From: gregory. moeller@ kodak. com Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 12: 08 PM To: tcholloway@ rti. org Subject: Re: Mag tape risk info Tom, I have attached a table which contains the information you requested. You'l l notice that we have three emission points associated with magnetic tape manufa cturing. Source A is the most significant but there are a small amounts of mix preparation equipment ( including particulate transfer) which operate separately under Sources B & C.

The data provided represents our best estimate at this time. Please feel free t o call if you need any further clarification and accept my apologies for the del ay in getting this to you.

Greg Moeller ( 585 477 9881)


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68306-68312]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28006]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0669; FRL-8849-7]
RIN 2070-AB27

Modification of Significant New Uses of 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-
morpholinyl)-

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is
proposing to amend the significant new use rule (SNUR) for 2-Propen-1-
one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- (CAS No. 5117-12-4) to allow certain uses
without requiring a significant new use notice (SNUN). EPA

is proposing this amendment based on review of new toxicity test data
and receipt of a SNUN for this chemical substance. The proposed amended
SNUR would continue to require a SNUN for new uses that may involve
significant changes in human exposure.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0669, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line 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.
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0669. 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-
2009-0669. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 e-
mail. 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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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:
Tracey Klosterman, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-2209; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; e-mail 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 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- (CAS No.
5117-12-4). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not
limited to:
     Manufacturers, importers, or processors of the subject
chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical
manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Sec.  721.5. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 chemicals 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 this proposed rule on or
after December 6, 2010 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 e-mail. 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?

    Under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
EPA is proposing to modify the significant new use and recordkeeping
requirements at Sec.  721.5185, for the chemical substance 2-Propen-1-
one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)- (CAS No. 5117-12-4). In this unit, EPA provides
a brief description for the chemical substance, including the
Premanufacture Notice (PMN) number, chemical name, CAS number, basis
for modification of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order, and the CFR
citation. The modified SNUR would require persons who intend to
manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for an activity
designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days
before commencing that activity.
    In the Federal Register of January 5, 2000 (65 FR 354) (FRL-6055-
2), EPA issued a direct final SNUR for this chemical substance in
accordance with the procedures at Sec.  721.160. The record established
for this proposed SNUR is available in the docket under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0669. That record includes all information
considered by the Agency in developing the direct final rule, the
modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order negotiated with the PMN
submitter, and review of a SNUN (S-08-07) submitted in 2008 by a person
other than the PMN submitter.
PMN Number P-95-169
    Chemical name: 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)-.
    CAS number: 5117-12-4.
    Effective date of modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order: May 9,
2006. Federal Register publication date and reference: January 5, 2000
(65 FR 354).
    Basis for modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order and SNUR: The
PMN substance will be used as a diluent for ultraviolet (UV) and
electron beam (EB) curable resin for coatings, inks, and curable
adhesives. The consent order was issued under sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i)
and 5(e)(l)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA based on a finding that the chemical
substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health
and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Agency issued
a TSCA 5(e) consent order which became effective on November 27, 1998.
The order required the use of dermal personal protective equipment
(including gloves demonstrated to be impervious) and respiratory
personal protective equipment (including a National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirator); required
establishment of a hazard communication program; prohibited domestic
manufacturing; prohibited processing and use activities in non-enclosed
processes; established maximum importation volume limits for submission
of required testing; established waste disposal practices (including
restrictions for no release to surface waters and requirement of
disposal only in a RCRA hazardous waste landfill); and prohibited use
of the chemical substance involving an application method that
generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol. The proposed SNUR for this
chemical substance is based on and consistent with the provisions of
the modified consent order. The proposed SNUR designates as a
``significant new use'' the absence of the protective measures required
in the corresponding consent order.
    Toxicity concern: Under the terms of the TSCA section 5(e) consent
order, the PMN submitter completed the following tiered studies: An in
vivo mouse micronucleus test, a 90-day oral toxicity study in rats, and
a reproductive toxicity screening study in rats. The results of the
micronucleus test were negative. Based on the results of the 90-day
study, the Agency established a no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) of 20 mg/kg/day for neurotoxicity. Further, based on the
results of the reproductive toxicity screening study, a NOAEL of 75 mg/
kg/day (highest dose tested) was established for reproductive effects.
From these data, the Agency calculated Margins of Exposure (MOEs) for
predicted workplace exposures. Based on these new data, concerns remain
for possible effects to the liver, testes, kidney, and blood from
dermal exposure. However, EPA no longer has substantial human health
concerns for mutagenicity and neurotoxicity. In addition, Agency
concerns for carcinogenicity by inhalation were reduced, but were
further mitigated by retaining the original consent order prohibition
of industrial processing and use in a non-enclosed process and any use
application methods that generate a vapor, mist, or aerosol form of the
PMN substance.
    In addition, to address Agency environmental concerns, a re-review
of the environmental toxicity profile for the PMN substance was
conducted. The results of this evaluation indicated a low concern for
chronic aquatic toxicity. Therefore, EPA could no longer make a ``may
present unreasonable risk'' finding for releases of the PMN substance
to surface waters. As a result of the aforementioned review, EPA issued
a modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order which became effective on
May 9, 2006. The modified order removed requirements for respiratory
protection, waived further required trigger testing for mutagenicity
and cancer (i.e., required by a set production volume or time), removed
the restriction on domestic manufacture, and removed waste disposal
restrictions (i.e., no longer prohibiting releases to surface waters or
limiting disposal to incineration or landfill). Pursuant to Sec.
721.185(a)(5), the Agency has examined new information and reexamined
the test data and other information supporting its finding under
section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of TSCA, and has concluded that a rational
basis no longer exists to support findings that certain activities
involving the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to
human health and the environment required under section 5(e)(1)(A) of
TSCA. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to modify the SNUR based on
and consistent with the provisions in the underlying modified consent
order. To protect against the remaining potential risks, the modified
consent order:
     Requires the use of dermal personal protective equipment
(including gloves demonstrated to be impervious).
     Requires establishment of a hazard communication program.
     Prohibits processing and use activities in non-enclosed
processes.

