[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56593-56596]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19901]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1050; Project Identifier AD-2021-01257-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2007-10-04, which applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
airplanes. AD 2007-10-04 requires repetitive inspections to detect
cracks in the horizontal stabilizer, and related investigative and
corrective actions if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2007-10-04, it
has been determined that certain compliance times and repetitive
intervals must be reduced to address the unsafe condition. This
proposed AD continues to require the actions specified in AD 2007-10-04
with revised compliance times for certain actions. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 31,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1050.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1050; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Newell, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1050; Project Identifier
AD-2021-01257-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sean
Newell, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO
Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-
627-5266; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2007-10-04, Amendment 39-15045 (72 FR 25960, May
8, 2007) (AD 2007-10-04), for all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
airplanes. AD 2007-10-04 was prompted by reports of cracks found in the
horizontal stabilizer in the upper and lower aft skin panels at the aft
inboard corner at station XH = 8.2 and in the rear spar upper caps
adjacent to the aft skin panel at station XH = 10.0. AD 2007-10-04
requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the horizontal
stabilizer, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. The FAA issued AD 2007-10-04 to detect and correct cracks in
the

upper and lower aft skin panels and rear spar upper caps, which, if not
corrected, could lead to the loss of overall structural integrity of
the horizontal stabilizer.

Actions Since AD 2007-10-04 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2007-10-04, it has been determined that
certain compliance times and repetitive intervals must be reduced for
the high frequency eddy current (HFEC) surface and open hole
inspections of the rear spar upper caps. The FAA received a report from
Boeing of a crack found along fasteners in the upper rear spar that was
longer than two inches during an inspection of the horizontal rear spar
upper cap on a Model DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplane with 69,799 flight hours
and 38,520 flight cycles. The crack was discovered prior to the
compliance time intervals for the repetitive inspections required by AD
2007-10-04; it was determined that certain compliance times do not
provide at least two opportunities to reliably detect dual origin
cracks before they reach critical length.
    In addition, since the FAA issued AD 2007-10-04, the legal name of
the manufacturer has been changed from McDonnell Douglas Corporation to
The Boeing Company on the most recent type certificate data sheet for
the affected airplane models.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A065,
Revision 2, dated October 11, 2021. This service information specifies
procedures for repetitive eddy current inspections (HFEC or low
frequency eddy current inspections, as applicable) of the horizontal
stabilizer; and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions
include stop drilling the end of the crack, trimming out the crack and
installing filler, installing a horizontal stabilizer upper and lower
aft skin panel splice, replacing the horizontal stabilizer upper and
lower aft skin panel, installing bushings and cold working holes,
removing the crack and performing a repair, replacing the horizontal
stabilizer rear spar upper cap splice, and replacing the splice repair
with a new horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper cap.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2007-10-04, this proposed AD would retain all
requirements of AD 2007-10-04. Those requirements are referenced in the
service information identified previously, which, in turn, is
referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would
also reduce certain compliance times. This proposed AD would also
require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information
described previously. Alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs)
previously approved for AD 2007-10-04 are approved for the
corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A065,
dated April 25, 2007, that are required by paragraph (g) of this
proposed AD. However, the following AMOCs are canceled as they
reference specific inspection intervals that now fall outside of the
new inspections requirements:
     FAA Letter Number 120L-14-226a, dated January 29, 2015.
     FAA Letter Number 120L-15-384b, dated November 2, 2015.
     FAA Letter Number 120L-10-345, dated August 3, 2010.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1050.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 22 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (retained actions      8 work-hours x $85               $0  $680, per            $14,960 per
 from AD 2007-10-04).               per hour = $680,                     inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Inspections (new proposed action)  Up to 20 work-hours               0  Up to $1,700 per     Up to $37,400 per
                                    x $85 per hour =                     inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    $1,700 per
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
corrective actions (e.g., repairs, replacements, installation) that
would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The
FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these corrective actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                     Labor cost               Parts cost               Cost per  product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair, replacement and             Up to 656 work-hours  Up to $128,892............  Up to $184,652.
 installation of upper or lower      x $85 per hour =
 aft skin panel or splice.           $55,760.
Stop drill repair.................  4 work-hours x $85    $0........................  $340.
                                     per hour = $340.
Trim out..........................  8 work-hours x $85    $0........................  $680.
                                     per hour = $680.
Install bushings and cold work....  26 work-hours x $85   $9,827....................  $12,037.
                                     per hour = $2,210.
Crack removal and repair..........  6 work hours x $85    $2,033....................  $2,543.
                                     per hour = $510.
Replace rear spar upper cap.......  368 work-hours x $85  $36,402...................  $67,682.
                                     per hour = $31,280.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-10-04, Amendment 39-15045
(72 FR 25960, May 8, 2007), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2022-1050; Project Identifier AD-
2021-01257-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by October 31, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2007-10-04, Amendment 39-15045 (72 FR 25960,
May 8, 2007) (AD 2007-10-04).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81),
DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found in the
horizontal stabilizer in the upper and lower aft skin panels at the
aft inboard corner at station XH = 8.2 and in the rear spar upper
caps adjacent to the aft skin panel at station XH = 10.0; and by a
determination that certain compliance times and inspection intervals
must be reduced. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracks in the upper and lower aft skin panels and rear spar upper
caps, which, if not corrected, could lead to the loss of overall
structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A065, Revision 2, dated October
11, 2021, do an eddy current inspection to detect any cracking in
the horizontal stabilizer and do all applicable repetitive
inspections and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
55A065, Revision 2, dated October 11, 2021. Do all applicable
repetitive inspections and corrective actions at the times specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD80-55A065, Revision 2, dated October 11, 2021.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A065,
Revision 2, dated October 11, 2021, use the phrase ``the original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires using May
23, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-10-04).
    (2) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A065,
Revision 2, dated October 11, 2021, use the phrase ``the Revision 2
date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD.''

