[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13607-13609]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04487]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27748]

Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators; Public Listening Session

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

ACTION: Notice of public listening session.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it will hold a public listening session
to solicit ideas and information on the issue of entry-level training
for drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Specifically, the
Agency solicits input on factors, issues, and data it should consider
in anticipation of a rulemaking to implement the entry-level driver

training (ELDT) provisions in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act. Wherever possible, the Agency requests that participants
indicate whether the ideas identified are supported by research or data
analyses, including cost/benefit considerations. The entire day's
proceedings will be webcast.

DATES: The listening session will be held on Friday, March 22, 2013,
from 1-5 p.m., ET. If all interested in-person participants have had an
opportunity to comment, the session may conclude earlier.

ADDRESSES: The listening session will be held at the Kentucky
Exposition Center, 937 Phillips Lane, Louisville, KY 40209, 502-367-
5000, in Room C101. In addition to attending the session in person, the
Agency offers several ways to provide comments, as enumerated below.
    Internet Address for Live Webcast. FMCSA will post specific
information on how to participate via the Internet on the FMCSA Web
site at www.fmcsa.dot.gov one week before the listening session.
    You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2007-27748 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line 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., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received, without
change, to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The online Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you would like
acknowledgment that the Agency received your comments, please include a
self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the
acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on December 29,
2010 (75 FR 82132).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
listening session or the live webcast, please contact Ms. Shannon L.
Watson, Senior Advisor for Policy, FMCSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you need sign language assistance to participate in this ELDT
listening session, contact Ms. Watson by Monday, March 18, 2013, to
allow us to arrange for such services. FMCSA cannot guarantee that
interpreter services requested on short notice will be provided.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The session will allow interested persons to
present comments and relevant new research on ELDT. All comments will
be transcribed and placed in docket FMCSA-2007-27748 for FMCSA's
consideration.

I. Background

    In the early 1980s, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Office of Motor Carriers, predecessor to the FMCSA, determined that
there was a need for technical guidance in the area of truck driver
training. Research showed that few driver training institutions offered
a structured curriculum or a standardized training program for any type
of CMV driver. A 1995 study entitled ``Assessing the Adequacy of
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training'' (the Adequacy Report)
concluded, among other things, that effective ELDT needs to include
behind-the-wheel (BTW) instruction on how to operate a heavy vehicle.
    In 2004, FMCSA implemented a training rule that focused on areas
unrelated to the hands-on operation of a CMV, relying instead on the
commercial driver's license (CDL) knowledge and skills tests to
encourage training in the operation of CMVs. These current training
regulations cover four areas: (1) Driver qualifications; (2) hours of
service limitations; (3) wellness; and (4) whistleblower protection. In
2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
held that the Agency was arbitrary and capricious in promulgating the
2004 rule because it ignored the BTW training component aspect of the
1995 Adequacy Report.
    On December 26, 2007, FMCSA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking public comment on enhanced ELDT requirements
(72 FR 73226). In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed revisions to the standards
for mandatory training requirements for entry-level operators of CMVs
in interstate operations who are required to possess a CDL. The
proposal would apply to drivers who apply for a CDL beginning 3 years
after a final rule goes into effect. Following that date, persons
applying for new or upgraded CDLs would be required to successfully
complete specified minimum classroom and BTW training from an
accredited institution or program. The FMCSA proposed that the State
driver-licensing agency would issue a CDL only if the applicant
presented a valid driver training certificate obtained from an
accredited institution or program. The Agency indicated the rulemaking
would strengthen the Agency's ELDT requirements in response to the 2005
DC Circuit Court decision.
    Since the publication of the NPRM, the Agency has completed its
review of the public responses to the proposal and initiated new
research concerning driver training. The Agency has also begun
exploring new alternatives for mining Motor Carrier Safety Management
Information System (MCMIS) data and Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) data to attempt to assess the safety
performance of new CDL holders compared to that of more experienced CDL
holders. In addition, in response to the public comments, the Agency
has reexamined the regulatory options presented in the 2007 NPRM, as
well as its estimates of the driver population who would be subject to
the requirements. As a result, the Agency has concluded that additional
stakeholder input will be useful in determining the most appropriate
path forward for an ELDT rulemaking.
    Section 32304 of MAP-21 requires that FMCSA issue final ELDT
regulations by October 1, 2013, establishing minimum ELDT requirements
for operators of CMVs. The listening session at the Mid-America Truck
Show will provide an opportunity for motorcoach operators and other
interested parties to share with FMCSA their ideas, especially as they
relate to the training needs for

individuals seeking a passenger endorsement.