     Prohibits the use of the chemical substance involving an
application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol.
    The proposed modified SNUR designates as a ``significant new use''
the absence of these protective measures. In addition, EPA has
included, in the proposed regulatory text, clarifying language for
those forms of the PMN substance which are exempt from the provisions
of the proposed SNUR. These exemptions apply to quantities of the PMN
substance after it has been completely reacted (cured).
    On June 27, 2008, the Agency received a SNUN (S-08-07) for the
subject chemical substance. The significant new use identified in the
notice was release to water for the generic (non-confidential) use of
``contained use in energy production''. The 90-day review period for
the SNUN expired on October 2, 2008 with the Agency not taking action
on the ``significant new use'' of release of the substance to water.
The proposed modified SNUR would similarly no longer include release to
water as a significant new use, along with the other changes noted.
    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of the
combined repeated dose toxicity with the reproductive/developmental
toxicity screening test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3650 or Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guideline 422)
would help further characterize the human health effects of the PMN
substance. The modified 5(e) consent order does not require submission
of the aforementioned information at any specified time or production
volume. However, the order's restrictions on manufacturing, import,
processing, distribution in commerce, use and disposal of the PMN
substance will remain in effect until the order is modified or revoked
by EPA based on submission of that or other relevant information.
    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.5185.

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 those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see
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 SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or
process the chemical substance for that use. The mechanism for
reporting under this requirement is established under Sec.  721.5.
    Section 5(a)(1) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR parts 720 and 721 require that any person
intending to manufacture a new chemical substance, or to manufacture or
process any chemical substance for a significant new use, must give EPA
90-days advance written notice in the form of a PMN or SNUN,
respectively.
    Upon reviewing those notices, if EPA makes certain determinations
regarding potential exposures and risks that may be presented by the
activities associated with the chemical, EPA may regulate the chemical
by issuing an order under TSCA section 5(e) and/or a significant new
use rule (SNUR) under TSCA section 5(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 721. The
TSCA section 5(e) order governs only the entity who submitted the PMN
whereas the section 5(a)(2) SNUR applies to all manufacturers and
processors of the chemical substance.
    EPA may respond to SNUNs by issuing or modifying a TSCA section
5(e) consent order and/or amending the SNUR promulgated under TSCA
section 5(a)(2). Amendment of the SNUR will often be necessary to allow
companies other than the SNUN submitter to engage in the newly
authorized use(s), because even after a manufacturer submits a SNUN and
the review period expires, processors of the same substance still must
submit a SNUN before engaging in the significant new use. Provisions
regarding EPA's authority to modify or revoke SNUR requirements appear
at Sec.  721.185.

C. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.
These provisions describe persons subject to the proposed rule,
recordkeeping requirements, and exemptions to reporting requirements.
Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According
to Sec.  721.1(c), persons subject to this SNUR 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 sections 5(b)
and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 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.
    Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C.
2612) import certification requirements codified at 19 CFR 12.118
through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28 (the corresponding EPA policy
appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B). 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. In addition, any persons who export or intend to
export a chemical substance identified in a proposed SNUR are subject
to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C.
2611(b)) (see Sec.  721.20), and must comply with the export
notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

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 to 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
chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule, EPA
considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical
substance, 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. Rationale and Objectives of the Proposed Rule

A. Rationale

    During the review of test data submitted under the TSCA section
5(e)

consent order for 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)-, EPA determined
that the chemical substance still met one or more of the criteria of
concern established at Sec.  721.160. (see Unit II.)

B. Objectives

    EPA is proposing this SNUR modification for the specific chemical
substance 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 chemical substance that is the subject of a TSCA
section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements.

V. Applicability of 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. EPA solicits comments on whether any of the uses
proposed as significant new uses are ongoing. As discussed in the
Federal Register of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376), EPA has decided that
the intent of section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA is best served by designating
a use as a significant new use as of the date of publication of the
proposed rule, rather than as of the effective date of the final rule.
If uses begun after publication of the proposed rule were considered
ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for EPA to establish
SNUR notice requirements, because a person could defeat the SNUR by
initiating the significant new use before the rule became final, and
then argue that the use was ongoing as of the effective date of the
final rule. Thus, persons who begin commercial manufacture, import, or
processing activities with the chemical substances that would be
regulated as a ``significant new use'' through this proposed rule, must
cease any such activity as of the effective date of the rule if and
when finalized. To resume their activities, these persons would have to
comply with all applicable SNUR notice requirements and wait until the
notice review period, including all extensions, expires.
    EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with this
SNUR before the effective date. If a person were to meet the conditions
of advance compliance under Sec.  721.45(h), the person would be
considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those
activities.

VI. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require the development
of any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. There are two
exceptions:
    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 Sec.
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 II. lists those tests. 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 harmonized test guidelines referenced
in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp
and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.'' The Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines are
available from the OECD Bookshop at http://www.oecdbookshop.org or
SourceOECD at http://www.sourceoecd.org. The American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards are available at http://www.astm.org/Standard/index.shtml.
    The modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order for the chemical
substance that would be regulated under this proposed rule does not
require submission of test data at any specified time or volume.
However, the restrictions on manufacture, import, processing,
distribution in commerce, use and disposal of the PMN substance would
remain in effect until the consent order is modified or revoked by EPA
based on submission of that or other relevant information. These
restricted activities cannot be commenced unless the PMN submitter
first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a
reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by this chemical
substance. The test specified in the modified TSCA section 5(e) consent
order is included in Unit II. The proposed SNUR would contain the same
restrictions as the modified TSCA section 5(e) consent order. Persons
who intend to commence non-exempt commercial manufacture, import, or
processing for those activities proposed as significant new uses would
be required to notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days
in advance of commencement of those activities.
    The recommended tests may not be the only means of addressing the
potential risks of the chemical substance. However, SNUN submission for
a significant new use without any test data may increase the likelihood
that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e). 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 substance.
     Potential benefits of the chemical substance.
     Information on risks posed by the chemical substance
compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

VII. SNUN Submissions

    As stated in Unit II.C., 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 Sec.  [emsp14]720.50. SNUNs must be submitted to EPA, on
EPA Form No. 7710-25 in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Sec.  [emsp14]721.25 and Sec.  [emsp14]720.40. This form is available
from the Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Forms and information are also
available

electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/pmnforms.htm.

