[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 76109]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31023]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

IAS Energy, Inc., IB3 Networks, Inc., IBroadband, Inc., ICP Solar
Technologies, Inc., IdentiPHI, Inc., iDNA, Inc., Immune Network Ltd.,
Inca Designs, Inc., Indico Technologies, Inc. (n/k/a Indico Resources
Ltd.), Infopage, Inc. (a/k/a Tamija Gold & Diamond Exploration, Inc.),
Innofone.com, Inc. (n/k/a Goldstar Global Minerals Corp.), Instachem
Systems, Inc. (n/k/a CH Lighting International Corp.), Interlink-US-
Network, Ltd., and International Aerospace Enterprises, Inc.,; Order of
Suspension of Trading

December 20, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
IAS Energy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended January 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
IB3 Networks, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
IBroadband, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
ICP Solar Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended October 31, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
IdentiPHI, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
iDNA, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended October 31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Immune Network Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended December 31, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Inca Designs, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Indico Technologies, Inc. (n/k/a Indico Resources Ltd.) because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended November 30,
1999.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Infopage, Inc. (a/k/a Tamija Gold & Diamond Exploration, Inc.) because
it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September
30, 1993.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Innofone.com, Inc. (n/k/a Goldstar Global Minerals Corp.) because it
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31,
2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Instachem Systems, Inc. (n/k/a CH Lighting International Corp.) because
it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31,
2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Interlink-US-Network, Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
International Aerospace Enterprises, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2010.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on December 20, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EST on January 4, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31023 Filed 12-20-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 53964-53965]
[DOCID:fr02se10-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-8-004]

Washington Gas Light Company; Notice of Filing

August 27, 2010.
    Take notice that on August 24, 2010, Washington Gas Light Company
(Washington Gas) filed to revise the Statement of Interstate Service
Rates of its Firm Interstate Transportation Service Operating Statement
to reflect the current lost and unaccounted for retention rate approved
by Delegated Letter Order issued on January 7, 2010, in Docket No.
PR09-8-003.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest

date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other
than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, September 8, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21971 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


accomplished through state interpretation of the ``subject to
regulation'' prong of the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.''
    There are other advantages to a state that adopts EPA's definition
of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' Doing so would resolve any issues about
whether the state has authority to issue permits for sources of
pollutants that EPA may subject to regulation for the first time in the
future. In addition, the SIP would apply PSD to sources emitting
PM2.5.\26\ Finally, state adoption of EPA's definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' would allow the SIP to mirror EPA
regulations and the SIPs of most states, which would promote
consistency and ease of administration. EPA's reasons for recommending
that states follow the ``regulated NSR pollutant'' approach are
explained in more detail in the proposal for this action (see 75 FR at
53903).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Following a 1997 review of our NAAQS for particulate
matter, we promulgated NAAQS for fine particles (PM2.5).
We then designated all areas of the country as ``attainment,''
``nonattainment,'' or unclassifiable for the PM2.5
standards, which became effective in April 2005. Pursuant to the
CAA, states are obliged to revise their PSD regulations to include
the new PM2.5 standards. However, some SIP PSD programs
do not apply to PM2.5-emitting sources. To effect a
smooth transition, EPA allowed states to use PM10 as a
surrogate for PM2.5. EPA is not at present issuing a
finding of substantial inadequacy under CAA section 110(k)(5) for
such PSD programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to the ``regulated NSR pollutant'' approach just
described, the state may retain its approach of applying PSD to sources
of individually listed pollutants but submit a SIP revision that
includes GHGs on that list of pollutants. If the state takes this
approach, it must either incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds or
demonstrate adequate resources to administer lower thresholds. If a
state chooses this approach, we will approve the SIP revision on the
basis that the revision is SIP-strengthening, as we stated in the
proposal (see 75 FR at 53902).
    One state commenter (Connecticut) stated its understanding that ``a
SIP-

