[Federal Register: October 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 51906-51910]
[DOCID:fr08oc09-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60761; File No. SR-ISE-2009-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Clearly Erroneous
Executions

October 1, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 28, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
On October 1, 2009, the ISE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. The ISE has designated the proposed rule change as constituting
a rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders
the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 2128 governing clearly erroneous
executions.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2128 by replacing the
current rule text, in its entirety, with newly proposed rule text in
order to improve the Exchange's policies and procedures regarding
clearly erroneous executions. The newly proposed rule text is part of a
market-wide effort designed to provide transparency and finality with
respect to clearly erroneous executions. This effort seeks to achieve
consistent results for participants across U.S. equities exchanges
while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and
protecting the public interest. This proposed rule change shall be
effective on October 5, 2009. The proposed rule text is more fully
discussed below.
Definition
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a definition of a clearly erroneous
execution and adopt language addressing cancelled trades. The proposed
rule text states that a transaction is ``clearly erroneous'' when there
is an obvious error in any term, such as price, number of shares or
other unit of trading, or identification of the security. The proposed
rule text also states that a transaction made in clearly erroneous
error and agreed to be canceled by both parties or determined by the
Exchange to be clearly erroneous will be removed ``from the
Consolidated Tape.'' \4\ A trade will only be removed from the
Consolidated Tape when the determination is deemed final and any
applicable appeals have been exhausted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this Rule, ``removed from the Consolidate
Tape'' means that a subsequent message will be sent to the
Consolidated Tape indicating that a previously executed trade has
been cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equity Electronic Access Member Initiated Review Requests
    In ISE Rule 2128(b), the Exchange proposes procedures for
requesting a review of a clearly erroneous transaction. First, the
proposed rule would require that requests for review be made only by
electronic mail (``e-mail'') or other electronic means specified from
time to time by the Exchange. Requiring requests for review to be made
via e-mail creates a standard format that can easily be logged and
tracked. The Exchange will publish the email address or other
electronic means to be used for all clearly erroneous filings in a
circular distributed to Equity Electronic Access Members (``Equity
EAMs'').
    The Exchange further proposes that requests for review must be
received by the Exchange within 30 minutes of the execution time for
orders initially routed to and executed on the Exchange. The Exchange
proposes that Equity EAMs submit certain essential identifying
information with the request including the time of the transaction(s),
security symbol(s), number of shares, price(s), side (bought or sold),
and factual basis for believing that the trade is clearly erroneous.
The Exchange believes that 30 minutes is an appropriate time frame that
offers the requesting party sufficient time to gather and submit all
required information.
    The proposed rule also requires the Exchange to notify the
counterparty to a trade upon receipt of a timely filed request for
review that satisfies the numerical guidelines set forth within the
Rule. The Exchange proposes to adopt language allowing an Officer of
the Exchange or such other employee designee (``Officer'') of ISE to
request additional information from each party to a transaction under
review. Parties to the review will have 30 minutes from the time of the
request to provide additional supporting information.
Routed Executions
    The Exchange proposes to give other market centers an additional 30
minutes from the receipt of their participant's timely filing to
request a ruling, but no longer than 60 minutes from the time of the
execution under review. This provision accounts for those executions
initially directed to an away market center and subsequently routed by
that away market center to the Exchange.
    For example, assume an order is initially routed by a participant
to Market Center A and subsequently routed to ISE where the order is
executed at a price outside of the Numerical Guidelines. This provision
generally requires Market Center A to file with the Exchange within 30
minutes from the time it receives its participant's timely filed
request for review. This provision caps the filing deadline for an away
market center at 60 minutes from the time of the execution under
review.
Threshold Factors
    The Exchange proposes adding certain numerical thresholds to the
Rule that explicitly state what constitutes a clearly erroneous
execution.
Numerical Guidelines
    The proposed numerical guidelines state that a transaction executed
during

the Regular Market Session \5\ or the Pre-Market Session \6\ and Post-
Market Session \7\ may be found to be clearly erroneous only if the
price of the transaction to buy is greater, or less in the case of a
sale, than the reference price by an amount that equals or exceeds the
numerical guidelines for a particular transaction category. The
Reference Price shall be equal to the Consolidated Last Sale
immediately prior to the execution under review, unless unusual
circumstances are present. The proposed guidelines for sales greater
than $0.00 and up to and including $25.00 are 10% for the Regular
Market Session and 20% for the Pre-Market Session and Post-Market
Sessions. The proposed guidelines for sales greater than $25.00 and up
to and including $50.00 are 5% for the Regular Market Session and 10%
for Pre-Market Session and Post-Market Sessions. The proposed
guidelines for sales greater than $50.00 are 3% for the Regular Market
Session and 6% for Pre-Market Session and Post-Market Sessions. A
filing involving five or more securities by the same Equity EAM will be
aggregated into a single filing called a ``Multi-Stock Event.'' In the
case of a Multi-Stock Event, the proposed guidelines are 10% for the
Regular Market Session and 10% for the Pre-Market Session and Post-
Market Sessions. In the case of Leveraged ETF/ETN securities, the above
guidelines are to be multiplied by the leverage multiplier of the
security. Executions that do not meet or exceed the Numerical
Guidelines will not be eligible for review under this section. The
following chart summarizes the proposed Numerical Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Regular Market Session begins for each security with the
Opening Transaction, as defined in Rule 2106, and continues until
the primary listing market closes such security. See ISE Rule
2102(b) and (c).
    \6\ The Pre-Market Session begins at 8 a.m. and concludes with
the Opening Transaction of a security. See ISE Rule 2102(a).
    \7\ The Post-Market Session begins following the conclusion of
the Regular Market Session and concludes at 8 p.m. See ISE Rule
2102(d).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Regular market
                                session numerical    Pre-market session
                                    guidelines        and post-market
                                     (subject        session numerical
 Reference price: Consolidated    transaction's     guidelines (subject
           last sale                 percent       transaction's percent
                                 difference from    difference from the
                                 the consolidated    consolidated last
                                   last sale):             sale):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than $0.00 and up to    10%..............  20%.
 and including $25.00.
Greater than $25.00 and up to   5%...............  10%.
 and including $50.00.
Greater than $50.00...........  3%...............  6%.
Multi-Stock Event--Filings      10%..............  10%.
 involving five or more
 securities by the same Equity
 EAM will be aggregated into a
 single filing.
Leveraged ETF/ETN securities..  Regular Market     Regular Market
                                 Session            Session Numerical
                                 Numerical          Guidelines
                                 Guidelines         multiplied by the
                                 multiplied by      leverage multiplier
                                 the leverage       (i.e. 2x).
                                 multiplier (i.e.
                                 2x).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing Numerical Guidelines within the Rule brings regulatory
transparency and consistency in the application of the rules of the
Exchange. These Numerical Guidelines represent the general consensus
approach and were developed based on the collective experiences of a
market-wide group. The Exchange believes that the Thresholds
established are fair and appropriate and apply evenly to all
participants.
Unusual Circumstances
    ISE further proposes that in Unusual Circumstances the Exchange
may, in its discretion and with a view toward maintaining a fair and
orderly market, use a Reference Price other than the consolidated last
sale. Unusual Circumstances may include periods of extreme market
volatility, sustained illiquidity, or widespread system issues. Other
Reference Prices that the Exchange may use would include the
consolidated inside price, the consolidated opening price, the
consolidated prior close, or the consolidated last sale prior to a
series of executions.
    The following example explains the use of a Reference Price equal
to the consolidated last sale prior to a series of executions.
    ABC has a consolidated last sale of $10.00. During the Regular
Market Session Customer A enters a market order to buy 10,000 shares,
although it had intended a market order for 1,000 shares. The size of
the order is such that the order sweeps the ISE Book, which reflects
1,000 shares of liquidity offered at each of following prices.
Executions occur, moving through the depth of Book, as follows:

