June 6, 2016

Dear SER,

	As discussed on page 78 in the PSM SBREFA Background Document, the Panel   is interested in receiving feedback on the issue of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) recent interpretation of the retail exemption clause in the PSM standard. This information is being provided to further your review of the PSM SBREFA package you recently received.
	Specifically, OSHA is considering the addition of language to the standard to codify the scope of the retail facilities exemption, 29 CFR 1910.119(a)(2)(i). This language would add to the standard OSHA's current interpretation (dated July 22, 2015), which limits the exemption to facilities, or the portions of facilities, engaged in retail trade as defined by the current and any future updates to sectors 44 and 45 of the NAICS Manual. As explained in OSHA's July 22, 2015, memorandum to the field, OSHA's current interpretation restores the exemption to its originally intended scope, and revokes previous interpretations that looked at the percentage of income derived from the sales of highly hazardous chemicals to end users (OSHA, 2015).
	OSHA believes that many facilities operating processes now subject to the PSM regulation due to this interpretative change were already covered under EPA's RMP Program 2.  RMP Program 2 requires eight somewhat less stringent requirements than PSM. OSHA has made preliminary estimates of the percentage of the total costs of bringing a completely new facility into PSM compliance that would be incurred if, in fact, the facility was currently in compliance with RMP Program 2 requirements. the Panel is interested in comment on the accuracy of these estimates. Overall, the Agency estimates that the typical firm in this RMP Program 2 population would have already met about 55% of the "from scratch" total costs. PSM elements where full costs would be incurred are: employee participation plan, contractor provisions, pre-startup review, hot work, and management of change. The Panel welcomes comments on these estimates and all aspects of the costs of bringing an RMP Program 2 facility into PSM compliance. Specifically please consider the following questions:
   1. If your process is subject to PSM by the new retail interpretation, what PSM-related fatalities, injuries, releases, and loss of primary containment have occurred previously at your facility?   Would following PSM requirements for those processes have prevented those injuries and fatalities?
   2. OSHA considered that the incremental costs to facilities operating PSM-covered processes because of the new retail exemption interpretation would be modest because they would already have to comply with many of the same requirements under EPA RMP Program 2.  Do you agree?  If not, please indicate what new costs would be incurred by your facility to comply with PSM that is not currently required by EPA RMP Program 2, and provide an estimate of each such cost.  Are there any special circumstances specific to small entities the Panel should consider with respect to this issue?
   3. The Panel welcomes comments on all aspects of unit costs for the processes covered by PSM under the new interpretation of the retail exemption, and suggestions of other alternatives that would achieve OSHA's objectives while minimizing the costs to small entities.

Sincerely yours,
					Robert Burt
					Chair, Small Business Advocacy Review Panel								Occupational Safety and Health Administration

cc:	Bruce Lundegren, SBA Office of Advocacy
	Cortney Higgins, OMB

OSHA, 2015. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Process Safety Management of HighlyHazardous Chemicals and Application of the Retail Exemption (29 CFR 1910.119(a)(2)(i)), OSHA memo, July 22. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=29528.


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 25, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-00-8374

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant: AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V. (Aeromexico)		Date Filed:
April 26, 2005

Relief requested:  Renewal of exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to
permit the applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, combination
service between Monterrey, Mexico, and New York, NY.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  May 4, 2004, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  William C. Evans,<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT analyst:
Daniel M. Wolfert,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                          Action date:  May 25, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 25, 2005, through May 25,
2006.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (“the Agreement”).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached) and to the otherwise applicable terms, conditions, and
limitations of Aeromexico’s foreign air carrier permit (Order
91-5-25).

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32896-32897]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0316; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-1]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Billings, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace at Billings Logan
International Airport, Billings, MT. Controlled airspace is necessary
to accommodate aircraft using Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning
System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Billings Logan
International Airport. This action will also make a minor adjustment to
the geographic coordinates of the airport. This improves the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, September 20, 2012. The Director of
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action
under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 6, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to modify controlled airspace at
Billings, MT (77 FR 20747). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface, at Billings Logan International Airport, to
accommodate aircraft using RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedures at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport
are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This
action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies
controlled airspace at Billings Logan International Airport, Billings,
MT.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Billings, MT [Modified]

