[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52766-52773]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18535]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733; FRL-9948-01-OCSPP]

Carbon Tetrachloride; 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 requesting public comment on a draft revision to
the risk determination for the carbon tetrachloride risk evaluation
issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The draft
revision to the carbon tetrachloride 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 carbon tetrachloride, as a whole chemical substance, presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health when evaluated under its
conditions of use. In addition, this draft 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 the standards set by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or their
employers are out of compliance with OSHA standards, or because 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the 1970's are described by OSHA as being ``outdated and inadequate for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.'' This revision, when final,
would supersede the condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk
determinations in the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (and
withdraw the associated order) and would make a revised determination
of unreasonable risk for carbon tetrachloride as a whole chemical
substance.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733, 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: Claudia Menasche, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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 carbon tetrachloride. 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 nonrisk 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 nonrisk
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
2020 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1).

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
carbon tetrachloride under TSCA (Ref. 2). 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 carbon
tetrachloride, 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 carbon tetrachloride 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 carbon
tetrachloride 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 2 conditions of use
previously determined not to present unreasonable risk.
    This revision to section 5 (Ref. 2) would be consistent with EPA's
plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten TSCA chemical risk
evaluations to ensure that the risk evaluations better align with
TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. Under the
draft revision, the same 13 conditions of use identified in the 2020
Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1) as presenting
unreasonable risk would continue to drive the unreasonable risk
determination for carbon tetrachloride. Removing the assumption that
workers always and appropriately wear PPE (see Unit II.C.) when making
the whole chemical risk determination for carbon tetrachloride would
not alter the conditions of use

that drive the unreasonable risk determination for carbon
tetrachloride. However, without the assumed use of PPE, inhalation
exposures to workers would now also drive the unreasonable risk and
dermal exposures would also drive the unreasonable risk due to non-
cancer effects (specifically liver toxicity). In addition, the 2020
Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1) contained a typographical
error in the acute dermal point of departure (POD). This error was
corrected in an errata made available to the public in the docket in
July 2022 and the changes to the risk estimates for acute dermal
exposures are reflected in the draft revision to the risk determination
(Ref. 3). The corrections do not alter the conditions of use that drive
the unreasonable risk determination for carbon tetrachloride. Overall,
13 conditions of use out of 15 EPA evaluated would drive the carbon
tetrachloride whole chemical unreasonable risk determination due to
risks identified for human health. The full list of the conditions of
use evaluated for the carbon tetrachloride TSCA risk evaluation is in
Table 1-4 of the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
https://www.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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

A. Why is EPA re-issuing the risk determination for the carbon
tetrachloride 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-bromopropane,
carbon tetrachloride, C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (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 carbon tetrachloride
in 2020 (Ref. 1). 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. 4) and other
Administration priorities (Refs. 5, 6, and 7), EPA reviewed the risk
evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, including carbon
tetrachloride, 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.
8). To that end, EPA is reconsidering two key aspects of the risk
determinations for carbon tetrachloride. First, following a review of
specific aspects of the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref.
1), EPA proposes that making an unreasonable risk determination for
carbon tetrachloride 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 carbon tetrachloride 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 worker 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 the air and water pathways for several of the
first 10 chemicals, including this chemical. For carbon tetrachloride
the exposure pathways that were or could be regulated under another EPA
administered statute were excluded from the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride
Risk Evaluation (see section 1.4.3. in Ref. 1). This resulted in the
ambient air and ambient/drinking water pathways for carbon
tetrachloride not being assessed. 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 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride
Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1). 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 carbon tetrachloride 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 carbon
tetrachloride. 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 these 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 carbon tetrachloride 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. 9). 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. 9).
    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. 9 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. 9 at pg. 7480).
    The final risk evaluation procedural rule (Ref. 10) stated: ``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 as part of 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. 10 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 above 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. 10,
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. 10 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 carbon tetrachloride,
EPA proposes that a whole chemical approach is appropriate for carbon
tetrachloride in order to protect health. The whole chemical approach
is appropriate for carbon tetrachloride 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, and disposal) for
health of workers and occupational non-users and the health effects
associated with carbon tetrachloride exposures are irreversible
(specifically cancer and liver toxicity). 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
would drive the unreasonable risk; therefore, it is appropriate for the
Agency to make a determination for carbon tetrachloride 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 document and in the accompanying draft
revision to the risk determination for carbon tetrachloride supersede
any conflicting statements in the prior carbon tetrachloride risk
evaluation (Ref. 1) and the related response to comments document (Ref.
11). With respect to the carbon tetrachloride 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 carbon
tetrachloride, including a description of the risks driving the
unreasonable risk determination under the conditions of use for the
chemical substance as a whole (Ref. 2). For purposes of TSCA section
6(i), EPA is making a draft risk determination on carbon tetrachloride
as a whole chemical. Under the proposed revised approach, the ``whole
chemical'' risk determination for carbon tetrachloride would supersede
the no unreasonable risk determinations (and withdraw the associated
order) for carbon tetrachloride 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 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1).

