[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60906-60912]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0807; Product Identifier 2018-NM-003-AD; Amendment
39-19674; AD 2019-13-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that revealed the
wheel axles of the main landing gear (MLG) were machined with a certain
radius and a determination that the life limit for the affected wheel
axles of the MLG must be reduced. This AD requires an inspection to
determine the part number and serial number of each MLG wheel axle and
replacement of affected parts prior to exceeding the reduced life
limits. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 17, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 17,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0807.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0807; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations 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: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2018 (83 FR
51889). The NPRM was prompted by a report that revealed the wheel axles
of the MLG were machined with a radius as small as 0.4 millimeters (mm)
and a determination that the life limit for the affected wheel axles of
the MLG must be reduced. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to
determine the part number and serial number of each MLG wheel axle and
replacement of affected parts prior to exceeding the reduced life
limits.
    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain
Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series
airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on April 15,
2019 (84 FR 15154). The FAA issued the SNPRM to add certain airplanes
to certain compliance time tables.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue of the wheel axles of
the MLG, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0150, dated July 16, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-
200, and A340-300 series airplanes.
    This AD was prompted by a report that revealed the wheel axles of
the MLG were machined with a radius as small as 0.4 millimeters and a
determination that the life limit for the affected wheel axles of the
MLG must be reduced. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue of
the wheel axles of the MLG, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA considered the comments received.
An anonymous commenter and Laith Ibrahim stated their support for the
NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-32-3282, Revision 03, dated
October 24, 2017; and Service Bulletin A340-32-4311, Revision 03, dated
October 24, 2017. This service information describes procedures for
inspecting the MLG wheel axles to determine the part number and serial
number, and replacing the affected MLG wheel axles. This service
information also specifies reduced life limits for the affected MLG
wheel axles. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane models.
    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 29 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................              $0             $170           $4,930
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
        Labor cost  (per part)          Parts cost (per    product (per
                                             part)            part)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,360.         $40,000          $41,360
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-13-01 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19674; Docket No. FAA-2018-0807;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-003-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 17, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2013-08-03, Amendment 39-17420 (78 FR 23105,
April 18, 2013) (``AD 2013-08-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any
category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this AD.
    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes, all
manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs), except those on which Airbus
Modification 54500 has been embodied in production.
    (2) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except MSNs
0896, 0905, and 0913 (which are specified in paragraph (c)(3) of
this AD), and except those on which Airbus Modification 54500 has
been embodied in production.
    (3) Model A330-343 airplanes, MSNs 0896, 0905, and 0913, except
those on which the actions in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3273
have been embodied in service.
    (4) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes, all manufacturer
serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 54500 has
been embodied in production.
    (5) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all manufacturer
serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 54500 has
been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that revealed the wheel axles
of the main landing gear (MLG) were machined with a radius as small
as 0.4 millimeters and a determination that the life limit for the
affected wheel axles of the MLG must be reduced. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address fatigue of the wheel axles of the MLG, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, the affected MLG wheel axles are
listed by part number and serial number in Appendix 01 (Maintenance
Repair Organization (MRO) 001), Appendix 02 (MRO 002), and Appendix
03 (MRO 003) of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3282, Revision 03,
dated October 24, 2017; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4311,
Revision 03, dated October 24, 2017; as applicable.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable MLG wheel axle is
an affected MLG wheel axle that has not exceeded the applicable
post-repair life limit values as specified in table 1 to paragraphs
(g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, table 2 to paragraphs (g)(2),
(g)(3), and (i) of this AD, or table 3 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3),
and (i) of this AD; or a part that is not an affected MLG wheel
axle.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO19.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO19.128

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO19.129

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, the term ``post-repair life
limits'' represents the time-in-service, flight cycles, or flight
hours, whichever occurs first, accumulated since repair by the
affected MRO specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and
(i) of this AD, table 2 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of
this AD, or table 3 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this
AD.

(h) Inspection To Determine Part Number and Serial Number

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Do an
inspection of each MLG wheel axle (left-hand and right-hand sides)
to determine the part number and serial number. A review of airplane
delivery or maintenance records is acceptable to make this
determination, in lieu of inspecting a MLG wheel axle, provided
those records can be relied upon for that purpose and the part
number and serial number of the affected part can be positively
identified from that review.

