[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85658]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28727]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4559-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4559-DR), dated August 28, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 12, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 28, 2020.

    Caddo, La Salle, and St. Landry Parishes for Individual
Assistance (already designated for emergency protective measures
[Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-28727 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Comments of the Coalition for Clean Air Implementation

on EPA’s August 7, 2000 Review Draft of White Paper 3

“Design of Flexible Air Permits”

Introduction And Summary

On August 7, 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency released for
comment a draft of the latest in its series of Title V permit guidance
“White Papers”, White Paper 3.  That draft White Paper focuses
exclusively on ways in which Title V permits can be written to avoid the
need for later permit revisions as industrial operations change.  The
White Paper identifies three such approaches and discusses them in
detail.  They are:

Writing permits that would eliminate unnecessary detail not needed to
comply with “applicable requirements”.

Describing, and approving in advance, alternative operating scenarios
that would become “pre-permitted”.  A source could switch between
these pre-approved scenarios simply by giving notice.

Establishing “caps” that would prevent changes at a facility from
triggering “major new source review” (“MNSR”) under the Clean
Air Act.

The Coalition for Clean Air Implementation ("CCAI) is an industry group
focused on implementation of the Clean Air Act.  Our members are the
American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), the American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISI), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the
National Mining Association (NMA).

The members of CCAI’s component organizations own and operate numerous
sources subject to Title V requirements.  Accordingly, CCAI has
participated in the development and revision of Title V regulations from
the beginning.  CCAI has commented on every Title V regulatory proposal
and every draft White Paper, and has participated in numerous
“stakeholder” meetings on Title V.

CCAI supports the purpose of White Paper 3 and many of its specific
positions.  In general, we believe the White Paper is constructive and
thoughtful and would improve the operations of the Title V program.  The
fact that comments are, by nature, critical should not obscure our
overall position.  However, we also believe the White Paper could
benefit from a broader focus and eliminating some excessively detailed
recommendations. In particular:

The whole tone of the White Paper discussion would encourage –
probably inadvertently – the multiplication of the paperwork
requirements and overly complex procedures that hamper the Title V
program at present. That discussion  tends to presents a
paperwork-intensive solution for every real or hypothetical problem.
CCAI does not object to paperwork solutions where they are the only way
to address real problems.  However, there is little recognition in the
White Paper draft that the procedures and accountability mechanisms of
Part 70 would, in actual operation, already provide protection against
many of the problems identified.

In many cases the operating flexibility at which the White Paper aims
could be achieved more efficiently by streamlined permit amendment
procedures than by writing permits to avoid amendment.  The White Paper
should expressly acknowledge that fact.

The draft White Paper would require every detail of State “minor New
Source review” (“mNSR”) permits to be reflected in a
“streamlined” Title V permit, regardless of the environmental need
for that detail.  This position, if adopted in final form, would reverse
the position of White Paper 1.  This level of detail is in no way
required by the Clean Air Act.  It would make streamlining permits far
more difficult.

The draft White Paper (perhaps inadvertently) suggests that a “cap”
must be included in all permits with flexible operating scenarios.  CCAI
believes this is clearly not the case, and that any such requirement
would make flexible permitting unworkable.

The discussion of the relationship between Title V permits and MNSR is
confusing.  We have a number of suggestions for clarifying it.

Finally, in some respect the White Paper addresses topics beyond EPA’s
authority, or is too prescriptive for a guidance document.  This is
particularly true of the provisions that address compliance monitoring.

Our full discussion follows.

Discussion

Flexibility and Permit Amendments

A glance at the White Paper shows how complicated the drafting of
“alternate operating scenarios” could become.  At the meeting EPA
held last June on a leaked draft of White Paper 3, John Paul of Dayton
said that his agency simply did not have the resources to review
intricate sets of alternate scenarios for preapproval.  He urged EPA
instead to adopt flexible and workable permit amendment procedures.
That would make the permit amendment process more attractive and remove
any need for elaborate efforts to avoid it.

CCAI fully agrees.  We know that addressing these amendment procedures
is not the purpose of White Paper 3.  However, the complexity of some of
the scenarios outlined for avoiding permit amendments itself shows the
need for workable permit amendment procedures that would reduce the need
for such complicated alternative approaches.

“Smart Permits” and mNSR

The White Paper strongly recommends the use of “smart permits”.  A
“smart permit” is a permit that “does not prevent the source from
operating as flexibly as the applicable requirement(s) allow by
including restrictive terms in the permit that are not included in the
applicable requirement(s).” p. 7. It adds that “[t]he first two
White Papers on the operating permit program describe many smart
permitting techniques”.

However, in one key respect White Paper 3 would withdraw much of the
flexibility to write “smart permits” created by White Paper 1.
State mNSR permits are by far the largest single source of “applicable
requirements” for many Title V permits.  Yet many of those permits are
obsolete or duplicative or have little relation to air quality.

White Paper 1 recognized this and said (p. 12)

The Agency has concluded ... that only environmentally significant terms
need to be included in part 70 permits.  The EPA recognizes that NSR
permits contain terms that are obsolete, extraneous, environmentally
insignificant, or otherwise not required as part of the SIP or a
federally enforceable NSR program.  Such terms ... need not be
incorporated into the part 70 permit.

Minor NSR, in particular, is a program which the State has discretion to
mold as necessary to be consistent with the goals of the SIP.
Therefore, the permitting authority has very broad discretion in
determining the terms of minor NSR.

	However, White Paper 3 as currently drafted would specifically require
all mNSR permit terms to be included in the Title V permit, subject only
to a limited authority to amend them in a way that did not affect their
substantive stringency. pp. 6-7.  Such an approach would only perpetuate
a workload that greatly impedes Title V implementation with no
environmental benefit.  (Indeed, the workload creates an environmental
detriment in that it drains resources from more useful tasks.)  We urge
EPA to reaffirm the message of White Paper 1 that obsolete and
environmentally marginal mNSR permits may be omitted from the Title V
permit.

