA will not be effective unless signed by each of the Companies and by EPA. This ECA will take effect on the date of publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the Order that incorporates this ECA.

XXI. RIGHTS OF THE COMPANIES By signing this ECA, the Companies waive their right to challenge EPA's authority to assess penalties for violations of the terms of this ECA. This waiver does not affect any other rights that the Comnpanies may have under TSCA, including the right to dispute the amount of any penalty or to dispute factually whether a violation of the terms of this ECA has occurred, or to seek judicial review of any rule that may he adopted by EPA that imposes requirements to test ethylene dichloride.

13 XXII. IDENTITY OF THE COMPANIES The Companies subject to this ECA are:

The Dow Chemical Co. Louisiana Hwy 1 P. O. Box 150 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Vulcan Materials Company 1200 Urban Center Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 Occidental Chemical Corporation 5005 LBJ Freeway Dallas, TX 75244 Oxy Vinyls, LP Suite 500, LB3O 5005 LBJ Freeway Dallas, TX 75244 Georgia Gulf Corporation 26100 LA 45 Plaquemine, LA 70764 Westlake Chemical Corporation 2801 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 600 Houston, TX 77056 PPG Industries, Inc. One PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15272 Borden Chemicals & Plastics Operating Limited Partnership 180 E. Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Formosa Plastics Corporation, U. S . A. 9 Peach Tree Hill Road Livingston, NJ 07039 14 XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR The Dow Chemical Company Roger L. Bowlin R& D Director for Chlorinated Organics The Dow Chemical Company Louisiana Hwy 1 P. O. Box 150 Plaquemine, LA 70765 0 150 The Dow Chemical Company agreed to sponsor ethylene dichloride in Tier I of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program as a member of the American Chemistry Council Vinyl Chloride Health Committee. XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR Vulcan Materials Company George L. Fish Vice President, Technical Vulcan Chemicals Division Vulcan Materials Company 1200 Urban Center Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 Vulcan Materials Company agreed to sponsor ethylene dichloride in Tier I of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program as a member ofthe American Chemistry Council Vinyl Chloride Health Committee. XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR Occidental Chemical Corporation Charles L. Mears Vice President & General Manager Electrochemicals Occidental Chemical Corporation 5005 LBJ Freeway Dallas, TX 75244 Occidental Chemical Corporation agreed to sponsor ethylene dichloride in TierI of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program as a member ofthe American Chemistry Council Vinyl Chloride Health Committee. XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR Georgia Gulf Corporation Edward A. Schmitt President and CEO Georgia Gulf Corporation 26100 LA 45 Plaquemine, LA 70764 Georgia Gulf Corporation agreed to sponsor ethylene dichloride in Tier I of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program as a member of the American Chemistry Council Vinyl Chloride Health Committee. XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR Westlake Chemical Corporation Wayne Morse Senior Vice President, Vinyls Westlake Chemical Corporation 2801 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 600 Houston, TX 77056 XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR PPG Industries, Inc.

James A. Barter, Ph. D. Director, Environmental Health Sciences PPG Industries, Inc. One PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15272 PPG Industries, Inc. agreed to sponsor ethylene dichloride in Tier I of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program as a member of the American Chemistry Council Vinyl Chloride Health Committee. XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR Borden Chemicals & Plastics Operating Limited Partnership Wayne P. Leonard Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Borden Chemicals & Plastics Operating Limited Partnership 180 E. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215 XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR Formosa Plastics Corporation, U. S. A.

Robert F. Kelly Vice President for Environment, Health, Safety and Communication Formosa Plastics Corporation, U. S. A. 9 Peach Tree Hill Road Livingston, NJ 07039 Formosa Plastics Corporation, U. S. A. agreed to sponsor ethylene dichloride in Tier I of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program as a member of the American Chemistry Council Vinyl Chloride Health Committee. XXIII. SIGNATURE Date: TEST SPONSOR Oxy Vinyls, LP Duane Stamp Vice President/ General Counsel Oxy Vinyls, LP Suite 500, LB3O 5005 LBJ Freeway Dallas, TX 752 44 Oxy Vinyls, LP agreed to sponsor ethylene dichloride in Tier I of the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program as a member of the American Chemistry Council Vinyl Chloride Health Committee. XXIV. SIGNATURE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Stephen L. Johnson Assistant Administrator Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention And Toxic Substances Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Date:

Address: Table 1 REQUIRED TESTING, TEST STANDARDS, REPORTING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE Test Standard Deadline TIER I ( citations are to 40 CFR; for Final HAPs Testing for EDC appendices are attached to this ECA) Report ( Months)'

Acute Toxicity with BAL and § 799.9135 ( as annotated in 18 histopathology ( inhalation) 2 appendix D. 1)

Acute Neurotoxicity ( inhalation) 2 § 799.9620 ( as annotated in appendix D. 1) 18 Developmental Toxicity Appendix E. 33 Number of months after the effective date of the Order that incorporates this ECA when final report is due.