(i) Replacement of Affected MLG Wheel Axles

    If any affected MLG wheel axle is found: Within the compliance
time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of
this AD, table 2 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD,
or table 3 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD; replace
each repaired MLG wheel axle with a serviceable MLG wheel axle, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-32-3282, Revision 03, dated October 24, 2017; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4311, Revision 03, dated October 24,
2017; as applicable. Post-repair life limits specified in tables 1,
2, and 3 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD may not
exceed the applicable ALS Part 1 life limits in the existing
maintenance or inspection program.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, any affected MLG wheel axle
repaired using MRO 001, MRO 002, or MRO 003 may be installed

on an airplane, provided the MLG wheel axle is a serviceable part as
defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(k) Terminating Action for AD 2013-08-03

    Accomplishing the inspection and replacement required by
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD
2013-08-03.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0150, dated July 16, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0807.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3282, Revision 03, dated
October 24, 2017.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4311, Revision 03, dated
October 24, 2017.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax:
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 3, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-24492 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


OMB ROCIS TEMPLATE

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH) (Renewal)

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

	Respondents are owners or operators of new and existing facilities that manufacture a miscellaneous coating and are located at, or are part of, major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.  “Major source” means that the process equipment used to manufacture the miscellaneous coatings and any other operations or equipment at the facility emit, or have the potential to emit, 10 tons per year or more of a single HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP.  A facility is subject to the miscellaneous coating manufacturing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) if it meets the following criteria:

1.  It is used to manufacture coatings, including inks, paints, or adhesives described by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 285, or 289, or North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 3255, or 3259;

	2.  It processes, uses, or produces HAP;

	3.  It is not part of an affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63.

	An average of approximately 132 existing miscellaneous coating manufacturing respondents will be subject to the standard over the next three years.  The number of respondents is expected to grow about two percent over the next three years (0.67% per year) which adds approximately one respondent per year to the inventory.

Owners, or operators of miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities subject to the standard must choose one of the compliance options described in the standard, or install and monitor control systems that reduce HAP emissions to the allowable emission rate.  Specifically, owners, or operators are required to install, operate, and maintain a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations in Tables 1 through 3 and 5 through 6 in the standard and the operating limits in Table 7; and they also must record the values of equipment operating parameters as specified in Table 7.  Owners, or operators are required to conduct equipment inspections and equipment leak monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the work practice standards in Tables 1 through 5.

	Miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities also are subject to the general provisions  at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A which apply to all NESHAP subject facilities. These requirements include those associated with the applicability determinations; notifications that the facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests; notifications of compliance status, including the results of performance tests and design evaluations; and semiannual compliance reports.  In addition to the requirements of subpart A, many respondents are required to submit a precompliance report and leak detection and repair (LDAR) reports; and existing facilities that wish to implement emissions averaging provisions must submit an emissions averaging plan.

	All reports are to be submitted to the respondent’s state, or local agency, or to the EPA regional office, whichever has been delegated enforcement authority by EPA.  The information is used to determine whether or not all sources subject to the rule are achieving the emission limitations and work practice standards in the rule.

	If the owner, or operator identifies any deviation from an emission limitation, or work practice standard, a compliance report must be submitted that includes all records that the source is required to maintain that pertain to the periods during which such deviation occurred, as well as data regarding: the magnitude of each deviation; the reason for each deviation; a description of the corrective action taken for each deviation, including action taken to minimize each deviation and actions taken to prevent a recurrence; and a copy of all quality assurance activities performed on any monitoring protocol.

	Owners, or operators of a miscellaneous coating manufacturing facility must maintain a copy of all monitored equipment operating parameter values that demonstrate compliance with the operating limits in the rule, as well as records of inspections and results of equipment leak monitoring that demonstrate compliance with the work practice standards in the rule.  Owners, or operators also are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of a source, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.  Those records must be maintained for a minimum of five years.  At a minimum, the most recent two years of data must be retained onsite.  The remaining three years of data may be retained offsite.

	The previous Information Collection Request (ICR) incorrectly identifies “Federal Government” and “State, Local, or Tribal Government” as part of the “Affected Public.”  The “Affected Public” is comprised entirely of “Business, or other for profit” entities as shown on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ROCIS Template.

OMB approved the currently active ICR without any (Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category, or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These standards are applicable to new, or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables, or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, emissions from miscellaneous coating manufacturers cause, or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health, or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information also is used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility(s initial capability to comply with the emission requirements.  Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance at all times.

The notifications required in the standards are used to inform the Agency, or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the standard.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the standards are being met.  The performance test also may be observed.

The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH.

3(a)  Nonduplication

 If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state, or local agency.  If a state, or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state, or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register at 71 FR 35652 on June 21, 2006.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted and the Agency’s internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next three years also have been considered.

The primary source of information as reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting provisions in the standard, is the Air Facility System (AFS) which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.  An annual average of approximately 133 respondents will be subject to the standard over the three year period covered by this ICR.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as it was being developed and the standard has been previously reviewed to determine the minimum information needed for compliance purposes.

It is our policy to carefully review any comments received since the last ICR renewal including those submitted in response to the first Federal Register Notice and respond appropriately.  In this case, no comments were received.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

These reporting and recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

	These standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent with the Part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five years allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, monitor any pattern of non-compliance, and determine the appropriate level of enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have violations extending beyond five years.  In addition, EPA would be prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

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

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not include sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the owners, or operators of miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for such facilities are 285 and 289, which correspond to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 3255 and 3259.

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data that are recorded or reported are required by the NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH).