Trade 1--1,000 shares @ $10.00 (9,000 remaining)
Trade 2--1,000 shares @ $10.20 (8,000 remaining)
Trade 3--1,000 shares @ $10.40 (7,000 remaining)
Trade 4--1,000 shares @ $10.60 (6,000 remaining)
Trade 5--1,000 shares @ $10.80 (5,000 remaining)
Trade 6--1,000 shares @ $11.00 (4,000 remaining)
Trade 7--1,000 shares @ $11.20 (3,000 remaining)
Trade 8--1,000 shares @ $11.40 (2,000 remaining)
Trade 9--1,000 shares @ $11.60 (1,000 remaining)
Trade 10--1,000 shares @ $11.80 (complete)

    Thus, to be eligible for review, a transaction must be at a price
that is at least 10% higher than the consolidated last sale prior to
the series of executions. Customer A could request a ruling for trades
6 through 10, priced at $11.00 and above, but trades
1 through 5 would not be eligible for review.
    Under the proposed rule the Exchange may also use a higher
numerical guideline if, after market participants have been alerted to
erroneous activity, the price of the security returns toward its prior
trading range but continues to trade beyond the price it would have
normally been busted.
Joint Market Rulings
    In the interest of achieving consistency across markets, the
Exchange proposes that, in events that involve other markets, the
Exchange would have the ability to use a different Reference Price and/
or Numerical Guideline. In these instances the Reference Price would be
determined based on a consensus among the Exchanges where the
transactions occurred. Furthermore, when a ruling is made across
markets, the Exchange may

determine that the ruling is not eligible for appeal because immediate
finality is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market and to
protect investors and the public interest.
Additional Factors
    The proposed amendments to ISE Rule 2128 also enumerate some
additional factors that an Officer may consider when determining
whether an execution is clearly erroneous. These factors include, but
are not limited to, system malfunctions or disruptions, volume and
volatility for the security, derivative securities products that
correspond to greater than 100% in the direction of a tracking index,
news released for the security, whether trading in the security was
recently halted/resumed, whether the security is an IPO, whether the
security was subject to a stock-split, reorganization, or other
corporate action, overall market conditions, Pre-Market and Post-Market
Session executions, validity of the consolidated tapes trades and
quotes, consideration of primary market indications, and executions
inconsistent with the trading pattern in the stock. Each additional
factor shall be considered with a view toward maintaining a fair and
orderly market, the protection of investors and the public interest.
Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile Market Opens
    The Exchange proposes to expand the Numerical Guidelines applicable
to transactions occurring between 9:30 a.m. and 10 a.m. based on the
disseminated value of the S&P 500 Futures at 9:15 a.m. When the S&P
Futures are up or down from 3% to up to but not including 5% at 9:15
a.m., the Numerical Guidelines are doubled. When the S&P Futures are up
or down 5% or greater at 9:15 a.m., the Numerical Guidelines are
tripled. The Exchange believes that the S&P 500 futures contract is an
appropriate and reliable barometer of market activity prior to the
market opening due to its broad based market coverage and deep
liquidity. By using the S&P 500 Futures disseminated value at 9:15 a.m.
as the barometer of market activity, the Exchange is providing a
transparent means of offering adjusted guidelines in times of volatile
market activity.
Outlier Transactions
    The proposed amendments to ISE Rule 2128 provide that an Officer of
the Exchange may consider requests for review received after thirty
minutes, but not longer than sixty minutes after the execution in
question in the case of an Outlier Transaction. An Outlier Transaction
is a transaction where, (1) The execution price of the security is
greater than three times the current Numerical Guidelines, or (2) the
execution price of the security breaches the 52-week high or low, in
which case the Exchange may consider Additional Factors to determine if
the transaction qualifies for review or if the Exchange shall decline
to act.
Review Procedures
Initial Determination
    Under the proposed rule, the Officer will only have the authority
to break the trades or rule to let the trades stand and will no longer
have the authority to adjust one or more terms of the transaction. This
limitation attempts to remove the subjectivity from the rule that is
necessitated by an adjustment.
    The Exchange also proposes adding language stating that a
determination shall be made generally within 30 minutes of receipt of
the complaint, but in no case later than the start of the Regular
Market Session on the following trading day. Rulings made outside of 30
minutes by an Officer will not fail for lack of timeliness. The
guideline simply provides participants an appropriate expectation that
a ruling will generally be made within 30 minutes, and in no case later
than the start of the Regular Market Session on the following trading
day.
Appeals
    The Exchange proposes to amend the appeals procedure for trades
that are deemed to be clearly erroneous. First, the Exchange will no
longer accept appeal requests via facsimile. Similar to the proposed
language for an initial request for a ruling, all appeal requests must
be made via e-mail.
    The current rule provides that the Exchange shall review and render
a decision upon an appeal within a timeframe provided by the Exchange.
The proposed rule offers more definite guidelines to ensure the
expedient resolution of appeals. It requires the Exchange to review
appeals as soon as practicable, but generally on the same day as the
executions under review. Appeals received between 3 p.m. ET and the
close of trading in the Post-Market Session should be made as soon as
practicable, but in no case later than the trading day following the
date of the execution under review. Appeals will not fail for lack of
timeliness. This revised provision provides participants a reasonable
expectation of when a ruling on appeal will generally be made.
    Further, the proposed rule declares that any determination made by
an Officer or by the CEE Panel shall be rendered without prejudice as
to the right of the parties to the transaction to submit their dispute
to arbitration. This provision simply clarifies the fact that nothing
in the proposed rule limits or impedes the rights of the parties to
arbitrate their dispute.
System Disruption and Malfunctions
    Currently, within the System Disruptions and Malfunctions section
of the rule, after an Officer determines that a trade was clearly
erroneous he may declare the transaction null and void or modify the
trade to attempt to achieve and equitable rectification of the error.
The proposed Rule eliminates the Exchange's ability to modify a clearly
erroneous execution. The Exchange must either uphold or nullify the
execution based upon the findings of the Officer reviewing the
execution.
    The proposed Rule provides that, in the event of a disruption or a
malfunction, an Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee
designee will rely on the proposed numerical guidelines in determining
whether an execution is clearly erroneous. However, the Officer or
senior level employee may also use a lower Numerical Guideline if
necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market, protect investors, and
protect the public interest. The proposed rule also adds that actions
taken under these circumstances must be taken within 30 minutes of
detection of the erroneous transaction in the ordinary case, and by no
later than the start of the Regular Market Session on the day following
the date of the execution under review when extraordinary circumstances
exist.
Officers Acting on Their Own Motion
    The Exchange proposes to add a section to the Rule that will grant
an Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee designee the
ability to act on their own motion to review potentially erroneous
executions. Under the current rule, Officers have the ability to act
upon their own motion only in the event of a system disruption or
malfunction. The proposed rule would allow an Officer of the Exchange
or other senior level employee designee to review executions and rely
on the Numerical Guidelines, under any circumstance. In extraordinary
circumstances an Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee
designee may apply a lower Numerical Guideline if it is determined that
such action is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market or
protect investors and the public interest. In some instances the
Exchange may detect a