strengthening approval is a form of limited approval that EPA uses for
SIP submissions that meet only some of EPA's requirements, but for
which there is no portion that may be separated out and fully approved
or fully disapproved.''
    The commenter believes its previously SIP-approved PSD program
should be fully approvable, once the state revises its regulations to
include GHGs in the list of pollutants subject to its PSD program, to
add applicability thresholds for GHGs, and to add GHGs to the
pollutants for which a BACT review is required. This state commenter
points out what it sees as a contradiction if EPA approves such a SIP
revision as merely a SIP-strengthening one. The contradiction is that
in our proposal, according to the commenter, EPA ``specifically notes
that it is limiting the SIP Call to the failure to apply PSD to GHG-
emitting sources, as distinguished from finding that a SIP is
substantially inadequate.'' The state commenter (Connecticut) strongly
encourages EPA to ``reconsider this distinction in approving state PSD
programs and to fully approve any state program that addresses GHGs as
set out in the Tailoring Rule, regardless of the format the state uses
to revise its SIP.''
    We appreciate this comment and welcome the opportunity to clarify
what we mean by a ``SIP-strengthening'' approval in this case. This
type of approval constitutes a full approval of the SIP revision
because it meets the requirements of the SIP call to submit a
corrective SIP revision that applies PSD to GHG-emitting sources. In
this case, there is no limited or partial approval. However, because
this SIP revision otherwise leaves the PSD applicability provision as
it stands and does not revise that provision to automatically update to
cover any pollutant newly subject to regulation, we term our approval
SIP-strengthening.
    Although we recommend that the states adopt the ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' approach, we do not require it because that approach is not
necessary to correct the substantial inadequacy--which is the failure
of the PSD SIP to cover GHG sources--for which we are issuing the SIP
call. Rather, that substantial inadequacy may be corrected more
narrowly by listing GHGs. We note that CAA section 110(k)(5) provides
that ``[w]henever the Administrator finds'' that a SIP is substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements, the Administrator shall require a
SIP revision. This provision, by its terms--specifically, the use of
the term ``[w]henever''--authorizes, but does not require, EPA to make
the specified finding and does not impose any time constraints. As a
result, EPA has discretion in determining whether and when to make the
specified finding. See New York Public Interest Research Group v.
Whitman, 321 F.3d 316, 330-31 (2d Cir. 2003) (opening phrase ``Whenever
the Administrator makes a determination'' in CAA section 502(i)(1)
grants EPA ``discretion whether to make a determination''); Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of Ontario v. EPA, 912 F.2d 1525, 1533 (DC Cir.
1990) (``whenever'' in CAA section 115(a) ``impl[ied] a degree of
discretion'' in whether EPA had to make a finding). Accordingly, in
this case, EPA is authorized to decide whether to issue the finding of
substantial inadequacy on the basis of the SIP's lack of automatic
updating or the narrower basis of the SIP's failure to apply PSD to
GHGs. EPA chose the narrower basis because it addresses the immediate
problem and because even states that do not adopt the automatic
updating approach may nevertheless promptly take action to apply PSD to
new pollutants and thereby avoid the problem of gaps in permitting
authority. We caution, however, that in this case, if the state adopts
the narrower approach of applying PSD to GHGs instead of the broader
approach of applying PSD to ``regulated NSR pollutants'' so that the
SIP will be automatically updating, then the SIP will not include the
term ``subject to regulation'' and therefore may not include any
vehicle or ``hook'' for the state to adopt by interpretation the
current and any future steps of the phase-in approach. As a result, the
state may have to adopt and submit for EPA approval additional SIP
revisions to incorporate the current and future steps of the phase-in
approach.
    For those states whose PSD applicability provisions apply PSD to
regulated NSR pollutants, but whose SIPs or other state law limit that
applicability to pollutants subject to regulation at or about the time
the SIP provision was adopted by the state, the corrective SIP revision
may accomplish the correction in one of several different ways. At a
minimum, the state must revise its PSD applicability provision or other
state law in such a manner that PSD applies to GHGs and either
incorporates the Tailoring Rule thresholds or demonstrates adequate
resources to administer lower thresholds. In addition, for many of the
same reasons as discussed earlier in this preamble, we recommend--but
do not require--that the state revise its PSD applicability provisions
or other state law in such a manner that they (i) incorporate any
future refinements to the Tailoring Rule thresholds that EPA may
promulgate through its phase-in approach and (ii) will apply to any
other pollutant that EPA newly subjects to regulation.
2. Definition and Calculation of Amount of GHGs
    In its corrective SIP revision to apply PSD to GHGs, the state must
define GHGs as a single pollutant that is the aggregate of the group of
six gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs,
and SF6. As EPA stated in the Tailoring Rule, ``[t]he final
LDVR for GHGs specifies, in the rule's applicability provisions, the
air pollutant subject to control as the aggregate group of the six GHGs
* * *. Because it is this pollutant that is regulated under the LDVR,
it is this pollutant to which PSD * * * appli[es].'' 75 FR at 31528.
    We proposed to require that the state define GHGs as just
described, but we solicited comment on whether the state may adopt a
different definition that is at least as stringent, and, if so, what
such a definition might be. We cautioned that a definition that
includes more gases than the six identified earlier in this preamble
could prove to be less stringent in certain ways because such a
definition could allow greater opportunities for a source of different
gases to net out of PSD.
    One industry commenter stated that no state should be permitted to
unilaterally adopt a definition of GHG that includes more gases than
set forth in the Tailoring Rule. EPA did not receive any comments on
the proposed rulemaking in support of a different definition.
Accordingly, EPA is finalizing this requirement as proposed.
3. Thresholds
    A state, in revising its SIP to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources,
may adopt the Tailoring Rule phase-in approach into its SIP and thereby
exclude sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. Alternatively, the
state may adopt lower thresholds, but if it does so, it must show that
it has ``adequate personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out,'' that
is, administer and implement, the PSD program with those lower
thresholds, in accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
    In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted a CO2e metric and use
of short tons (as opposed to metric tons) for calculating GHG emissions
in order to implement the higher thresholds. 75 FR 31530, 31532. If
states wish to adopt the Tailoring Rule thresholds, they are not
obligated to adopt the CO2e metric or use of short tons;
however, the state

must assure that its approach is at least as stringent as under the
Tailoring Rule, so that the state does not exclude more sources than
under the Tailoring Rule. In addition, as noted earlier in this
preamble, a state retains the authority to adopt lower thresholds than
in the Tailoring Rule, but if it does, it must demonstrate that it has
adequate resources.