A source must make the following reports:

Notifications/Reports	Regulation References

Initial notifications (including construction/reconstruction)	63.5, 63.9(b), and 63.8070(a)-(c)

Notification of performance test, test plan, and emission profile 63.7(b)-(c), 63.9(e), and 63.8070(a),(d)

Notification of CMS performance evaluation	63.8(e)(2) and 63.9(g)

Notification of compliance status (including performance test results) 63.9(h), 63.10(d)(2), and 63.8070(e)

Notification of process change	63.8070(f)

Emissions averaging plan	63.1250-63.1260, 63.8060

Precompliance report	63.8075(c)

Semiannual compliance report

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports

Deviations/no deviations/out-of-control CMS

No out-of-control CMS

Heat exchange system reports (delay of repair)

Maintenance and inspection reports for storage tank control devices

Operating scenario reports

Equipment leak reports

Emissions averaging reports	63.10(e)(3) and 63.8075(b),(d)

63.10(d)(5) and 63.8075(d)(4)

63.8075(d)(5)

63.8(c)(7), 63.8075(d)(6)

63.104(e), (f)(2)(i)-(iv), 63.8075(d)(7)

63.1063(c)(2)(iv)(B) or (e)(2), 63.8075(d)(8)

63.8075(d)(9)

63.1039(b)(1)-(8) and 63.8075(d)(10)

63.1250-63.1260, 63.8060

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Requirements	Regulation Reference

Record retention	63.10(b)(1) and 63.8085

Documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status	63.10(b)(2)(xiv) and 63.8080(a)(1)

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan	63.6(e)(3)

Records related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction 63.6(e)(3)(iii)-(iv) and 63.8080(a)(2)

Records of performance tests and CMS performance evaluations 63.10(b)(2)(viii) and 63.8080(a)(3)

Records for equipment leaks	63.1038(b)-(c) and 63.8080(a)(4)

Daily schedule or log of each operating scenario	63.8080(a)(5)

Records for process vessels complying with percent reduction emission limitation	63.8080(a)(6)

Planned routine maintenance records for storage tank control devices 63.8080(a)(7)

Maintenance wastewater plan	63.8080(a)(8)

Records for safety device openings	63.8080(a)(9)

Results of each CMS calibration, validation check, and inspection 63.8035(c)(6)-(8), (d)(4)-(5), (e)(4)-(7), (f)(3)-(4), 63.8080(a)(10)

Records for emissions averaging	63.1250-63.1260, 63.8060

Records for each CMS	3.8(d)(3), 63.8(f)(6)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi), and 63.8080(b)

Electronic Reporting

Also, regulatory agencies, in cooperation with the respondents, continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time, it is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate opacity and/or parameter monitors

Perform initial performance test and repeat performance tests if necessary

Write the notifications and reports listed above

Enter information required to be recorded above

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following the notification of startup, the reviewing authority may inspect the affected facility to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.  Immediate startup, shutdown and malfunction notifications and reports alert the Agency to atypical operations conditions which result in violations of the emission limitations.  Semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the Air Facility System (AFS), which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/operator for five years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

	There are few, if any, small entities (i.e., small businesses) affected by this regulation.  However, any impact on small entities was taken into consideration during the development of the standard.  Generally, only major sources of pollution are regulated under the standard.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the respondents.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the respondents.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$100.99 ($48.09 + 110%)

Technical	$87.97   ($41.89 + 110%)

Clerical	$43.81   ($20.86 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December, 2005, (Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.(  The rates are from column 1, (Total compensation.(  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The types of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the standard are both labor costs, which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR, and the costs associated with continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs that occur when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and include other costs, such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost	(C)

Number of New Respondents	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Process Vessels	$30,000	1	$30,000	$16,000	132	$2,112,000

Transfer Operations 	N/A	N/A	N/A	$3,100	132	$409,200

Wastewater Systems	N/A	N/A	N/A	$2,000	132	$264,000

Totals	$30,000

	$2,785,200

	The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $30,000.  This is the total of column D in the above table.  The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $2,785,200.  This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $2,815,000 per year.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $41,417.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

	Managerial	$57.20  (GS-13, Step 5, $35.75 x 1.6)

	Technical	$42.45  (GS-12, Step 1, $26.53 x 1.6)

	Clerical	$22.96  (GS-6, Step 3, $14.35 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (2006 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH), below.

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three years, approximately 9 of the 132 existing respondents will be subject to the standard.  It is estimated that one additional respondent per year will become subject over the three-year period covered by this ICR.

The number of respondents is calculated using the following table that addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

	Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	1	131	0	0	132

2	1	132	0	0	133

3	1	133	0	0	134

Average	1	133	0	0	133

1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities.