We also urge EPA to make clear in White Paper 3 that if a State finds
that its mNSR permit program is generating too many permits of marginal
environmental usefulness, it has “broad discretion”, to quote White
Paper 1, to amend that program to reduce its burdens as long as the
basic mNSR function of protecting air quality is preserved.  EPA should
encourage States to interpret or amend unreasonably stringent or
obsolete mNSR programs to reduce their negative impacts.  That would
greatly increase the ability of States to write “smart permits”, and
would be of unquestionable legality under the Clean Air Act.

Alternate Scenarios and Emission Caps

Where “smart permits” do not provide enough flexibility, the White
Paper suggests (pp. 10-21) the use of “advance approval” of
different operating scenarios that the source could then switch between
simply by giving notice.  The discussion repeatedly suggests that such
permit terms must include limits on the changes that can be approved in
advance, or even an emissions cap. See, e.g. pp. 2 (‘”[a]dvance
approvals ... typically include one or more emissions limits(known as
emissions ‘caps’”), 4 (“advance approvals routinely require the
establishment of one or more emissions caps which act to freeze
emissions and overall capacity use at current levels.”) 10 (“a ...
permit containing an advance approval must include a description of the
advance approved changes and a limitation on their magnitude”), 13
(“some limitation [is required and] can be accomplished by either an
emissions cap or a numerical limit on the expected amount of certain
types or combinations of new emissions units”), p. 18 (“[e]ither an
emissions cap or numerical limit on the amount of expected changes that
can occur under the advance approval [is needed for the advance approval
to be acceptable.]”).

No blanket requirement for such a limit can be justified, except to the
extent that a limit might be needed to protect local air quality.  Where
the new units to be added are subject only to a technology requirement
like an NSPS or MACT standard, it should be enough to describe those
requirements and provide for compliance with them.  The applicability of
such a standard would not justify any limit on the number of units. As
EPA said in White Paper 1 (p. 1)

[O]perating permits required by Title V are meant to accomplish the
largely procedural task of identifying and recording existing
substantive requirements applicable to regulated sources and to assure
compliance with these existing requirements.  Accordingly, operating
permits and their accompanying applications should be vehicles for
defining existing compliance obligations rather than for imposing new
requirements or accomplishing other objectives.

If enough units were added under a flexible permit, the new emissions
might trigger MNSR.  But that does not justify requiring a cap to avoid
that result.  MNSR in this case would not be a currently applicable
requirement, and so it would be the source’s decision whether to seek
such a cap.  Indeed White Paper 3 (p. 17) expressly endorses the
conclusion of White Paper 1 that ton per year emissions estimates need
not be included in a permit at all “where they would serve no useful
purpose, where a quantifiable emissions rate is not applicable, or where
emissions units are subject to a generic requirement.”  Clearly, if a
permit need not even contain estimates of overall annual emissions, it
need not contain an annual cap on them.

Even if EPA were to respond that a limitation on future activities was
required to make sure that the changes approved in advance were
“reasonably anticipated”, that would at most justify a generic
qualitative description, not an emissions cap.  Any such cap requirement
would virtually assure that the advance approval mechanism would be
little used.  Moreover, it would serve little to no practical purpose.

That is clear from the White Paper’s own list (p. 6) of permitting
issues that are likely candidates for being addressed by “advance
approval”.  It runs as follows:

(1)	adding a new emissions unit or new component equipment;

(2)	reconstructing an emissions unit;

(3)	modifying emissions units (e.g., redesigning for efficiency,
redesigning for new material or products, modifying materials use or
storage and/or production rate, and replacements);

(4)	relocating/reconfiguring equipment;

(5)	rerouting emissions to another control device;

(6)	adding a new control device; and conducting specific activities
(e.g., factory experiments, remediation, test burning, emergency
generators, and pilot operations).

It is clear from the list itself that in none of the cases listed would
there be any justification for a cap requirement to guard against abuse
of the advance approval mechanism.

White Paper 3 and MNSR

1.	NSR Permitting in Advance

White Paper 3 states that in general, MNSR permit terms may not be
approved in advance because of the highly discretionary nature of the
decisions they require.  However, it suggests that exceptions could be
made for “clean buildings” and “clean replacements”.  A “clean
building” is a building containing a varying set of pieces of
equipment ducted to a common control device; a “clean replacement”
program would authorize the addition of specific types of equipment such
as “turbines, boilers, compressors, degreasers, tanks, emergency
generators, etc.”  (p. 24).  In both cases the overall emissions
increase and BACT would have to be defined in advance, and BACT would
have to be revisited every eighteen months.

CCAI supports the concept of advance NSR permitting as outlined in the
draft White Paper.  However, we think the discussion should be focussed
more clearly on defining what current NSR regulations allow.  Those
regulations, § 52.21(j), (r)(2) already provide expressly for granting
“phased construction” permits subject to revisiting the control
technology determination every eighteen months.  They also provide
expressly for accepting the limits in an NSR permit as the
“baseline” for determining whether an emissions increase exists that
might trigger NSR in the future.  § 52.21(b) (21) (iii).  Although the
use of “permit allowables” as the baseline has been controversial in
many contexts, it has been accepted by all participants including David
Hawkins when applied to a new unit or facility that is “ramping up”
to full production over several years.  In substance, the White Paper
draft appears to be describing either a variation on “phased
construction permits”, or simply a way of writing “smart” NSR
permits similar to the “smart” Title V permits that the draft White
Paper describes.

CCAI believes, therefore, that this portion of the White Paper draft
would work much better as guidance explaining what the current MNSR
regulations allow than as an interpretation of Title V.  In that
context, the guidance would state:

As long as control technology and ambient impacts can be adequately
defined, MNSR permits can address a variety of scenarios and permit a
variety of pieces of equipment.  CCAI does not believe there is any
valid reason why this authority should be limited to the specific
scenarios described in the White Paper draft.  Instead, any scenario for
which air quality can be adequately modeled, and technology adequately
defined, should be eligible for “smart permitting”.

Control technology determinations would need to be revisited every
eighteen months as the current regulations require.

As long as the source was moving forward with the program of
construction envisioned in its permit, the “permit allowables”
defined by the MNSR permit would be the “baseline” for determining
whether any future change at the facility had caused an emissions
increase under the NSR rules.