D. Response to Procedural and Other Comments

1. Approved SIP PSD Programs That Apply to GHG Sources
    Commenters state that, ``[b]ased on its proposed rules, EPA has not
fully considered the effect of its recent rulemakings on states and
other jurisdictions that have indicated the 100 tpy CO2e and
250 tpy CO2e thresholds apply to determine if GHGs trigger
PSD under their SIP rules.'' The commenters emphasize that ``more than
a dozen agencies implementing CAA permitting requirements will need to
revise their regulations to incorporate EPA's tailored thresholds for
GHGs and may be unable to do so before the Tailoring Rule's January 2,
2011, effective date. After that, these agencies could each be
potentially overwhelmed by permit applications from many newly-covered
emissions sources, essentially halting construction within the
agencies' jurisdictions.'' The commenters observe that ``[t]he Proposed
SIP Call and Proposed FIP fail to discuss the economic consequences of
this problem of the lower thresholds or to acknowledge that EPA has
created this situation in the first instance.'' The commenters state
that ``EPA should be focused on addressing this problem rather than the
comparatively minor issue of whether a state that will not face this
onslaught can include GHG emission limits in a few permits each year.''
The commenters add that states face difficult implementation issues as
they incorporate the elements of the Tailoring Rule into their SIPs.
    These comments have no legal relevance to the SIP call because the
states that are the focus of these commenters are not subject to the
SIP call. We wish to note, however, that in fact, EPA is addressing
expeditiously and comprehensively precisely the problems identified by
the commenters. When EPA proposed the Tailoring Rule, EPA recognized
and discussed at length these problems, that is, the fact that absent
further action, in states with approved PSD programs that apply to GHG-
emitting sources, those sources at the 100/250-tpy thresholds would be
required to obtain preconstruction permits. We identified the problems
that would result. We proposed to address the federal law element of
this problem by narrowing our approval of those SIP PSD programs to
only the part of them that applied to GHG-emitting sources at or above
the Tailoring Rule thresholds. 74 FR at 55340-44.
    Moreover, in the final Tailoring Rule, we remained mindful of this
problem. We noted that, on the basis of teleconferences with states, we
had decided to fashion the regulatory changes to implement the
Tailoring Rule in a manner that would expedite state adoption of the
Tailoring Rule thresholds. 75 FR at 31580-81. In addition, we asked
states to tell us in letters to be submitted within 60 days after the
Tailoring Rule how they planned to implement GHG permitting
requirements and the Tailoring Rule, and we decided to delay final
action on our proposal to narrow previous SIP approvals until we heard
from the states. 75 FR at 31582. Having received and reviewed the
states' responses, we intend to finalize the proposal in the Tailoring
Rule to narrow EPA approval by January 2, 2011. That rule will assure
that sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds will not be subject to
a Federal law requirement to obtain PSD permits due to their GHG
emissions.
    Finally, we have worked closely with the states on this issue. We
have encouraged them to interpret, when possible, their PSD
applicability provisions to include the Tailoring Rule thresholds, so
that no further action on their part is necessary, and a significant
number of states are able to do so. In addition, we have encouraged the
states that need to revise their laws to incorporate the Tailoring Rule
thresholds to do so as quickly as possible, so that as of January 2,
2011, or as soon as possible thereafter, sources below the Tailoring
Rule thresholds will not be subject to a state law requirement to
obtain PSD permits due to their GHG emissions. A large number of states
have indicated that they will be able to take that step by January 2,
2011, on at least an emergency basis. Accordingly, we are in fact
addressing quickly and comprehensively the problems presented by the
fact that, absent further action, sources of GHGs below the Tailoring
Rule thresholds may trigger PSD requirements as of January 2, 2011.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Commenters add that a similar problem arises under title V,
that is, that in a number of states, absent further action, large
numbers of small sources will become subject to title V for the
first time on account of their GHG emissions. The commenters
conclude, ``[t]his further shows why it is both puzzling and
troubling that EPA would consider a state's inability to issue a few
permits with GHG limits in the first 6 months of 2011 a `substantial
inadequacy.' '' EPA is also moving to address the title V issue
commenters raise. EPA does not agree that deciding whether failure
of the affected states' SIPs to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources
constitutes a substantial inadequacy depends on the relative
importance of the problem represented by that failure compared with
the importance of the problem represented by the need for states to
incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds into their title V
programs (which in any event are generally not SIP-related). For
reasons discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the failure of the
SIPs to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources constitutes a substantial
inadequacy to meet a CAA requirement under CAA section 110(k)(5),
regardless of how it may stack up against other problems that EPA
and the states may face in implementation of the CAA. Moreover, for
the reasons noted here, the commenters' assertion that the scope of
the problem represented by the affected states' failure to apply PSD
to GHG-emitting sources is limited to ``a few permits with GHG
limits in the first 6 months of 2011'' underestimates the number of
permits involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Opportunity for Notice and Comment
    Some industry commenters objected that because EPA provided
``lengthy requests'' for information to states for which it proposed
the SIP call, and stated that it would use this information to
determine which states should receive a SIP call, commenters would not
have an opportunity to comment on that information, even though EPA
would be relying on it for the basis of its final action. Commenters
stated, ``EPA is using the proposed rule to create the analysis to
eventually support its SIP call,'' which is ``inconsistent with both
Section 307(d) procedures and the Administrative Procedure Act.''
    We disagree with the commenters. In the proposed rulemaking, EPA
proposed to find that, as a legal matter, the PSD applicability
provisions in the SIPs for 13 states did not apply to GHG-emitting
sources, and EPA provided citations to, and discussion of, each
affected state's SIP or other relevant state law provision, as well as
the views of each state on the issue. This was adequate notice to give
commenters the opportunity to comment. EPA solicited as much
information as possible about each state's laws so that the final
action would be fully in accordance with state law, and it is certainly
conceivable that EPA might receive information that would form part of
the basis of its final action. Indeed, that is the very purpose of
notice-and-comment rulemaking. Even so, it is well established that the
mere fact that EPA solicited comment and could receive some information
that would form part of the basis of the final action does not mandate
another round of notice-and-comment; otherwise, agencies would find
themselves caught up in continual do-loops of notice-and-comment, with
each comment period