Billings Logan International Airport, MT
    (Lat. 45[deg]48'28'' N., long. 108[deg]32'34'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 16-mile radius of Billings Logan International Airport;
that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within a 63-mile radius of the Billings Logan International Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 24, 2012.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-13373 Filed 6-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                                                                                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                             REGION IX AIR DIVISION

                          Technical Support Document                                        for                           EPA's Proposed Rulemaking                                     for the                      California State Implementation Plan                                                                                South Coast Air Quality Management District                          Rule 445 - Wood-Burning Devices

                                                                                Prepared by: Rynda Kay

	June 2013

RULE IDENTIFICATION

Agency:	South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

SIP Approved Rule:	Rule 445  -  Wood Burning Devices                         Adopted  -  March 7, 2008  	Submitted  -  July 18, 2008 	Approved- June 11, 2009 (74 FR 27716)

Superseded Submittals:	There are no previous submittals of this rule since the approved 2008 version (besides the 2013 version addressed here).

Subject of this TSD:	Rule 445  -  Wood Burning Devices [excluding subdivision (h)]                         Adopted  -  May 3, 2013  	Submitted  -  June 11, 2013

RULE SUMMARY

SCAQMD Rule 445 is designed to minimize the impacts of smoke and other air pollutants generated during the use of wood burning devices. The rule establishes requirements for the sale, operation, and installation of wood burning devices.  Changes from the SIP approved rule include the following:

1.	The mandatory winter burning curtailment provision was modified to reduce the current forecast threshold for a given source/receptor area from 35 to 30 ug/m3 [Subparagraph (c) (6) (A)].

2.	New parameters have been outlined for when a mandatory winter burning curtailment would apply to the entire South Coast Air Basin [Subdivision (e) & Subparagraph (c) (6) (B)].

3.	A new requirement was added for commercial firewood sellers to attach a label to products informing the public of the wood burning curtailment program [Subparagraph (d) (5)].

4. 	A provision was removed which allowed the installation of wood-burning devices or fireplaces into existing development if they could be demonstrated to achieve the same emission rate as an EPA certified wood heater [Subparagraph (d) (2) (D)].

5.	Text describing commercial firewood seller requirements has been amended to include "other wood-based fuels" to ensure proposed labelling requirements would apply to all packaged and manufactured wood sold [Subparagraph (b) & (c)].  A definition was added for "wood-based fuel" [Subparagraph (c) (18)].

6.	Modifications were made to clarify that cookstove and wood labelling exemptions apply only to commercial cooking [Subparagraphs (c) (2&22), (f) (1&6)]. A new definition was added for "Wood-fired Cooking Device" to clarify applicability under mandatory winter burning curtailment [Subparagraph (c) (22)].

7. 	The definition on "Wood Burning Device" was added to include open and enclosed devices thus prohibiting the installation of wood-burning fire pits in new development [Subparagraph (c) (19)].

EVALUATION CRITERIA - The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted rule.

1.	Enforceability - The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

      2.	SIP Revisions - CAA §110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA §193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area.              3. 	Rule Stringency - The Los Angeles - South Coast Air Basin (South Coast) is currently designated as a serious non-attainment area for PM10 (40 CFR § 81.305).   Accordingly, SCAQMD is  subject to requirements to implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM) including Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for PM10 and PM10 precursors as described in CAA § 189(b) and (e).  On June 11, 2009, EPA approved SCAQMD Rule 445 into the Applicable-SIP as fulfilling BACT/BACM for PM10 (74 FR 27716).  We are not evaluating SCAQMD Rule 445 for compliance with BACT/BACM requirements in this rulemaking.               CAA §172(c)(1) requires nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM), including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable.  The South Coast is currently designated as an extreme 1-hr ozone nonattainment area and an extreme 8-hr ozone nonattainment area, and is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual, 1997 24-hour,  and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards (40 C.F.R. 81.305).  Residential wood burning emits direct PM2.5, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are regulated as precursors to PM2.5 and ozone in the South Coast. Therefore, SCAQMD must implement RACM for residential wood burning if those measures will advance attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5 or ozone in the South Coast, when considered collectively with other reasonable measures. Additional control measures may be required pursuant to CAA §172(c)(1) if both: (1) additional measures are reasonably available; and (2) these additional reasonably available measures will advance attainment in the area when considered collectively.