single execution that breaches the Numerical Guidelines but is not the
subject of a ruling request. This provision gives the Exchange the
ability to review such executions. Additionally, in practice clearly
erroneous executions commonly involve multiple parties and multiple
executions. In such instances, all affected parties may not request a
ruling. The Exchange proposes this provision to permit an Officer of
the Exchange or other senior level employee designee to rule on a group
of transactions related to the same occurrence or event as a whole,
without a formal request for a ruling from every affected party.
Trade Nullification for UTP Securities that are Subject of Initial
Public Offerings
    The proposed rule also modifies ISE's policy on trade nullification
and for UTP securities that are subject to initial public offerings.
Under the proposed rule, an Officer of the Exchange or other senior
level employee designee must either declare an opening transaction null
and void or decline to take action, but can no longer be adjusted.
Furthermore, the proposed rule requires that, in extraordinary
circumstances, the reviewing Officer of the Exchange or other senior
level employee designee may take action by no later than the start of
the Regular Market Session on the day following the date of the
execution under review.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\9\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. The proposed rule change provides transparency and
finality for Equity EAMs and creates consistent results across U.S.
equities exchanges with respect to clearly erroneous executions. This
proposed change further promotes the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, the protection of investors and the protection of the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \12\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that it may
implement the new rule on October 5, 2009, the same date as the other
equities exchanges. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it will allow the Exchange to begin applying
the new rule on the same date as the other equities exchanges.\14\
Application of the new rule on this date should help foster
transparency and consistency among those exchanges that adopt clearly
erroneous execution rules substantially similar to those previously
approved by the Commission.\15\ For these reasons, the Commission
designates that the proposed rule change, as amended, become operative
on October 5, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60706 (September
22, 2009) 74 FR 49416 (September 28, 2009) (NYSEArca-2009-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission considers the 60-day period within which the
Commission may summarily abrogate the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C), to commence on
October 1, 2009, the date ISE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2009-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-73. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m.

Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-73 and should be submitted on
or before October 29, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24250 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43265-43270]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15516]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741; FRL-9944-01-OCSPP]

1-Bromopropane (1-BP); Draft Revision to Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Risk Determination; Notice of Availability and Request for
Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of and seeking public comment on a draft revision to the
risk determination for the 1-bromopropane (1-BP) risk evaluation issued
under TSCA. The draft revision to the 1-BP risk determination reflects
the announced policy changes to ensure the public is protected from
unreasonable risks from chemicals in a way that is supported by science
and the law. In this draft revision to the risk determination EPA finds
that 1-BP, as a whole chemical substance, presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of use. In
addition, this revised risk determination does not reflect an
assumption that all workers always appropriately wear personal
protective equipment (PPE). EPA understands that there could be
occupational safety protections in place at workplace locations;
however, not assuming use of PPE reflects EPA's recognition that
unreasonable risk may exist for subpopulations of workers that may be
highly exposed because they are not covered by OSHA standards, or their
employers are out of compliance with OSHA standards, or because OSHA
has not issued a permissible exposure limit (PEL) (as is the case for
1-BP). This revision, when final, would supersede the condition of use-
specific no unreasonable risk determinations in the August 2020 1-BP
risk evaluation (and withdraw the associated order) and would make a
revised determination of unreasonable risk for 1-BP as a whole chemical
substance.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0741, using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Amy Shuman, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (7404M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-2978; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture,
processing, distribution, use, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks
involving chemical substances and mixtures. You may be potentially
affected by this action if you manufacture (defined under TSCA to
include import), process (including recycling), distribute in commerce,
use or dispose of 1-BP, including 1-BP in products. Since other
entities may also be interested in this draft revision to the risk
determination, EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
(PESS) identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the
Administrator, under the conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A).
TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and
minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions
that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo
evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the
timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation.
TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with
the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the
scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available information. 15
U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k).
    The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical
substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish
a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be
conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use,
and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA
expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further
provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) integrate and assess
available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of
use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant
to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and
information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures
were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into
account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and
number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the
weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and
exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through
(v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other non-risk
factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    EPA has inherent authority to reconsider previous decisions and to
revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law
and supported by reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations,
Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). Pursuant to
such authority, EPA is reconsidering the risk determinations in the
August 2020 1-BP Risk Evaluation.

C. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on
a draft revision to the risk determination for the risk evaluation for
1-BP under TSCA, which was initially published in August 2020 (Ref. 1).
EPA is specifically seeking public comment on the draft revision to

the risk determination for the risk evaluation where the Agency intends
to determine that 1-BP, as a whole chemical, presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of use.
The Agency's risk determination for 1-BP is better characterized as a
whole chemical risk determination rather than condition-of-use-specific
risk determinations. Accordingly, EPA would revise and replace section
5 of the risk evaluation for 1-BP where the findings of unreasonable
risk to health were previously made for the individual conditions of
use evaluated. EPA would also withdraw the order issued previously for
nine conditions of use previously determined not to present
unreasonable risk.
    This revision would be consistent with EPA's plans to revise
specific aspects of the first ten TSCA chemical risk evaluations in
order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align with TSCA's
objective of protecting health and the environment. Under the draft
revision removing the assumptions that all workers always and
appropriately use PPE (see Unit II.C.) in making the whole chemical
risk determination for 1-BP would mean that: seven conditions of use in
addition to the original 16 would drive the unreasonable risk
determination for 1-BP; additional risks of cancer from dermal
exposures would also drive the unreasonable risk to workers in six
conditions of use; additional risks for acute and chronic non-cancer
effects from inhalation exposures would also drive the unreasonable
risk to workers in two conditions of use; and additional risks for
acute and chronic non-cancer effects and cancer from inhalation and
dermal exposures to workers would also drive the unreasonable risk in
one conditions of use (where previously this condition of use was
identified as presenting unreasonable risk only to ONUs). Overall, 23
conditions of use out of the 25 EPA evaluated drive the 1-BP whole
chemical unreasonable risk determination due to risks identified for
human health. The full list of the conditions of use evaluated for the
1-BP TSCA risk evaluation is in Table 4-58 and 4-59 of the risk
evaluation (Ref. 2).

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed CBI. In addition to one complete
version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy
of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

A. Why is EPA re-issuing the risk determination for the 1-BP risk
evaluation conducted under TSCA?

    In 2016, as directed by TSCA section 6(b)(2)(A), EPA chose the
first ten chemical substances to undergo risk evaluations under the
amended TSCA. These chemical substances are asbestos, 1-BP, carbon
tetrachloride, C.I. Pigment Violet (PV 29), cyclic aliphatic bromide
cluster (HBCD), 1,4-dioxane, methylene chloride, n-methylpyrrolidone
(NMP), perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE).
    From June 2020 to January 2021, EPA published risk evaluations on
the first ten chemical substances, including for 1-BP in August 2020.
The risk evaluations included individual unreasonable risk
determinations for each condition of use evaluated. EPA issued
determinations that particular conditions of use did not present an
unreasonable risk by order under TSCA section 6(i)(1).
    In accordance with Executive Order 13990 (Ref. 3) and other
Administration priorities (Refs. 4, 5, and 6), EPA reviewed the risk
evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, including 1-BP, to
ensure that they meet the requirements of TSCA, including conducting
decision making in a manner that is consistent with the best available
science.
    As a result of this review, EPA announced plans to revise specific
aspects of the first ten risk evaluations in order to ensure that the
risk evaluations appropriately identify unreasonable risks and thereby
help ensure the protection of human health and the environment (Ref.
7). To that end, EPA is reconsidering two key aspects of the risk
determinations for 1-BP published in August 2020. First, following a
review of specific aspects of the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation, EPA
proposes that making an unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP as a
whole chemical substance, rather than making unreasonable risk
determinations separately on each individual condition of use evaluated
in the risk evaluation, is the most appropriate approach to 1-BP under
the statute and implementing regulations. Second, EPA proposes that the
risk determination should be explicit that it does not rely on
assumptions regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in
making the unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6, even
though some facilities might be using PPE as one means to reduce
workers exposures; rather, the use of PPE would be considered during
risk management as appropriate.
    Separately EPA is conducting a screening approach to assess
potential risks from pathways excluded from evaluation for several of
the first 10 chemicals, including this chemical. For 1-BP, the air
exposure pathway was not fully assessed in the final risk evaluation
(see section 1.4.2 of the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation). The goal
of the recently-developed screening approach is to remedy this
exclusion and to identify if there are risks that were unaccounted for
in the 1-BP risk evaluation. While this analysis is underway, EPA is
not incorporating the screening-level approach into this draft revised
unreasonable risk determination. If the results suggest there is
additional risk, EPA will determine if the risk management approaches
being contemplated for 1-BP will protect against these risks or if the
risk evaluation will need to be formally supplemented or revised.
    This action pertains only to the risk determination for 1-BP. While
EPA intends to consider and may take additional similar actions on
other of the first ten chemicals, EPA is taking a chemical-specific
approach to reviewing the risk evaluations and is incorporating new
policy direction in a surgical manner, while being mindful of the
Congressional direction on the need to complete risk evaluations and
move toward any associated risk management activities in accordance
with statutory deadlines.

B. What is a whole chemical view of the unreasonable risk determination
for the 1-BP risk evaluation?

    TSCA section 6 repeatedly refers to determining whether a chemical
substance presents unreasonable risk under its conditions of use.
Stakeholders have disagreed over whether a chemical substance should
receive: A single determination that is