In fact, CCAI believes that sources should have the right to use
“permit allowables” as their “baseline” in many contexts beyond
the ones just described.  However, we have purposely limited our
comments in order to show that EPA would not need to broaden the policy
coverage of its White Paper 3 discussion in order to transpose these
provisions into NSR guidance and make them broader and more useful.

2.	Limits and PALs

CCAI fully supports the use of limits on “potential to emit” and
“plantwide applicability limits” to make MNSR inapplicable to
plants, or activities within plants, that stay within defined emissions
limits.

We particularly support the White Paper’s discussion of “minor
ongoing modification” (“MOM”) programs.  A MOM program would allow
the grouping of “certain interrelated changes ...independent of other
non-support activities at the site” into what would be, in essence a
PAL applicable to the MOM units only.  The difference between the MOM
PAL limits and the “past actual” emissions of the MOM units would
count as an “emissions increase” for purposes of NSR accounting for
the rest of the source.  In return, the MOM units would then be allowed
to make any change within their emissions caps without triggering NSR.

CCAI and its members have long believed there was no justification in
law or logic for limiting PALs to entire facilities.  We are encouraged
to see White Paper 3 put forward the same position.

However, the White Paper specifies detailed requirements for
incorporation of PALs into permits, including continuous monitoring
requirements.  A PAL could not be used to relax minor NSR limits, would
be limited to a 5-year duration, and could not be increased while it is
effective.  No modification that would cause exceedance of a PAL could
be preapproved absent major NSR review.  Ongoing minor modifications
could be approved under a PAL in limited circumstances.

Here again, the procedure is much more cumbersome than required.  With
or without a PAL, minor modifications should not require permit
revisions.  A PAL should be a tool to make it easier to determine when a
modification is minor, but EPA has made it needlessly complicated with
the detailed requirements for incorporating PALs into permits, and
needlessly narrow by restricting the changes that can be made under PALs
and to PALs.  Continuous monitoring to document the effects of an
operational change should not be required where it is not reasonably
necessary or where the applicable requirements already contain
monitoring requirements.

In addition, we do not see the point of the White Paper’s discussion
of “cap and track”. This would allow sources to provide in a mNSR
permit for the approval and tracking of changes over a five-year period
to quantify the emissions increases (without regard to any decreases)
that those changes might cause.

The White Paper discussion (p. 34) describes this as an approach “to
address project aggregation”.  But to really address aggregation, the
White Paper would need to define when different projects at a facility
will be aggregated and when they will not be aggregated, a subject it
does not mention.  This issue has been discussed repeatedly in the NSR
“stakeholder” meetings.  CCAI urges EPA to follow the
recommendations of those discussions and clarify when projects will, and
will not, be aggregated.

Enhanced Monitoring

White Paper 3 provides that flexible permits must not only meet Title V
monitoring requirements but also additional requirements to ensure
certainty of compliance with emissions caps and predictions for
alternative operating scenarios.  A hierarchy of acceptable monitoring
methods is specified, including continuous monitoring where available,
mass-balance calculations and emission factors developed from
site-specific testing.  The draft White Paper says forthrightly that
“we require use of CEMS or their equivalent, where either is
feasible”. id. , and provides detailed, mandatory procedures for
establishing parameter monitoring standards. See, e.g. p. 39 (calling,
among many other requirements, for a “correlation coefficient of 0.80
or greater”, together with use of the “Student’s t-value at the
eighty percent (two-sided) confidence interval”).  The data must
account for all increments of operating time, including process or
monitoring malfunctions and startup/shutdown situations.  Monitoring
must include fugitive emissions, and the White Paper states that Aa
source is not a good candidate for a plant-wide emissions cap if it
emits fugitive emissions that are an appreciable portion (e.g. 20
percent) of the total emissions emitted from the source or that cannot
be well quantified.” (p. 38).

Such provisions are misguided in concept. Where applicable requirements
include specified monitoring approaches, no additional monitoring should
be required and no monitoring changes should be necessary when process
equipment is added or modified. Beyond that basic issue, these
provisions, which clearly would have binding regulatory effect, cannot
legally be included in a guidance document under the standards laid down
in the Appalachian Power case and must be removed from the final
version.  Further, the statute does not provide that additional
monitoring requirements must be specified in flexible permits, and the
degree of monitoring that the White Paper would require is excessive.
If the permit already includes monitoring that bears on compliance with
PALs or alternative operating scenarios, no additional monitoring should
be required.  If additional monitoring is necessary, it should not be
required to cover unusual situations such as malfunctions or
startup/shutdown scenarios.

The White Paper should specify that monitoring of fugitive emissions can
be required only where the emissions are reasonably quantifiable.  In
such cases, sources of fugitive emissions should be no less eligible for
permitting flexibility than other sources.  If the emissions are not
reasonably quantifiable, they should not be counted for Title V
purposes.

More Detailed Comments

The White Paper contains a number of statements that are beyond the
authority of a guidance document, or beyond EPA’s authority
altogether.  They should be removed in the final version. Specifically:

There is no justification for the statements in the draft White Paper at
pp. 13 and 19 that notice is required for switches within an approved
operating scenario.  As the White Paper itself explains, approved
operating scenarios are part of the permit.  There is no justification
for requiring a source to give notice when it moves from operating in
compliance with its permit to operating in compliance with its permit,
nor do the regulations require notice. See 40 C.F.R. 70.6 (a)(9)(i).

On pages 8 and 9 the draft White Paper sets out a “sample” permit
term to establish a rolling twelve-month emission limit for a printing
line.  It consists of an equation that specifies averaging times,
inputs, and test methods.  After describing every logical component of a
standard, the discussion on page 10 adds that these components must
“be supplemented, in many locations, by additional limitations on
control efficiency, fountain solution VOC content, and cleaning solvent
VOC content or vapor pressure”. This statement is indefensible.  Since
the equation EPA has offered already contains every logically necessary
component, there is no justification for “additional limitations”.
The fact that no reasons are given makes the statement even more
gratuitous.