Column D is subtracted to avoid double-counting respondents.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 133.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/reconstruction	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of anticipated startup	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of actual startup	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of applicability of standard	1	1	N/A	1

Emission averaging plan	1	0	N/A	0

Precompliance report	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of initial performance test	1	0	N/A	0

Notification of initial CMS performance evaluation	1	0	N/A	0

Notification of compliance status	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of process change	13	1	N/A	13

Semiannual report	132	2	N/A	264

Startup, shutdown, malfunction report	7	1	N/A	7

LDAR report	132	2	N/A	264

Emission averaging report	13	1	N/A	13

	Total	567

The number of Total Annual Responses is 567.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

(i) Respondent Tally

The annual labor hours are 167,832 per year over the three years of this ICR.  The total annual labor costs are $14,192,714.  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 296 hours per response.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH).

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $2,815,200.  The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

(ii) The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 1,001 labor hours at a cost of $41,417.  See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to adjustments.  The adjustments result from the transition by the respondents from initial compliance with the standard to continuing compliance with the standard plus the addition three new respondents to the burden total due to industry growth.

The respondents achieved compliance over the past three years by modifying manufacturing processes as necessary.  This was a phased-in process with all of the respondents required to demonstrate compliance within three years of promulgation of the standard.  The cost per year is lower during the transition phase than at full compliance.  Compliance was demonstrated by conducting performance tests, providing engineering calculations and utilizing pollution/parameter monitors.

After achieving compliance, performance tests are not required and capital/startup costs are lower because pollution monitors are a one-time, initial expense.  However, the cost to maintain the monitors increases and since all the respondents are required to conduct compliance evaluations, the overall costs are higher.  Hence, the capital startup and O&M costs are higher.

The labor hours and cost are also higher because the pollution levels must be recorded and compliance reports sent to the appropriate regulatory authority.  In addition, the labor rates have increased over the past three years, which increase the labor hour dollar-cost.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 296 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, and financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose, or provide information to, or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

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

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0418.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents also are available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, comments may be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0418 and OMB Control Number 2060-0535 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

Table 1.  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost - NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHHH)

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I

	Burden hours per occurrence	Number of occurrences per year	Technical hours per respondent per year	Respondents per yeara	Technical hours per respondent	Management hours per year	Clerical hours per year	Respondent hours per year	Labor Cost, $

     Burden item

	(C = A * B)

(E = C * D)	(F = E * 0.05)	(G = E * 0.1)	(H = E + F + G)

1	Applications	 N/A

2	Surveys and Studies	 N/A

3	Reporting Requirements

A.	Read Instructionsc	1.0	1.0	1.0	1	1.0	0.1	0.1	1.2	97

	B.	Required Activities

	Initial CMS performance evaluationd	10.0	1.0	10.0	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0

Create Information	 Included in item 4

	Gather Existing Information	 Included in item 4

C.	Write Reports

	Notification of construction/reconstruction	2.0	1.0	2.0	1	2.0	0.1	0.2 2.3	195

Notification of anticipated startup	2.0	1.0	2.0	1	2.0	0.1	0.2	2.3	195

Notification of actual startup	2.0	1.0	2.0	1	2.0	0.1	0.2	2.3	195

Notification of applicability of standard

 1. Existing sources	2.0	0.0	0.0	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0

 2. New sources	2.0	1.0	2.0	1	2.0	0.1	0.2	2.3	195

Emissions averaging plane	40.0	1.0	40.0	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0

Precompliance reportf	40.0	1.0	40.0	1	40.0	2.0	4.0	46.0	3,896

Notification of initial performance testg	2.0	1.0	2.0	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0 0

Notification of initial CMS performance evaluationd	2.0	1.0	2.0	0	0.0 0.0	0.0	0.0	0

Notification of compliance status

 1. With performance testg	80.0	1.0	80.0	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0

 2. Without performance testg	120.0	1.0	120.0	1	120.0	6.0	12.0	138.0 11,688

Notification of process changeh	8.0	1.0	8.0	13	104.0	5.2	10.4	119.6 10,130

Semiannual compliance report

	  1. No Deviationsi	8.0	1.0	8.0	119	952.0	47.6	95.2	1,094.8	92,725

  2. Deviationsi	24.0	1.0	24.0	13	312.0	15.6	31.2	358.8	30,389

Startup, shutdown and malfunction reportj	8.0	1.0	8.0	7	56.0	2.8	5.6 64.4	5,454

LDAR reportk	125.0	2.0	250.0	132	33,000.0	1,650.0	3,300.0	37,950.0 3,214,217

Emission averaging reportl	20.0	1.0	20.0	13	260.0	13.0	26.0	299.0	25,324

4	Recordkeeping Requirements

A.	Read Instructions	 Included in 3A

B.	Plan Activities	 N/A

	C.	Implement Activities	 N/A

	D.	Develop Record Systemm	40.0	1.0	40.0	1	40.0	2.0	4.0	46.0	3,896

	E.	Develop Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Plann	100.0	1.0	100.0	1	100.0 5.0	10.0	115.0	9,740

	F.	Develop QA/QC Plan for CMSo	40.0	1.0	40.0	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0

	G.	Time for Audits	N/A

	H.	Time to Enter Information

	  1. Records of startup, shutdown and malfunction	1.5	1.0	1.5	132	198.0 9.9	19.8	227.7	19,285

  2. Records of CMS data

	  a. Record Continuously monitored parameters	1.0	365.0	365.0	132 48,180.0	2,409.0	4,818.0	55,407.0	4,692,756