yielding information that, as commenters would have it, would
necessitate yet another comment period.
    Commenters state that ``[r]emarkably, EPA states that it will also
directly promulgate a SIP call and FIP for any states it has
inadvertently omitted from its notice of proposed rulemaking.''
Although the commenters do not elaborate upon this statement, they seem
to imply that for EPA to finalize a finding of substantial inadequacy
and a SIP call for such states would be improper because we did not
provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment.
    We disagree with the commenters. In the proposal, EPA listed in the
``presumptive adequacy list'' the states with approved SIP PSD programs
for which EPA was not proposing a finding of substantial inadequacy and
a SIP call, and we included citations to the relevant SIP provisions,
but we went on to specifically solicit comment on whether each of those
states merited a finding and SIP call. Moreover, EPA generally
described the circumstances under which those states may merit a
finding and SIP call. As a result, commenters had adequate notice that
EPA could ultimately finalize a finding and SIP call for those states,
and they could have commented if they had relevant views or
information. As it turns out, we are finalizing a SIP call for only one
state, Wyoming, for which we solicited comment. In response to our
proposal's presumption of the adequacy of the Wyoming SIP with respect
to applying PSD requirements to GHG sources, we received comments from
the state's Governor, from the state's Department of Environmental
Quality, and from industry and environmental commenters. Our proposal
clearly provided adequate notice to these stakeholders so they could
provide comment.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In addition, commenters are mistaken in assuming that the
reason why we did not propose to issue the SIP call for Wyoming was
an ``inadvertent[]'' omission. We proposed or solicited comment
based on the information available at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Federal Implementation Plan
    Some comments address the timing and other aspects of the FIP.
Those comments are not relevant to this rule; therefore, EPA will not
discuss them here but will discuss them in the final FIP rulemaking.

V. SIP Submittals

A. EPA Action: Findings of Failure To Submit and Promulgation of FIPs;
Process for Action on Submitted SIPs

1. Actions on SIP Submittals
    For any of the 13 states subject to this action, if the state
submits the required SIP revision by its submittal deadline, then EPA
will not issue a finding of failure to submit or promulgate a FIP.
Instead, EPA will take action on the SIP submittal as quickly as
possible.
    Because PSD applicability for certain GHG sources begins January 2,
2011, even states with proposed SIP revisions will not be able to issue
federally approved PSD permits for construction or modification to
affected sources until those revisions are approved. The affected
source would be able to receive a state-issued permit, but the lack of
a federally approved permit means that the source would not be in
accordance with federal requirements concerning its GHG emissions if it
constructed or modified. In light of this potential for burden on the
affected sources, we intend to act on any SIP submittals that we
receive as promptly as possible.
    One key opportunity to expedite approval is that we will parallel-
process the SIP submittal upon request of the state. Under this
approach, the state sends us the draft of the SIP revision on which it
plans to seek public comment at the state level, in accordance with CAA
section 110(a)(2), and the state publishes its proposed approval of
that draft SIP revision. While the state is taking public comment on
its proposed SIP revision, we will initiate a separate public
proceeding on our proposed approval of the SIP revision at the federal
level. If, subsequently, the SIP revision that the state adopts and
submits to EPA is substantially similar to the draft on which EPA
solicited comment, then EPA will proceed to take final action on the
SIP submittal and will not re-notice it for public comment. EPA has
successfully employed the parallel-processing approach in past
rulemakings, and we believe that employing it in this process could
significantly shorten the time EPA needs to act on the SIP revision.
Several states have already submitted drafts of their GHG-related SIP
revisions for parallel processing and EPA has already proposed to
approve those SIP revisions. These states include Alabama, Kentucky,
Tennessee, North Carolina, and Mississippi.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Some commenters objected to, and others supported, parallel
processing. We discuss those comments in the Supplemental
Information Document, although we note that those comments are not
relevant to any legal issues in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Findings of Failure To Submit and Promulgation of FIPs
    If the state does not meet its SIP submittal deadline, we intend to
immediately issue a finding of failure to submit a required SIP
submission under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) and intend to immediately
thereafter issue a FIP. This timing for FIP promulgation is authorized
under CAA section 110(c)(1), which authorizes us to promulgate a FIP
``at any time within 2 years after'' finding a failure to submit a
required SIP submission.
3. Rescission of the FIP
    After we have promulgated a FIP, it must remain in place until the
state submits a SIP revision and we approve that SIP revision. CAA
section 110(c)(1). Under the present circumstances, we will act on a
SIP revision to apply the PSD program to GHG sources as quickly as
possible and, upon request of the state, will parallel-process the SIP
submittal in the manner described earlier in this preamble. If we
approve such a SIP revision, we will, at the same time, rescind the
FIP. We discussed this approach in our proposed FIP rulemaking.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Proposed rule, ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue
Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan.''
75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010). The notice can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking, at Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107-
0045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Streamlining the State Process for SIP Development and Submittal