On page 21, EPA states that the “permit shield” cannot apply to
permit terms generated by use of “replicable operating procedures”
(“ROPs”), because “[t]he part 70 permit shield may extend only to
permit terms and conditions that have undergone prior public and EPA
review.”  CCAI agrees with the principle; but it does not justify
denying a permit shield to ROP permit terms.  The ROPs   will have
undergone public and EPA review.  Accordingly, any permit term generated
by applying them properly should qualify for the permit shield.  Permit
terms resulting from their improper application would not qualify for
the permit shield.  The enforcement authorities would be able to readily
distinguish between the two, since any proper use of the ROP will yield
the same inputs no matter who applies it, as the White Paper explains
(p. 20).  Indeed, EPA’s current regulations expressly provide that
“alternate operating scenarios” can qualify for the permit shield.
See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(9)(ii).

At page 26, the White Paper says that States may be allowed to grant
“advance approval” for changes under their own air toxics program

 “provided that the emissions associated with such changes are routed
to a state-of-the-art control device which is accommodative of these
emissions and the resultant emissions cause no ambient impacts beyond
those that your have determined to be acceptable using a specified air
toxics screening model under conservative assumptions defined in the
permit.

Every element of this “guidance” exceeds EPA’s authority, and the
italicized language is particularly egregious.  Since the programs being
described exist only under State law, EPA has no mandate to tell States
how to run them.

  Page 32 contains a particularly striking example of this insistence on
the letter of all current mNSR permits. It says that when a PAL is
written “[c]ertain minor NSR limits can be re-formatted, but only to
the extent that they would still meet their intended purpose and be
practical in their enforceability.” Since PALs will be written to
protect air quality and will require extensive public participation,
there is no reason why they should not be allowed to rationalize, amend,
or even repeal existing mNSR permits to the full extent that protection
of air quality and the underlying State law would allow.

 In addition, CCAI wants to point out one clear misstatement in this
part of the draft. At page 23, the draft says that a “clean
building” must require LAER on “any applicable debottlenecked
activities”. However, it has always been EPA’s position, aside from
very special circumstances, that NSR technology is not required on
debottlenecked units because those units have not been “modified”.
CCAI believes that this long-standing position is clearly required by
the Clean Air Act.

 There is no justification, however, for the suggestion (p. 34) that MOM
PALs should be limited to “specific advance approved, related
changes”. As with regular PALs, all changes to a MOM PAL should be
eligible for coverage as long as compliance with the cap can be
quantified,

 See, e.g., Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 432-33
(1972)(NSPS must include variance for excess emissions from startup,
shutdown or malfunction situations).

 See, e.g., 59 Fed. Reg. 44514 (August 29, 1994)(AEPA believes the Act
requires that fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, be
counted)(emphasis added); accord., National Mining Assn. v. EPA, 59 F.3d
1351, 1360 n.19 (1995).

Footnote continued from previous page

Footnote continued on next page

  PAGE  6


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53471-53473]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21361]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72967; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-082]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Common Ownership

September 3, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 20, 2014 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing standardized
equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to harmonize the
process by which it collects information from its equity members and
Options Participants for aggregating the activity of affiliated
entities for the purposes of assessing charges or credits.
    The Exchange requests that this filing become operative on December
1, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is in italics; deleted text is in brackets.
* * * * *

Chapter XV Options Pricing

    NASDAQ Options Market Participants may be subject to the Charges
for Membership, Services and Equipment in the Rule 7000 Series as well
as the fees in this Chapter XV. For purposes of assessing fees and
paying rebates, the following references should serve as guidance.
    The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction that is
identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer range at The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for the account of
broker or dealer or for the account of a ``Professional'' (as that term
is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48)).
    The term ``NOM Market Maker'' or (``M'') is a Participant that has
registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2,
and must also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section
4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing in all securities, the
Participant must be registered as a NOM Market Maker in at least one
security.
    The term ``Non-NOM Market Maker'' or (``O'') is a registered market
maker on another options exchange that is not a NOM Market Maker. A
Non-NOM Market Maker must append the proper Non-NOM Market Maker
designation to orders routed to NOM.
    The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that is
identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at OCC.
    The term ``Professional'' or (``P'') means any person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar
month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant to Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be appropriately marked by
Participants.
    The term ``Broker-Dealer'' or (``B'') applies to any transaction
which is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    The term ``Common Ownership'' shall mean Participants under 75%
common ownership or control.
    (a) For purposes of applying any options transaction fee or rebate
where the fee assessed, or rebate provided by NOM depends upon the
volume of an Options Participant's activity, an Options Participant may
request that NOM aggregate its activity with the activity of its
affiliates.
    (1) An Options Participant requesting aggregation of affiliate
activity shall be required to certify to NOM the affiliate status of
entities whose activity it seeks to aggregate prior to receiving
approval for aggregation, and shall be required to inform NOM
immediately of any event that causes an entity to cease to be an
affiliate. NOM shall review available information regarding the
entities, and reserves the right to request additional information to
verify the affiliate status of an entity. NOM shall approve a request
unless it determines that the certification is not accurate.
    (2) If two or more Options Participants become affiliated on or
prior to the sixteenth day of a month, and submit the required request
for aggregation on or prior to the twenty-