II. Meeting Participation and Information FMCSA Seeks From the Public

    The listening session is open to the public. Speakers' remarks will
be limited to 5 minutes each. No pre-registration is required. The
public may submit material to the FMCSA staff at the session for
inclusion in the public docket, FMCSA-2007-27748.

III. Alternative Media Broadcasts During and Immediately After the
Listening Session on March 22, 2013

    FMCSA will webcast the listening session on the Internet. The
telephone access number and other information on how to participate via
the Internet will be posted on the FMCSA Web site at www.fmcsa.dot.gov
one week before the listening session.
    FMCSA will docket the transcripts of the webcast and a separate
transcription of the listening session that will be prepared by an
official court reporter.

    Issued on: February 20, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-04487 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 224)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67317-67318]
[DOCID:fr21no06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0390; FRL-8244-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area Vehicle Miles Traveled
Offset Analysis

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Louisiana State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Offset Analysis submitted to EPA on March 22, 2005.

The Baton Rouge area became subject to this requirement upon its
reclassification from serious to severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment.
This action is being taken under sections 110 and 182 of the Federal
Clean Air Act, as amended (the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 21,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Sandra Rennie at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, fax number
214-665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 9, 2006.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E6-19642 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11415]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0108]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Smith Point Bridge across Narrow
Bay, mile 6.1, at Suffolk County, New York. This deviation is necessary
in order to facilitate a Triathlon Event and allows the bridge to
remain in the closed position for two hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on August 5,
2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0108, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Stephanie Lopez, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4335, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Event Power requested and the bridge owner,
Suffolk County DPW, concurred with this temporary deviation from the
normal operating schedule to facilitate a Triathlon Event.
    The Smith Point Bridge across Narrow Bay, mile 6.1, has a vertical
clearance of 18 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water
in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is
listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
    The temporary deviation will allow the Smith Point Bridge to remain
closed from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on August 5, 2018. Narrow Bay is transited
by seasonal recreational vessels. Coordination with Coast Guard Sector
Long Island Sound has indicated no mariner objections to the proposed
short-term closure of the draw.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so
at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is
no alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 6, 2018.
Christopher J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-05205 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56275-56278]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22287]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0332; FRL-9915-82]

2-Propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer With 1,6-
diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-
propenenitrile; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide
and 2-propenenitrile (CAS Reg. No. 1469998-09-1) when used as an inert
ingredient in a pesticide formulation. BASF Corporation submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-
diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-
propenenitrile on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 19, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 18, 2014,
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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0332, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The 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 Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 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/
40tab02.tpl.

C. 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-2014-0332 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
November 18, 2014. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0332, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL-9911-
67), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (IN-10700) filed
by BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, NJ 07932. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-
propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-
(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-propenenitrile (CAS Reg.
No. 1469998-09-1). That document included a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's
request. The Agency did not receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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 use 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 an exemption from the
requirement of 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 . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide
and 2-propenenitrile conforms to the definition of a polymer given in
40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to
identify low-risk polymers:
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    8. The polymer's number average MW of 100,000 is greater than or
equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric
material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW
1,000.
    Thus, 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-
diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-
propenenitrile meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low
risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in
this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary,
inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester,
polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-
propenamide and 2-propenenitrile.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide
and 2-propenenitrile could be present in all raw and processed
agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational
non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of 2-propenoic
acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-
(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-propenenitrile is 100,000
daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed
through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin.
Since 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-
diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-
propenenitrile conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk
polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential
exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has
determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public
health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a

tolerance, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-
diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-
propenenitrile to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-
diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-
propenenitrile does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide
and 2-propenenitrile does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-
2-propenamide and 2-propenenitrile, EPA has not used a safety factor
analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional
tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester,
polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-
propenamide and 2-propenenitrile.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

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 United Nations
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 not established a MRL for 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-
2-propenamide and 2-propenenitrile.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid,
butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-
methyl-2-propenamide and 2-propenenitrile from the requirement of a
tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules 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 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) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    Although this action does not 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), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly

available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency considered
whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of their
location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or
disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: September 10, 2014.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting 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. In Sec.  180.960, alphabetically add the following polymer to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
2-Propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-            1469998-09-1
 diisocyanatohexane, N-(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-
 propenamide and 2-propenenitrile, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in amu), 100,000............