comprehensive for the chemical substance after considering the
conditions of use, referred to as a whole-chemical determination; or
multiple determinations, each of which is specific to a condition of
use, referred to as condition-of-use-specific determinations.
    The proposed risk evaluation procedural rule was premised on the
whole chemical approach to making an unreasonable risk determination
(Ref. 8). In that proposed rule, EPA acknowledged a lack of specificity
in statutory text that might lead to different views about whether the
statute compelled EPA's risk evaluations to address all conditions of
use of a chemical substance or whether EPA had discretion to evaluate
some subset of conditions of use (i.e., to scope out some
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal
activities), but also stated that ``EPA believes the word `the' (in
TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A)) is best interpreted as calling for evaluation
that considers all conditions of use.'' (Ref. 8).
    The proposed rule, however, was unambiguous on the point that an
unreasonable risk determination would be for the chemical substance as
a whole, even if based on a subset of uses. (See Ref. 8 at pgs. 7565-
66: ``TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) specifies that a risk evaluation must
determine whether `a chemical substance' presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment `under the conditions of use.'
The evaluation is on the chemical substance--not individual conditions
of use--and it must be based on `the conditions of use.' In this
context, EPA believes the word `the' is best interpreted as calling for
evaluation that considers all conditions of use.''). In the proposed
regulatory text, EPA proposed to determine whether the chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment under the conditions of use. (Ref. 8 at pg. 7480).
    The final risk evaluation procedural rule stated (82 FR 33726, July
20, 2017) (FRL-9964-38) (Ref. 9): ``As part of the risk evaluation, EPA
will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of
uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single
decision document or in multiple decision documents.'' (See also 40 CFR
702.47). For the unreasonable risk determinations in the first ten risk
evaluations, EPA applied this provision by making individual risk
determinations for each condition of use evaluated in each risk
evaluation (i.e., the condition-of-use-specific approach to risk
determinations). That approach was based on one particular passage in
the preamble to the final risk evaluation procedural rule, which stated
that EPA will make individual risk determinations for all conditions of
use identified in the scope (Ref. 9 at pg. 33744).
    In contrast to this portion of the preamble of the final risk
evaluation procedural rule, the regulatory text itself and other
statements in the preamble reference a risk determination for the
chemical substance under its conditions of use, rather than separate
risk determinations for each of the conditions of use of a chemical
substance. In the key regulatory provision excerpted earlier from 40
CFR 702.47, the text explains that, ``[a]s part of the risk evaluation,
EPA will determine whether the chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under each
condition of uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either
in a single decision document or in multiple decision documents'' (Ref.
9, emphasis added). Other language reiterates this perspective. For
example, 40 CFR 702.31(a) states that the purpose of the rule is to
establish the EPA process for conducting a risk evaluation to determine
whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment as required under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(B).
Likewise, there are recurring references to whether the chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk in 40 CFR 702.41(a). See, for
example, 40 CFR 702.41(a)(6), which explains that the extent to which
EPA will refine its evaluations for one or more condition of use in any
risk evaluation will vary as necessary to determine whether a chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk. Notwithstanding the one
preambular statement about condition-of-use-specific risk
determinations, the preamble to the final rule also contains support
for a risk determination on the chemical substance as a whole. In
discussing the identification of the conditions of use of a chemical
substance, the preamble notes that this task inevitably involves the
exercise of discretion on EPA's part, and, ``as EPA interprets the
statute, the Agency is to exercise that discretion consistent with the
objective of conducting a technically sound, manageable evaluation to
determine whether a chemical substance--not just individual uses or
activities--presents an unreasonable risk.'' (Ref. 8 at pg. 33729).
    Therefore, notwithstanding EPA's choice to issue condition-of-use-
specific risk determinations to date, EPA interprets its risk
evaluation regulation to also allow the Agency to issue whole-chemical
risk determinations. Either approach is permissible under the
regulation. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also
recognized the ambiguity of the regulation on this point. Safer
Chemicals v. EPA, 943 F.3d 397, 413 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding a
challenge about ``use-by-use risk evaluations [was] not justiciable
because it is not clear, due to the ambiguous text of the Risk
Evaluation Rule, whether the Agency will actually conduct risk
evaluations in the manner Petitioners fear'').
    EPA plans to consider the appropriate approach for each chemical
substance risk evaluation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
considerations relevant to the specific chemical substance in light of
the Agency's obligations under TSCA. The Agency expects that this case-
by-case approach will provide greater flexibility in the Agency's
ability to evaluate and manage unreasonable risk from individual
chemical substances. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach under
TSCA and the Agency's implementing regulations.
    With regard to the specific circumstances of 1-BP, as further
explained in this notice, EPA proposes that a whole chemical approach
is appropriate for 1-BP in order to protect human health and the
environment. The whole chemical approach is appropriate for 1-BP
because there are benchmark exceedances for multiple conditions of use
(spanning across most aspects of the chemical lifecycle--from
manufacturing (including import), processing, commercial and industrial
use, consumer use, and disposal) for health of workers, occupational
non-users, consumers, and bystanders and the irreversible health
effects (specifically developmental toxicity and cancer) associated
with 1-BP exposures. Because these chemical-specific properties cut
across the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation, a
substantial amount of the conditions of use drive the unreasonable
risk; therefore it is appropriate for the Agency to make a
determination for 1-BP that the whole chemical presents an unreasonable
risk.
    As explained later in this document, the revisions to the
unreasonable risk determination (section 5 of the risk evaluation)
would be based on the existing risk characterization section of the
risk evaluation (section 4 of the risk evaluation) and would not
involve

additional technical or scientific analysis. The discussion of the
issues presented in this Federal Register notice and in the
accompanying draft revision to the risk determination would supersede
any conflicting statements in the prior 1-BP risk evaluation and the
response to comments document (Ref. 10). With respect to the 1-BP risk
evaluation, EPA intends to change the risk determination to a whole
chemical approach without considering the use of PPE and does not
intend to amend, nor does a whole chemical approach require amending,
the underlying scientific analysis of the risk evaluation in the risk
characterization section of the risk evaluation. EPA views the peer
reviewed hazard and exposure assessments and associated risk
characterization as robust and upholding the standards of best
available science and weight of the scientific evidence per TSCA
sections 26(h) and (i).
    EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on
the draft superseding unreasonable risk determination for 1-BP,
including a description of the risks driving the unreasonable risk
determination under the condition of use for the chemical substance as
a whole. For purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is making a draft risk
determination on 1-BP as a whole chemical. Under the proposed revised
approach, the ``whole chemical'' risk determination for 1-BP would
supersede the no unreasonable risk determinations for 1-BP that were
premised on a condition-of-use-specific approach to determining
unreasonable risk. When finalized, EPA's revised unreasonable risk
determination would also contain an order withdrawing the TSCA section
6(i)(1) order in section 5.4.1 of the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation.