second day of the month, an approval of the request by NOM shall be
deemed to be effective as of the first day of that month. If two or
more Options Participants become affiliated after the sixteenth day of
a month, or submit a request for aggregation after the twenty-second
day of the month, an approval of the request by NOM shall be deemed to
be effective as of the first day of the next calendar month.
    (b) For purposes of applying any options transaction fee or rebate
where the fee assessed, or rebate provided, by NOM depends upon the
volume of an Options Participant's activity, references to an entity
(including references to a ``Options Participant'') shall be deemed to
include the entity and its affiliates that have been approved for
aggregation.
    (c) For purposes of options pricing, the term ``affiliate'' of an
Options Participant shall mean any Options Participant under 75% common
ownership or control of that Options Participant.
    With respect to Chapter XV, Sections 2(1) and (2) the order that is
received by the trading system first in time shall be considered an
order adding liquidity and an order that trades against that order
shall be considered an order removing liquidity.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend NOM Rules at Chapter XV,
entitled ``Options Pricing,'' to harmonize the process by which the
Exchange will collect information from Options Participants that desire
their activity to be aggregated for the purposes of assessing charges
or credits with the process currently required for equity members on
Nasdaq. The Exchange proposes to adopt the process that is used by
equity members today without changing that process. The Exchange
believes that this filing is non-controversial because the process, as
proposed, will not change. Today, equity and Options Participants may
aggregate affiliate activity based on volume of activity for purposes
of pricing.\3\ The Exchange believes that having the same process for
equity members and Options Participants will provide consistency to its
processes when aggregating pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ Rule 7027(a) and NOM Chapter XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, a Nasdaq member requesting aggregation of affiliate activity
is be required to certify to Nasdaq the affiliate status of entities
whose activity it seeks to aggregate prior to receiving approval for
aggregation, and also is required to inform Nasdaq immediately of any
event that causes an entity to cease to be an affiliate. Nasdaq reviews
available information regarding the entities, and reserves the right to
request additional information to verify the affiliate status of an
entity. Nasdaq approves a request unless it determines that the
certification is not accurate. Further, if two or more members become
affiliated on or prior to the sixteenth day of a month, and submit the
required request for aggregation on or prior to the twenty-second day
of the month, an approval of the request by Nasdaq is deemed to be
effective as of the first day of that month. If two or more members
become affiliated after the sixteenth day of a month, or submit a
request for aggregation after the twenty-second day of the month, an
approval of the request by Nasdaq is deemed to be effective as of the
first day of the next calendar month.
    The Exchange proposes to amend NOM Rules at Chapter XV to make this
language consistent with the requirements that would be applied to NOM
Options Participants.
    The Exchange believes that harmonizing the process for collecting
this information will avoid confusion and simplify information
requested of equity members and Options Participants by requesting
consistent information.
    The Exchange proposes to apply this pricing as of December 1, 2014
and issue an Options Trader Alert to its members.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, that it is 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 to protect investors and the public interest,
in that the proposal will harmonize the process by which the Exchange
collects information from equity members and Options Participants
regarding the aggregation of activity of affiliated entities for the
purposes of assessing charges or credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that harmonizing this process by which the
Exchange collects information related to aggregation for equity members
and Options Participants will provide consistency to market
participants with respect to meeting the requirements to aggregate on
Nasdaq and NOM. Also, the Exchange believes that adopting this method
for collecting such information on aggregated pricing, with respect to
Options Participants, will ensure proper validation for firms entitled
to the aggregation.

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is merely seeking to harmonize
the manner in which it collects information related to the aggregation
of activity of affiliated entities for the purposes of assessing
charges or credits for equity members and Options Participants. The
Exchange intends to apply a uniform process to request such aggregation
for all NASDAQ members NOM Options Participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved. The Exchange has
provided the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-082 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-082. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-082 and should
be submitted on or before September 30, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21361 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Methodology Used for MOVES Runspec

The discussion below identifies the inputs and settings used by the Shelby County Health Department  -  Pollution Control Section (SCHD-PCS) in the Run Specification file(s) (Runspec) to define the MOVES runs that were performed.

Description  -  provides descriptive details to help remember the purpose of the run and distinguish the output Run Specification file(s).

Scale  -  county level was selected as the domain and the emission inventory method was chosen for the calculation type.

Time Spans  -  inputs and settings were selected, as follows:
    * Time Aggregation Level input  -  `Hour' was selected. This was done in accordance with EPA guidance for the preferred aggregation level for SIP and/or conformity runs.
    * Years input  -  two MOVES runs were performed. 2006 was used as the year input in the first MOVES run and 2021 was used in the second run.
    * Months input  -  July was selected as the month that best represents summer ozone conditions.
    * Days input  -  weekdays were selected for the representative day type as they are considered to be the worst-case type when compared to weekends.
    * Hours input  -  all hours of the day were included to represent the 24-hour day.

Geographic Bounds  -  Shelby County, Tennessee was selected as the geographic boundary.

Vehicles/Equipment  -  all representative fuel and vehicle types within the transportation network were selected from this input category, which featured 13 different vehicle classes (referred to as source use types) and different fuel types. Due to the lack of compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas vehicles in the population, this analysis incorporates diesel and gas fuel types only. This analysis also allows for default fuel formulation and fuel supply information to be used in the study area. With the exception of diesel-powered motorcycles, gasoline-powered combination long-haul trucks, and gasoline-powered intercity buses (which were removed because they are not represented in the vehicle population), all possible vehicle and fuel types were considered.

Road Type  -  all five roadway types, which include off-network, rural restricted access, rural unrestricted access, urban restricted access, and urban unrestricted access, were considered. Notably, the off-network is intended to account for vehicle starts and evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. While these emissions are not captured through the information in the regional travel demand models, default values can be used to assess their impacts.

Pollutants and Processes  -  Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHCs), and Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons (THCs) are selected because the purpose of the MOVES runs is to assess emissions relating to 8-hour ozone formation. Note, all pertinent processes associated with ozone formation are selected, however, vapor and spillage loss are not included as they are traditionally developed as part of the area source emissions inventory.

Miscellaneous Strategies  -  No information was entered for this section.

Output  -  To assist with post-processing aggregation, source use type information was included with the output. In addition, each of the MOVES runs creates output databases that include U.S tons, million btu's, and miles as the units of measure.

The table below summarizes the settings used in the MOVES run specification file.