    In the proposal, we recognized that the deadline we are giving
states to submit their SIP revisions is expeditious, and we stated that
we were prepared to work with the states to develop methods to
streamline the state administrative process, although we recognized
that the states remain fully in charge of their own state processes. We
solicited recommendations during the comment period for ways that the
states and we may streamline the state process for adopting and
submitting these SIPs and to streamline or simplify what is required
for the SIP submittal.
    In the proposal, we noted as an example of possible streamlining
the process as it concerns public hearing requirements. Many states
require that the underlying state regulation that the state intends to
develop into the SIP submittal undergo a public hearing. In addition,
the CAA requires that the state provide a public hearing on the
proposed SIP submittal, under CAA section 110(a)(2). In the proposal,
EPA

solicited public comment on whether it may, consistent with the CAA,
accept the public hearing that the state holds on the underlying
regulation as meeting the requirement for the hearing on the SIP
submittal, as long as the state provides adequate public notice of the
hearing. If so, EPA will not require a separate SIP hearing.
    Two state commenters (Arkansas and Connecticut) favor this
approach. One commenter (Connecticut) notes that because of the
similarity in the required minimum public participation procedures, it
has used this approach in the past and understands that it will
significantly shorten the length of both its regulatory and SIP
processing. The state commenter added that, in cases where it adopted a
similar public hearing streamlining process as being proposed by EPA,
it has been careful to provide adequate published notice concerning
both the SIP revision and state regulatory adoption aspects of its
public hearings and has thus avoided unnecessary time and expenses
incurred in published notices, waiting for comments, and holding public
hearings.
    We appreciate the commenters' observations. A state meets its CAA
requirements as long as it holds a hearing on the SIP revision and
gives adequate notice of that hearing. EPA believes that, under the
CAA, the state has discretion to combine any other hearing required at
the state level--including a hearing on the state law provision--with
the hearing on the SIP revision and, again, as long as the state
provides adequate notice of that hearing, the state will meet CAA
requirements in this regard. Because of the self-evident efficiencies
in combining those types of hearings, we continue to encourage states
to consider this approach.

C. Primacy of the SIP Process

    We reiterate, as we stated in the proposal, that this action is
secondary to our overarching goal, which is to assure that in every
instance, it will be the state that will be the permitting authority.
EPA continues to recognize that the states are best suited to the task
of permitting because the states and their sources have experience
working together in the state PSD program to process permit
applications. EPA seeks to remain solely in its primary role of
providing guidance and acting as a resource for the states as they make
the various required permitting decisions for GHG emissions.
    Accordingly, we have continued to work closely with the states to
help them promptly develop and submit to us their corrective SIP
revisions that extend their PSD program to GHG-emitting sources. Some
of the states have submitted drafts of their SIP revisions for parallel
processing, and some have submitted their adopted SIP revisions for
approval. We will act promptly on their SIP submittals and we have
already proposed to approve some of the SIP submittals. Again, EPA's
goal is to have each and every affected state have in place the
necessary permitting authorities by the time businesses seeking
construction permits need to have their applications processed and the
permits issued--and to achieve that outcome by means of engaging with
the states directly through a concerted process of consultation and
support.
    EPA is taking up the additional task of issuing this SIP call and
preparing to finalize, as necessary, the FIP action only because the
Agency believes it is compelled to do so by the need to assure
businesses, to the maximum extent possible and as promptly as possible,
that a permitting authority is available to process PSD permit
applications for GHG-emitting sources once they become subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011.
    In order to provide that assurance, we are obligated to recognize,
as both states and the regulated community already do, that there may
be circumstances in which states are simply unable to develop and
submit those SIP revisions by January 2, 2011, or for some period of
time beyond that date. As a result, absent further action by EPA, those
states' affected sources confront the risk that they may have to put on
hold their plans to construct or modify, a risk that may have adverse
consequences for the economy.
    Given these exigent circumstances, EPA is proceeding with this
plan, within the limits of our power, with the intent to make a back-up
permitting authority available--and to send a signal of assurance
expeditiously in order to reduce uncertainty and thus facilitate
businesses' planning. Within the design of the CAA, it is EPA that must
fill that role of back-up permitting authority. This SIP call action
and the associated FIP action fulfill the CAA requirements to establish
EPA in that role.
    At the same time, we take these actions with the intent that states
retain as much discretion as possible. In this rulemaking, we have
authorized states to choose the deadline they consider reasonable for
submission of their corrective SIP revision. If, under CAA
requirements, we are compelled to promulgate a FIP, we invite the
affected state to accept a delegation of authority to implement that
FIP, so that it will still be the state that processes the permit
applications, although operating under federal law. In addition, if we
are compelled to issue a FIP, we intend to continue to work closely
with the state to assist it in developing and submitting for approval
its corrective SIP revision, so as to minimize the amount of time that
the FIP must remain in place.
    It is clear from the responses states made to our request in the
proposal to advise us concerning the appropriate deadline for SIP
submittal, and also from states' comments on the proposal, that
officials in many states recognize the need for our SIP call and FIP
actions, that is, that a short-term FIP may be necessary in their
states to establish permitting authority to construct and modify in
accordance with environmental safeguards for these sources. In
addition, some states (Kansas; Arizona's Pinal County) have already
indicated in their responses that they will accept delegation of the
permitting responsibilities.