VIII. Economic Analysis

    EPA 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. The
Agency's complete economic analysis is available in the public docket
under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0669.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule would modify a SNUR for a chemical substance
that is the subject of a PMN and 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

    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 the 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. EPA is amending the table
in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information
collection requirements contained in this proposed rule. This listing
of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR
satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This Information Collection Request
(ICR) was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB
approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that
further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA
finds that there is ``good cause'' under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), to amend this
table without further notice and comment.
    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

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation
of this SNUR would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this
conclusion is discussed in this unit. 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 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 over 1,400 SNURs, the
Agency receives on average only 5 notices per year. Of those SNUNs
submitted from 2006-2008, only one appears to be from a small entity.
In addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN (see
Unit VIII.) is minimal regardless of the size of the firm. Therefore,
the potential economic impacts of complying with this SNUR would not be
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

    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 affect on small governments subject to the requirements of
sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).

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 or 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 this action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical
standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note), does 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: November 1, 2010.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as
follows:

PART 721--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Amend Sec.  [emsp14]721.5185 as follows:
    a. Revise the section heading.
    b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i).
    c. Add paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
    d. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii).
    e. Remove paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi).
    f. Revise paragraph (b)(1).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  721.5185  2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-morpholinyl)-.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The chemical substance identified as 2-Propen-1-one, 1-(4-
morpholinyl)- (PMN P-95-169; CAS No. 5117-12-4) is subject to reporting
under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section. The requirements of this rule do not apply to
quantities of the PMN substance after it has been completely reacted
(cured).
    (2) * * *
    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in Sec.
721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iv), (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4),
(a)(6)(v), (b) (concentration set at 1.0 percent), and (c). Safety 4/4H
EVOH/PE laminate, Ansell Edmont Neoprene number 865, and Solvex Nitrile
Rubber number 275 gloves have been tested in accordance with the
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F739 method and found by
EPA to satisfy the consent orders and Sec.  721.63(a)(2)(i)
requirements for dermal protection to 100 percent PMN substance. Gloves
and other dermal protection may not be used for a time period longer
than they are actually tested and must be replaced at the end of each
work shift. For additional dermal protection materials, a company must
submit all test data to the Agency and must receive written Agency
approval for each type of material tested prior to use of that material
as worker dermal protection. However, for the purposes of determining
the imperviousness of gloves, up to 1 year after the commencement of
commercial manufacture or import, the employer may use the method
described in Sec.  721.63(a)(3)(ii), thereafter, they must use the
method described in Sec.  721.63(a)(3)(i).
    (ii) Hazard communication program. Requirements as specified in
Sec.  721.72 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (concentration set at 1.0
percent), (f), (g)(1)(iv), (g)(1)(vi), (g)(2)(v), and (g)(5).
    (iii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(a), (c), and (y)(1).
    (b) * * *
    (1) Recordkeeping. The following recordkeeping requirements are
applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this chemical
substance as specified in Sec.  721.125(a) through (i).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-28006 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38187-38188]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0436]

International Conference on Harmonisation; Draft Guidance on Q11
Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Q11 Development and
Manufacture of Drug Substances.'' The draft guidance was prepared under
the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of
Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human
Use (ICH). The draft guidance describes approaches to developing
process and drug substance understanding and provides guidance on what
information should be provided in certain sections of the Common
Technical Document (CTD). The draft guidance is intended to harmonize
the scientific and technical principles relating to the description and
justification of the development and manufacturing process of drug
substances (both chemical entities and biotechnological/biological
entities) to enable a consistent approach for providing and evaluating
this information across the three regions.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by September 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by
mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft
guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regarding the Guidance

    John Smith, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, rm. 2619, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    Christopher Joneckis, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
(HFM-25), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite
200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Regarding the ICH

    Michelle Limoli, Office of International Programs, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 3506, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is
committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical
procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of
harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical
requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
    ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite
harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both
regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from
consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with
harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of
pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan,
and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European
Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries
Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the
Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug
Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and
the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH
Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is
provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
    The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of
the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as

observers from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the
European Free Trade Area.
    In May 2011, the ICH Steering Committee agreed that a draft
guidance entitled ``Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug
Substances'' should be made available for public comment. The draft
guidance is the product of the Q11 Expert Working Group of the ICH.
Comments about this draft will be considered by FDA and the Q11 Expert
Working Group.
    The draft guidance describes approaches to developing process and
drug substance understanding, and provides guidance on what information
should be provided in sections 3.2.S.2.2 through 3.2.S.2.6 of the CTD.
The draft guidance provides further clarification on the principles and
concepts described in ICH guidances ``Q8 Pharmaceutical Development,''
``Q9 Quality Risk Management,'' and ``Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality
Systems'' as they pertain to the development and manufacture of drug
substance. The guidance is applicable to drug substances as defined in
the ``Scope'' sections of ICH guidances ``Q6A Specifications: Test
Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for New Drug Substances and New Drug
Products: Chemical Substances'' and ``Q6B Specifications: Test
Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Biotechnological/Biological
Products.'' The draft guidance is intended to harmonize the scientific
and technical principles relating to the description and justification
of the development and manufacturing process (CTD sections 3.2.S.2.2.
through 3.2.S.2.6) of drug substances (both chemical entities and
biotechnological/biological entities) to enable a consistent approach
for providing and evaluating this information across the three regions.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on this topic.
It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does
not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be
used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.regulations.gov, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: June 23, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-16255 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17534-17536]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7205]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66630; File No. SR-DTC-2012-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules Relating to the
Issuance of and Maturity Presentment Processing for Money Market
Instruments