C. What revision does EPA propose about the use of PPE for the carbon
tetrachloride 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.,
OSHA requirements for protection of workers).
    For the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1), EPA
assumed that workers use PPE, specifically respirators with an APF
ranging from 10 to 50 for 12 conditions of use, and gloves with a PF of
20 for 13 conditions of use. However, in the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride
Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1), EPA determined that there is unreasonable
risk to these workers even with this assumed PPE use.
    EPA is revising the assumption for carbon tetrachloride 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.
    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. 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. Consistent with this approach,
the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride 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 carbon tetrachloride 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. Rather, it 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 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. 12), 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 carbon tetrachloride 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
public comments 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 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation and EPA invites
comments on this draft change to the carbon tetrachloride 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 the 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 wear
PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for carbon
tetrachloride would not result in additional conditions of use to the
original 13 conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk for
carbon tetrachloride as a whole chemical. However, the impact of
removing the assumption of PPE use would cause inhalation exposures to
workers to also drive the unreasonable risk and dermal exposures would
also drive the unreasonable risk due to non-cancer effects
(specifically liver toxicity, including risk associated with acute
dermal exposures identified after the July 2022 corrections to the risk
estimates (Ref. 3)). 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 carbon tetrachloride?

    Carbon tetrachloride is a high production volume solvent.
Currently, the vast majority of carbon tetrachloride is used as a
feedstock in the production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs). EPA has
identified information on the regulated use of carbon tetrachloride as
a process agent in the manufacturing of petrochemicals-derived and
agricultural products and other chlorinated compounds such as
chlorinated paraffins, chlorinated rubber and others that may be used
downstream in the formulation of solvents for degreasing and cleaning,
adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, rubber, cement and asphalt
formulations. The use of carbon tetrachloride for non-feedstock uses
(i.e., process agent, laboratory chemical) is regulated in accordance
with the Montreal Protocol. The Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) banned the use of carbon tetrachloride in consumer products
(excluding unavoidable residues not exceeding 10 ppm atmospheric
concentration) in 1970. As a result of CPSC's ban, EPA does not
consider the use of carbon tetrachloride-containing consumer products
produced before 1970 to be known, intended, or reasonably foreseen.
While carbon tetrachloride is used in the manufacturing of other
chlorinated compounds that may be subsequently added to commercially
available products, EPA expects that consumer use of such products
would present only negligible exposure to carbon tetrachloride given
the high volatility of carbon tetrachloride and the extent of reaction
and efficacy of the separation/purification process for purifying final
products. As discussed in section <IP_ADDRESS>, EPA had sufficient basis to
conclude during problem formulation that industrial, commercial, and
consumer uses of carbon tetrachloride in commercially available aerosol
and non-aerosol adhesives and sealants, paints and coatings, and
cleaning and degreasing solvent products would present only de minimis
exposures or otherwise insignificant risks and did not warrant further
evaluation or inclusion in the risk evaluation. Therefore, EPA did not
evaluate hazards or exposures to consumers or bystanders in this risk
evaluation, and there is no unreasonable risk determination for these
populations.