  b. Compile data	24.0	2.0	48.0	132	6,336.0	316.8	633.6	7,286.4	617,130

  c. Information for semiannual reports	16.0	2.0	32.0	132	4,224.0	211.2 422.4	4,857.6	411,420

  d. LDAR recordkeeping	Included in 3C

I.	Calibration of CMS	376.0	1.0	376.0	132	49,632.0	2,481.6	4,963.2 57,076.8	4,834,182

	J.	Personnel Trainingp	40.0	1.0	40.0	1	40.0	2.0	4.0	46.0	3,896

	K.	Refresher Coursep	16.0	1.0	16.0	132	2,112.0	105.6	211.2	2,428.8 205,710

	L	Time for Audits	N/A

0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0

Totals

	145,715	7,286	14,572	167,572	$14,192,714

	a	132 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP.  Assuming 2 percent growth over 3 years, 1 new facility will be built each year.

	b	Labor cost assumes a rate of $87.97/hour for technical labor, $100.99/hour for management labor, and $43.81/hour for clerical labor.

	c	This will occur only in the first year after a facility becomes subject to the rule.

	d	Assumes 10 hours to conduct a CMS performace evaluation and 2 hours to prepare a notification.

e	Assumes that all existing facilities have complied with the emissions averaging requirements; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging.

f	Assumes 50 percent of the new facilities will submit a precompliance report [50% x 1= 1 (rounded)].

g	Assumes all facilities will comply by submitting engineering calculations, design calculations, etc. with no performance tests.

h	Assumes 10 percent of the facilities will implement process changes [(10% x 132= 13 (rounded)].

i	Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no deviations, and 10 percent will have deviations [90% x 132=119 (rounded), 10% x 132 = 13 (rounded)].

j	Assumes 5% of all facilities will report actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not consistent with the plan [5% x 132 = 7 (rounded)}.

k	Assumes all facilities will be subject to the equipment leak standards with an average of 125 hours per report.

l	Assumes that 10 percent of existing facilities will use with the emissions averaging reports to comply [10% x 132 = 13 (rounded)].

	m	Assumes 40 hours to develop a record system for recording parameter monitoring information.

	n	Assumes 80 hours to draft the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and another 20 hours of review/revisions, for a total of 100 hours.

	o	Assumes 40 hours to develop/review the QA/QC plan for the CMS.  No QA/QC plan is required for the parameter monitoring systems included in the rule.

	Assumes no facilities will use the alternative standard, which requires CEMS and QA/QC plans.

p	Assumes 40 hours to train personnel and 16 hours for an annual refresher course.

Table 2: Agency Burden and Cost - NESHAP for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHHH)

	Activity	A	B	C	 D 	 E 	 F 	G

Agency hours per occurrence	Occurances per yeara	Technical hours per year	Management hours per year	Clerical hours per year	Total hours per year	Labor Costb, $

	 	(C = A * B)	 (D = C * 0.05) 	 (E = C * 0.1) 	 (F = C + D + E)

	 	Notifications/Reports

	A.	 	Performance Testc	8	0	0	0	0	0	0

	B.	  Repeat Performance Testd	8	0	0	0	0	0	0

	C.	  CMS Performance Evaluatione	4	0	0	0	0	0	0

	D.	Review Notification of Construction/Reconstruction	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	2.3 95

	E.	 	Review Notification of Anticipated Startup	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	2.3	95

	F.	 	Review Notification of Actual Startup	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	2.3	95

	G.	 	Review Notification of Applicability of Standard	2	1	2	0.1	0.2 2.3	95

	H.	 	Review Emissions Averaging Planf	12	13	156	7.8	15.6	179.4	7,427

	I.	 	Review Precompliance Reportg	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	4.6	190

	J.	 	Review Notification of Initial Performance Test	2	0	0	0	0	0	0

	K.	 	Review Notification of Initial CMS Performance Evaluatione	2	0	0 0	0	0	0

	L.	 	Review Notification of Compliance Status

	 	 	  1. With performance testh	4	0	0	0	0	0	0

	 	 	  2. Without performance testi	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	4.6	190

	M.	 	Review Notification of Process Changej	6	13	78	3.9	7.8	89.7	3,713

	N.	 	Review Semiannual Compliance Report

	O.	 	    No deviationsk	2	119	238	11.9	23.8	273.7	11,330

	P.	 	    Deviationsk	4	13	52	2.6	5.2	59.8	2,476

	Q.	 	Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportl	2	7	14	0.7	1.4	16.1 666

	R.	 	LDAR reportm	2	132	264	13.2	26.4	303.6	12,568

	S.	 	Emissions averaging reportf	4	13	52	2.6	5.2	59.8	2,476

	Totals	870	44	87	1,001	$41,417

	a	132 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP.  Assuming 2 percent growth over 3 years, 1 new facility will be built each year.