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-22287 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50101-50102]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-493-000]

Cadeville Gas Storage LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    On July 27, 2012, Cadeville Gas Storage LLC (Cadeville) filed with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application
under section 157.213(b) of the Commission's Regulations for authority
to construct an additional natural gas storage and injection well at
Cadeville's natural gas storage facility in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana.
The storage facility was originally approved by FERC in Docket No.
CP10-16-000 on August 10, 2010, as more fully detailed in the
Application.
    Questions concerning this application may be directed to Paul T.
Lanham, Sr. Vice President Engineering and Operations, Cadeville Gas
Storage Company, LLC, Three Riverway, Suite 1350, Houston, Texas 77056,
or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be
deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20311 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47031-47033]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0527; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-045-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Dassault Aviation Model Mystere-Falcon 50 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of an untimely and intermittent
indication of slat activity due to chafing of the electrical wiring
under the glare shield and behind the flight deck front panel. This
proposed AD would require installing two protective plates between the
electrical wiring under the glare shield and the engine fire pull
handles. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing of the electrical
wiring, which could result in a short circuit and generation of smoke
in the cockpit, potential loss of several functions essential for safe
flight, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 26,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0527; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0527;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-045-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0024, dated January 23, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model Mystere-Falcon 50 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    One operator experienced an untimely and intermittent indication
of slat activity on his aeroplane. The results of the subsequent
investigation revealed that electrical wiring under the glare shield
and behind the flight deck front panel was chafing with hardware and
was short-circuited to ground. This situation may have resulted from
an incorrect installation of the wiring during a previous
maintenance action in the area. A design review identified a lack of
protection of the affected electrical wiring bundle, which would
have prevented damage caused by chafing with aeroplane structural
parts.
    This condition, if not corrected, might lead to an electrical
short circuit and generation of smoke, possibly affecting operation
of systems and resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation
issued [service bulletin] SB F50-530, providing instructions for
installation of a protective plate on the electrical wiring.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the aeroplane by installing a protective plate on
the electrical wiring.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0527.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F50-530, dated November 12,
2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.

    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method
approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or
Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 250 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation..........................  26 work-hours x $85 per              $96          $2,306        $576,500
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2014-0527; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-045-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 26, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model Mystere-Falcon 50
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Airplanes with serial numbers 5, 7, 27, 30, 34, 36, 78, 132,
and 251 through 352 inclusive.
    (2) Airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers 2 through 250
inclusive, having Honeywell (formerly Allied Signal, Garrett
AiResearch) TFE731-40-1C engines modified by Dassault Aviation
Service Bulletin F50-280.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an untimely and intermittent
indication of slat activity due to chafing of the electrical wiring
under the glare shield and behind the flight deck front panel. We
are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the electrical wiring,
which could result in a short circuit and generation of smoke in the
cockpit, potential loss of several functions essential for safe
flight, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Install Protective Plates

    Within 74 months after the effective date of this AD, install
two Rilsan protective plates between the glare shield electrical
wiring and the engine fire pull handles, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-530,
dated November 12, 2013.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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
Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-
1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (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
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0024, dated January 23,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0527.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 1, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19009 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Charlene Spells, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/FIG

FROM:	David Hendricks, EC/R, Inc.

DATE:	October 29, 2015

SUBJECT:	Summary of the October 22, 2015, Meeting with the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I.	INTRODUCTION

The American Petroleum Institute (API) requested this meeting with EPA to present an overview of their comments on the September 18, 2015 proposed Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS (80 FR 56593), draft CTG (80 FR 56577), proposed Source Determination Rule (80 FR 56579), and proposed FIP for EPA's Indian Country Minor NSR program. This summary addresses the discussion on the first three actions.