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
55A065, dated April 25, 2007. This service information was
incorporated by reference in AD 2007-10-04, Amendment 39-15045 (72
FR 25960, May 8, 2007).
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
55A065, Revision 1, dated September 23, 2008. This service
information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2007-10-04 are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
55A065, dated April 25, 2007, that are required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, except the AMOCs specified in paragraphs (j)(4)(i) through
(iii) of this AD are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.
    (i) FAA Letter Number 120L-14-226a, dated January 29, 2015.
    (ii) FAA Letter Number 120L-15-384b, dated November 2, 2015.
    (iii) FAA Letter Number 120L-10-345, dated August 3, 2010.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sean Newell,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5266; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on August 4, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-19901 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66506-66512]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22645]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0497; FRL-10015-28]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-
10.B)

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 chemical substances which are
the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action would require
persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture
(defined by statute to include import) or processing of any of these
chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant
new use by this proposed rule. This action would further require that
persons not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new
use until they have submitted a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), and
EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate
determination on the notice, and has taken any risk management actions
as are required as a result of that determination.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0497, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Due to the public health emergency, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)
and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The
staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone,
and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and
docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: William Wysong, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001;

telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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,
process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed
rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Manufacturers 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
provisions. This action may also affect certain entities through pre-
existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA,
which would include the SNUR requirements should these proposed rules
be finalized. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears
at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20,
any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is
the subject of this proposed rule on or after November 19, 2020 are
subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15
U.S.C. 2611(b)) 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 CBI 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 preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing these SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for
chemical substances which are the subjects of PMNs P-18-289, P-18-330,
P-18-334, P-18-335, and P-18-337. These proposed SNURs would require
persons who intend to manufacture 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.
    The record for these proposed SNURs, identified as docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0497, includes information considered by the Agency in
developing these proposed SNURs.

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

    TSCA section 5(a)(2) (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 TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors
listed in Unit III.

C. Do the SNUR general provisions apply?

    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. Pursuant to
40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the
same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of
PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(A)). In
particular, these requirements include the information submission
requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1) (15 U.S.C. 2604(b) and
2604(d)(1)), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1),
5(h)(2), 5(h)(3), and 5(h)(5) and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720.
Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the use is not
likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions
of use for the chemical substance or take such regulatory action as is
associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or
processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines
that the chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable
risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and
submit for publication in the Federal Register, a statement of EPA's
findings.

III. Significant New Use Determination

    TSCA section 5(a)(2) 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 determining what would constitute a significant new use for the
chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered
relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, and
potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be
associated with the substances, in the context of the four bulleted
TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit. During its review of
these chemicals, EPA identified certain conditions of use that are not
intended by the submitters, but reasonably foreseen to occur. EPA is
proposing to designate those reasonably foreseen conditions of use as
well as certain other circumstances of use as significant new uses.

IV. Substances Subject to This Proposed Rule

    EPA is proposing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements
be added to 40 CFR part 721, subpart E for the chemical substances
identified in this unit. For each chemical substance, EPA provides the
following information in this unit:
     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 SNUR.
     Potentially useful information.
     CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of
these proposed rules.
    The regulatory text section of these proposed rules specifies the
activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses,
including production volume limits and other uses designated in the
proposed rules, may be claimed as CBI.
    The chemical substances that are the subject of these proposed
SNURs are undergoing premanufacture review. In addition to those
conditions of use intended by the submitter, EPA has identified certain
other reasonably foreseen conditions of use. EPA has preliminarily
determined that the chemicals under their intended conditions of use
are not likely to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has not
assessed risks associated with the reasonably foreseen conditions of
use for these chemicals. EPA is proposing to designate these reasonably
foreseen conditions of use and other circumstances of use as
significant new uses. As a result, those significant new uses cannot
occur without first going through a separate, subsequent EPA review and
determination process associated with a SNUN.
    The substances subject to these proposed rules are as follows:

PMN Number: P-18-289

    Chemical name: 2-(2(Methylcaboxymonocyclic)amino)ethoxy)-alcohol
(generic).
    CAS number: Not available.
    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic use of the
substance will be as a gas scrubber and wastewater deodorizer. Based on
the physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance and Structure
Activity Relationships (SAR) analysis of test data on analogous
substances, EPA has identified concerns for eye irritation, skin
irritation, and specific target organ toxicity if the chemical is not
used following the limitations noted. This proposed SNUR designates the
following as ``significant new uses'' requiring further review by EPA:
    1. Manufacture beyond an annual production volume of 80,000 kg.
    2. Use other than for the confidential uses specified in the PMN.
    Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain
information about the effects of the PMN substance may be potentially
useful if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN
for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed
SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of eye irritation/corrosion
and specific target organ toxicity testing would help characterize the
potential health effects of the PMN substance.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.11561.

PMN Number: P-18-330

    Chemical name: Formaldehyde, polymer with alkyl aryl ketone
(generic).
    CAS number: Not available.
    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic use of the
substance will be as an initiator. Based on the physical/chemical
properties of the PMN substance and SAR analysis of test data on
analogous substances, EPA has identified concerns for nephrotoxicity,
skin sensitization, specific target organ toxicity, and systemic
toxicity if the chemical is not used following the limitations noted.
This proposed SNUR designates the following as ``significant new uses''
requiring further review by EPA:
    1. Use of the PMN substance in a consumer product.
    2. Release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water
concentrations that exceed 770 ppb.
    Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain
information about the effects of the PMN substance may be potentially
useful if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN
for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed
SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of skin sensitization and
specific target organ toxicity testing would help characterize the
potential health effects of the PMN substance.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.11562.

PMN Number: P-18-334

    Chemical name: Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dihexyl ester.
    CAS number: 1431-37-4.
    Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the substance will
be as a chemical intermediate. Based on the physical/chemical
properties of the PMN substance and SAR analysis of test data on
analogous substances, EPA has identified concerns for aquatic toxicity,
eye irritation, and specific target organ toxicity if the chemical is
not used following the limitations noted. This proposed SNUR designates
the following as ``significant new uses'' requiring further review by
EPA:
    1. Use other than as a chemical intermediate.
    2. Release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water
concentrations that exceed 3 ppb.
    Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain
information about the effects of the PMN substance may be potentially
useful if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN
for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed
SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of aquatic toxicity, eye
irritation/corrosion, and specific target organ toxicity testing would
help characterize the potential environmental and health effects of the
PMN substance.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.11563.

PMN Number: P-18-335

    Chemical name: Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dicyclohexyl ester.
    CAS number: 1152-57-4.
    Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the substance will
be as a chemical intermediate. Based on the physical/chemical
properties of the PMN substance and SAR analysis of test data on
analogous substances, EPA has identified concerns for aquatic toxicity,
eye irritation, skin irritation, and specific target organ toxicity if
the chemical is not used following the limitations noted. This proposed
SNUR designates the following as ``significant new uses'' requiring
further review by EPA:
    1. Use other than as a chemical intermediate.
    2. Release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water
concentrations that exceed 6 ppb.
    Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain
information about the effects of the PMN substance may be potentially
useful if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN
for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed
SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of aquatic toxicity, eye
irritation/corrosion, skin irritation/corrosion, and specific target
organ toxicity testing would help characterize the potential
environmental and health effects of the PMN substance.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.11564.

PMN Number: P-18-337

    Chemical name: Propanedioic acid, 2,2-bis(hydroxymethyl)-, 1,3-
dicyclohexyl ester.
    CAS number: 2222732-46-7.
    Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the substance will
be as a chemical intermediate. Based on the physical/chemical
properties of the PMN substance and Structure Activity Relationships
(SAR) analysis of test data

on analogous substances, EPA has identified concerns for aquatic
toxicity, eye irritation, skin irritation, and specific target organ
toxicity if the chemical is not used following the limitations noted.
This proposed SNUR designates the following as ``significant new uses''
requiring further review by EPA:
     Release of the PMN substance resulting in surface water
concentrations that exceed 95 ppb.
    Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain
information about the effects of the PMN substance may be potentially
useful if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN
for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed
SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of aquatic toxicity, eye
irritation/corrosion, skin irritation/corrosion, and specific target
organ toxicity testing would help characterize the potential
environmental and health effects of the PMN substance.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.11565.

V. Rationale and Objectives of the Proposed Rule

A. Rationale

    During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances
that are the subject of these proposed SNURs and as further discussed
in Unit IV., EPA identified certain other reasonably foreseen
conditions of use, in addition to those conditions of use intended by
the submitter. EPA has preliminarily determined that the chemical under
the intended conditions of use is not likely to present an unreasonable
risk. However, EPA has not assessed risks associated with the
reasonably foreseen conditions of use. EPA is proposing to designate
these conditions of use as well as certain other circumstances of use
as significant new uses. As a result, those significant new uses cannot
occur without going through a separate, subsequent EPA review and
determination process associated with a SNUN.