C. What revision does EPA propose about the use of PPE for the 1-BP
risk evaluation?

    In the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, as
part of the unreasonable risk determination, EPA assumed for several
conditions of use that all workers were provided and always used PPE in
a manner that achieves the stated assigned protection factor (APF) for
respiratory protection, or used impervious gloves for dermal
protection. In support of this assumption, EPA considered reasonably
available information such as public comments indicating that some
employers, particularly in the industrial setting, provide PPE to their
employees and follow established worker protection standards (e.g.,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for
protection of workers).
    For the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation, EPA assumed based on
reasonably available information that workers use PPE--specifically,
respirators with an APF of 10 or 50, or gloves with a protection factor
(PF) of 5--for 15 of 16 occupational conditions of use. However, in the
August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation, EPA determined that there is
unreasonable risk for nine of these occupational conditions of use even
with this assumed PPE use.
    EPA is revising the assumption for 1-BP that workers always or
properly use PPE, although it does not question the public comments
received regarding the occupational safety practices often followed by
industry respondents. When characterizing the risk to human health from
occupational exposures during risk evaluation under TSCA, EPA believes
it is appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk present in baseline
scenarios where PPE is not assumed to be used by workers. This approach
of not assuming PPE use by workers considers the risk to potentially
exposed or susceptible subpopulations (workers and occupational non-
users) who may not be covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed
individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a State
Plan. It should be noted that, in some cases, baseline conditions may
reflect certain mitigation measures, such as engineering controls, in
instances where exposure estimates are based on monitoring data at
facilities that have engineering controls in place.
    In addition, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels
of risk present in scenarios considering applicable OSHA requirements
(e.g., chemical-specific permissible exposure limits (PELs) and/or
chemical-specific PELs with additional substance-specific standards) as
well as scenarios considering industry or sector best practices for
industrial hygiene that are clearly articulated to the Agency.
Consistent with this approach, the August 2020 1-BP risk evaluation
characterized risk to workers both with and without the use of PPE. By
characterizing risks using scenarios that reflect different levels of
mitigation, EPA risk evaluations can help inform potential risk
management actions by providing information that could be used during
risk management to tailor risk mitigation appropriately to address any
unreasonable risk identified, or to ensure that applicable OSHA
requirements or industry or sector best practices that address the
unreasonable risk are required for all potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations (including self-employed individuals and
public sector workers who are not covered by an OSHA State Plan).
    When undertaking unreasonable risk determinations as part of TSCA
risk evaluations, however, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to
assume as a general matter that an applicable OSHA requirement or
industry practices related to PPE use is consistently and always
properly applied. Mitigation scenarios included in the EPA risk
evaluation (e.g., scenarios considering use of various PPE) likely
represent what is happening already in some facilities. However, the
Agency cannot assume that all facilities have adopted these practices
for the purposes of making the TSCA risk determination.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to make a determination of unreasonable
risk for 1-BP from a baseline scenario that does not assume compliance
with OSHA standards, including any applicable exposure limits or
requirements for use of respiratory protection or other PPE. Making
unreasonable risk determinations based on the baseline scenario should
not be viewed as an indication that EPA believes there are no
occupational safety protections in place at any location, or that there
is widespread non-compliance with applicable OSHA standards. EPA
understands that there could be occupational safety protections in
place at workplace locations; however, not assuming use of PPE reflects
EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for subpopulations
of workers that may be highly exposed because they are not covered by
OSHA standards, such as self-employed individuals and public sector
workers who are not covered by a State Plan, or because their employer
is out of compliance with OSHA standards, or because OSHA has not
issued a permissible exposure limit (PEL) (as is the case for 1-BP,
noting that many of OSHA's chemical-specific permissible exposure
limits largely adopted in the 1970's are described by OSHA as being
``outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health''
(Ref. 11), or because EPA finds unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA
notwithstanding OSHA requirements.
    In accordance with this approach, EPA is proposing the draft
revision to the 1-BP risk determination without relying on assumptions
regarding the occupational use of PPE in making the unreasonable risk
determination under TSCA section 6; rather, information on the use of
PPE as a means of mitigating risk (including information received from
industry respondents about

occupational safety practices in use) would be considered during the
risk management phase as appropriate. This would represent a change
from the approach taken in the 2020 risk evaluation for 1-BP and EPA
invites comments on this draft change to the 1-BP risk determination.
As a general matter, when undertaking risk management actions, EPA
intends to strive for consistency with applicable OSHA requirements and
industry best practices, including appropriate application of the
hierarchy of controls, when those measures would address an identified
unreasonable risk, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed
or susceptible subpopulations. Consistent with TSCA section 9(d), EPA
will consult and coordinate TSCA activities with OSHA and other
relevant Federal agencies for the purpose of achieving the maximum
applicability of TSCA while avoiding the imposition of duplicative
requirements. Informed by the mitigation scenarios and information
gathered during the risk evaluation and risk management process, the
Agency might propose rules that require risk management practices that
may be already common practice in many or most facilities. Adopting
clear, comprehensive regulatory standards will foster compliance across
all facilities (ensuring a level playing field) and assure protections
for all affected workers, especially in cases where current OSHA
standards may not apply or be sufficient to address the unreasonable
risk.
    Removing the assumption that workers always and appropriately use
PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for 1-BP would add
seven conditions of use to the original 16 conditions of use that drive
the unreasonable risk. The seven conditions of use affected by this
change are: manufacturing (domestic manufacturing); manufacturing
(import); processing: as a reactant; processing: incorporation into
articles; processing: repackaging; processing: recycling; and disposal.
Additionally, removing this assumption would add: additional risks of
cancer from dermal exposures as driving the unreasonable risk to
workers in six conditions of use; additional risks for acute and
chronic non-cancer effects from inhalation exposures as driving the
unreasonable risk to workers in two conditions of use; and additional
risks for acute and chronic non-cancer effects and cancer from
inhalation and dermal exposures to workers as driving the unreasonable
risk in one conditions of use (where previously this condition of use
was identified as presenting unreasonable risk only to ONUs) (Ref. 1).
The draft revision to the risk determination would clarify that EPA
does not rely on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk
determination for the whole substance. EPA is requesting comment on
this potential change.

D. What is 1-BP?

    1-BP is a colorless liquid with a sweet odor. It is a brominated
hydrocarbon that is slightly soluble in water. 1-BP is a volatile
organic compound that exhibits high volatility, a low boiling point,
low flammability and no explosivity. 1-BP is produced and imported in
the United States and has a wide range of uses, including as a solvent
in degreasing operations, spray adhesives and dry cleaning; as a
reactant in the manufacturing of other chemical substances; and in
laboratory uses. There are also a variety of consumer and commercial
products that contain 1-BP, such as aerosol degreasers, spot cleaners,
stain removers, and insulation for building and construction materials.
The total aggregate production volume reported for 1-BP under the
Chemical Data Reporting rule ranged from 15.4 million to 25.8 million
pounds between 2012 and 2015.

E. What conclusions did EPA reach about the risks of 1-BP in the 2020
TSCA risk evaluation and what conclusions is EPA proposing to reach
based on the whole chemical approach and not assuming the use of PPE?