II.	ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jameel Alsalam (by phone)
Carey Bylin
David Cozzie
Amy Hambrick
Jodi Howard
Bruce Moore
Greg Nizich
Charlene Spells
Lisa Thompson
Cheryl Vetter
Suzie Waltzer (by phone)
Matthew Witosky
API and Member Organizations
Jeff Adams, BP
Shankar Ananthakrishna, Chevron Corporation
Adam Berig, Encana Corporation
Jim Callan, WPX Energy
Grover Campbell, Devon Energy
Jim Cooper, Chesapeake Energy Corporation
Nico Hoshijo, WPX Energy
Bob King, WPX Energy
Tom Monahan, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Dennis Newman, Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation
Phil Norwood, ERM
Vanessa Ryan, Chevron Corporation
Matt Todd, API
Erin Tullos, Exxon Mobil Corporation
John Wagner, API
Jenny Yang, ConocoPhillips
Jason Zapalac, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Angela Zivkovich, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

EC/R Incorporated
David Hendricks (by phone)
Joanne O'Loughlin (by phone)

III.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Bruce Moore opened the meeting and explained to the attendees that since the EPA is in the post-proposal phase of the NSPS and CTG, EPA personnel would listen to their comments but cannot respond to any of the issues raised. However, the EPA welcomed the comments. The attendees offered the following comments.

Source Determination Rule
 Of the two alternatives proposed, API prefers the first option (define adjacent based on proximity) along with considering proximity and utilizing a common sense notion of "plant" as discussed in Alabama Power.

 Would like to have "daisy chain" effect of aggregating sources to be specifically addressed with respect to well sites.

NSPS Proposal
 Permitting issues related to regulating methane
 Regulating methane in the NSPS should not trigger PSD or Title V because significance level for these actions are defined in terms of aggregate GHGs, not methane. This issue is addressed in the preamble to subpart TTTT, pp. 608-612.
 Industry would like explicit language in the rule stating that regulation of methane does not trigger NSPS or Title V.

 Next Gen Compliance Provisions
 Electronic reporting tool (ERT) is source specific, which does not easily integrate with the area reporting allowed in the proposed NSPS.
 ERT requires registration of each facility, which would require registration of each and every wellsite. This would be extremely burdensome.

 Oil Well Completions
 Expressed support for the 300 GOR threshold.
 API will provide additional comments on the low pressure well definition (did not specify what issues they had)
 Will the amendments related to combustion control device testing be applied retroactively to devices that have already passed testing under the current requirements?
 The proposed NSPS specifies that 95 percent control is measured on a mass basis. API recommends changing this to a volume basis so that flow rate does not have to be measured.

 Pneumatic Pumps
 API will address technical infeasibility of controlling small chemical injection pumps in their comments.
 Some pumps operate only a few strokes per hour and do not generate enough emission flow pressure to get the emissions to a control device.
 Would like an exemption for small pumps.
 Would like an exemption for transfer pumps.
 Pointed out that cost effectiveness was determined using a flow rate of 2 cfh, but pneumatic controllers are allowed to emit 6 cfh. This appeared incongruous.
 Expressed concern about the situation where the existing onsite control device was not originally installed in response to subpart OOOO or OOOOa and may not be permitted. The proposed rule would require pneumatic pumps at this site to be controlled because of the existing control device. Would that control device now be subject to the 95 percent control requirements in subpart OOOOa and associated recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring? Would the owner be allowed to remove the control device in the future if no longer needed for its original purpose?

 Controls for Storage Vessels and Pumps
 Rather than having separate fugitive monitoring requirements as specified in the closed vent system requirements, the proposed fugitive emissions monitoring provisions should apply instead.
 Reiterated their concern about using propene rather than propane for control device testing.
 In another situation related to using existing control devices for controlling emissions from pneumatic pumps, API expressed concern about a situation where the existing control device is required under subpart OOOO or OOOOa for controlling storage vessel emissions. The rule allows the control device to be removed if the storage vessel emissions remain below 4 tpy. Could the control device still be removed if it is also controlling emissions from pneumatic pumps?

 Fugitive Emissions Monitoring Program
 Expressed significant concern about the level of detail required in the monitoring plan. Recordkeeping and reporting is too detailed and is unnecessary.
 Requested that there be no change in monitoring frequency based on monitoring results. Prefer annual monitoring.
 If a facility is subject to enforceable state requirements, the facility should be exempt from the NSPS requirements. No equivalency determination should be required. Recommended that a facility would not be an affected facility is enforceable state regulations apply.
 Recommended that applicability for a well site require that additional equipment other than just the wellhead be present.
 Recommended an applicability threshold based on number of components, and an offramp if the number of components is reduced below that number.
 Disagreed that fracturing or refracturing a well triggers a modification since the surface equipment does not change.
 Recommended that no time limit be specified for repairs. Many repairs would require the well to be shut in, which could cost over $100,000 to fix a single small leak. Recommended that repairs occur at the next shutdown.
 Recommended soap bubble verification of repairs instead of OGI.
 Questioned why emissions have to be reduced to 500 ppm after repair when the OGI detection level is considered to be 10,000 ppm.
 Recommended that the rule be flexible enough to allow newly developed detection technologies to be used without having to go through an equivalency determination.
 Developing a monitoring plan at the corporate level and the facility level is not necessary.
 Initial monitoring at a well site should occur 30 days after startup of production, not 30 days after completion.