Interim status reports, describing the Status of all testing to be performed under this ECA, must be submitted by the Companies to EPA every 6 months beginning six months from the effective date of thisECA until the end of the ECA testing program ( see Part VIII. B. and Part XIII. of this ECA).

2 Acute toxicity and acute neurotoxicity testing to be conducted under a combined protocol following § 799.9 135 and § 799.9620 as annotated in appendix D. 1. As specified in Part VI. A. of this ECA, EPA has determined that the macrophage function assay reported by Sherwood et al. ( 1987) adequately fulfills the macrophage function assay portion of the acute toxicity testing requirement. A copy of this report is included as Appendix B. 1.

~ As specified in Part VI. A. of this ECA, EPA has determined that the developmental toxicity studies reported by Payan et al. ( 1995), in rats. and Rao et al. ( 1980), in rabbits, adequately fulfill the HAPs rulemaking testing requirement for developmental toxicity testing for ethylene dichioride. A copy of these reports is included as Appendix E. 3. TIER I Test Standard Deadline Program Review Testing ( citations are to 40 CFR; for Final for EDC4 appendices are attached to this ECA) Report ( Months)

PKPVIECH data to support model Appendix C ( 1 4) 21 validation and verification of oralto inhalation extrapolation for the following data needs in the F344 rat5: a. Subchronic toxicity6 b. Subchronic neurotoxicity7 c. Reproductive toxicity8 PBPK model simulations9 Appendix C ( 1 5) 21 As described in Part VI. C. of this ECA, before work under the Tier II testing segment is conducted, EPA will conduct a Program Review of the Tier I Program Review Testing data and data from other studies acceptable to EPA that could be used in performing quantitative route to route extrapolations.

~ Previously published inhalation PBPK model ( D' Souza et at., 1987; 1988) to be extended and validated to ( 1) periodic inhalation exposures based on PKIIVIECH data to be acquired as part of the " Tier I Inhalation Toxicity and ( 2) oral administration via corn oil gavage and drinking water.

6 Relevant to existing data in rats administered EDC via corn oil gavage ( Daniel, et at. ( 1994)

Relevant to drinking water administration in rats 8 Relevant to drinking water administration and capable to inform route to route extrapolation from each dosing paradigm of extant data by Alumot, et at. ( 1976), Rao, et at. ( 1980), and Lane, et at. ( 1982)

~ The model simulations are to provide point and uncertainty estimates of internal dose metrics ( parent chemical peak and area under the curve ( AUC) concentrations in blood and brain, and 24 hour total glutathione dependent metabolism) in rats and humans to allow quantitative route to route extrapolations. These simulations will be used to evaluate the acceptability of: ( 1) subchronic neurotoxicity testing of oral exposure via drinking water in rats; ( 2) extant oral subchronic toxicity data of Daniel et at. ( 1994) in rats via corn oil gavage, and ( 3) reproductive toxicity testing of oral exposure via drinking water in rats. Tier II Testing and/ or Extrapolation Reporting for EDC Test Standard ( citations are to 40 CFR; appendices are attached to this ECA) Deadline for Final Report ( Months)

Subchronic toxicity ( route toroute extrapolation ofextant data)' ° Subchronic neurotoxicity: a) testing by the oral route b) route to route extrapolation11 Reproductive toxicity:' 2 a) testing by the oral route b) route to route extrapolation13 Appendix C. 2 and C. 6 § 799.9620 ( as annotated in Appendix D. 2)

Appendix C. 3 and C. 6 § 799.9380 ( as annotated in Appendix D. 3)

Appendix C. 4 and C. 6 36 42 52 42 52 Quantitative route to route extrapolation of extant data of Daniel et at. ( 1994) documented graphically and with tabular data using point estimates and uncertainty measures for parent compound ( peak and AUC) and total amount metabolized by glutathione dependent pathways to develop the dose metric.