March 20, 2012.
    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 March 8, 2012, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by DTC. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of DTC's proposed rule change is to amend DTC's
Settlement Service Guide to change certain deadlines associated with
processing issuances and maturity presentments of money market
instruments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit
5 to DTC's filing, which is available at www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2012/dtc/2012-02.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Maturity Presentment \5\ processing for money market
instruments (``MMIs'') is initiated automatically by DTC each morning
for all of the MMIs maturing that day. The automatic process
electronically sweeps all maturing positions of MMI CUSIPs from a
participant's accounts against credits in the amount of the payments to
be received with respect to such presentments. The matured MMIs are
delivered to the applicable issuing or paying agent (``IPA''),\6\ also
a DTC

participant, the IPA's account is debited for the amount of the
maturity proceeds. The debited amount will be included in the IPA's net
settlement amount. Similarly, the credits of participants that
presented maturing MMIs will be included in those participants' net
settlement amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Maturity Presentment'' is defined in Rule 1 of
DTC's Rules and Procedures as a Delivery Versus Payment of matured
MMI securities from the account of a presenting participant to the
designated paying agent account for that issue as provided for in
Rule 9(C) and as specified in DTC's procedures.
    \6\ Rule 1 of DTC's Rules and Procedures defines the term ``MMI
Issuing Agent'' generally as a participant acting as an issuing
agent for an issuer with respect to a particular issue of MMI
securities of that issuer and an ``MMI Paying Agent'' generally as a
participant acting as a paying agent for an issuer with respect to a
particular issue of MMI securities of that issuer. Since MMI Issuing
Agents and MMI Paying Agents are often a single entity, this filing
refers to both entities collectively as ``IPAs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MMI issuers and IPAs commonly view the primary source of funding
for payments of MMI maturity presentments as flowing from new issuances
of MMIs in the same program by that MMI issuer on that day. If the MMI
issuer issues more new MMIs than the number of MMIs maturing, there
would be no net funds payment to the IPA on that day. When an issuer
has more maturing MMIs than new issuances, it will have an obligation
to pay to the IPA the net amount of the MMIs maturing that day over the
new issuance. When net maturity presentments exceed issuances on a day,
IPAs at their discretion may provide significant intraday credit to
issuers for the excess. However, the IPA as an agent of an issuer is
not obligated to fund the presentments unless payment is received from
the issuer.
    The business relationships between IPAs and their MMI issuers play
a key role in determining if an IPA will execute a refusal to pay at
DTC with respect to an MMI issuance. Because maturity presentments of
an issuer's MMIs for which the IPA acts are processed automatically and
randomly against the IPA's account, IPAs are permitted to refuse to pay
for all of an issuer's maturities in an MMI program.\7\ An IPA that
refuses payment on an MMI maturity must communicate its intention to
DTC using the DTC Participant Terminal/Browser Service (PTS/PBS) MMRP
function. This communication, referred to as an Issuer Failure/Refusal
to Pay (``RTP''), allows the Paying Agent to enter a refusal to pay
instruction for a particular issuer up to 3 p.m. Eastern Time (``ET'')
on the date of the affected maturity presentment. Such an instruction
causes DTC to reverse all transactions related to any new issuances in
that issuer's program, including the maturity presentments. An IPA RTP
may have a significant market impact on the issuer's reputation and
credit standing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DTC employs a four-character acronym to designate an
issuer's MMI program. An issuer can have multiple acronyms. The IPA
uses the acronym(s) when submitting an instruction of its refusal to
pay for a given issuer's program(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In late 2009, DTC and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA'') formed the MMI Blue-Sky Task Force (``Task
Force'') to address systemic and unique market risks associated with
the MMI process, including those related to DTC's maturity presentment
processing. The Task Force, along other money market industry
members,\8\ determined that DTC's current MMI processing schedule
permits issuance and other transaction activity that can affect an
issuer's net funding amount or proceeds after the 3 p.m. E.T. deadline
for RTP instructions.\9\ Accordingly, DTC is proposing to amend certain
provisions in its Settlement Service Guide in order to provide
increased transparency for IPAs before the 3 p.m. RTP deadline, which
should in turn assist IPAs in making better informed credit decisions
when an issuer has more maturities than issuances.\10\ The proposed
changes to DTC's Settlement Service Guide include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The other MMI related industry members include the
Commercial Paper Issuers Working Group, which is comprised of both
bank and corporate commercial paper issuers, and the Asset Managers
Forum, whose whole membership is buy-side investors.
    \9\ The Task Force's short-term recommendations focused on
addressing the credit risk exposure that IPAs face because of a lack
of transparency around the amount an issuer must fund to cover its
maturities. The recommendations called for funding maturities by 1
p.m. if there is a net debit and for establishing new deadlines of
1:30 p.m. for the submission of all new valued issuance to DTC and
of 2:15 p.m. for receivers of new valued issuance to accept
delivery. By implementing these new deadlines, the IPA should have
sufficient time to calculate its exposure and if a funding shortfall
exists work with the issuer to resolve the deficiency before 3 p.m.,
which is the deadline at DTC for the IPA to fund the maturities or
to issue an RTP. For more information, see DTCC Press Release ``DTCC
and SIFMA Release Task Force Report Identifying Opportunities to
Mitigate Systemic and Credit Risk in Processing of Money Market
Instruments'' (March 31, 2011), which can be found at www.dtcc.com/news/press/releases/2011/dtcc_sifma_task_force_report.php.
    \10\ In addition to the changes described in this filing, DTC is
also making unrelated technical changes to its Settlement Service
Guide in order to conform its rules to current practice and to a
prior rule filing, SR-DTC-2011-01, approved in January 2011.
Securities Exchange Release Act No. 34-63775 (January 26, 2011), 76
FR 5843 (February 2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Making all MMI issuance and deliver order transactions subject
to DTC's Receiver Authorized Delivery (``RAD'') function for approval
regardless of transaction value.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This change will eliminate the ability for a receiver to
``force'' a reclaim upon an IPA close to or after the 3 p.m. RTP
cutoff that would alter the amount of funding an issuer needs to
provide late in the day and would also eliminate matched reclaims
that currently override participant risk management controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Adjusting the MMI valued new issuance cut-off time from 3:20
p.m. E.T. to 2 p.m. E.T.
    3. Creating a new MMI RAD approval of new valued issuance
transactions at 2:45 p.m. E.T. instead of 3:30 p.m. E.T.\12\