B. Objectives

    EPA is proposing these SNURs because the Agency wants:
     To have an opportunity to review and evaluate data
submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or
processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant
new use.
     To be obligated to make a determination under TSCA section
5(a)(3) regarding the use described in the SNUN, under the conditions
of use. The Agency will either determine under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C)
that the chemical, under the conditions of use, is not likely to
present an unreasonable risk, including an unreasonable risk to a
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant
by the Administrator under the conditions of use, or make a
determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(A) or (B) and take the
required regulatory action associated with the determination, before
manufacture or processing for the significant new use of the chemical
substance can occur.
     To be able to complete its review and determination on
each of the PMN substances, while deferring analysis on the significant
new uses proposed in these rules unless and until the Agency receives a
SNUN.
    Issuance of a proposed SNUR for a chemical substance does not
signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Inventory.
Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA
Inventory is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory.

VI. Applicability of the Proposed Rules to Uses Occurring Before the
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
were undergoing premanufacture review at the time of signature of this
proposed rule and were not on the TSCA Inventory. 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 person may
commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for
the chemical substances subject to these proposed SNURs, EPA concludes
that the proposed significant new uses are not ongoing.
    EPA designates October 6, 2020 (date of web posting of this
proposed rule) as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use
is ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach is to ensure that a person
cannot defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the
effective date of the final rule.
    Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the
chemical substances for a significant new use identified on or after
that date would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date
of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have
to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and
EPA would have to take action under section 5 allowing manufacture or
processing to proceed. In developing this proposed rule, EPA has
recognized that, given EPA's general practice of posting proposed rules
on its website a week or more in advance of Federal Register
publication, this objective could be thwarted even before Federal
Register publication of the proposed rule.

VII. Development and Submission of Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of
any particular new information (e.g., generating test data) before
submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: If a person is required to
submit information for a chemical substance pursuant to a rule, order
or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603), then TSCA
section 5(b)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 2604(b)(1)(A)) requires such information
to be submitted to EPA at the time of submission of the SNUN.
    In the absence of a rule, order, or consent agreement under TSCA
section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to
submit information in their possession or control and to describe any
other information 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. Unit IV. lists potentially
useful information for all SNURs listed here. Descriptions are provided
for informational purposes. The potentially useful information
identified in Unit IV. will be useful to EPA's evaluation in the event
that someone submits a SNUN for the significant new use. Companies who
are considering submitting a SNUN are encouraged, but not required, to
develop the information on the substance, which may assist with EPA's
analysis of the SNUN.
    EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to
consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Furthermore,
pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing
in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on
the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New
Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the
recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency
representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both
the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h).
    The potentially useful information described in Unit IV. may not be
the only means of providing information to

evaluate the chemical substance associated with the significant new
uses. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the
likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f).
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.

VIII. SNUN Submissions

    According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply
with the same notification 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 721.25. E-PMN software is available
electronically at https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca.

IX. Economic Analysis

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN
requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical
substances subject to this proposed rule. EPA's complete economic
analysis is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review

    This action proposes to establish SNURs for new chemical substances
that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).

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 does 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,
Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (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)

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., I
hereby certify that promulgation of this proposed SNUR would not have a
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person
(including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any
activity described in the final rule as a ``significant new use.''
Because these uses are ``new,'' based on all information currently
available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently
engage in such activities.
    A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such
activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN.
Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use
in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there
may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the
promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency
receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the
number of SNUNs received was seven in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2013, 13
in FY2014, six in FY2015, 12 in FY2016, 13 in FY2017, and 11 in FY2018,
only a fraction of these were from small businesses. In addition, the
Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by
reducing the SNUN submission fee from $16,000 to $2,800. This lower fee
reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping of cost of submitting a
SNUN to about $10,116 for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the
potential economic impacts of complying with this proposed SNUR are not
expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of
small entities. In a SNUR that published in the Federal Register of
June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented its
general determination that final SNURs are not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.

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 will be impacted by this proposed
rule. As such, EPA has determined that this proposed rule does 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. 1531-1538 et seq.).

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action will not have federalism implications because it is not
expected to 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 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action will not have Tribal implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes,
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal
governments, and does not involve or impose any requirements that
affect Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000).

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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 does not involve any technical
standards, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to
this action.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental
justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

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

    Dated: September 30, 2020.
Tala Henry,
Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 721 as follows:

PART 721--SIGNIFICANT NEW USES OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES

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. Sec.  721.11561 through 721.11565 to subpart E to read as
follows:

Subpart E--Significant New Uses for Specific Chemical Substances

Sec.
* * * * *
721.11561 2-(2(Methylcaboxymonocyclic)amino)ethoxy)-alcohol
(generic).
721.11562 Formaldehyde, polymer with alkyl aryl ketone (generic).
721.11563 Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dihexyl ester.
721.11564 Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dicyclohexyl ester.
721.11565 Propanedioic acid, 2,2-bis(hydroxymethyl)-, 1,3-
dicyclohexyl ester
* * * * *

Sec.  721.11561  2-(2(Methylcaboxymonocyclic)amino)ethoxy)-alcohol
(generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance generically identified as 2-
(2(Methylcaboxymonocyclic)amino)ethoxy)-alcohol (PMN P-18-289) 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) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(j) and (s) (80,000 kilograms).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b).
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125(a) through (c) and (i) are applicable to manufacturers 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)(i) of
this section.