E. What conclusions did EPA reach about the risks of carbon
tetrachloride 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 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1), EPA
determined that carbon tetrachloride presents an unreasonable risk to
health under the following conditions of use:
     Manufacturing (Domestic Manufacture);
     Manufacturing (Import, including loading/unloading and
repackaging);
     Processing: As a reactant in the production of
hydrochlorofluorocarbon, hydrofluorocarbon, hydrofluoroolefin, and
perchloroethylene;
     Processing: Incorporation into formulation, mixtures or
reaction products (petrochemicals-derived manufacturing; agricultural
products manufacturing; other basic organic and inorganic chemical
manufacturing);
     Processing: Repackaging for use in laboratory chemicals;
     Processing: Recycling;
     Industrial/commercial use as an industrial processing aid
in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products and agricultural
products;
     Industrial/commercial use in the manufacture of other
basic chemicals (including chlorinated compounds used in solvents,
adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings);
     Industrial/commercial use in metal recovery;
     Industrial/commercial use as an additive;
     Industrial/commercial use in specialty uses by the
Department of Defense;
     Industrial/commercial use as a laboratory chemical; and
     Disposal.
    Under the proposed whole chemical approach to the carbon
tetrachloride risk determination, the unreasonable risk from carbon
tetrachloride would continue to be driven by those same conditions of
use (COUs). In addition, by removing the assumption of PPE use in
making the whole chemical risk determination for carbon tetrachloride,
there are no additional conditions of use that would drive the draft
unreasonable risk determination. The same 13 out of the 15 COUs that
EPA evaluated would continue to drive EPA's unreasonable risk
determination, though inhalation exposures to workers would now also
drive the unreasonable risk and dermal exposures would also drive the
unreasonable risk due to non-cancer effects (specifically liver
toxicity), where previously those COUs were identified as presenting
unreasonable risk only from cancer effects from dermal exposures and
cancer and non-cancer effects, for some COUs, to occupational non-users
from inhalation exposures. Overall, 13 out of the 15 COUs that EPA
evaluated would drive the carbon tetrachloride whole chemical
unreasonable risk determination.
    Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a),
EPA will propose risk management regulatory action to the extent
necessary so that carbon tetrachloride no longer presents an
unreasonable risk. Therefore, it is expected that EPA's risk management
action likely will focus on the conditions of use that drive the
unreasonable risk. However, it should be noted that, under TSCA section
6(a), EPA is not limited to regulating the specific activities found to
drive

unreasonable risk and may select from among a suite of risk management
requirements in section 6(a) related to manufacture (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce, commercial use, and disposal as
part of its regulatory options to address the unreasonable risk. As a
general example, EPA may regulate upstream activities (e.g.,
processing, distribution in commerce) to address downstream activities
(e.g., consumer uses) driving unreasonable risk, even if the upstream
activities do not drive the unreasonable risk.

III. Revision of the 2020 Risk Evaluation

A. Why is EPA proposing to revise the risk determination for the carbon
tetrachloride risk evaluation?

    EPA is proposing to revise the risk determination for the carbon
tetrachloride 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. 4, 5, 6, and 7). 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
carbon tetrachloride 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?

    Under the revised determination, EPA preliminarily concludes that
carbon tetrachloride, 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 carbon tetrachloride by individual conditions
of use, supersede the determinations (and withdraw the associated
order) of no unreasonable risk for the conditions of use identified in
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 by these revisions. The draft revision to the unreasonable
risk determination considers the corrections to the risk estimates for
acute dermal exposures placed in the docket for the carbon
tetrachloride risk evaluation in July 2022; that errata memorandum
corrected a typographical error in the acute dermal point of departure
(POD) and the risk estimates based on that POD in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 3).
    The discussion of the issues in this document and in the
accompanying draft revision to the risk determination would supersede
any conflicting statements in the prior executive summary from the 2020
Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation and the response to comments
document (Refs. 1 and 11). Additional policy changes to other chemical
risk evaluations, including any consideration of potentially exposed or
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 of the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride
Risk Evaluation, Ref. 1) was not part of the scope of the peer reviews
of the carbon tetrachloride 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 carbon tetrachloride 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 carbon tetrachloride risk evaluation
and, after considering those public comments, issue the revised final
carbon tetrachloride 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 Carbon
Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 1). The final revised risk
determination would supersede the risk determinations of no
unreasonable risk in the 2020 Carbon Tetrachloride Risk Evaluation.
Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a), the
Agency would then propose risk management actions to address the
unreasonable risk determination in the final revised carbon
tetrachloride risk evaluation.