    \12\ If a transaction is not approved in RAD by 2:45 p.m. E.T.,
the transaction will drop and will need to be resubmitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DTC is proposing to implement the changes described above on the date
the proposed rule change is approved.

    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to DTC because the earlier cutoffs and the elimination of
MMI matched reclaims should reduce potential late day reversals due to
non-payment instructions from IPAs, which should in turn allow IPAs to
determine before the 3 p.m. RTP deadline if there is a funding
shortfall with respect to an issuer. Additionally, the changes to the
Settlement Service Guide, as proposed, should serve to reinforce
consistent MMI business practices by implementing earlier deadlines for
issuances processing and receiver approvals. DTC expects these proposed
changes to make the processing of MMI issuances and maturities more
efficient. Finally, the proposed rule change is consistent with the
CPSS/IOSCO Recommendations for Securities Settlement Systems applicable
to DTC.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    The proposed rule change was developed in consultation with the
Task Force and other securities industry organizations. Written
comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited
or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by DTC.

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

    Within forty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission
may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer
period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii) as to which the self-regulatory

organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-DTC-2012-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submission should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2012-02. 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 Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and
on DTC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2012/dtc/2012-02.pdf. 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-DTC-2012-02 and should be submitted on or before April 16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7205 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	January 30, 2012

SUBJECT:	Draft Technology Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production
Source Category

FROM:	Mark Bahner and David Green, RTI, International

TO:		Rochelle Boyd, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS

Background

Requirements of Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA

Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to establish technology-based
standards for sources of HAP. These technology-based standards are often
referred to as maximum achievable control technology, or MACT,
standards. Section 112 also contains provisions requiring the EPA to
periodically revisit these standards. Specifically, paragraph 112(d)(6)
states:

(6) REVIEW AND REVISION. – The Administrator shall review, and revise
as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated under this
section no less often than every 8 years.

Description of the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category and
Requirements of the Current NESHAP

The current National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category was
promulgated on March 23, 2000 (65 FR 15690) as 40 CFR part 63, subpart
RRR. The rule was amended at 67 FR 79808, December 30, 2002; 69 FR
53980, September 3, 2004; 70 FR57513, October 3, 2005; and 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005. The NESHAP applies to affected sources of HAP
emissions at secondary aluminum production facilities. A secondary
aluminum production facility is defined as any establishment using clean
charge, aluminum scrap or dross from aluminum production, as the raw
material and performing one or more of the following processes: scrap
shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating, thermal chip drying,
furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding, sweating, refining, fluxing,
or alloying), recovery of aluminum from dross, in-line fluxing or dross
cooling. A secondary aluminum production facility may be independent or
part of a primary aluminum production facility. For purposes of the
NESHAP, aluminum die casting facilities, aluminum foundries and aluminum
extrusion facilities are not considered to be secondary aluminum
production facilities if the only materials they melt are clean charge,
customer returns, or internal scrap, and if they do not operate sweat
furnaces, thermal chip dryers, or scrap dryers/delacquering
kilns/decoating kilns.

There are 161 secondary aluminum production facilities that are subject
to the NESHAP. Emission limits have been promulgated for particulate
matter (PM) as a surrogate for metal HAP, total hydrocarbons (THC) as a
surrogate for organic HAP other than dioxins and furans, dioxins and
furans (D/F) expressed as toxicity equivalents, and hydrogen chloride
(HCl) as a surrogate for HCl, hydrogen fluoride and chlorine. HAP are
emitted from the following affected sources: aluminum scrap shredders
(regulated for PM), thermal chip dryers (regulated for THC and D/F),
scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns (regulated for PM, D/F,
HCl and THC), sweat furnaces (regulated for D/F), dross-only furnaces
(regulated for PM), rotary dross coolers (regulated for PM), group 1
furnaces (regulated for PM, HCl and D/F), and in-line fluxers (regulated
for PM and HCl). Group 2 furnaces and certain in-line fluxers are
regulated by work practices.

Control devices currently in use to reduce emissions from affected
sources subject to the NESHAP include fabric filters for control of PM
from aluminum scrap shredders; afterburners for control of THC and D/F
from thermal chip dryers; afterburners plus lime-injected fabric filters
for control of PM, HCl, THC and D/F from scrap dryers/delacquering
kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for control of D/F from sweat
furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross-only furnaces and
rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric filters for control of PM and
HCl from in-line fluxers; and lime-injected fabric filters for control
of PM, HCl and D/F from group 1 furnaces. All affected sources with
add-on controls are also subject to design requirements and operating
limits to limit fugitive emissions.

Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies

For the purposes of this technology review, a “development” was
considered to be a (n):

add-on control technology that was not identified during the development
of the current NESHAP for the source category;

improvement to an existing add-on control technology that could result
in significant additional HAP emissions reductions;

work practice or operational procedure that was not identified during
development of the current NESHAP for the source category; or

applicable process change or pollution prevention alternative that was
not identified and considered during the development of the current
NESHAP for the source category.