Table   -  MOVES Runspec Parameters

MOVES Runspec Parameter
Settings
MOVES2010b
Version 2012/04/10
Description
provided descriptive details to help remember the purpose of the run and distinguish the output Run Specification file(s).
Scale
Domain/ Scale = County and Calculation Type = Inventory
Time Span
Time Aggregation Level = Hour

two MOVES runs were performed and input was selected as follows:
1) Years = 2006
2) Years = 2021

Months = One month (July) was selected to represent summertime ozone conditions

Hours = All hours of the day selected

Days = Selected Weekdays only
Geographic Bounds
1 custom domain  -  Shelby County, Tennessee
Vehicles/Equipment
All valid source types, gasoline and diesel
Road Type
All road types including off-network
Pollutants and Processes
NOx, VOCs, total gaseous hydrocarbons, and non-methane hydrocarbons
General Output
Units = U.S. tons, million btu, and miles
Output Emissions
Time = hour, location = link, on-road emissions by road type and source use type
Advanced Performance
None


[Federal Register: June 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 30579-30580]
[DOCID:fr01jn07-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP07-381-000]

Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

May 25, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 14, 2007 Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.
(Ozark), 1437 S. Boulder, Suite 1500, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74119, filed in
Docket No. CP07-381-000, an application pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), to amend the certificate granted to Ozark by the
Commission in Docket Nos. CP98-265-000, CP98-266-000, CP98-267-000,
CP98-268-000, and CP98-269-000. Specifically, Ozark seeks to increase
the maximum certificated capacity of its pipeline system from 330,000
Mcf/d to 420,000 Mcf/d, all as more fully set forth in the application
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing
may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the
last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document.
For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
David A. Harrell, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Ozark Gas Transmission,
L.L.C., 1437 S. Boulder, Suite 1500, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74119, telephone
(918) 398-2123, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission.

Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's
environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental
documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the
Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors
will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other
parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of
all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission
(except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the
Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should

submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 15, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-10546 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 76178]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29764]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Schedule 14N. OMB Control No. 3235-0655, SEC File No. 270-598.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Schedule 14N (17 CFR 240.14n-101) requires the filing of certain
information with the Commission by shareholders who submit a nominee or
nominees for director pursuant to applicable state law, or a company's
governing documents. Schedule 14N provides notice to the company of the
shareholder's or shareholder group's intent to have the company include
the shareholder's or shareholder group's nominee or nominees for
director in the company's proxy materials. This information is intended
to assist shareholders in making an informed voting decision with
regards to any nominee or nominees put forth by a nominating
shareholder or group, by allowing shareholders to gauge the nominating
shareholder's interest in the company, longevity of ownership, and
intent with regard to continued ownership in the company. We estimate
that Schedule 14N takes approximately 64.77 hours per response and will
be filed by approximately 162 issuers annually. In addition, we
estimate that 75% of the 64.77 hours per response (48.58 hours) is
prepared by the issuer for an annual reporting burden of 7,870 hours
(48.58 hours per response x 162 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov .
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: December 10, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29764 Filed 12-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4806-4812]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01194]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941; FRL-6369-9]
RIN 2070-AB27

Proposed Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for four chemical substances which
were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action would
require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of
the chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a
significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90
days before commencing that activity. The required notification would
provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if
necessary, to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. ATTN:
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2011-0941. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard

copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at
the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-9232; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
import, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this
proposed rule. The following list of North American Classification
System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Manufacturers, importers, or processors of one or more
subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g.,
chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing
import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical
importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import
certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127;
see also 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the
shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules
and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemical substances subject to a
final SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements.
The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR
part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to
export a chemical substance that is the subject of a proposed or final
SNUR, are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section
12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see Sec.  [emsp14]721.20), and must comply
with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart
D.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as 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 submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is proposing these SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for four
chemical substances which were the subject of PMNs P-07-204, P-10-58,
P-10-59, and P-10-60. These SNURs would require persons who intend to
manufacture, import, or process any of these chemical substances for an
activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at
least 90 days before commencing that activity.
    In the Federal Register issue of September 21, 2012 (77 FR 58666)
(FRL-9357-2), EPA issued direct final SNURs on these four chemical
substances in accordance with the procedures at Sec.  721.160(c)(3)(i).
EPA received notice of intent to submit adverse comments on these
SNURs. Therefore, as required by Sec.  721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA has
removed the direct final SNURs in a separate final rule published in
the Federal Register, and is now issuing this proposed rule on the four
chemical substances. The record for the direct final SNURs on these
chemical substances was established as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941.
That docket includes information considered by the Agency in developing
the direct final rule and the notice of intent to submit adverse
comments.

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

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all
relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2)
factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a
chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B)
requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA
at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the
chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described
in Sec.  [emsp14]721.5.

C. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.
These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping
requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability
of the rule to uses

occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to
user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to Sec.
[emsp14]721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the
same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of
PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements
include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b)
and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2),
(h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA
receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section
5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received
the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA
section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not
taking action.

III. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use
of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after
consideration of all relevant factors, including:
     The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use changes the type or form of
exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and
duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
     The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a
chemical substance.
    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2),
the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
    To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the
four chemical substances that are the subject of this proposed rule,
EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical
substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases
associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section
5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

IV. Substances Subject to This Proposed Rule

    EPA is proposing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements
for four chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this
unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical
substance:
     PMN number.
     Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is
claimed as CBI).
     Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if
assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
     Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) consent order or, for TSCA
non-section 5(e) SNURs, the basis for the SNUR (i.e., SNURs without
TSCA section 5(e) consent orders).
     Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information
to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VIII. for more
information).
     CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of
this proposed rule.
    The regulatory text section of this proposed rule specifies the
activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses,
including production volume limits (i.e., limits on manufacture and
importation volume) and other uses designated in this proposed rule,
may be claimed as CBI. See Unit IX.
    This proposed rule includes PMN substances P-10-58, P-10-59, and P-
10-50 that are subject to ``risk-based'' consent orders under TSCA
section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) where EPA determined that activities
associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment. These consent orders require
protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the
potential unreasonable risk. The so-called ``TSCA section 5(e) SNURs''
on these PMN substances are proposed pursuant to Sec.  [emsp14]721.160,
and are based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying
consent orders. The TSCA section 5(e) SNURs designate as a
``significant new use'' the absence of the protective measures required
in the corresponding consent orders.
    This proposed rule also includes a SNUR on PMN substance P-07-204
that was not subject to a consent order under TSCA section 5(e). In
this case, EPA did not find that the use scenario described in the PMN
triggered the determinations set forth under TSCA section 5(e).
However, EPA does believe that certain changes from the use scenario
described in the PMN could result in increased exposures, thereby
constituting a ``significant new use.'' This so-called ``TSCA non-
section 5(e) SNUR'' is proposed pursuant to Sec.  [emsp14]721.170. EPA
has determined that every activity designated as a ``significant new
use'' in all TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs issued under Sec.
[emsp14]721.170 satisfies the two requirements stipulated in Sec.
721.170(c)(2), i.e., these significant new use activities, ``(i) are
different from those described in the premanufacture notice for the
substance, including any amendments, deletions, and additions of
activities to the premanufacture notice, and (ii) may be accompanied by
changes in exposure or release levels that are significant in relation
to the health or environmental concerns identified'' for the PMN
substance.