D. Effective Date

    This rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal
Register. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that rules may not take effect
earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.
However, APA section 553(d)(3) provides an exception when the agency
finds good cause exists for a rule to take effect in less than 30 days.
    We find good cause exists here to make this rule effective upon
publication because implementing a 30-day delayed effective date would
interfere with the Agency's ability to ensure that, as of January 2,
2011, there is a permitting authority authorized to issue certain major
stationary sources in the affected states the required PSD permits for
GHG emissions. A 30-day delay in the effective date of this rule will
impede implementation of this rule and create regulatory confusion.
This rule establishes, for each affected state, a date by which the
state must submit a corrective SIP revision; after that date, EPA may
issue a FIP. This rule sets that deadline for some states as December
22, 2010, and this rule states that if a state does not meet that
deadline, EPA will issue a finding of failure to submit a required SIP
revision and issue a FIP on December 23, 2010. This will allow the FIP
to be published and become effective by the January 2, 2011, date that
PSD will first apply to GHG-emitting sources under the CAA. It is
unclear whether EPA could impose these deadlines if this rule had a 30-
day effective date, resulting in confusion

about when the deadlines would take effect. Plus, if EPA could not
impose those deadlines, for whatever reason, then, as of January 2,
2011, certain major stationary sources in the affected states would be
required to obtain PSD permits for GHG emissions that no permitting
authority would be authorized to issue. Thus it would be impractical to
wait 30 days to provide a regulatory mechanism to avoid the confusion
that could result if this rule is not effective upon publication.
Moreover, EPA finds that it is necessary to make this rule effective
upon publication to avoid any economic harm that the public and the
regulated industry might incur if there is no permitting authority able
to issue PSD permits for GHG emissions on January 2, 2011.
    The purpose of the APA's 30-day effective date provision is to give
affected parties time to adjust their behavior before the final rule
takes effect. The states for which the rule sets short deadlines have
each indicated in comment letters to EPA that they do not object to
those deadlines; states with longer deadlines will, in fact, have more
than 30 days to react to this rule. Both the states and the public have
been aware of this impending final rule for some time, as it was made
available to the public on August 12, 2010, even before its September
2, 2010, publication date in the Federal Register, and the public was
afforded the opportunity to comment on the proposal. 75 FR 53892. The
public has also been aware of the timeline for this action, since the
proposed rule stated that the rule would be finalized on December 1,
2010, and that it may set dates for state action as early as December
22, 2010. See 75 FR 53892, 53896.
    In addition, this rule is not a major rule under the Congressional
Review Act (CRA). Thus, the 60-day delay in effective date required for
major rules under the CRA does not apply.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
However, OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations for PSD (see, e.g.,
40 CFR 52.21) and title V (see 40 CFR parts 70 and 71) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003 and OMB control number 2060-
0336 respectively. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards (see 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will affect states and will not, in and of itself, directly affect
sources. In addition, although this rule could lead to federal
permitting requirements for certain sources, those sources are large
emitters of GHGs and tend to be large sources. This final rule will not
impose any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The action may impose a duty on certain state, local or tribal
governments to meet their existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal,
but with lesser expenditures. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA refers to the
definition of a small governmental jurisdiction that the Regulatory
Flexibility Act uses, which is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000. Thus, this rule only applies to large state and local
permitting programs and not to small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely prescribes EPA's
action for states that do not meet their existing obligation for PSD
SIP submittal. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposal for
this action from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In this action,
EPA is not addressing any tribal implementation plans. This action is
limited to states that do not meet their existing obligation for PSD
SIP submittal. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule,
EPA specifically solicited additional comment on the proposal for this
action from tribal officials and we received one comment from a tribal
agency. Additionally, EPA participated in a conference call on July 29,
2010, with the National Tribal Air Association (NTAA).

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it merely prescribes EPA's action for states that do not
meet their existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.

H. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action merely prescribes EPA's
action for states that do not meet their existing obligation for PSD
SIP submittal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule merely prescribes EPA's action for states that
do not meet their existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action does not constitute a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this action will be effective December
13, 2010.

VII. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final
action is available by filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 11,
2011. Any such judicial review is limited to only those objections that
are raised with reasonable specificity in timely comments. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements of this final action may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us
to enforce these requirements.