We investigated developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies through a literature review and discussions with industry
representatives, and included questions in a Section 114 information
collection request (ICR) that was sent to all companies thought to be
subject to the NESHAP. The results of these analyses are presented in
the following sections.

Literature review and industry contacts

2.1.1. Multichamber Delacquering Kiln/Melting Furnace

At least one company supplies multichamber furnaces that combine the
functions of a delacquering kiln and a melting furnace. This furnace has
the potential to reduce emissions, because all of the emissions from the
delacquering of used beverage cans and other coated scrap are swept into
another chamber where the delacquered scrap is melted. These emissions
are combusted in the melting chamber, reducing energy requirements;
destroying THC and D/F; and eliminating the need for an afterburner. A
multichamber furnace can therefore be used as a replacement for a
delacquering/decoating kiln (with afterburner) plus a group 1 furnace
handling only clean charge, or the multichamber furnace can be used as a
replacement for group 1 furnace handling other than clean charge.

At least 16 of these furnaces are in operation in Europe, Asia and the
Middle East. One furnace of this type is presently operating in the U.
S. and is permitted as a group 1 furnace handling other than clean
charge.

The emissions test data for the one multichamber furnace operating in
the U.S. indicate that the furnace produces D/F emissions that are
within the range of emissions test data for other group 1 furnaces
handling other than clean charge, and delacquering/decoating kilns.
Thus, the multichamber furnace D/F test data are within the range of
other equipment using control technology considered by the EPA in the
Subpart RRR NESHAP. The multichamber furnace does not produce lower D/F
emissions (in toxic equivalents, or TEQs) than any other group 1 furnace
handling other than clean charge, or than any delacquering/decoating
kiln, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 lists D/F emissions from the one
multichamber furnace, operating at Logan Aluminum. Table 1 also lists
D/F emissions from three group 1 furnaces handling other than clean
(i.e., “dirty”) charge, and three delacquering/decoating kilns. The
other furnaces and delacquering/decoating kilns in Table 1 were selected
because they had low reported D/F emissions, and emission test reports
were available to support those reported emissions. The D/F emissions
from these other sources are lower than for the multichamber furnace.
Therefore, based on available information, we are unable to conclude
that the multichamber furnace technology reduces HAP emissions relative
to technologies that were considered by the EPA in promulgating the
subpart RRR NESHAP and are already used by other facilities in the U.S.

Table 1. Comparison of D/F Emissions from a Multichamber Furnace with
Other Technologies

RTI ID	Facility Name	Equipment ID	Equipment Type	Test Date
Test-Condition	Average D/F in ug/Mg TEQ(1)

351	Logan Aluminum	Multichamber Furnace	Grp1 dirty charge	5/13/2008
1-50%Class I/50% Class III	1.061(2)

351	Logan Aluminum	Multichamber Furnace	Grp1 dirty charge	5/13/2008
1-100% Class I	0.461

351	Logan Aluminum	Multichamber Furnace	Grp1 dirty charge	5/14/2008
2-80% UBC’s/20% Class I	0.496

351	Logan Aluminum	Multichamber Furnace	Grp1 dirty charge	8/12/2008
1-50%Class I/50% Class III	0.26

421	Alcan Rolled Products	DC1M	Grp1 dirty charge	1/29-31/2008	1	0.023

335	Jupiter Aluminum	Furnace 2	Grp1 dirty charge	1/25/2010	1	0.027

RTI ID	Facility Name	Equipment ID	Equipment Type	Test Date
Test-Condition	Average D/F in ug/Mg TEQ(1)

211	Alumax Texarkana	EPN 011A	Grp1 dirty charge	4/20/2009	1	0.103

198	Novelis	P9A	Delacquering Kiln	10/01-02/2008	1	0.000419

198	Novelis	P9B	Delacquering Kiln	9/30-10/1/2008	1	0.000173

415	JL French	P30-1	Delacquering Kiln	6/22/2009	1	0.02

Average of three test runs, except where noted.

Average of two test runs.

2.2.2. Eddy Current Separators

Sweat furnaces are used in the secondary aluminum industry to separate
aluminum from ferrous metals. Certain types of scrap, primarily
automotive, are composed of individual pieces of metal which contain
both aluminum and iron or steel. Automobile parts such as aluminum
engine blocks with cast iron cylinders, aluminum transmission cases with
steel gears and inserts and aluminum suspension components with steel
inserts are examples of sweat furnace feed. These materials, often
containing oil and grease, are separated by melting the aluminum from
the ferrous metals with higher melting points. The molten aluminum is
tapped to form ingots or “sows,” and the ferrous residue is raked
from the furnace. Sweat furnace emissions contain D/F, which results
from the combustion of the organic contaminants in the scrap.

Eddy current separators are used to separate a concentrated aluminum
fraction from a heterogeneous scrap feed. These units operate at ambient
temperature and emit no D/F or other gaseous pollutants. Eddy current
separators are used to separate a concentrated aluminum fraction from a
heterogeneous scrap feed. These units operate at ambient temperature and
emit no D/F or other gaseous pollutants. They are used on the material
output from mechanical shredders that shred automobiles and appliances
(not on the aluminum scrap shredders used in the secondary aluminum
industry). These units can potentially decrease the need for sweat
furnaces. However, the product of eddy current separators is not an
aluminum ingot or sow, as with a sweat furnace. Therefore, the product
of eddy current separators must undergo further processing to produce an
aluminum ingot or sow, and it is not possible to directly compare eddy
current separators with sweat furnaces.