~ Quantitative route to route extrapolation of subchronic toxicity testing developed under Tier II Testing, documented graphically and with tabular data using point estimates and uncertainty measures for parent compound ( peak and AUC) in blood and brain and total amount metabolized by glutathione dependent pathways to develop the dose metric. Ability to characterize blood and CNS time course data, if possible, for both oral and inhalation routes must be demonstrated.

12 Control and high dose groups will be evaluated for fertility index, gestation index, gross necropsy, organ weight and histopathology to confirm lack of effect reported in extant studies by Alumot et at., 1976; Rao et at., 1980; and Lane et at., 1982. Observation of an effect in the high dose will trigger detailed evaluation of low dose and middose groups for the above mentioned effects. Estrous cycle, sperm evaluation ( vaginal opening, preputial separation) will be evaluated for all dose groups.

13 Quantitative route to route extrapolation of reproductive toxicity testing developed under Tier II Testing and extant data from Alumot, et at. ( 1976), Rao, et at. ( 1980). and Lane, em' at. ( 1982) documented graphically and with tabular data using point estimates and uncertainty measures for parent compound ( peak and AUC) and total amount metabolized by glutathione dependent pathways to develop the dose metric.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7054-7055]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0601; Special Conditions No. 25-527-SC]

Special Conditions: Learjet Inc. Model LJ-200-1A10; Airplane
Fuselage Post-Crash Fire Survivability

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Learjet Inc. Model
LJ-200-1A10 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with advanced composite materials in the
construction of its fuselage and wings. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Sinclair, Airframe/Cabin Safety
Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-
2195; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 9, 2009, Learjet Inc. applied for a type certificate
for their new Model LJ-200-1A10. The Model LJ-200-1A10 is a business-
class airplane with two high-bypass turbine engines and interior
seating configuration for up to 10 passengers. The Model LJ-200-1A10 is
the first airplane manufactured by Learjet Inc. to utilize advanced
composite materials in the construction of its fuselage and wings.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Learjet Inc. must show that the Model LJ-200-1A10 meets the
applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through
25-127.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model LJ-200-1A10 because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model LJ-200-1A10 must comply with the fuel-vent and
exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model LJ-200-1A10 will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features:
    The Model LJ-200-1A10 is the first airplane manufactured by Learjet
Inc. to utilize advanced composite materials in the construction of its
fuselage and wings. In accordance with Sec.  21.16, fuselage structure
fabricated from monolithic carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP)
prepreg material (reinforcement fiber pre-impregnated with a
thermoplastic or thermoset resin matrix) constitutes a novel and
unusual design feature for a large transport-category airplane
certificated under 14 CFR part 25.

Discussion

    Existing regulations do not adequately ensure that composite
structure offers passengers the same protection from an on-ground,
post-crash fire condition as would a conventional aluminum structure.
Learjet is introducing a new material that may have different toxicity
characteristics than those of traditional materials. Service experience
has shown that, in post-crash fires, traditional aluminum structural
materials emit acceptable toxicity levels. Therefore, it is necessary
to ensure that the material being utilized does not reduce the
survivability of the passengers during a post-crash fire, or provide
levels of toxic fumes that would be lethal or incapacitating,
preventing evacuation of the aircraft following a crash scenario.
    These special conditions are necessary to ensure a level of safety
equivalent to that provided by 14 CFR part 25. Regulations applicable
to burn requirements, including Sec. Sec.  25.853 and 25.856(a), remain
valid for this airplane but do not reflect the threat generated from
toxic levels of gases produced from carbon-fiber/resin system materials
following a post-crash fire.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-13-13-SC, for Learjet
Inc. Model LJ-200-1A10 airplanes, was published in the Federal Register
on November 5, 2013 (78 FR 66317). No comments were received, and the
special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model LJ-200-1A10. Should Learjet Inc. apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another airplane model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Learjet Inc. Model LJ-200-1A10
airplanes.
    The Learjet Model LJ-200-1A10 must show that toxic levels of gases
produced from the composite-material system are in no way an additional
threat to the passengers and their ability to evacuate when compared to
an aluminum-constructed aircraft.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 31, 2014.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-02495 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61144-61145]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; Reinstatement,
with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has
expired, OMB Number 1660-0059, FEMA Form 517-1, FEMA Form 512-1.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a reinstatement of an information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning this information collection that allows the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to facilitate the availability
of flood insurance to those who have a need to purchase such. The NFIP
will collect information from insurance agents who will offer the
ability to purchase flood insurance as well as from those interested in
purchasing the insurance policies so as to offer referral information
on how the coverage may be obtained. If the information collection were
not performed, the ability to offer respondents the resources available
by the NFIP would be adversely affected.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA administers the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to losses due to floods. The Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Congress Findings and Declaration of
Purpose, Section 2(a)(6) finds that it is in the public interest for
persons already living in flood prone areas to have an opportunity to
purchase flood insurance and access to more adequate limits of coverage
in order to be indemnified for their losses in the event of future
flood disasters. This collection will allow for consumers to be
educated about flood insurance coverage and to assist them in obtaining
such coverage.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Flood Insurance Program Call Center and Agent
Referral Enrollment Form.
    Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved collection for which approval has expired.
    OMB Number: 1660-0059.