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,
7411, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents,
Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases,
Hydrofluorocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Methane, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrous oxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Perfluorocarbons, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur hexafluoride, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: December 1, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-30854 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11067-11068]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04133]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0084; FRL-9617-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Mercury (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Mercury (EPA ICR
Number 0113.14, OMB Control Number 2060-0097), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through April 30, 2022. Public comments
were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on April 13, 2021,
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 30,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0084, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Mercury (40 CFR part 61, subpart E) regulations apply to
existing facilities and new facilities which process mercury ore to
recover mercury, use mercury chlor-alkali cells to produce chlorine gas
and alkali metal hydroxide, and incinerate or dry wastewater treatment
plant sludge. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial
notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to
NESHAP.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of facilities
which process mercury ore to recover mercury, use mercury chlor-alkali
cells to produce chlorine gas and alkali metal hydroxide, and
incinerate and/or dry wastewater treatment plant sludge.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subpart E).
    Estimated number of respondents: 101 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 17,200 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,030,000 (per year), which includes $0 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This decrease is not due to any program changes. The
adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently-approved ICR is
due to a decrease in the number of sources. Consultations with the
Agency's internal industry experts have shown that a number of cell
chlor-alkali plants have shut down since the previous ICR renewal,
leading to a decrease in respondent labor hours and the number of
responses. There are no capital or operation and maintenance costs
associated with this ICR. The overall result is a decrease in burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-04133 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 14286]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04950]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-598, OMB Control No. 3235-0655]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Regulation 14N and Schedule 14N.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Schedule 14N (17 CFR 240.14n-101) requires the filing of certain
information with the Commission by shareholders who submit a nominee or
nominees for director pursuant to applicable state law, or a company's
governing documents. Schedule 14N provides notice to the company of the
shareholder's intent to have the company include the shareholder's or
shareholder groups' nominee or nominees for director in the company's
proxy materials. This information is intended to assist shareholders in
making an informed voting decision with regards to any nominee or
nominees put forth by a nominating shareholder or group, by allowing
shareholders to gauge the nominating shareholder's interest in the
company, longevity of ownership, and intent with regard to continued
ownership in the company. We estimate that Schedule 14N takes
approximately 40 hours per response and will be filed by approximately
42 issuers annually. In addition, we estimate that 75% of the 40 hours
per response (30 hours per response) is prepared by the issuer for an
annual reporting burden of 1,260 hours (30 hours per response x 42
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send and an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 6, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04950 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Call from Tonya Aggston, Lake City Army Ammunition Plant

To:  Margaret Sheppard, SPD

10/17/05

Ms. Aggston called, following up on a conversation I had with Dr. Shiela
Harper of ATK Thiokol about nPB in coatings.  She wanted to know if they
should expect any major change, such as a rule, in the near future.  I
clarified that we would put out a proposed rule.  It would specifically
address Lake City’s application for nPB in coatings.  I said that I
thought they had a good application where they were keeping emissions
down, and there should be no problems.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26845-26846]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1061; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-06]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Williston, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revokes Class E airspace at Sloulin Field
International Airport, Williston, ND, due to the airport's closure.
This action also amends Class E airspace at Williston Basin
International Airport, Williston, ND. The action establishes Class E
airspace designated as a surface area. Additionally, this action amends
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by
adding two extensions, one to the southeast and one to the north of the
airport. Further, this action adds a Class E airspace area extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. Lastly, this action
implements an administrative correction to the Class E5 airspace legal
description's text header by updating the airport's geographic
coordinate to match the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, July 16, 2020. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov//air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you
can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it revokes the Class E airspace at Sloulin Field International
Airport and amends the Class E airspace at Williston Basin
International Airport, Williston, ND, to ensure the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 12449; March 3, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2019-1061 to
revoke airspace at Sloulin Field International Airport and amend Class
E airspace at Williston Basin International Airport, Williston, ND.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One
comment was received.
    The comment was not germane to the proposed airspace action for the
airports.
    Class E2 and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs
6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8,
2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 revokes the Class E airspace at Sloulin Field International
Airport at Williston ND, due to the airport's closure.
    This action also amends Class E airspace at Williston Basin
International Airport, Williston, ND. The action establishes Class E
airspace, designated at a surface area. This area is designed to
provide controlled airspace for terminal operations where a control
tower is not in operation. This area is described as follows: That
airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of
the airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of the 135[deg] bearing
from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.7 miles
southeast of the airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of the
339[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius
to 4.7 miles north of the Williston Basin International Airport.
    Additionally, this action amends the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface by adding two extensions to the
current 6.7-mile radius of the airport. One to the southeast and one to
the north of the airport. This area is designed to accommodate arriving
IFR aircraft descend below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing
IFR aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. The area is
described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of the airport, and within
3.6 miles each side of the 132[deg] bearing from the airport, extending
from the 6.7-mile radius to 11.4 miles southeast of the airport, and
within 3.6 miles each side of the 340[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 11 miles north of the Williston
Basin International Airport.
    Further, this action adds Class E airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface. This area is designed to accommodate IFR
aircraft transitioning to/from the terminal or en route environments.
The area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface within a 41-mile radius of the Williston
Basin International Airport.
    Lastly, this action implements an administrative correction to the
Class E5 airspace legal description's text header by updating the
airport's geographic coordinate to match the FAA's aeronautical
database. The coordinates read: lat. 48[deg]15'39'' N, long.
103[deg]45'04'' W.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is

published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL ND E2 Williston, ND [Revoked]

Williston, Sloulin Field International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]10'41'' N, long. 103[deg]38'32'' W)