PMN Number P-07-204

    Chemical name: Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3- hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-
hexafluoropropoxy)-.
    CAS number: 870778-34-0.
    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-
confidential) use of the substance will be as a heat transfer fluid.
Based on test data on the PMN substance and structure activity
relationship (SAR) analysis of test data on analogous perfluorinated
substances, EPA identified concerns for neurotoxicity and liver effects
from exposures to the PMN substance. For the uses described in the
amended PMN, EPA does not expect significant worker exposures due to
the use of impervious gloves. Therefore, EPA has not determined that
the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may
present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use
of the substance without impervious gloves, where there is a potential
for dermal exposure; or any use of the substance other than as
described in the amended PMN may cause serious health effects. Based on
this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at Sec.
721.170 (b)(3)(i) and (ii).
    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 28-
day dermal toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3200) in rats, a 90-
day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465), and a
test using the ``Standard Test Method for Permeation of Liquids and
Gases through Protective Clothing Materials under Conditions of
Continuous Contact'' (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
International Standard F739-12) as reported in the ``Standard Guide for
Documenting the Results of Chemical Permeation Testing of Materials
Used in Protective Clothing'' (ASTM International Standard F1194-99
(2010)) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN
substance.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10509.

PMN Numbers P-10-58, P-10-59, and P-10-60

    Chemical names: Partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols
(generic).
    CAS numbers: Not available.

    Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: October 8, 2010.
    Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the
generic (non-confidential) uses of the PMN substances will be as
intermediates (P-10-58 and P-10-59) and a surface active agent (P-10-
60). EPA has concerns for potential incineration or other decomposition
products of the PMN substances. These perfluorinated decomposition
products may be released to the environment from incomplete
incineration of the PMN substances at low temperatures. EPA has
preliminary evidence, including data on some fluorinated polymers,
which suggests that, under some conditions, the PMN substances could
degrade in the environment. EPA has concerns that these degradation
products will persist in the environment, could bioaccumulate or
biomagnify, and could be toxic to people, wild mammals, and birds.
These concerns are based on data on analogous chemical substances,
including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and other perfluorinated
alkyls, including the presumed environmental degradant. The order was
issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i), 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), and
5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II), based on a finding that these substances may
present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment and human
health, the substances may be produced in substantial quantities and
may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial
quantities, and there may be significant (or substantial) human
exposure to the substances and their potential degradation products. To
protect against these exposures and risks, the consent order requires
submission of testing on the PMN substance P-10-60 at five identified
aggregate manufacture and importation volumes; requires analysis of raw
materials; and restricts the use of P-10-58 and P-10-59 as
intermediates to make P-10-60. The SNUR designates as a ``significant
new use'' the absence of these protective measures.
    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of certain
fate and physical/chemical property testing identified in the TSCA
section 5(e) consent order would help characterize possible effects of
the PMN substances and their degradation products. The TSCA section
5(e) consent order contains five production volume limits. The PMN
submitter has agreed not to exceed the confidential production volume
limits without performing the specified testing on PMN substance P-10-
60. Additional testing is included in the preamble to the TSCA section
5(e) consent order, but this testing is not required at any specified
time or production volume. However, the TSCA section 5(e) consent
order's restrictions on manufacture, import, processing, distribution
in commerce, use, and disposal of the PMN substance will remain in
effect until the TSCA section 5(e) consent order is modified or revoked
by EPA based on submission of that or other relevant information.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10515.

V. Rationale and Objectives of the Proposed Rule

A. Rationale

    During review of the PMNs submitted for the four chemical
substances that are subject to these proposed SNURs, EPA concluded that
for three of the substances, regulation was warranted under TSCA
section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make
reasoned evaluations of the health and environmental effects of the
chemical substances. For one of the four substances, where the uses are
not regulated under a TSCA section 5(e) consent order, EPA determined
that one or more of the criteria of concern established at Sec.
[emsp14]721.170 were met. The basis for these findings is outlined in
Unit IV.
    Based upon comments received from the September 21, 2012 direct
final rule, the proposed SNUR for P-10-58, P-10-59, and P-10-60 has
been amended to be consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section
5(e) consent order and the proposed SNUR for P-07-0204 has been amended
to clarify the restriction at 721.80(j). This proposed rule includes
the following changes:
    1. Revision of paragraph (a)(2)(i) for the proposed SNUR on P-10-
58, P-10-69, and P-10-60.
    2. Revision of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) for the proposed SNUR for P-07-
0204.

B. Objectives

    EPA is proposing these SNURs for specific chemical substances that
have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to
achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new
uses designated in this proposed rule:
     EPA would receive notice of any person's intent to
manufacture, import, or process a listed chemical substance for the
described significant new use before that activity begins.
     EPA would have an opportunity to review and evaluate data
submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing,
importing, or processing a listed chemical substance for the described
significant new use.
     EPA would be able to regulate prospective manufacturers,
importers, or processors of a listed chemical substance before the
described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs,
provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e),
5(f), 6, or 7.
     EPA would ensure that all manufacturers, importers, and
processors of the same chemical substance that is subject to a TSCA
section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements.
    Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that
the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical
substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/tscainventory/index.html.