V. 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. Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Methane,
Tetrachloro-); CASRN: 56-23-5. EPA Document #740-R1-8014. October
2020. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/1_ccl4_risk_evaluation_for_carbon_tetrachloride.pdf. As announced in
the Federal Register. 85 FR 70147, November 4, 2020 (FRL-10015-51).
2. EPA. Draft Revised Unreasonable Risk Determination for Carbon
Tetrachloride, section 5. July 2022.
3. EPA. Correction of Dermal Acute Hazard and risk Values in the
Final Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride. Memorandum. July 27,
2022. Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499-0064. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499-0064.
4. 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.
5. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal
Register. 86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021.
6. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad. Federal Register. 86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021.
7. Presidential Memorandum. Memorandum on Restoring Trust in
Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based
Policymaking. Federal Register. 86 FR 8845, February 10, 2021.
8. 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.
9. EPA. Proposed Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
7562, January 18, 2017 (FRL-9957-75).
10. 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).

11. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and
Disposition for Carbon Tetrachloride (Methane, Tetrachloro-).
Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499-0062. November 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0499-0062.
12. 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: August 19, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-18535 Filed 8-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30571-30573]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13953]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0100; EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0501; FRL-9980-08--Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Volatile Organic
Compound Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revised
rules submitted by the State of Michigan as State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions. The main revision specifies volatile organic compound
(VOC) limits for cutback and emulsified asphalts as well as the test
methods for determining the VOC content of these products. Michigan
also moved the adoption by reference citations from Part 6. Emission
Limitations and Prohibitions--Existing Sources of Volatile Organic
Emissions to Part 9. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions--
Miscellaneous and updated references to federal test methods in several
of its Part 6 rules.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0100 and EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0501. All documents in
the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either through www.regulations.gov or at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Michigan revised its rule R 336.1618 ``Use of cutback or emulsified
paving asphalt'' along with several other of its VOC rules. Michigan
also revised rules R 336.1611 to R 336.1614, R 336.1619, R 336.1622, R
336.1625, R336.1627 to R 336.1629, R 336.1632, R 336.1651, R 336.1660,
and R 336.1661 for the purpose of removing adoptions by reference which
have been moved to and consolidated in R 336.1902 ``Adoption of
standards by reference.'' Revisions to R 336.1622, R 336.1627 to R
336.1629, and R 336.1632 update references to federal test methods.
    On March 30, 2018 (83 FR 13710) EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of Michigan's VOC revisions. The
specific details of Michigan's VOC revisions and the rationale for
EPA's approval are discussed in the NPR and will not be restated here.
EPA received no relevant comments on this proposal.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Michigan's VOC revisions in Part 6 and Part 9
because they satisfy the EPA's requirement of reasonably available
control technology.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible

methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 28, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 18, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170 amend the table in paragraph (c) by:
0
a. Revising the entries under the heading ``Part 6: Emission
Limitations and Prohibitions--Existing Sources of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions'', for rules ``R 336.1611'', ``R 336.1612'', ``R
336.1613'', ``R 336.1614'', ``R 336.1618'', ``R 336.1619'', ``R
336.1622'', ``R 336.1625'', ``R336.1627'', ``R 336.1628'', ``R
336.1629'', ``R 336.1632'', ``R 336.1651'', ``R 336.1660'', and ``R
336.1661'';
0
b. Adding an entry under the heading ``Part 9: Emission Limitations and
Prohibitions--Miscellaneous'' for rule ``R 336.1902'' in numerical
order.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
      Michigan citation               Title          effective date    EPA approval date          Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Part 6: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions--Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1611..................  Existing cold               3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               cleaners.                              Federal Register
                                                                      citation].
R 336.1612..................  Existing open top           3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               vapor degreasers.                      Federal Register
                                                                      citation].
R 336.1613..................  Existing conveyorized       3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               cold cleaners.                         Federal Register
                                                                      citation].
R 336.1614..................  Existing conveyorized       3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               vapor degreasers.                      Federal Register
                                                                      citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1618..................  Use of cutback or           3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               emulsified paving                      Federal Register
                               asphalt.                               citation].
R 336.1619..................  Standards for               3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               perchloroethylene                      Federal Register
                               dry cleaning                           citation].
                               equipment.