2.1.3 Catalytic Filter Bags

Catalytic filtration systems, including catalytic filter bags, are
available to reduce D/F emissions. These bags incorporate an expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene membrane coated with a precious metal catalyst
which promotes the oxidation of D/F. One manufacturer claims that this
system is installed in over 100 applications around the world, including
at least one secondary aluminum processing plant. To determine the
extent that these bags are in use in the secondary aluminum industry in
the U. S., EPA included a question in an information collection request
(ICR) sent to all identified secondary aluminum production facilities.
The question “Do you use catalytic filters for dioxin control (e.g.,
HYPERLINK
"http://www.donaldson.com/en/industrialair/literature/051754.pdf"
http://www.donaldson.com/en/industrialair/literature/051754.pdf )?”
was answered “no” or “not applicable” by 126 of the 159
facilities that responded to the ICR. The remaining facilities did not
answer this question. Some, or all, of the blank responses and the
“not applicable” responses are attributable to facilities that do
not operate fabric filters. Therefore, the EPA has no information about
any secondary aluminum facility in the U.S. currently using catalytic
filter bags, and no specific secondary aluminum facility in another
country that uses catalytic filter bags has been identified.

Catalytic fabric filter bags are potentially problematic for the
secondary aluminum production industry because they require a minimum
fabric filter inlet temperature of approximately 300 degrees Fahrenheit
to produce the catalytic oxidation of D/F. Many fabric filters at
secondary aluminum production facilities in the U.S. operate below this
temperature, specifically to avoid de novo creation of D/F in the fabric
filter, which occurs at temperatures from approximately 300 to 840
degrees Fahrenheit (150 to 450 degrees Celsius),1 and because large
amounts of ambient air flow into hoods are necessary to meet design
guidelines of the American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH). Therefore, the fact that catalytic filter bags require a
temperature above approximately 300 degrees Fahrenheit conflicts with a
need to remain below 300 degrees Fahrenheit to avoid de novo synthesis
of D/F, and the need to draw in large amounts of ambient air into hoods
to meet ACGIH guidelines.

Therefore, the EPA cannot conclude that fabric filter bags are more
effective at reducing D/F emissions at secondary aluminum production
facilities than the control technologies considered by the EPA in the
2000 Subpart RRR NESHAP. Catalytic filtration systems are not at present
a demonstrated control technology for the Secondary Aluminum Production
source category that should be used as the technical basis to require
more stringent emission limits for the source category.

2.1.4 Work Practices: Good Combustion Practices

D/F emissions in municipal and medical waste combustors are controlled
in part through “good combustion practice (GCP).” For municipal
waste combustors, the major technical objectives of GCP were determined
to be achieved by monitoring and controlling: (a) the flue gas
concentration of CO; (b) steam load (a surrogate for PM carryover) and
(c) temperature at the inlet of the PM control device.1 The first two
parameters are not applicable in the operation of secondary aluminum
furnaces and kilns, since the fuel in secondary aluminum is not waste,
but is instead typically natural gas. [Afterburner operation (for sweat
furnaces, chip dryers and delacquering kilns/decoating kilns/scrap
dryers) is presently subject to inspection for burners and proper
adjustment of combustion air.] The third parameter, temperature at the
inlet of the PM control device, must already be monitored in the
existing NESHAP. Therefore, GCP, as it relates to D/F formation in
secondary aluminum production, is already addressed by the existing
NESHAP, and is not a development in practices, processes, or control
technologies for the Secondary Aluminum source category under section
112(d)(6).

2.1.5 Work Practices: Other Work Practices

The EPA investigated other work practices such as better scrap
inspection and cleaning, and process monitoring. However, no such
practices were identified that were not already identified at the time
of the original NESHAP. For example, the issue of scrap inspection was
investigated extensively in the development of the original NESHAP, and
no sampling or analytical procedures were identified then or in our
present review that can determine whether scrap of unknown origin is
completely free of paints, coatings, or lubricants.

Responses to ICR

In an attempt to identify developments in emission control technologies
in use, an ICR was sent to all identified secondary aluminum production
facilities. The following questions were asked:

Please provide details for any alternative control devices (i.e.,
control devices other than fabric filters, lime-coated fabric filters,
or afterburners), monitoring (including particulate matter or HCl
continuous emissions monitors), or operating conditions at this facility
for equipment regulated under 40 CFR 63, subpart RRR.

Have you injected activated carbon or other type of sorbent for HAP
control (excluding research efforts)? What barriers do you envision to
adding carbon injection to fabric filters for HAP control?

Do you have any plans to install any new higher efficiency rated control
devices or have any pending applications to add on any new controls?

2.2.1  Activated Carbon Injection for D/F Control

Three respondents reported using activated carbon injection for control
of dioxin, and one respondent reported using activated carbon injection
previously on a unit that has since been shut down. Activated carbon is
typically added to control D/F, although in one case it was used with a
thermal chip dryer and may also have helped control THC. This technology
was known at the time of the development of the current standard and was
regarded as a possible control alternative for sources that were unable
to demonstrate compliance using lime-injected fabric filters; it is not
a development under section 112(d)(6). The broader use of activated
carbon for D/F control was evaluated as part of demonstrating an ample
margin of safety for multipathway risks from D/F.2

2.2.2  Ammonia Injection for HCl Control

Four respondents reported adding injecting ammonia into furnace exhaust
gas as a means of HCl control. One of the four respondents plans to
replace the lime currently used to control HCl emissions with ammonia.
The EPA was unable to determine from the ICR responses whether the
remaining respondents reporting the use of this technology are reducing
lime usage as a result of using ammonia, or adding ammonia in addition
to lime currently used; Further we do not have any HCl test data for the
furnaces at these four facilities. The HAP emission reductions achieved
from using this technology alone or in addition to lime injection are
not known. This technology may be suitable technologically for retrofit
to existing fabric filters. The applicability of this technology is
unlikely to be influenced by furnace configuration because the ammonia
is added between the furnace and the fabric filter.  It has the
potential of decreasing the amount of fabric filter dust requiring
disposal, but would likely result in increased air emissions of ammonia
(which is not a HAP, but may contribute to nitrogen deposition). The EPA
does not have sufficient data to determine whether ammonia injection
provides greater control of HCl emissions than lime injection.