	b	Labor cost assumes a rate of $42.45/hour for technical labor, $57.20/hour for management labor, and $22.96/hour for clerical labor.

	c	Assumes no initial performance tests because all facilities will comply by submitting engineering calculations.

d	Assumes no repeat performance tests.

	e	Assumes no performance evaluations are required for the parameter monitoring systems included in the rule.

f	Assumes that 10 percent of existing facilities will use with the emissions averaging reports to comply [10% x 132 = 13 (rounded)].

	g	Assumes 50 percent of the new facilities will submit a precompliance report [50% x 1= 1 (rounded)].

	h	Assumes one new facility will conduct initial performance tests.

	i	Assumes all existing facilities have complied by submitting engineering calculations.

j	Assumes 10 percent of the facilities will implement process changes [(10% x 132= 13 (rounded)].

	k	Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no deviations, and 10 percent will have deviations [90% x 132=119 (rounded), 10% x 132 = 13 (rounded)].

l	Assumes 5% of all facilities will report actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not consistent with the plan [5% x 132 = 7 (rounded)}.

m	Assumes all facilities will report the specified information for processes subject to the equipment leak standards.

 PAGE

 PAGE   20


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22378-22379]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10188]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2018-0431; FRL-9993-77-Region 1]

New Hampshire: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final authorization.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting New
Hampshire final authorization for changes to its hazardous waste
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
Agency published a proposed rule on March 1, 2019, and provided for
public comment. Four (4) comments were received during the public
comment period. A summary and response to these comments is provided
below. These comments did not affect EPA's decision. No further
opportunity for comment will be provided.

DATES: This final authorization is effective May 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2018-0431. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Yee, RCRA Waste Management,
UST & Pesticides Section, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail Code: 07-1),
Boston, MA 02109-3912, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. What changes to New Hampshire's hazardous waste program is EPA
authorizing with this action?

    On September 10, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a complete program
revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous
waste program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA now makes a final
decision that New Hampshire's hazardous waste program revisions that
are being authorized are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. For a list
of State rules being authorized with this Final Authorization, please
see the Proposed Rule published in the March 1, 2019, Federal Register
at 84 FR 7010.
    During the public comment period, EPA received four (4) comments.
These comments can be found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/03/01/2019-03590/new-hampshire-proposed-authorization-of-state-hazardous-waste-management-program-revisions. EPA has reviewed
these comments, which overall were supportive of EPA's proposed
authorization, and did not identify any specific factual or legal
deficiency in EPA's proposed authorization, or were outside the scope
of EPA's proposed action. Accordingly, they have not altered EPA's
final decision to authorize the New Hampshire's program revisions. EPA
will forward these comments to the State for their consideration.
    Also, the following additions and corrections will become part of
the authorized program:
    1. EPA inadvertently omitted two (2) Revision Checklists (RC)
during the preparation of the Proposed Rule Federal Register Notice.
These RCs were:
    RC 82--Wood Preserving Listings, and
    RC 192B--Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Correction. (RC 192B is
cited in the Special Consolidated Checklist (SCC) Phases I-IV LDR as of
12/31/2002).
    The revisions in the RCs were incorporated into the NH regulations
and the provision are equivalent to the Federal regulations.
    2. The following standalone checklists were inadvertently repeated
in the SCC for the Phases I-IV LDRs as of 12/31/2002 during the
preparation of the Propose Rule Federal Register Notice. They are:
    RC 117A--``Mixture'' and ``Derived-From'' Rules; Response to Court
Remand, and
    RC 178--Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste; Petroleum Refining Process Wastes;
Exemption for Leachate from Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills.
    3. The following checklist was inadvertently listed in the SCC for
Wood Preserving during the preparation of the Proposed Rule Federal
Register Notice, it should have been listed in the SCC for the Phases
I-IV LDRs as of 12/31/2002:
    RC 162--Clarification of Standards for Hazardous Waste LDR
Treatment Variances.

B. What is codification and is EPA codifying the New Hampshire's
hazardous waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing citations and references to
the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's
authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal
Regulations. EPA does this by adding those citations and references to
the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not codifying the
authorization of New Hampshire's revisions at this time. However, EPA
reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart EE for the
authorization of New Hampshire's program at a later date.

C. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final authorization revises New Hampshire's authorized
hazardous waste management program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and
imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State
law. For further information on how this authorization complies with
applicable executive orders and statutory provisions, please see the
Proposed Rule published in the March 1, 2019 Federal Register at 84 FR
7010. 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
document 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 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). This final action is effective May 17, 2019.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: May 1, 2019.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-10188 Filed 5-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15800-15802]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0107; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2010 Ferrari California Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
nonconforming 2010 Ferrari California passenger cars that were not
originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the
United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that
were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that
were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety
standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 2010 Ferrari California)
and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be