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1622..................  Emission of volatile        3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               organic compounds                      Federal Register
                               from existing                          citation].
                               components of
                               petroleum
                               refineries; refinery
                               monitoring program.

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1625..................  Emission of volatile        3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               organic compound                       Federal Register
                               from existing                          citation].
                               equipment utilized
                               in manufacturing
                               synthesized
                               pharmaceutical
                               products.
R 336.1627..................  Delivery vessels;           3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               vapor collection                       Federal Register
                               systems.                               citation].
R 336.1628..................  Emission of volatile        3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               organic compounds                      Federal Register
                               from components of                     citation].
                               existing process
                               equipment used in
                               manufacturing
                               synthetic organic
                               chemicals and
                               polymers; monitoring
                               program.
R 336.1629..................  Emission of volatile        3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               organic compounds                      Federal Register
                               from components of                     citation].
                               existing process
                               equipment used in
                               processing natural
                               gas; monitoring
                               program.

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1632..................  Emission of volatile        3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               organic compounds                      Federal Register
                               from existing                          citation].
                               automobile, truck,
                               and business machine
                               plastic part coating
                               lines.
R 336.1651..................  Standards for               3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               degreasers.                            Federal Register
                                                                      citation].
R 336.1660..................  Standards for               3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               volatile organic                       Federal Register
                               compounds emissions                    citation].
                               from consumer
                               products.
R 336.1661..................  Definitions for             3/29/2017  6/29/2018, [Insert
                               consumer products.                     Federal Register
                                                                      citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Part 9: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions--Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 336.1902..................  Adoption of Standards      12/20/2016  6/29/2018, [Insert     Only sections
                               by reference.                          Federal Register       (1)(a), (b)(i),
                                                                      citation].             (b)(iii), (b)(iv),
                                                                                (b)(vii),
                                                                                (b)(viii), (c),
                                                                                (d), (e), (f), (g),
                                                                                (i), (j), (k), (l),
                                                                                (m), (n), and (s);
                                                                                (2)(b), (e), and
                                                                                (g); (3)(a);
                                                                                (4)(a), (b), (c),
                                                                                (d), (e), (f), (l),
                                                                                (m),(o), and (p);
                                                                                (5); (8); and (9).

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-13953 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 18849]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC16-57-000]

Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 8, 2016, Dominion Carolina Gas
Transmission, LLC (DCG) submitted a request that DCG be granted any
waivers of the requirements of Order No. 561 and 18 CFR part 201,
specifically Gas Plant Instruction No. 3(17) in calculating Allowance
for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) rate deemed necessary to
allow its proposed method of AFUDC. Specifically, DCG proposes to use a
hypothetical capital structure of 50 percent debt and 50 percent
equity, the rate of return on equity from the settlement of DCG's last
rate case proceeding, and the actual cost of long-term debt of Dominion
Midstream Partners, LP, when calculating AFUDC.
    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 and 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 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: April 18, 2016.

    Dated: March 28, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07341 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86442]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0975]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Experimental
Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 17, 2023. The FAA collects information from
applicants for experimental permits in order to determine whether they
satisfy the requirements for obtaining an experimental permit.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 12, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Huet by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0722.
    Title: Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on April 17, 2023, (88 FR 23491). There were no comments.
14 CFR part 437 established requirements for the FAA's authority to
issue experimental permits for reusable suborbital rockets to authorize
launches for the purpose of research and development, crew training and
showing compliance with the regulations. The information collected
includes data required for performing a safety review, which includes a
technical assessment to determine if the applicant can launch a
reusable suborbital rocket without jeopardizing public health and
safety and the safety of property. This information collection
requirement is intended for incorporating acquired data into the
experimental permit, which then becomes binding on the launch or
reentry operator. The applicant is required to submit information that
enables FAA to determine, before issuing a permit, if issuance of the
experimental permit would jeopardize the foreign policy or national
security interests of the U.S.
    Respondents: Approximately 10 applicants for experimental permits.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 18.6 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,567 hours per year.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
James A. Hatt,
Space Policy Division Manager, Office of Commercial Space
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2023-27353 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31096-31097]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0136; FMCSA-2021-0013]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for eight
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are applicable on May 14, 2023. The exemptions
expire on May 14, 2025. Comments must be received on or before June 14,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0136 or Docket No. FMCSA-2021-
0013 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number (FMCSA-2018-0136 or FMCSA-2021-0013) in the
keyword box and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted
(Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice listed, and click on the
``Comment'' button. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0136 or Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0013),
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends
that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or
a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact
you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/, insert
the docket number (FMCSA-2018-0136 or FMCSA-2021-0013) in the keyword
box and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. FMCSA will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number (FMCSA-2018-0136 or FMCSA-2021-0013) in the keyword box and
click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),''
choose the first notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you
do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments
from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the system of records
notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System), which can be
reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/

individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices, the comments
are searchable by the name of the submitter.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971),
respectively).
    The eight individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal
of their exemptions from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11),
in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the
eight applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the hearing requirement. The eight drivers in this
notice remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, for
commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information
System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each of these drivers for a period of 2 years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    As of May 14, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Timothy Allen (LA)
Frederick Fleetwood (NC)
Christopher Gilmore (TX)
Jeffrey Haley (MN)
Kelvin Jarman (IL)
Elizabeth Keyes (MN)
Raymond Levine (CA)
Ted McCracken (OR)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2018-0136 or
FMCSA-2021-0013. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 14, 2023 and
will expire on May 14, 2025.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in
Sec.  390.5T; and (2) report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA; and (3)
each driver prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if:
(1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the
exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety
than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the
exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the eight exemption applications,
FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the
hearing requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years
unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-10299 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34067-34068]
[FR Doc No: E9-16545]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60252; File No. SR-NYSEAmes-2009-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 70.25 To
Permit All Available Contra-Side Liquidity To Trigger the Execution of
a d-Quote

July 7, 2009.
    On June 4, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70.25 to permit all available contra-side
liquidity to trigger the execution of a d-Quote. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 15,
2009.\3\ The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal.
This order approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60055 (June 5,
2009), 74 FR 28299 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70.25 to expand the categories
of liquidity that would be considered when determining whether the
contra-side volume is within the discretionary size range of the d-
Quote.\4\ Currently, only displayed interest is considered by Exchange
systems in determining whether the d-Quote is triggered. Under the
proposed rule change, all available contra-side interest at a possible
execution price of the d-Quote, including undisplayed liquidity, would
be considered. This rule change will conform Rule 70.25 to the
corresponding rule of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') that
governs the execution of NYSE Floor broker interest.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A d-Quote is an e-Quote for which a Floor Broker enters
discretionary instructions as to size and/or price. See NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 70.25(a)(i). An e-Quote is a broker agency interest
file that a Floor broker places within the Display Book system. See
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 70(a)(i).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60045 (June 4,
2009), 74 FR 27854 (June 11, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, the Exchange stated that this rule change would
provide Floor brokers with a similar functionality that was previously
available to Floor brokers with convert-and-parity (``CAP'') orders,
and that was also previously available to NYSE Floor brokers with CAP-
DI orders under former NYSE Rule 123A.30(a).\6\ Under that former rule,
an elected CAP-DI order would automatically execute against any contra-
side volume available at the electing price, and was eligible to
participate in a sweep.\7\At the time the CAP order was eliminated, the
NYSE did not have the technology to replicate a similar functionality
with d-Quotes.\8\ Since that time, both the Exchange and the NYSE have
introduced two new order types, the Minimum Display Reserve Order, and
the Non-Displayed Reserve Order.\9\ With the proposed rule change,
these two order types would be considered when determining whether
there is sufficient contra-side volume to trigger a d-Quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice at 28300. The Exchange noted that the CAP
functionality that was historically available to Floor brokers was
similar to the NYSE CAP functionality. See id. at n.10. The Exchange
states that it eliminated this functionality in connection with the
implementation of Regulation NMS. Id.
    \7\ See Notice at 28300.
    \8\ Id. at 28301.
    \9\ Id. See also NYSE Amex Equities Rule 13 (Definitions of
Orders); NYSE Rule 13 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange \10\ including, in particular, Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which requires that an exchange have rules
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because it would provide a d-Quote with access to both displayed
and undisplayed liquidity, the proposed rule change benefits Floor
brokers by allowing their d-Quotes to be triggered more often. This
proposal should also benefit customers by providing them with more
opportunities to have their non-displayed reserve orders receive
executions.
    The Commission also finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the Federal
Register. The Commission notes that no comments were received during
the 21-day comment period. The purpose of this proposed rule change is
to conform Rule 70.25 to the NYSE rule that governs the execution of
floor broker interest. In that respect, the Commission believes that
the Exchange has provided reasonable support for its representation
that the proposed rule change provides Floor brokers with a
functionality similar to that previously available with CAP orders, and
to the functionality that was previously available to NYSE Floor
brokers with CAP-DI orders. In addition, the potential benefits of this
proposal to customers, such as the increased opportunities for the
execution of customer non-displayed reserve orders, would be available
sooner by approving this proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
Therefore, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ to approve the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEAmes-2009-24) be, and it hereby
is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16545 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78181-78182]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32228]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 230