CONCLUSIONS: Recommended Revisions Based on Developments in Practices,
Processes, and Control Technologies

This review identified several developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies that have been implemented in this source category
since promulgation of the current NESHAP. However, these technologies
are not in use by a substantial number of secondary aluminum production
facilities in the U. S. One possible reason for this is that facilities
are able to meet the current MACT emission limits without using them.

Specific developments in practices, processes, or control technologies
examined included:

•	Multichamber Delacquering Kiln/Melting Furnace – Only one such
furnace is currently in use in the U.S. D/F emissions from this furnace
are within the range of other group 1 furnaces handling other than clean
charge, and delacquering/decoating kilns. Therefore, we are unable to
conclude that this technology reduces HAP emissions relative to
technologies that were considered by EPA in promulgating the subpart RRR
NESHAP and are already used by other facilities in the U.S.

•	Eddy Current Separators – It is not possible to compare eddy
current separators with secondary aluminum production equipment such as
sweat furnaces. Sweat furnaces produce aluminum ingots or sows, whereas
eddy current separators simply provide a concentrated aluminum fraction
from a heterogeneneous scrap stream. The concentrated aluminum fraction
from an eddy current separator requires further processing to produce an
aluminum ingot or sow.

•	Catalytic Filter Bags – The EPA requested all facilities potential
subject to Subpart RRR to identify whether they used catalytic filter
bags. None used these bags. Further, there is potential problem in that
catalytic filter bags require a mininum temperature of approximately 300
degrees Fahrenheit to destroy D/F, whereas secondary aluminum fabric
filters typically operate at temperatures lower than 300 degrees
Fahrenheit to avoid de novo synthesis of D/F, and because large volumes
of ambient air must be drawn into furnace hoods to promote effective
capture. Therefore, we cannot conclude that fabric filter bags are more
effective in reducing D/F emissions at secondary aluminum facilities
than control technologies considered by the EPA in the 2000 Subpart RRR
NESHAP.

•	Work Practices: Good Combustion Practices (GCP) – GCP as they
relate to reducing emissions from municipal waste combustors and medical
waste incinerators are not generally applicable to secondary aluminum
furnaces, since secondary aluminum furnaces burn natural gas rather than
waste. One GCP parameter that is applicable to the secondary aluminum
industry is to monitor fabric filter inlet temperature; this must
already be monitored in the existing NESHAP. Therefore, GCP, as it
relates to D/F formation in secondary aluminum, is already addressed by
the existing NESHAP.

•	Work Practices: Other Work Practices – In addition to GCP, we
investigated other work practices such as better scrap inspection and
monitoring. No sampling or analytical procedures could be identified
that could determine whether scrap of unknown origin was completely free
of paints, coatings, or lubricants.

•	Activated Carbon Injection – Three facilities reported using
activated carbon injection to control D/F. This technology was
identified at the time of the development of the current NESHAP, and so
is not a new development. An analysis of the greater use of activated
carbon than is currently practiced in the secondary aluminum production
industry was performed as part of demonstrating an ample margin of
safety for multipathway risks from D/F.

•	Ammonia Injection for HCl Control – Four facilities use ammonia
injection for HCl control. However, three use ammonia injection in
combination with lime injection, so it is not possible to separate the
HCl control achieved by lime injection with the HCl control achieved by
ammonia. The fourth facility had not yet switched to full ammonia
injection.  The EPA does not have sufficient data to determine whether
ammonia injection provides greater HCl control than lime injection.

References

Kilgroe, James D., W. Steve Lanier, and T. Rob Van Alten. “Development
of Good Combustion Practice for Municipal Waste Combustors.” Presented
at 1992 National Waste Processing Conference. Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/1992-National-Was
te-Processing-Conference/1992-National-Waste-Processing-Conference-15.pd
f. Accessed January 2012"
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/1992-National-Wast
e-Processing-Conference/1992-National-Waste-Processing-Conference-15.pdf
. Accessed January 2012 .

Bahner, Mark (RTI, International), to Rochelle Boyd (EPA).
“Memorandum: Draft Technical Support Document for the Secondary
Aluminum Source Category.” January 2012. Available in EPA docket for
Secondary Aluminum Production Risk and Technology Review.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36933]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15734]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1976-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 10 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 Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1976-DR), dated May 4, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, 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 Commonwealth of Kentucky 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 May 4, 2011.

    Carroll, Fulton, and Johnson Counties for Individual Assistance
(already designated for Public Assistance, including direct Federal
assistance).
    Carlisle County for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance
(already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B],
limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).
    Breathitt County for Public Assistance, including direct Federal
assistance.

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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-15734 Filed 6-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 72694-72695]
[DOCID:fr21de07-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12871-000]

Hydro Green Energy, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

December 14, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12871-000.
    c. Date Filed: July 25, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Hydro Green Energy, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: ``Alaska 33'' Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in a section of the
Ublutuoch River in the North Slope Borough, Alaska. The project uses no
dam or impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Wayne F. Krouse, Hydro Green Energy,
LLC, 5090 Richmond Avenue 390, Houston, TX 77056, and Mr.
James H. Hancock Jr., Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North,
Birmingham, Alabama 35203.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12871-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of: (1) 5
arrays, each consisting of ten, 100 kilowatt hydrokinetic turbine
units, for a total installed capacity of 5 megawatts, (2) a proposed
transmission line no greater than 1750 feet from the ``node'' array to
the shore, (3) a mooring system which does not require the use of
pilings to permanently attach the units to the bedrock but instead uses
tethers and Danforth type anchors, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
project would have an average annual generation of 32.873 gigawatt-
hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'',''COMPETING APPLICATION'' OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24757 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P