EPA EVALUATION

      1. 	Enforceability - The rule requirements and applicability provisions are clear and other provisions sufficiently ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445 consistently.                   2. 	SIP Revisions - We propose to determine that our approval of the submitted rule would comply with CAA §110(l) and CAA §193 because the revisions to SCAQMD Rule 445 all strengthen the SIP and, therefore, would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met or modify any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area. SCAQMD estimates that lowering the mandatory winter burning curtailment threshold and applying the curtailment to the entire basin (when triggered) could reduce PM2.5 emissions by 7.1 tons PM2.5/curtailment day (1.2 tons PM2.5/day as averaged over the winter curtailment period).         3. 	Rule Stringency - EPA reviewed the previous version of SCAQMD Rule 445 in 2009, and approved it as meeting requirements for RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT for PM10 at that time (74 FR 27716).

      In our 2009 action, the following recommendation was made to improve the rule at the next revision:

      "Rule 445(f)(3): This exemption to the rule allows the transfer of real estate without removal or replacement of non-EPA Phase II-certified devices. We believe that a measure should be implemented to remove non-EPA Phase II-certified devices. The District's incentives program for change-out of such devices is this type of measure. Since the incentives program may not be permanent, we recommend that the removal or replacement of non-EPA Phase II-certified woodstoves and fireplace inserts be required as a condition of real estate sale."

      In response to EPA comments regarding this provision, the District stated, "... this was considered during the development of Rule 445. Staff will revisit the issue as part of current incentive programs, but as the 2014 attainment date is fast approaching and given the rate of property transfers, adding the requirement to the rule would not have an appreciable effect by 2014.

      With the exception of the provision described above, SCAQMD Rule 445 is generally as stringent as or more stringent than analogous rules in other California Districts. See Attachment 1. As necessary, in separate rulemakings, EPA will take action on the State's RACM demonstrations for PM2.5 and ozone based on evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment dates in the South Coast.  See 40 CFR §§ 51.1010, 51.912(d).

EPA ACTION         We propose to determine that SCAQMD Rule 445 fulfills the applicable CAA §110 requirements. Therefore, under section 110(k) of the CAA, EPA staff recommends full approval of SCAQMD Rule 445.

ATTACHMENTS   1.	Table 1. Major Components of Various Residential Wood Burning Rules

REFERENCES

1.	SCAQMD Rule 445, SIP-Approved Rule (March 7, 2008) 2. 	SCAQMD Rule 445 (May 3, 2013)	 3.	"Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations," (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988 (web citation). 4.	"Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies," (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf)	 5.	Final Staff Report, Rule 444 and 445, SCAQMD, April 2013  6.	South Coast Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, Response to Comments, page 13.  7.	"Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke", EPA Document # EPA-456/B-09001, October 2009. 8. 	Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 417 (October 26, 2006). 9. 	San Joaquin Valley Unified AQCD Rule 4901 (October 16, 2008). 10. 	Bay Area AQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3 (July 9, 2008). 11. 	Placer County APCD Rule 225 (December 13, 2007). 12. 	Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 417 (October 26, 2006).