    Form Numbers: FEMA Form 517-1, Agent Referral Program Enrollment,
FEMA Form 512-1, FEMA Inbound Script.
    Abstract: The information collection serves two purposes: (1)
allows the NFIP to service requests for flood insurance information or
agent referral services from potential purchasers through calls to the
toll-free number or by visiting the Web site, and (2) allows insurance
agents to enroll in the Agent Referral Program and Agent Co-Op Program.
Should the request include an insurance agent referral, the name and
business address of insurance agents in the caller's geographic area,
who are enrolled in the referral service, are provided.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-
profit; Not-for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,943 Hours.

                                                 Table A.12--Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of      Avg. burden    Total annual                    Total annual
        Type of respondent           Form name/form No.      Number of     responses per   per response     burden  (in     Avg. hourly     respondent
                                                            respondents     respondent      (in hours)        hours)         wage rate         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual or household...........  Call to call center           73,017               1            0.05           3,651          $14.61      $53,338.92
                                     and visitors to the
                                     Web site/FEMA Form
                                     512-1.
Businesses or other for-profit....  Agent Referral                 8,779               1           0.033             292           28.10        8,140.77
                                     Program Enrollment
                                     Form/FEMA Form 517-
                                     1.
    Total.........................  ....................          81,796  ..............  ..............           3,943  ..............       61,479.69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annualized cost to respondents based
on wage rate categories is $61,479.69. The estimated cost to the
Federal Government is $392,201.00.
    Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether
the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. Comments must be submitted on or before
December 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Office
of Management, Records Management Division, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, Mail Drop
Room 301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Carolyn Goss, Program Analyst,
Mitigation, Risk Insurance, Industry and Public Relations Branch, (703)
605-0631 for additional information. You may contact the Records
Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail address: FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Pamela J. Carcirieri,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8-24478 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-41-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13439-13440]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5645]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64044; File No. SR-DTC-2011-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Dividends Service Guide as It Relates to the Domestic Tax
Reporting Service and the U.S. Tax Withholding Service