no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the
length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered Importer
90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2010
Ferrari California passenger cars are eligible for importation into the
United States. The vehicles which J.K. Technologies believes are
substantially similar are 2010 Ferrari California passenger cars that
were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their
manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2010
Ferrari California passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts,
and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to
compliance with most FMVSS.
    J.K. Technologies submitted information with its petition intended
to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2010 Ferrari California
passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in
the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of
being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the
petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2010 Ferrari California
passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with
respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever
Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103
Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and
Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor
Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof
Panel Systems, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 126 Electronic
Stability Control Systems, 135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems, 138 Tire
Pressure Monitoring Systems, 139 New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head
Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing
Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 210 Seat Belt
Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, 216 Roof Crush
Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 Child Restraint
Anchorage Systems, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: Replacement of the
instrument cluster with a U.S.-model component and reprogramming of the
vehicle computer.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Replacement of the headlamps, side marker lamps, and tail
lamps with U.S.-model components and reprogramming the vehicle computer
to activate necessary systems.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: Installation of a tire
information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: Replacement of the passenger
side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component or inscription of the
required warning statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention:
Reprogramming the vehicle computer to activate the key warning system.
    Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems: Reprogramming of the vehicle computer.
    Standard No. 207 Seating Systems: Replacement of non-conforming
seating systems with parts complying with advanced airbag regulations
from U.S.-model of the vehicle.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Inspection to confirm
that belts, airbags, sensors, control units, wiring harnesses, knee
bolsters, and braces bear U.S.-model part numbers. Non-U.S.-model parts
will be replaced with U.S.-model components to render the vehicle
identical to the U.S.-model in regards to the standard. Reprogram the
vehicle computer to activate the seat belt warning system.
    Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: Inspection of seatbelts and
replacement of non-conforming belts with U.S.-model components.
    Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection: Inspect each vehicle for
the presence of compliant door panel airbags as well as other side
impact components, replacing non-conforming parts with U.S.-model
components.
    Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Inspection of all vehicles
and replacement of any non U.S.-model fuel system components with U.S.-
model

components as necessary to conform to the requirements of FMVSS No.
301.
    Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk Release: Installation of U.S.-model
interior trunk release components.
    The petitioner states that the bumpers and bumper support structure
are identical to that of the U.S. certified model. However, the bumper
reinforcements and brackets must be inspected to ensure that the
correct components were installed prior to importation. If not, they
must be replaced with U.S.-model components to comply with 49 CFR Part
581.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
    Because the subject petition covers nonconforming vehicles that
have been manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, compliance with
the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 is of significant
concern to the agency. NHTSA is therefore particularly interested in
comments regarding the ability of a Registered Importer to readily
alter the subject vehicles to fully meet the driver and front outboard
passenger frontal crash protection and child passenger protection
requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The following is a partial listing of
the components that may be affected:

a. Driver's frontal air bag module
b. Passenger frontal air bag module
c. Passenger frontal air bag cover
d. Knee air bags
e. Knee bolsters
f. Passenger outboard frontal seat belt system
g. Driver and front outboard seat assemblies including seat tracks and
internal seat components
h. Steering wheel components, including the clock spring assembly, the
steering column, and all connecting components
i. Instrument panel
j. Instrument panel support structure (i.e. cross beam)
k. Occupant sensing and classification systems, including sensors and
processors
l. Restraint control modules
m. Passenger air bag status indicator light system, including related
display components and wiring
n. Wiring harnesses between the restraint control module, occupant
classification system and restraint system components
o. Control system computer software and firmware

    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Dated: March 10, 2014.
Coleman Sachs,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-06165 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8746-8749]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3157]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0578; FRL-9336-7]

Indoxacarb; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
indoxacarb in or on egg, poultry fat, poultry meat, and poultry meat
byproducts. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company requested these

tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 15, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 16, 2012, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0578. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Chao, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0578 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 16, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0578, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53372) (FRL-8884-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1F7873) by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 1007 Market Street,
Wilmington, DE 19898-0001. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.564
be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
indoxacarb, (S)-methyl-7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)-phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2e]
[1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate, its R-enantiomer, (R)-methyl 7-
chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)
phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno [1,2-e] [1,3,4] oxadiazine-4a(3H)-
carboxylate, and the metabolites: IN-JT333: Methyl 7-chloro-2,5-
dihydro-2-[[[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]-amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2-
e][1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate; IN-KT319: (E)-methyl 5-chloro-
2,3,-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1- [[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]-carbonyl]hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-
carboxylate; IN-JU873: Methyl 5-chloro-2,3-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-[[[[4-
(triflurormethoxy)-phenyl]amino]carbonyl]hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-
carboxylate; IN-KG433: Methyl 5-chloro-2,3,-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-
[[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-
hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-carboxylate; and IN-KB687: Methyl [4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]carbamate, in or on egg at 0.2 parts per
million (ppm); poultry, fat at 0.2 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.06 ppm; and
poultry, meat byproducts at 0.06 ppm. That notice referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical

residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is
``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean
that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all
anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there
is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through drinking
water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational
exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for indoxacarb including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with indoxacarb
follows.
    In the Federal Register of July 10, 2009 (74 FR 33159) (FRL-8424-
9), EPA published a Final Rule establishing tolerances for residues of
the insecticide indoxacarb in or on various beet commodities and the
bushberry subgroup 13-07B. These tolerances had been requested in PP
8E7324. When the Agency conducted the risk assessment in support of the
July 10, 2009 tolerance action, it also considered residues of
indoxacarb, its R-enantiomer, and its metabolites IN-JT333, IN-KT319,
IN-JU873, IN-KG433, and IN-KB687 in or on egg; poultry, fat; poultry,
meat; and poultry, meat byproducts. These tolerances were evaluated by
EPA based on the results of a previously submitted and accepted poultry
feeding study; however, because of a deficiency related to a poultry
storage stability study, EPA was not able to establish tolerances on
egg and poultry commodities. Since that time, the registrant has
provided an acceptable poultry storage stability study, which supports
the establishment of tolerances on egg; poultry, fat; poultry, meat;
and poultry, meat byproducts. Detailed considerations regarding EPA's
resolution of these data deficiencies are discussed in the document,
``Indoxacarb. Petition for the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances on
Poultry Commodities and Submission of Storage Stability Data for
Poultry Commodities in Response to HED Memorandum DP297936, 9/
22/04,'' which is available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket
EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0578.
    Since EPA considered the additional uses proposed by PP 1F7873 in
its most recent risk assessments, establishing tolerances on these
commodities will not change the estimated aggregate risks resulting
from use of indoxacarb, as discussed in the Federal Register of July
10, 2009 (74 FR 33159) (FRL-8424-9). In that action, EPA concluded that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to
indoxacarb residues. Refer to the July 10, 2009 (74 FR 33159) (FRL-
8424-9) Federal Register document, available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0271, for a detailed
discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of
safety. The findings in that action apply with equal force here and are
adopted by EPA in this rulemaking. Accordingly, EPA concludes that
aggregate exposure to indoxacarb will be safe for the general
population, including infants and children.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)/column switching/ultraviolet (UV) method AMR
2712-93 with confirmation/specificity provided by gas chromatography
(GC)/mass-selective detector method AMR 3493-95, Supplement No. 4) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for indoxacarb in or on eggs at 0.02
mg/kg; poultry meat at 0.01 mg/kg; and poultry, edible offal at 0.01
mg/kg. These MRLs are lower than the poultry tolerance levels
determined appropriate for indoxacarb in the United States. The U.S.
residue definition for poultry commodities includes indoxacarb, its R-
enantiomer, and five metabolites, whereas the Codex residue definition
includes only indoxacarb and its R-enantiomer. Because the Codex
residue definition and evaluation procedures for livestock commodities
differ from those of the United States harmonization of U.S. tolerances
with Codex MRLs is not possible for poultry commodities.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of indoxacarb,
(S)-methyl-7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)-phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2e]
[1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate; its R-enantiomer (R)-methyl 7-
chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)
phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno [1,2-e] [1,3,4] oxadiazine-4a(3H)-
carboxylate; and the metabolites: IN-JT333: Methyl 7-chloro-2,5-
dihydro-2-[[[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]-amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2-
e][1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate; IN-KT319: (E)-methyl 5-chloro-
2,3,-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-[[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]-carbonyl]hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-
carboxylate; IN-JU873: Methyl 5-chloro-2,3-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-[[[[4-
(triflurormethoxy)-phenyl]amino]carbonyl]hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-
carboxylate; IN-KG433: Methyl 5-chloro-2,3,-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-
[[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-
hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-carboxylate; and IN-KB687: Methyl [4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]carbamate, in or on egg at 0.20 parts per
million (ppm); poultry, fat at 0.20 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.06 ppm; and
poultry, meat byproducts at 0.06 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 1, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.564 is amended by adding the designation ``(1)'' after
the heading ``General'' in paragraph (a), and by adding paragraph
(a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.564  Indoxacarb; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *
    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of indoxacarb,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below
is to be determined by measuring only the sum of indoxacarb, (S)-
methyl-7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)-
phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2e] [1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-
carboxylate, its R-enantiomer, (R)-methyl 7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-
[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy) phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno
[1,2-e] [1,3,4] oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate, and the metabolites: IN-
JT333, methyl 7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]-
amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2-e][1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate; IN-
KT319, (E)-methyl 5-chloro-2,3,-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-
[[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]-
carbonyl]hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-carboxylate; IN-JU873, methyl 5-chloro-
2,3-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-[[[[4-(triflurormethoxy)-
phenyl]amino]carbonyl]hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-carboxylate; IN-KG433,
methyl 5-chloro-2,3,-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-[[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-
carboxylate; and IN-KB687, methyl [4-
(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]carbamate, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of indoxacarb in the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egg.........................................................        0.20
Poultry, fat................................................        0.20
Poultry, meat...............................................        0.06
Poultry, meat byproducts....................................        0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-3157 Filed 2-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P