Table 1. Major Components of Various Residential Wood Burning Rules[1]  Adopted Requirement BCAQMD Rule 207  BAAQMD Rule 6-3  PCAPCD Rule 225  SJV Rule 4901  SMAQMD Rule 417 & Rule 422  SCAQMD Rule 445 (2008) SCAQMD Rule 445 (2013) Wood burning devices installed in existing development must be EPA Phase-II certified or have equivalent emissions  Y Y Y Y[3] Y Y Y[3] The  burning of materials not intended for use in wood burning devices is prohibited Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Opacity or Visible Emission Limit within the Rule N Y Y N N N N Warning label regarding (L) or ban  on the sale of (S) or use of (U) unseasoned wood  N Y (L,B,U) Y (B) Y (L) Y (L) Y(L,B) Y(L,B) Wood burning device retailers must provide public awareness information  Y Y Y Y[3] Y Y Y Voluntary (V) /mandatory (M) winter burning curtailment[2] N Y (35) N Y (30) Y (35)[4] Y (35) Y (30) + basinwide provision Prohibit the installation of all non-EPA certified wood burning devices  in new development Y Y Y Y[3] Y Y Y[5] Limit # of wood burning devices / acre in new development  N N Y Y  N N/A N/A Replace non-EPA Phase II certified wood burning devices upon home sale N N Y[3] Y[3] N N N [1] Butte County AQMD Rule 2007 (adopted December 11, 2008); Bay Area AQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3 (adopted July 9, 2008); Placer County APCD Rule 225 (adopted December 13, 2007); San Joaquin Valley Unified AQCD Rule 4901 (adopted October 16, 2008); Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 417 (adopted October 26, 2006); South Coast AQMD Rule 445 (adopted March 7, 2008 and May 3, 2013)  2 (xx) = Mandatory curtailment at forecast level of xx ug/m[3] PM2.5 [3] Applies to wood burning heaters only (fireplaces excluded) [4] Voluntary curtailment at 25-31 ug/m[3] PM2.5; Stage I curtailment (certified devices allowed to operate) at forecast level of 31-35 ug/m[3] PM2.5;  Stage II (no wood burning devices allowed to operate) at forecast level of >35 ug/m[3] PM2.5  [5]SCAQMD does not allow equivalency demonstration Note:   Potential control options are obtained from the following documents:   Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke, EPA-456/B-13-001 (March 2013).  Technical Information Document for Residential Wood Combustion Best Available Control Measures, EPA-450/2-92-002 (September 1992).  General Preamble, Appendix C2 -- Available Residential Wood Combustion Control Measures, 57 FR 18072 (April 28, 1992).            In November of 2004 CARB adopted a list of PM control measures to be considered by Districts (SB656) including 1) Require use of USEPA-Certified Phase II or equivalent devices, 2) Public awareness program with voluntary or mandatory curtailment, 3) replacement of non-certified units upon sale of property, 4) restrict number of fireplaces allowed in new residential development, 5) control of wood moisture content, 6) prohibit burning of materials not intended for use in a fireplace/heater.


[Federal Register: June 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 108)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31220-31221]
[DOCID:fr06jn07-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006- 0175; FRL-8129-2]

Pesticides; Food Packaging treated with a Pesticide; Reopening of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rulemaking; reopening of the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the public comment period for a proposed rule
concerning pesticide-treated food packaging published in the Federal
Register of April 6, 2007. Written comments were required to be
submitted by April 21, 2007. EPA is reopening the comment period
because the Agency received, considered and accepted a petition to
extend the public comment period. This document reopens the comment
period for an additional 30 days.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the proposed rule published in the Federal Register of April 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mari L. Duggard, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency identified in the proposed rule those who may be
potentially affected by that action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    To submit comments, or access the public docket, follow the
detailed

instructions provided in Unit I.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of
the April 6, 2007 proposed rule.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

    This document reopens the comment period established in a proposed
rule published in the Federal Register of April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17068)
(FRL-8119-8). In that document, pursuant to FFDCA section 201(q)(3),
EPA proposed to amend the current exception at 40 CFR Sec. 180.4 such
that inert ingredients of food packaging (paper and paperboard,
coatings, adhesives and polymers) are excepted from the definition of
``pesticide chemical'' or ``pesticide chemical residue'', when the food
packaging has been treated with a pesticide. EPA is reopening the
comment period for 30 days. The new comment period ends on July 6,
2007.

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 201(q)(3) of FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA), allows the Administrator, under specified
conditions, to except by regulation certain substances from the
definition of ``pesticide chemical'' or ``pesticide chemical residue''
if-
    (A) Its occurrence as a residue on or in a raw agricultural
commodity or processed food is attributable primarily to natural causes
or human activities not involving the use of any substance for a
pesticidal purpose in the production, storage, processing, or
transportation of any raw agricultural commodity or processed food; and
    (B) The Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary,
determines that the substance more appropriately should be regulated
under one or more provisions of this Act other than sections
402(a)(2)(B) and 408.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and record-
keeping requirements.

    Dated: May 21, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs
[FR Doc. E7-10693 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


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

MEMORANDUM

DATE:	August 29, 2011

SUBJECT:	Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Fluopyram Registration
            (PC Code 080302; DP Barcodes 353315, 369756, and 385637)

FROM:	Mohammed Ruhman, Fate Scientist
      Amanda Solliday, Biologist
		Environmental Risk Branch V
		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief
		Environmental Risk Branch V
		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TO:		Lisa Jones, Risk Manager Reviewer
      Shaja Joyner, Risk Manager, RM 20
      Fungicide Branch
		Registration Division (7505P)

As part of the new chemical registration for the fungicide fluopyram, this risk assessment provides an overview of what is currently known about the potential environmental fate and ecological effects associated with the proposed uses of fluopyram (see attached document).