    In the 2020 risk evaluation, EPA determined that 1-BP presents an
unreasonable risk to health under the following conditions of use:
     Processing for incorporation into formulation, mixture or
reaction product
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and
degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--open-top, inline
vapor degreaser)
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and
degreasing in vapor degreaser (batch vapor degreaser--closed-loop)
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cleaning and
degreasing in cold cleaners
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent in aerosol spray
degreaser/cleaner
     Industrial and commercial use in adhesives and sealants
     Industrial and commercial use in dry cleaning solvents,
spot cleaners and stain removers
     Industrial and commercial use in liquid cleaners (e.g.,
coin and scissor cleaner) and liquid spray/aerosol cleaners
     Other industrial and commercial uses: arts, crafts, hobby
materials (adhesives accelerant); automotive care products (engine
degrease, brake cleaner, refrigerant flush); anti-adhesive agents (mold
cleaning and release product); electronic and electronic products and
metal products; functional fluids (close/open-systems)--refrigerant/
cutting oils; asphalt extraction; laboratory chemicals; and temperature
indicator--coatings
     Consumer use as solvent in aerosol spray degreasers/
cleaners
     Consumer use in spot cleaners and stain removers
     Consumer use in liquid cleaners (e.g., coin and scissor
cleaners)
     Consumer use in liquid spray/aerosol cleaners
     Consumer use in arts, crafts, hobby materials (adhesive
accelerant)
     Consumer use in automotive care products (refrigerant
flush)
     Consumer use in anti-adhesives agents (mold cleaning and
release product)
    Under the proposed whole chemical approach to the 1-BP risk
determination, the unreasonable risk from 1-BP would continue to be
driven by risk from those same conditions of use. In addition, by
removing the assumption that workers always and appropriately wear PPE
(see Unit II.C.) in making the whole chemical risk determination for 1-
BP, seven conditions of use in addition to the original 16 would drive
the draft unreasonable risk determination:
     Manufacture (domestic manufacturing)
     Manufacture (import)
     Processing as a reactant
     Processing for incorporation into articles
     Processing by repackaging
     Recycling
     Disposal
    Overall, 23 conditions of use out of the 25 EPA evaluated would
drive the 1-BP whole chemical unreasonable risk determination.

III. Revision of the August 2020 Risk Evaluation

A. Why is EPA proposing to revise the risk determination for the 1-BP
risk evaluation?

    EPA is proposing to revise the risk determination for the 1-BP risk
evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b) and consistent with Executive
Order 13990, (``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis'') and other
Administration priorities

(Refs. 3, 4, and 6). EPA is revising specific aspects of the first ten
TSCA existing chemical risk evaluations in order to ensure that the
risk evaluations better align with TSCA's objective of protecting
health and the environment. For the 1-BP risk evaluation, this includes
the draft revision: (1) making the risk determination in this instance
based on the whole chemical substance instead of by individual
conditions of use and (2) emphasizing that EPA does not rely on the
assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination.

B. What are the draft revisions?

    EPA is releasing a draft revision of the risk determination for the
1-BP risk evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b). Under the revised
determination, EPA preliminarily concludes that 1-BP, as evaluated in
the risk evaluation as a whole, presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health under its conditions of use. This revision would replace the
previous unreasonable risk determinations made for 1-BP by individual
conditions of use, supersede the determinations (and withdraw the
associated order) of no unreasonable risk for the conditions of use
identified the TSCA section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order, and
clarify the lack of reliance on assumed use of PPE as part of the risk
determination.
    These draft revisions do not alter any of the underlying technical
or scientific information that informs the risk characterization, and
as such the hazard, exposure, and risk characterization sections are
not changed except to the extent that statements about PPE assumptions
in section <IP_ADDRESS> (Consideration of Engineering Controls and PPE) and
section 4.2.2 (Occupational Inhalation Exposure Summary and PPE Use
Determinations by OES) of the 1-BP risk evaluation would be superseded.
The discussion of the issues in this notice and in the accompanying
draft revision to the risk determination would supersede any
conflicting statements in the prior executive summary and sections
<IP_ADDRESS> and 4.2.2 from the 1-BP risk evaluation and the response to
comments document (Refs. 2 and 10). Additional policy changes to other
chemical risk evaluations, including any consideration of potentially
exposed and susceptible subpopulations and/or inclusion of additional
exposure pathways, are not necessarily reflected in these draft
revisions to the risk determination.

C. Will the draft revised risk determination be peer reviewed?

    The risk determination (section 5 in the August 2020 risk
evaluation) was not part of the scope of the peer reviews of the 1-BP
risk evaluation by the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).
Thus, consistent with that approach, EPA does not intend to conduct
peer review of the draft revised unreasonable risk determination for
the 1-BP risk evaluation because no technical or scientific changes
will be made to the hazard or exposure assessments or the risk
characterization.

D. What are the next steps for finalizing revisions to the risk
determination?

    EPA will review and consider public comment received on the draft
revised risk determination for the 1-BP risk evaluation and, after
considering those public comments, issue the revised final 1-BP risk
determination. If finalized as drafted, EPA would also issue a new
order to withdraw the TSCA section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order
issued in Section 5.4.1 of the 2020 1-BP risk evaluation. This final
revised risk determination would supersede the August 2020 risk
determinations of no unreasonable risk. Consistent with the statutory
requirements of TSCA section 6(a), the Agency would then propose risk
management actions to address the unreasonable risk determined in the
1-BP risk evaluation.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA Draft Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for 1-
Bromopropane, Section 5, July 2022.
2. EPA Risk Evaluation for 1-Bromopropane. EPA Document #740-R1-
8013. August 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0235-0085
3. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.
Federal Register. 86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021.
4. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal
Register. 86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021.
5. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad. Federal Register. 86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021.
6. Presidential Memorandum. Memorandum on Restoring Trust in
Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based
Policymaking. Federal Register. 86 FR 8845, February 10, 2021.
7. EPA Press Release. EPA Announces Path Forward for TSCA Chemical
Risk Evaluations. June 2021. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-path-forward-tsca-chemical-risk-evaluations.
8. EPA. Proposed Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
7562, January 19, 2017 (FRL-9957-75).
9. EPA. Final Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
33726, July 20, 2017 (FRL-9964-38).
10. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and
Disposition for 1-Bromopropane (1-BP). August 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0235-0066.
11. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Permissible
Exposure Limits--Annotated Tables. Accessed June 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: July 14, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-15516 Filed 7-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From: Robin Dunkins [  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>]

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 09:06 AM

To: Frey, Nathan J.; Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: John Bradfield <  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Bill Schrock <  HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>;
Karen Thundiyil <  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Scott Jordan <  HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>;
Steve Fruh <  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>

Subject: Fw: Package For OMB

Nathan,

Please find our final draft for the Pulp and Paper Subpart S RTR. Per
our earlier discussion, we had a few additional edits to the version you
approved. Please let me know if you have any additional comments on our
edits. Also, let me know when you are ready for us to upload to ROCIS.