March 7, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on February 22, 2011, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described
in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared primarily by
DTC.\2\ DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder so that the proposed
rule change was effective upon filing with the Commission.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit
5 to DTC's filing, which is available at http://www.dtcc.com/downloands/legal/rule_filings/2010/dtc/2011-04.pdf.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change will update DTC's Dividends Service Guide
to clarify that: (1) The Domestic Tax Reporting Service (``DTax'') is
no longer available on the Internet or as a computerized file, (2)
DTC's tax withholding services that DTC performs relate exclusively to
payments processed through DTC, and (3) DTC's U.S. Tax Withholding
Service is available to all non-U.S. entities that are DTC
participants.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by the DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    When an issuer makes a distribution on a security, the payment is
classified for tax purposes as a particular type of income. Often such
income is reclassified at the end of the year as a different type of
income than originally designated, which may result in a different
taxability characteristic than the original income announcement
described.\5\ When an income reclassification occurs, DTC participants
need to be aware of it so they can properly prepare the IRS Forms 1099
they are required to provide to their customers. The Domestic Tax
Reporting Service (``DTax'') provides participants with income
classification information for assistance in completing those forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, some income may be reclassified at the end of
the year as short or long term capital gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, for purposes of efficiency and enhanced customer service,
DTax became a service offering of DTCC Solutions, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, DTC's parent
company.\6\ At that time, DTCC Solutions partnered with ADP Investor
Communication Services, Inc. to provide DTax on the Internet and as a
computerized file. Recently, DTCC Solutions and Broadridge, formerly
ADP Investor Communication Services, Inc., ended their strategic
alliance. In an effort to enhance the utility of the DTC Dividends
Service Guide (``Guide''), DTC is making updates to the Guide to
reflect the fact that the strategic alliance no longer exists and to
note that while DTax is still accessible through inquiry functions on
DTC's Participant Terminal System and DTC's Participant Browser
Service, DTax is no longer available on the Internet or as a
computerized file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Release Act. No. 52977 (December 19,
2005) [File No. SR-DTC-2005-20].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally and as requested by its participants, DTC is making
other minor updates to the Guide's information relating to DTC's U.S.
Tax Withholding Service in order to clarify that the tax withholding
services that DTC performs relate exclusively to payments processed
through DTC and that DTC cannot and does not perform tax withholding
for payments outside of its systems. The updates include clarifications
to assure participants that DTC performs tax withholding services on
the credits processed by its Stock Loan Income Tracking Service and
Repo Tracking Service and on payments credited to the DTC accounts of
non-U.S. participants.\7\ The Guide is also being updated to make clear
that DTC's U.S. Tax Withholding Service is available to all non-U.S.
entities that are participants of DTC and not just to entities that are
qualified or nonqualified intermediaries (in tax parlance) for tax
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DTC's Participants have requested that DTC clarify in its
Procedures that it is currently performing this service because the
IRS earlier this year published a notice on performing tax
withholding on substitute dividend payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because the proposed rule
should facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions by

clarifying DTC's procedures as they relate to certain tax services
offered by and through DTC, which should enhance the use of DTC's
existing tax withholding services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been
solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by DTC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \10\
thereunder because it is a change in an existing service that does not
adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency and does not significantly affect the
respective rights or obligations of the clearing agency or persons
using the service. At any time within sixty days of the filing of such
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2011-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2011-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's Web
site, http://www.dtcc.com. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-DTC-2011-04 and should be submitted on or before April 1, 2011.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5645 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77518-77519]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30499]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71102; File No. SR-C2-2013-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend the Fees Schedule

December 17, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 9, 2013, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule with regard to the
quoting bandwidth allowance for Market-Makers. The Fees Schedule states
that the bandwidth allowance for a Market-Maker Trading Permit is
equivalent to a maximum of 195,000,000 quotes over the course of a
trading day. However, in reaching the v quotes number, C2 only took
into account the normal trading hours for equity options (8:30 a.m.-
3:00 p.m. (all times herein are Central)) and erroneously failed to
account for the fact that index and ETP options trading is open until
3:15 p.m. (an extra 15 minutes). Therefore, the Exchange's quoting
bandwidth allowance for index and ETP options is actually greater than
the 195,000,000 quotes listed in the Fees Schedule. In order to account
for this error, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to
delete the 195,000,000 number and replace it with 202,500,000 (which
accounts for the extra 15 minutes).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \4\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Fees Schedule to more
accurately reflect the Market-Maker Trading Permit quoting bandwidth
allowance (taking into account the extra fifteen minutes that index and
ETP options are traded) shall alleviate confusion, thereby removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system. The proposed change applies equally to
all Market-Maker Trading Permits.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the proposed change is merely making a
correction. Further, the new 202,500,000 quotes amount applies to all
Market-Maker Trading Permits. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the proposed change is merely a correction, not a
competitive change, and only applies to trading on C2.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \7\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2013-039 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-039. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-039,
and should be submitted on or before January 13, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30499 Filed 12-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                            EPA and ASTSWMO Meeting
                                 April 4, 2013

Attendees
EPA  -  Mark Barolo, Linda Gerber, Liz McDermott, Paul Miller, Andrea Barbery
ASTSWMO  -  Charles Reyes
States
NY  -  Russ Brauksieck
NH  -  Michael Juranty
DE  -  Becky Keyser and Jill Hall
TN  -  Lamar Bradley
UT  -  Theron Blatter
CO  -  Mahesh Alburquerque
MN  -  Jeff Brandon and Mike Rynders
TX  -  Doug R
OK  -  Terri Roberts
MO  -  Ken Koons
OR  -  Mitch Scheel
CA  -  Laura Fisher

EPA and states met to discuss a number of issues from the proposed revisions to the UST regulations.  The discussion included the definitions, compatibility, and closure.