 Comments on the CTG
 No VOC content thresholds are specified for fugitives monitoring or compressors. There are situations where the gas emitted is almost exclusively methane. Recommended that there be a minimum VOC content threshold. This would also apply to natural gas driven operations like pumps and pneumatic controllers.
 Cost of retrofitting storage vessels was not accurately represented. In many situations the tank will have to be replaced.
 The CTG should include the same provisions as in the NSPS to remove controls from storage vessels if emissions remain below 4 tpy.
 Compliance provisions are more stringent than the NSPS.


http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42c82.txt
42 USC Sec. 6991a                                           02/01/2010

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
    CHAPTER 82 - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
    SUBCHAPTER IX - REGULATION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

-HEAD-
    Sec. 6991a. Notification

-STATUTE-
    (a) Underground storage tanks
      (1) Within 18 months after November 8, 1984, each owner of an
    underground storage tank shall notify the State or local agency or
    department designated pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of this section
    of the existence of such tank, specifying the age, size, type,
    location, and uses of such tank.
      (2)(A) For each underground storage tank taken out of operation
    after January 1, 1974, the owner of such tank shall, within
    eighteen months after November 8, 1984, notify the State or local
    agency, or department designated pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of
    this section of the existence of such tanks (unless the owner knows
    the tank subsequently was removed from the ground). The owner of a
    tank taken out of operation on or before January 1, 1974, shall not
    be required to notify the State or local agency under this
    subsection.
      (B) Notice under subparagraph (A) shall specify, to the extent
    known to the owner -
        (i) the date the tank was taken out of operation,
        (ii) the age of the tank on the date taken out of operation,
        (iii) the size, type and location of the tank, and
        (iv) the type and quantity of substances left stored in such
      tank on the date taken out of operation.

      (3) Any owner which brings into use an underground storage tank
    after the initial notification period specified under paragraph
    (1), shall notify the designated State or local agency or
    department within thirty days of the existence of such tank,
    specifying the age, size, type, location and uses of such tank.
      (4) Paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection shall not apply
    to tanks for which notice was given pursuant to section 9603(c) of
    this title.
      (5) Beginning thirty days after the Administrator prescribes the
    form of notice pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section and
    for eighteen months thereafter, any person who deposits regulated
    substances in an underground storage tank shall reasonably notify
    the owner or operator of such tank of the owner's notification
    requirements pursuant to this subsection.
      (6) Beginning thirty days after the Administrator issues new tank
    performance standards pursuant to section 6991b(c) of this title,
    any person who sells a tank intended to be used as an underground
    storage tank shall notify the purchaser of such tank of the owner's
    notification requirements pursuant to this subsection.
    (b) Agency designation
      (1) Within one hundred and eighty days after November 8, 1984,
    the Governors of each State shall designate the appropriate State
    agency or department or local agencies or departments to receive
    the notifications under subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
    section.
      (2) Within twelve months after November 8, 1984, the
    Administrator, in consultation with State and local officials
    designated pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of this section, and after
    notice and opportunity for public comment, shall prescribe the form
    of the notice and the information to be included in the
    notifications under subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
    In prescribing the form of such notice, the Administrator shall
    take into account the effect on small businesses and other owners
    and operators.
    (c) State inventories
      Each State shall make 2 separate inventories of all underground
    storage tanks in such State containing regulated substances. One
    inventory shall be made with respect to petroleum and one with
    respect to other regulated substances. In making such inventories,
    the State shall utilize and aggregate the data in the notification
    forms submitted pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this
    section. Each State shall submit such aggregated data to the
    Administrator not later than 270 days after October 17, 1986.
    (d) Public record
      (1) In general
        The Administrator shall require each State that receives
      Federal funds to carry out this subchapter to maintain, update at
      least annually, and make available to the public, in such manner
      and form as the Administrator shall prescribe (after consultation
      with States), a record of underground storage tanks regulated
      under this subchapter.
      (2) Considerations
        To the maximum extent practicable, the public record of a
      State, respectively, shall include, for each year -
          (A) the number, sources, and causes of underground storage
        tank releases in the State;
          (B) the record of compliance by underground storage tanks in
        the State with -
            (i) this subchapter; or
            (ii) an applicable State program approved under section
          6991c of this title; and

          (C) data on the number of underground storage tank equipment
        failures in the State.