You can reach me by cell phone today at<PHONE_NUMBER> or John Bradfield
in the office at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Thanks

Robin

Robin Dunkins, Leader,

Natural Resources and Commerce Group

US Environmental Protection Agency

919-541-5335


[Federal Register: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 76312]
[DOCID:fr20de06-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-21-000]

Notice of Filing; New England Independent Transmission Company,
LLC

December 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 4, 2006, New England Independent
Transmission Company, LLC (New England ITC) tendered for filing a
Petition for Declaratory Order requesting findings regarding
independence criteria and capabilities.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 28, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-21687 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 5)]
[Notices]
[Page 1387-1388]
[DOCID:fr08ja08-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57079; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Revisions to the Series 82 Examination
Program

 December 31, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 12, 2007, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by FINRA.
FINRA has designated this proposal as constituting a stated policy,
practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is filing revisions to the study outline and selection
specifications for the Limited Representative--Private Securities
Offerings (Series 82) examination program.\5\ The proposed revisions
update the material to reflect changes to the laws, rules and
regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties
and responsibilities of a Limited Representative--Private Securities
Offerings. FINRA is not proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws,
Schedules to the By-Laws, or Rules of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA also is proposing corresponding revisions to the
Series 82 question bank, but based upon instruction from the
Commission staff, FINRA is submitting SR-FINRA-2007-033 for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and is not filing the question bank
for Commission review. See Letter to Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, from Belinda Blaine,
Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated July
24, 2000, attached as Exhibit 3c to the proposed rule change. The
question bank is available for Commission review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://www.finra.org
, the principal offices of FINRA, and the Commission's

Public Reference Room. The Series 82 selection specifications have been
submitted to the Commission under separate cover with a request for
confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act \7\ requires FINRA to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members. In accordance with that provision, FINRA
has developed examinations, and administers examinations developed by
other self-regulatory organizations, that are designed to establish
that persons associated with FINRA members have attained specified
levels of competence and knowledge. FINRA periodically reviews the
content of the examinations to determine whether revisions are
necessary or appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject
matter covered by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to NASD Rule 1032(h), each associated person of a member
who is

included within the definition of representative in NASD Rule 1031(b)
may register with FINRA as a Limited Representative--Private Securities
Offerings if: (1) The individual's activities in the investment banking
and securities business of the member are limited solely to effecting
sales as part of a primary offering of securities not involving a
public offering, pursuant to Sections 3(b), 4(2) or 4(6) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the rules and regulations thereunder; (2)
the individual does not effect sales of municipal or government
securities, or equity interests in or the debt of direct participation
program securities as defined in NASD Rule 1022(e); and (3) the
individual passes the Series 82 qualification examination.
    A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA staff,
recently undertook a review of the Series 82 examination program. As a
result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the
study outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations
covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties and
responsibilities of a Limited Representative--Private Securities
Offerings.
    Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to add sections on
exchange-traded funds, Private Investment in Public Equity (PIPE)
offerings, NASD IM-2110-7 (Interfering With the Transfer of Customer
Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes) and NASD Rule 2370
(Borrowing From or Lending to Customers).
    FINRA is proposing to change the title of Section 3 of the study
outline from ``Analyzing Corporate Securities'' to ``Analyzing
Corporate Securities and Investment Planning.'' Further, as a result of
the revisions discussed above, the number of questions on each section
of the study outline was modified as follows: Characteristics of
Corporate Securities, no changes to the number of questions (remains at
13 questions); Regulation of The Market for Registered and Unregistered
Securities, no changes to the number of questions (remains at 45
questions); Analyzing Corporate Securities and Investment Planning,
increased from 15 to 16 questions; and Handling Customer Accounts and
Industry Regulations, decreased from 27 to 26 questions.
    FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 82 selection
specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series
82 examination will remain at 100, and candidates will continue to have
2\1/2\ hours to complete the exam. Also, each question will continue to
count one point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of
the questions to receive a passing grade.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 72
examination program are consistent with the provisions of Sections
15A(b)(6) \8\ and 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\9\ which authorize FINRA to
prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with FINRA members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\11\ in
that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization.
FINRA proposes to implement the revised Series 82 examination program
on February 12, 2008. FINRA will announce the implementation date in a
Regulatory Notice to be published on December 12, 2007, the date FINRA
filed SR-FINRA-2007-33 with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-FINRA-2007-033 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-033. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-033 and should be
submitted on or before January 29, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E8-92 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78460-78461]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0030; OMB No. 1660-0020]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, Write Your Own (WYO) Program.

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Room 7NE, Washington, DC
20472-3100, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Changes Since Publication of the 60 Day
Federal Register Notice for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Write Your Own (WYO) Program. The number of respondents and the
estimated burden hours have increased since FEMA published the 60 day
Federal Register Notice on October 15, 2014. See 79 FR 61886. This is
due to a clerical error. The respondent burden increased from 88 to 90.
The estimated responses increased from 1056 to 1080. The estimated time
per response

changed from 59 to 0.59. The total burden hours decreased from 62304 to
637.20.

Collection of Information

    Title: Write Your Own (WYO) Program.
    Type of information collection: Extension without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 129-1, Write Your Own Program.
    Abstract: FEMA enters into arrangements with individual private
sector insurance companies that are licensed to engage in the business
of property insurance. These companies may offer flood insurance
coverage to eligible property owners utilizing their customary business
practices. WYO Companies are expected to meet the recording and
reporting requirements of the WYO Transaction Record Reporting and
Processing Plan.
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 90.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1080.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 637.20.
    Estimated Cost: There are no annual start-up or capital costs.

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2014-30549 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19086]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1454-000]

LI Solar Generation, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
LI Solar Generation, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 18, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 28, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06889 Filed 3-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P