Sec.  721.11562  Formaldehyde, polymer with alkyl aryl ketone
(generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance generically identified as
formaldehyde, polymer with alkyl aryl ketone (PMN P-18-330) 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) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(o).
    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in Sec.
721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) where N = 770.
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b).
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125(a) through (c), (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers
and processors of this substance.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.

Sec.  721.11563  Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dihexyl ester.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as propanedioic acid,
1,3-dihexyl ester (PMN P-18-334, CAS No. 1431-37-4) 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) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(g).
    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in Sec.  721.90
(a)(4), (b)(4), (c)(4), where N = 3.
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b).
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125(a) through (c), (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers
and processors of this substance.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.

Sec.  721.11564  Propanedioic acid, 1,3-dicyclohexyl ester.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as propanedioic acid,
1,3-dicyclohexyl ester (PMN P-18-335, CAS No. 1152-57-4) 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) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(g).
    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in Sec.
721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4), where N = 6.
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b).
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125(a) through (c) (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and
processors of this substance.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.

Sec.  721.11565  Propanedioic acid, 2,2-bis(hydroxymethyl)-, 1,3-
dicyclohexyl ester.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as propanedioic acid,
2,2-bis(hydroxymethyl)-, 1,3-dicyclohexyl ester (PMN P-18-337, CAS No.
2222732-46-7) 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) Release to water. Requirements as specified in Sec.
721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4), where N = 95.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b).
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125(a) through (c) and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and
processors of this substance.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.

[FR Doc. 2020-22645 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


floating NAV MMFs were not required to reorganize as SPBs and if a
substantial number of funds elected to float their NAVs rather than
reorganize as banks. In addition, the capital required might be
reduced somewhat if regulators determined that the nature of the
assets held by MMFs justifies capital requirements that are lower
than those imposed on commercial banks and thrifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional hurdle to converting MMFs to SPBs would be the
substantial increase in explicit government guarantees that would
result from the creation of new insured deposits. The potential
liability to the government probably would far exceed any premiums that
could be collected for some time.
    Uncertainties about the reaction of institutional investors to MMFs
reorganized as SPBs raise some important concerns about whether such
reorganizations would provide a substantial degree of systemic-risk
mitigation. Coverage limits on deposit insurance would leave many large
investors unprotected in case of a significant capital loss. Thus, even
with the protections afforded to banks, MMFs would still be vulnerable
to runs by institutional investors, unless much higher deposit
insurance limits were allowed for the newly created SPBs. Moreover,
even in the absence of runs, institutional MMFs often experience
volatile cash flows, and the potential effects of large and high-
frequency flows into and out of the banking system (if MMFs become
SPBs) would need to be analyzed carefully.
    The reaction of institutional investors to the altered set of
investment opportunities may also have unintended consequences. For
example, SPBs that pay positive net yields to investors (depositors)
would be very attractive for institutional investors who currently
cannot receive interest on traditional bank deposits.\38\ Thus, on the
one hand, the new SPBs might prompt shifts of assets by institutional
investors from the traditional banking system. On the other hand, a
substantial mandatory capital

buffer for MMFs would reduce their net yields and possibly motivate
institutional investors to move assets from MMFs to unregulated
alternatives (particularly if regulatory reform does not include new
constraints on such vehicles). The effect of these competing incentives
on institutional investors' cash management practices is uncertain, but
it is at least plausible that a reorganization of MMFs as SPBs may lead
to a net shift of assets to unregulated investment vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Section 627 of the Dodd-Frank Act repeals the prohibition
on banks paying interest on corporate demand deposit accounts
effective July 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Enhanced Constraints on Unregulated MMF Substitutes
    New rules intended to reduce the susceptibility of MMFs to runs
generally also will reduce the appeal of the funds to many investors.
For example, several of the reforms recently adopted by the SEC
probably will reduce the net yields that the funds pay to shareholders,
and a switch to floating NAVs would eliminate a feature that some MMF
shareholders see as essential.
    Reforms that reduce the appeal of MMFs may motivate some
institutional investors to move assets to alternative cash management
vehicles with stable NAVs, such as offshore MMFs, enhanced cash funds,
and other stable value vehicles. These vehicles typically invest in the
same types of short-term instruments that MMFs hold and share many of
the features that make MMFs vulnerable to runs, so growth of
unregulated MMF substitutes would likely increase systemic risks.
However, such funds need not comply with rule 2a-7 or other ICA
protections and in general are subject to little or no regulatory
oversight. In addition, the risks posed by MMF substitutes are
difficult to monitor, since they provide far less market transparency
than MMFs.
    Thus, effective mitigation of systemic risks may require policy
reforms targeted outside the MMF industry to address risks posed by
funds that compete with MMFs and to combat regulatory arbitrage that
might offset intended reductions in MMF risks. Such reforms most likely
would require legislation and action by the SEC and other agencies. For
example, consideration should be given to prohibiting unregistered
investment vehicles from maintaining stable NAVs, perhaps by amending
sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the ICA to specify that exemptions from
the requirement to register as an investment company do not apply to
funds that seek a stable NAV. Banking and state insurance regulators
might consider additional restrictions to mitigate systemic risk for
bank common and collective funds and other investment pools that seek a
stable NAV but that are exempt from registration under sections 3(c)(3)
and 3(c)(11) of the ICA.