-SOURCE-
    (Pub. L. 89-272, title II, Sec. 9002, as added Pub. L. 98-616,
    title VI, Sec. 601(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3278; amended Pub. L.
    99-499, title II, Sec. 205(b), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1696; Pub.
    L. 109-58, title XV, Sec. 1526(c), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 1098.)

-MISC1-
                                AMENDMENTS
      2005 - Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 109-58 added subsec. (d).
      1986 - Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99-499 added subsec. (c).


Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Marine Engines OMB 2060 0320 EPA ICR 1723.04 DRAFT June 2004 Certification and Compliance Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality Office of Air and Radiation U. S. Environmental Protection Agency  2 PART A SUBMISSION SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ( a) TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Marine Engines, OMB # 2060 0320 ( b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION ( ABSTRACT)

The Clean Air Act requires that motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines imported into the U. S. conform with applicable emission requirements. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 extended these requirements to nonroad engines. This Information Collection Request ( ICR) includes outboard marine engines, personal watercraft, and compression ignition engines used in marine applications ( all referred to as marine engines).

EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality collects information and requires some recordkeeping to help ensure that nonconforming engines are brought into compliance with Federal emission requirements, unless eligible for exemption or exclusion. Also, the information is used by the U. S. Customs Service ( Customs), State regulatory agencies, businesses, and individuals to verify whether or not engines are in compliance.

Information collected includes identification data and U. S. Customs entry statements that such information is correct. The information is either stored in a computer database, or retained in document form. The information is used to monitor compliance of imports and respond to inquiries from the public concerning the compliance status of specific imported engines.

a) EPA Form 3520 28. This form is used by importers who are applying for entry of marine engines. A simplified variant of this form, 3520 28a, may be completed by individuals importing outboard engines or personal watercraft for their own use. Form 3520 28 is a new form created to facilitate the collection of information that was originally included in form 3520 21, which is approved under OMB # 2060 0294.

b) EPA Form 3520 14. This form is used by importers wishing to make application to EPA for prior written approval in order to obtain an exemption or exclusion from bringing engines into compliance with Federal emission standards. This form was designed by EPA to give importers a guide as to what information they should submit and what exemption or exclusion they might be eligible for. Form 3520 14 is also approved under OMB # 2060 0095 and 2060 0294.

The information collection will involve 1,000 respondents at a cost of $ 77,500 dollars.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION  3 ( a) NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION Joint EPA and Customs regulations at 40 CFR 91.701 et seq. and 19 CFR 12.74 promulgated under the authority under the Clean Air Act ( Sections 203, 208 and 213) give authority for the collection of information. The collection of this information helps ensure the compliance of nonconforming engines with Federal emissions requirements which helps meet the Agency goal of reducing air pollution. Without this information, EPA could not confirm that engines being entered conform to the emission requirements and consequently, would not be able to allow entry of these engines.

( b) USE/ USERS OF THE DATA EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality receives the information either directly from the importers or indirectly from the importers through Customs. The information is used by Agency enforcement personnel to verify that all Federal emission requirements concerning imported nonconforming engines are met. The information is also used to identify and prosecute violators of the regulations and to monitor the program in achieving the objectives of the regulations.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ( a) NONDUPLICATION A search of the Government Information Locator System ( GILS) found no other program or agency collecting this information. Because much of the information is so highly specific to the EPA Imports Program, the information would not be duplicated by other programs.

( b) PUBLIC NOTICE A Federal Register notice has been published, soliciting public comment for this ICR.

( c) CONSULTATIONS Consultations were made with engine manufacturers to discuss form revisions and to obtain accurate burden and cost estimates. The following manufacturers provided estimates:

Mercury Marine. Rep: Susan Bucheger Phone: ( 920) 929 4978 Yamaha Motor Corporation, U. S. A. Rep: Thomas Pugh Phone: ( 714) 761 7807  4 And the format and content of form 3520 28 was extensively discussed with the following industry representative.

Dawn Friest Engine Manufacturers Association Two North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: ( 312) 827 8700 ( d) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION Since reporting is done only at the time of entry and compliance, the effects of less frequent collection would be to seriously undermine the Agency's ability to whether engines being imported meet applicable emission requirements. Consequently, the Agency would not be able to allow entry of engines being imported. Therefore, less frequent collection is not feasible.