[Release No. 34-65942; File No. S7-38-11]
RIN 3235-AL04

Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest in Certain
Securitizations

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is extending the
comment period for a release proposing a new rule to implement Section
621 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010 (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'') on material conflicts of interest in
connection with certain securitizations (the ``ABS Conflicts
Proposal''). The original comment period for the ABS Conflicts Proposal
is scheduled to end on December 19, 2011. The Commission is extending
the time period in which to provide the Commission with comments on the
ABS Conflicts Proposal until January 13, 2012. This action will allow
interested persons additional time to analyze the issues and prepare
their comments.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

    Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-38-11 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

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 S7-38-11. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
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/proposed.shtml). Comments
are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not
edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Sandoe, Senior Special
Counsel, Anthony Kelly, Special Counsel, or Barry O'Connell, Attorney
Advisor, Office of Trading Practices, Division of Trading and Markets,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and David Beaning, Special Counsel and Katherine
Hsu, Chief, Office of Structured Finance, Division of Corporation
Finance, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has requested comment on
Proposed Rule 127B under the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities
Act'') in the ABS Conflicts Proposal to implement Section 621 of the
Dodd-

Frank Act.\1\ Proposed Rule 127B under the Securities Act would
prohibit certain persons who create and distribute an asset-backed
security, including a synthetic asset-backed security, from engaging in
transactions, within one year after the date of the first closing of
the sale of the asset-backed security, that would involve or result in
a material conflict of interest with respect to any investor in the
asset-backed security. The proposed rule also would provide exceptions
from this prohibition for certain risk-mitigating hedging activities,
liquidity commitments, and bona fide market-making. The ABS Conflicts
Proposal was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Exchange Act Release No. 34-65355 (September 19, 2011), 76
FR 60320 (September 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission originally requested that comments on the ABS
Conflicts Proposal be received by December 19, 2011, including comment
about any potential interplay \2\ between Proposed Rule 127B and the
``Volcker Rule Proposal.'' \3\ The Volcker Rule Proposal would
implement Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act concerning prohibitions and
restrictions on proprietary trading and certain interests in, and
relationships with, hedge funds and private equity funds. The Volcker
Rule Proposal was published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2011
and the comment period for that proposal ends on January 13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., 76 FR 60320, 60341.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 34-65545 (October 12, 2011), 76 FR
68846 (November 7, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to provide the public with a better opportunity to
consider any potential interplay between the ABS Conflicts and Volcker
Rule Proposals, the Commission has determined to provide the public
additional time to consider simultaneously the ABS Conflicts Proposal
and the Volcker Rule Proposal. This extended opportunity to submit
comprehensive comments regarding the ABS Conflicts Proposal and any
potential interplay with the Volcker Rule Proposal would benefit the
Commission in its consideration of any final rules. Therefore, the
Commission is extending the comment period for the ABS Conflicts
Proposal to January 13, 2012, to coincide with the end of the Volcker
Rule Proposal's comment period. The Commission would consider a further
extension of the ABS Conflicts Proposal comment period if the Volcker
Rule Proposal comment period were extended beyond January 13, 2012.

    Dated: December 13, 2011.
    By the Commission.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32228 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P