VI. Applicability of the Proposed Rule to Uses Occurring Before
Effective Date of the Final Rule

    To establish a significant ``new'' use, EPA must determine that the
use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed
rule have undergone premanufacture review. TSCA section 5(e) consent
orders have been issued for three chemical substances and the PMN
submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders from
undertaking activities which EPA is designating as significant new
uses. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement
(NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA
Inventory, no other person may commence such activities without first
submitting a PMN. For chemical substances for which an NOC has not been
submitted at this time, EPA concludes that the uses are not ongoing.
However, EPA recognizes that prior to the effective date of the final
rule, when chemical substances identified in these SNURs are added to
the TSCA Inventory, other persons may engage in a significant new use
as defined in this proposed rule before the effective date of the final
rule.
    As discussed in the SNURs published in the Federal Register issue
of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376), EPA has decided that the intent of
TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) is best served by designating a use as a
significant new use as of the date of publication of the September 21,
2012 direct final rule rather than as of the effective date of the
final rule for this proposed rule. If uses begun after publication were
considered ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for

EPA to establish SNUR notification requirements because a person could
defeat the SNUR by initiating the significant new use before the
proposed rule became an effective final rule, and then argue that the
use was ongoing before the effective date of the final rule based on
this proposed rule. Thus, persons who begin commercial manufacture,
import, or processing of the chemical substances regulated through
these SNURs will have to cease any such activity before the effective
date of the final rule based upon this proposed rule. To resume their
activities, these persons would have to comply with all applicable SNUR
notification requirements and wait until the notice review period,
including any extensions expires.
    EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with
these SNURs before the effective date of the final rule. If a person
meets the conditions of advance compliance under Sec.
[emsp14]721.45(h), the person is considered exempt from the
requirements of the SNUR.

VII. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any
particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions
are:
    1. Development of test data is required where the chemical
substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA
section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).
    2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical
substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section
5(b)(2)).
    In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section
5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required
only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe
any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR
720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the
authority to require appropriate testing. In cases where EPA issued a
TSCA section 5(e) consent order that requires or recommends certain
testing, Unit IV. lists those tests. Unit IV. also lists recommended
testing for TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs. Descriptions of tests are
provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons,
before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to
protocol selection. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in
this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and
select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.'' ASTM International standards
are available at http://www.astm.org/Standard/index.shtml.
    In the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders for three of the chemical
substances in this proposed rule, EPA has established production volume
limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and
environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or
increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be
exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity
tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks
posed by these chemical substances. Under recent TSCA section 5(e)
consent orders, each PMN submitter is required to submit each study
before reaching the specified production limit. The SNURs contain the
same production volume limits as the TSCA section 5(e) consent order.
Exceeding these production limits is defined as a significant new use.
Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the
Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement
of non-exempt commercial manufacture, import, or processing.
    The recommended tests specified in Unit IV. may not be the only
means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance.
However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the
likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e),
particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a
prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN
submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to
conduct the appropriate tests.
    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to
evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
     Human exposure and environmental release that may result
from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
     Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
     Information on risks posed by the chemical substances
compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

VIII. SNUN Submissions

    According to Sec.  [emsp14]721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must
comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures
as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on
health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs
must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN
software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures
set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and Sec.  [emsp14]721.25. E-PMN software is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

IX. Economic Analysis

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN
requirements for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of
the chemical substances during the development of the direct final
rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule would establish SNURs for four chemical
substances that were the subject of PMNs, and in three cases, a TSCA
section 5(e) consent order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless
it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of
the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable.
    The information collection requirements related to this action have
already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number
2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action would not impose any burden
requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN
to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and
170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed
to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and
maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required
SNUN.
    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and
any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including
through the use of automated collection

techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of
Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember
to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not
submit any completed forms to this address.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
where the following are true:
    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small
entities in response to the SNUR.
    2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost
significantly more than $8,300.
    A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this
proposed rule.
    This proposed rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012
certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit IX. and
EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification),
EPA believes that the following are true:
     A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by
small entities in response to the SNUR.
     Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity
significantly more than $8,300.
    Therefore, the promulgation of these SNURs would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs,
State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these
rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any
State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this proposed
rule. As such, EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not
impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise
have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of
UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

E. Executive Order 13132

    This action would not have a substantial direct effect on States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications because it is
not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This
proposed rule would not significantly nor uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor would it involve or
impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), do not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or
safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because this action is not expected to affect energy supply,
distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    In addition, since this action would not involve any technical
standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), would not apply to
this action.

J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental
justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 14, 2013.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution, Prevention
and Toxics.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

0
2. Add Sec.  [emsp14]721.10509 to subpart E to read as follows:

Sec.  721.10509  Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3- hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-
hexafluoropropoxy)-.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as pentane,
1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)-(PMN P-07-204;
CAS No. 870778-34-0) is subject to reporting under this section for the
significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) The significant new uses are:
    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in Sec.
721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), (b) (concentration set at 1.0%), and
(c).
    (ii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(j) (applies specifically to the
confidential uses identified in the amended premanufacture notice
(PMN)).
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph. (1)
Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (i) are applicable to
manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.
    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section.
The provisions of Sec.  721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section.
0
3. Add Sec.  [emsp14]721.10515 to subpart E to read as follows:

Sec.  721.10515  Partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols
(generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substances identified generically as
partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols (PMN P-10-58, P-10-
59, and P-10-60) are subject to reporting under this section for the

significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) The significant new uses are:
    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(k) (manufacture and import of the PMN
substances according to the chemical synthesis and composition section
of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order, including analysis, reporting,
and limitations of maximum impurity levels of certain fluorinated
impurities; manufacture and import of P-10-58 and P-10-59 only as
intermediates for the manufacture of P-10-60), and (q).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125(a), (b), (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers,
importers, and processors of these substances, except the recordkeeping
requirements for Sec.  721.125(b) and (c) do not apply to importers or
processors when any one of the substances are contained in a
formulation at less than 3 weight percent.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.
    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section.
The provisions of Sec.  721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section.
[FR Doc. 2013-01194 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P