( e) GENERAL GUIDELINES This ICR complies with all of OMB's guidelines, except that importers will be required to notify EPA when importing marine engines and this may for some importers result in reporting more often than quarterly. Because such reports are necessary to verify compliance with federal emission requirements at the time of entry, if EPA limited required reports to quarterly, either importers would only be able to import on a quarterly basis, or EPA would have to forego verification of compliance.

( f) CONFIDENTIALITY Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see CFR 2). The public is not permitted access to information containing personal or organizational identifiers. This collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A 130.

( g) SENSITIVE QUESTIONS There are no sensitive questions asked.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ( a) RESPONDENTS/ SIC CODES EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality collects information from individual importers and both small and large companies who import, or import and manufacture marine engines. The SIC codes for the respondents are 3731, 3732, 3799, 5088, and 5551.  5 ( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) Data Items The data requested in reports include:

 engine identification number  engine make  engine model  model year of the engine  port of entry  date of entry  entry number  importer name, address and telephone number  owner name, address, telephone number and SSN or EIN  justification for an exclusion or exemption, if applicable ( ii) Respondent Activities To complete the collection, the respondent would:

 read form instructions  collect data and complete forms INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTATION OF NONCONFORMING MARINE ENGINES 40 CFR PART 91 SUBPART H INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CITATION Notification of Conditional Admission 91.703 ( b)

Request for Prior Approval 91.704  6 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTATION OF NONCONFORMING NON PROPULSION CI ENGINES 40 CFR PART 89 SUBPART G INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CITATION Notification of Conditional Admission 89.604( a)

Request for Prior Approval 89.611 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality receives the information as required from Customs, individuals and businesses. After receiving the information, EPA uses the information to determine whether engines meet EPA requirements and retains the information in order to respond to public, State government, and Federal government inquires.

( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT Both Customs and EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality use the information to determine if engines meet EPA requirements. EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality retains the information in a computer database or document form in order to respond to public, State government, and Federal government inquires, which are handled by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality staff.

( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY Small entities which are required to submit certain information to EPA have been providing information to EPA by completing and submitting EPA forms. EPA endeavors to the maximum extent feasible, to allow small entities to submit the data electronically.

( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE The information is not subject to a collection schedule, but is collected at the time of engine entry.  7 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN Marine engines Reporting Burden Burden Est. Est. # of Est. of forms/ yr Burden ( hrs) a) Form 3520 28/ 28a .5 3,000 1,500 c) Form 3520 14 .5 100 50 1,550 Reporting burden is based on consultations with nonroad manufacturers. Reporting for form 3520 28 is ordinarily accomplished through purchase of services from a broker who completes a package of importation forms ( including those of other agencies) and files them with Customs. The stated reporting burden incorporates a negligible recordkeeping burden for broker form retention indistinguishable from overall broker activities. Total annual burden for this collection is estimated at 1,550 hours.

6( b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COST Marine engines Costs: Estimated Capital/ Units Labor Start up O& M Reporting 3,100 forms $ 77,500 @$ 25 per form ( i) Labor Costs Forms are ordinarily submitted through purchase of services from brokers who complete forms and file them with Customs. Estimated labor costs for this ICR are therefore zero.

( ii) Capital/ Start up Costs Forms are ordinarily submitted through purchase of services from brokers who complete forms and file them with Customs. Estimated capital/ start up costs for this ICR are therefore zero.

( iii) Operations and Maintenance Costs Operations and maintenance costs were calculated based on an average of responses received  8 from the nonroad manufacturers contacted. The operations and maintenance cost for reporting ordinarily involves a purchase of services from brokers who complete a package of importation forms ( including those of other agencies) and file them with Customs. This cost is estimated as a component of overall broker activities to import an engine, and incorporates a negligible recordkeeping cost for broker form retention indistinguishable from overall broker activities. Estimated operations and maintenance costs total $ 77,500 for activities covered by this ICR.

6( c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST The Imports program is administered by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Four Full Time Equivalent employees and three Senior Environmental Employment Program employees are allocated to all Imports activities, at an estimated total agency cost of $ 630,000 per year, including 110% overhead.

6( d) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN No change in burden resulted from clarifying requirements and the types of engines to be declared on the form.

6( e) BURDEN STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or 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 currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OEI Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington, DC 20460; and 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. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.