[FR Doc. 2010-28177 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                 Docket Index
                         Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
               Air Plan Revisions; California; Error Corrections
                      (Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0133)

A.  Rulemaking Documents
 Air Plan Revisions; California; Error Corrections, Proposed Rule, signed August 9, 2018, prepublication version.
 83 FR 43576, Air Plan Revisions; California; Error Corrections; Proposed Rule (August 27, 2018).
B.  State Implementation Plan Rules Proposed for Deletion Without Replacement
B-1. 	Amador County APCD, Rule 5 (Nuisance), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-2. 	Amador County APCD, Rule 6 (Additional Exception), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-3.	Los Angeles County APCD, Rule 51 (Nuisance), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-4.	Bay Area AQMD, Division 11 (Hydrogen Sulfide), Rules 11100 through 11102.8, submitted on November 2, 1973.
B-5.	Bay Area AQMD, Regulation 8 (Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants), including a definitions section and Rules 1 through 5, submitted on January 10, 1975.
B-6.	Butte County AQMD, Section 2-1, (untitled but represents a general nuisance provision), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-7.	Butte County AQMD, Rule 619 (Effective Date of Decision), submitted on February 10, 1986.
B-8.	Calaveras County APCD, Rule 205 (Nuisance), submitted on July 22, 1975.
B-9.	Calaveras County APCD, Rule 603 (Hearing Board Fees), submitted on July 22, 1975.
B-10.	Colusa County APCD, Rules 4.5 (Nuisance) and 4.6 (Additional Exception), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-11.	Kern County APCD, Rules 419 (Nuisance) and 420 (Exception), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-12.	El Dorado County AQMD, Rules 52 (Nuisance) and 53 (Exceptions to Rule 52), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-13.	El Dorado County AQMD, Rule 706 (Failure to Comply with Rules), submitted on May 23, 1979.
B-14.	Yuma County APCD, Rules 9.7 (Permit Actions) and 9.8 (Variance Action), submitted on March 30, 1981.
B-15.	Glenn County APCD, Rules 78 (Nuisance) and 79 (Exceptions), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-16.	Great Basin Unified APCD, Rule 402 (Nuisance), submitted on April 21, 1976.
B-17.	Great Basin Unified APCD, Rule 617 (Emergency Variance), submitted on December 17, 1979.
B-18.	Imperial County APCD, Rule 117 (Nuisances), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-19.	Imperial County APCD, Rule 513 (Record of Proceedings), submitted on November 4, 1977.
B-20.	Lake County AQMD, Section 1602 (Petition Procedures), submitted on March 30, 1981.
B-21.	Lake County AQMD, Section 1701.Q (untitled but related to interim variances), submitted on February 10, 1986.
B-22.	Lassen County APCD, Rules 3:2 (Permit Fees), 3:3 (Permit Fee Schedules), 3:4 (Analysis Fees), and 3:5 (Technical Reports, Charges For), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-23.	Lassen County APCD, Rule 4:2 (Nuisance), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-24.	Mariposa County APCD, Rule 205 (Nuisance), submitted on January 10, 1975.
B-25.	Mendocino County APCD, Rule 4(A) (General), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-26.	Mendocino County APCD, Rule 620 (Hearing Procedures), submitted on August 6, 1982.
B-27.	Modoc County APCD, Rule 3:2 (Nuisance), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-28.	Modoc County APCD, Rule 3:6 (Additional Exception), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-29.	Riverside County APCD, Rule 51 (Nuisance), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-30.	Riverside County APCD, Rule 106 (Record of Proceedings), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-31.	South Coast AQMD, Rule 1231 (Judicial Review), submitted on January 2, 1979.
B-32.	Monterey-Santa Cruz County Unified APCD, Rule 402 (Nuisance), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-33.	San Benito County APCD, Rule 403 (Nuisance), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-34.	Del Norte County APCD, Introductory Paragraph to Regulation IV, submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-35.	Del Norte County APCD, Rule 340 (Technical Report Charges), submitted on November 10, 1976.
B-36. 	Del Norte County APCD Rules 620 (Hearing Procedures), 630 (Decisions), 640 (Record of Proceedings) and 650 (Appeal of Decision), submitted on November 10, 1976.
B-37.	Del Norte County APCD Rule 620 (Hearing Procedures), submitted on August 6, 1982.
B-38. 	Humboldt County APCD Rule 51 (Prohibited Emissions), submitted on February 21, 1972.
B-39.	Trinity County APCD, Introductory Paragraph to Regulation IV, submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-40.	Trinity County APCD, Rules 56 (Failure to Comply with Rules), 62 (Preliminary Matters), 67 (Lack of Permit) and 68 (Issuance of Subpoenas, Subpoenas Duces Tecum), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-41.	Trinity County APCD, Rule 620 (Hearing Procedures), submitted on August 6, 1982.
B-42.	Nevada County APCD, Rules 700 (Applicable Articles of the Health and Safety Code) and 703 (Contents of Petitions) (paragraphs ((E) and (I)), submitted on June 6, 1977.
B-43.	Nevada County APCD, Rule 711 (Evidence), submitted on April 10, 1975.
B-44.	Plumas County APCD, Rule 51 (Prohibited Emissions), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-45.	Plumas County APCD, Rule 516 (Upset and Breakdown Conditions) (Paragraph (C) ("Emergency Variance Procedures")), submitted on June 22, 1981.
B-46.	Plumas County APCD, Rules 701 (General), 702 (Filing Petitions), 704 (Petitions for Variances), 711 (Evidence), 712 (Preliminary Matters), 713 (Official Notice), 714 (Continuances), 715 (Decision) and 716 (Effective Date of Decision), submitted on January 10, 1975.
B-47.	Plumas County APCD, Rule 703 (Contents of Petitions), submitted on June 22, 1981.
B-48.	Plumas County APCD, Rule 710 (Notice of Public Hearing), submitted on June 22, 1981.
B-49.	Sierra County APCD, Rule 703 (Contents of Petitions), submitted on June 22, 1981.
B-50.	Sierra County APCD, Rule 710 (Notice of Public Hearing), submitted on June 22, 1981.
B-51.	Sierra County APCD, Rule 516 (Upset and Breakdown Conditions) (Paragraph (C) ("Emergency Variance Procedures")), submitted on June 22, 1981.
B-52.	Northern Sonoma County APCD, Rule 52 (Nuisance), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-53.	Northern Sonoma County APCD, Rule 85 (Failure to Comply with Rules), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-54.	Northern Sonoma County APCD, Rule 91 (Preliminary Matters), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-55.	Northern Sonoma County APCD, Rule 96 (Lack of Permit), submitted on June 30, 1972.
B-56.	Northern Sonoma County APCD, Rules 600 (Authorization) and 610 (Petition Procedure), submitted on October 16, 1985.
B-57.	Northern Sonoma County APCD, Rule 620 (Hearing Procedures), submitted on August 6, 1982.
C.  Federal Register Documents
 37 FR 10842, Part 52  -  Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Final Rule (May 31, 1972).
 37 FR 19812, Miscellaneous Amendments, Final Rule (September 22, 1972).
 42 FR 23802, Approval of Revisions to Bay Area Air Pollution Control District's Rules and Regulations in State of California, Final Rule (May 11, 1977).
 42 FR 23803, Approval of Revisions to Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District's Rules and Regulations in State of California, Final Rule (May 11, 1977).
 42 FR 28883, Approval of Revisions to the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District's Rules and Regulations for Alpine, Inyo, and Mono Counties in the State of California, Final Rule (June 6, 1977).
 42 FR 42219, Approval/Disapproval of Revisions to the Rules and Regulations of Various Air Pollution Control Districts in State of California, Final Rule (August 22, 1977).
 43 FR 25677, California Plan Revision: Del Norte County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Final Rule (June 14, 1978).
 43 FR 25680, California Plan Revision: Plumas County Air Pollution Control District, Final Rule (June 14, 1978).
 43 FR 25684, California Plan Revision  -  Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), Final Rule (June 14, 1978).
 43 FR 25687, California Plan Revision: Nevada County Air Pollution Control District, Final Rule (June 14, 1978).
 43 FR 34463, California Plan Revision: Lake County Air Pollution Control District, Final Rule (August 4, 1978).
 43 FR 35694, California Plan Revision: Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Final Rule (August 11, 1978).
 43 FR 40011, California Plan Revision: Southeast Desert and Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Regions, Final Rule (September 8, 1978).
 43 FR 41039, California Plan Revision: Nevada County Air Pollution Control District, Final Rule (September 14, 1978).
 45 FR 30626, California Plan Revision: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Rule (May 9, 1980).
 46 FR 3883, California Plan Revision: Redesignation of Air Quality Control Regions, Final Rule (January 16, 1981).
 46 FR 8471, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Five Air Pollution Control Districts in California (January 27, 1981).
 46 FR 27115, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Rule Revisions for Five Air Pollution Control Districts (May 18, 1981).
 46 FR 27116, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, California State Implementation Plan Revision, Final Rule (May 18, 1981).
 47 FR 15585, California Rule Revisions for Three Sacramento Valley Air Pollution Control Districts, Final Rule (April 12, 1982).
 47 FR 15784, California State Implementation Plan Revision, Final Rule (April 13, 1982).
 47 FR 17486, California State Implementation Plan Revision for Three Air Pollution Control Districts, Final Rule (April 23, 1982).
 47 FR 25013, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Southeast Desert Air Basin, California, Nonattainment Area Plan, Final Rule (June 9, 1982).
 47 FR 50864, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Final Rule (November 10, 1982).
 48 FR 52451, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Final Rule (November 18, 1983).
 52 FR 3226, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Five Districts in California, Final Rule (February 3, 1987).
 52 FR 12522, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, California; Amador County and Four Other Districts, Final Rule (April 17, 1987).
 52 FR 26148, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Final Rule (July 13, 1987).
 57 FR 56762, Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Amendments and Corrections, Final Rule (November 30, 1992).
 61 FR 38664, Correction of Implementation Plans; American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada State Implementation Plans, Proposed Rule (July 25, 1996).
 62 FR 1150, at 1172, 1186-1187, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California -- Ozone, Final Rule (January 8, 1997).
 62 FR 34641, Correction of Implementation Plans; American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada State Implementation Plans, Final Rule (June 27, 1997).
 62 FR 48480, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, Direct Final Rule (September 16, 1997).
 63 FR 42786, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and Kern County Air Pollution Control District, Proposed Rule (August 11, 1998).
 63 FR 67784, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and Kern County Air Pollution Control District, Final Rule (December 9, 1998).
 64 FR 71660, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Rule (December 22, 1999).
 65 FR 8057, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; South Coast Air Quality Management District, Direct Final Rule (February 17, 2000).
 66 FR 51578, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Direct Final Rule (October 10, 2001).
 67 FR 2573, Corrections to the California State Implementation Plan, Final Rule  (January 18, 2002).
 67 FR 39616, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management District, Direct Final Rule (June 10, 2002).
 69 FR 21713, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern County Air Pollution Control District, Direct Final Rule (April 22, 2004).
 69 FR 29880, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, Feather River Air Quality Management District, Kern County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District, Direct Final Rule (May 26, 2004).
 72 FR 64946, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Direct Final Rule (November 19, 2007).
 73 FR 39237, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, Including Nevada County Air Pollution Control District Portion, Plumas County Air Pollution Control District Portion, and Sierra County Air Pollution Control District Portion, Direct Final Rule (July 9, 2008).
 74 FR 40750, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, Kern County Air Pollution Control District, Mohave Desert Air Quality Management District, Final Rule (August 13, 2009).
 78 FR 21545, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District and Monterey Bay Unified and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Districts, Final Rule (April 11, 2013).
 78 FR 58459, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Final Rule (September 24, 2013).
 80 FR 13495, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Direct Final Rule (March 16, 2015).
 80 FR 15899, Approval, Disapproval, and Limited Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits, Final Rule (March 26, 2015).
D.  Other Documents
D-1.	Los Angeles County APCD, Regulation VI (Orchard or Citrus Grove Heaters), submitted on June 30, 1972.
D-2.	Riverside County APCD, Regulation V (Orchards, Field or Citrus Grove Heaters), submitted on February 21, 1972.
D-3.	Stuart, J.A., Chief Air Pollution Control Officer, Southern California APCD, letter to Air Pollution Control Officers, Southern California APCD, et al., July 21, 1976.
D-4.	Lake County AQMD, Table I (Agencies Designated to Issue Agricultural Burning Permits), submitted on February 10, 1977.
D-5.	Lake County AQMD, Table II (Daily Quota of Agricultural Material that May Be Burned by Watershed), submitted on February 10, 1977.
D-6.	Lake County AQMD, Table III (Guides for Estimating Dry Weights of Several California Fuel Types), submitted on February 10, 1977.
D-7.	Lake County AQMD, Table IV (Particulate Matter Emissions Standard for Process Units and Process Equipment), submitted on February 10, 1977.
D-8.	El Dorado County AQMD, Regulation IX (Emission Statements from Facility Owners/Operators Pursuant to the Clean Air Amendments of 1990), Rules 1000 (Emission Statement) and 1000.1 (Emission Statement Waiver), submitted on November 12, 1992.
D-9.	Eastern Kern APCD, Rule 108 (Stack Monitoring), submitted on November 4, 2003.
D-10.	Eastern Kern APCD, Rule 417 (Agricultural and Prescribed Burning), submitted on November 4, 2003.
D-11.	40 CFR Part 52, July 1, 2009 edition, page 173-174 (showing the publishing error regarding deletion of certain Nevada County APCD rules).
D-12.	40 CFR 52.273 (Open burning), July 1, 1980 Edition.
D-13.	Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, Rule 212 (Process Weight Table), submitted on October 28, 1996.
D-14.	Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, Rule 213 (Storage of Gasoline Products), submitted on October 28, 1996.
D-15.	Nevada County APCD, Rule 404 (Upset Conditions, Breakdown or Scheduled Maintenance), submitted on October 15, 1979.
D-16. 	Letter Correspondence, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 22, 2018, including enclosure.