AGL ND E2 Williston, ND [New]

Williston Basin International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]15'39'' N, long. 103[deg]45'04'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of the airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of the
135[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile
radius to 4.7 miles southeast of the airport, and within 1.3 miles
each side of the 339[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 4.2-mile radius to 4.7 miles north of the Williston Basin
International Airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Williston, ND [Revoked]

Sloulin Field International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]10'41'' N, long. 103[deg]38'32'' W)

AGL ND E5 Williston, ND [Amended]

Williston Basin International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]15'39'' N, long. 103[deg]45'04'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.6 miles each
side of the 132[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the
6.7-mile radius to 11.4 miles southeast of the airport, and within
3.6 miles each side of the 340[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 11 miles north of the airport;
and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within a 41-mile radius of the Williston Basin International
Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 29, 2020.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-09591 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 Inclusive of arsenic or chromium pesticide chemicals used in the following wood preservative formulations: Chromated Copper Arsenate ( CCA), Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate ( ACZA), Ammoniacal Copper Arsenate ( ACA) and Acid Copper Chromate ( ACC).

2 Active ingredients listed as arsenic or chromium compounds are those currently supported for reregistration as wood preservatives under Reregistration Case 0132. This case was previously identified as " Chromated Arsenicals" in OPP's Spring 1998 " Status of Pesticides in Registration, Reregistration, and Special Review ( Rainbow Report)" and included the following additional active ingredients which are currently cancelled and therefore no longer eligible for reregistration review:

Sodium arsenate ( 013505)  cancelled 2004; Potassium dichromate ( 068302)  cancelled 2000; Sodium pyroarsenate ( 013401)  cancelled 1991; and Sodium chromate ( 068303) and Ammonium arsenate ( 013601)  cancelled 1987.

An arsenic compound which is outside the scope of this Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) document is Arsenic trioxide ( 007001) which is currently registered as an insecticide for use in ant bait products and therefore not a wood preservative. The technical chemical and end use product registrations are managed by OPPs Registration Division ( RD), within the Insecticide Rodenticide Branch. The Antimicrobials Division ( AD) will work jointly with RD on the reregistration requirements for this chemical.

Cupric Oxide, the form of Copper used in the treatment solutions for the wood preservatives containing arsenic and/ or chromium, is not included as an active ingredient covered under this RED. Reregistration requirements for Cupric Oxide will be addressed separately in a RED document for Copper, and oxides, Case Number 4025, slated to be issued at a future date. Similarly, zinc oxide, the form of zinc used as an active ingredient in the formulations of ACZA is not included in this RED because it has been addressed in the RED for zinc salts ( EPA 738 F 92 007, August, 2002).

1 I. CASE OVERVIEW:

A. Chemical Overview The following active ingredients are covered by this Reregistration Eligibility Decision: 1 Active Ingredient( s): 2 CAS Registry Number: OPP Chemical Code: Empirical Formula: Molecular Common Weight: Chemical Name:

Arsenic Acid 7778 39 4 006801 H3AsO4 141.93 Orthoarsenic Acid ( o Arsenic Acid)

Arsenic Pentoxide 1303 28 2 006802 As2O5 229.82 Arsenic Acid Anhydride Chromic Acid 7738 94 5 021101 CrO3 100.01 Chromic Acid Flake; Chromium Trioxide Sodium Dichromate 10588 01 9 068304 Na2Cr2O72H2O 298.05 Chromic Acid, Disodium Salt 2

Chemical Group: Inorganic Arsenicals and Chromium compounds

Case Number: 0132 Total Number of

Basic Manufacturers: Primary Registrants Registered Products Chemical Specialties, Inc. 5 Elementis Chromium LP 1 J. H. Baxter 1 Osmose, Inc. 9 Phibro Tech, Inc. 1 Total Registered:

B. Use Profile The following is a profile of the currently registered uses of arsenical and/ or chromated wood preservatives.

Type of Pesticide: Fungicide, Insecticide, Miticide and Molluscicide Use Sites: Arsenic and chromium compounds used as wood preservatives are Restricted Use Pesticides specified for commercial pressure treatment applications only ( i. e., impregnated into forest products using a vacuum pressure system).

Terrestrial Non Food Crop: ( Utility Poles, Cross Ties, Timbers, Posts, Lumber)

Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products by Pressure:  Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products ( Seasoned)  Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products ( Unseasoned)  Pesticides for Manufacturing, Reformulating or Repackage Use  Pesticide Products for Formulation of Other Products  Pesticide Products for Tank Mixes Aquatic Non Food Outdoor: ( Piles/ Posts/ Timbers used for Aquatic Structures)

Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products by Pressure: 3  Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products ( Seasoned)  Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products ( Unseasoned)

Residential and Farm Indoor/ Outdoor: ( Groundline contact Building Components, Structural Support Timbers)

Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products by Pressure:  Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products ( Seasoned)  Wood Protection Treatment to Forest Products ( Unseasoned)

Target Pests:

Invertebrates: ( Insects, Miscellaneous Invertebrates, and Related Organisms.)

 Wood Boring Insects  Termites  Ants  Carpenter Ants  Marine Borers ( Limnoria & Teredo)

Plant Pathogenic Organisms: ( Bacteria, Fungi, and Other Fouling Organisms.)

 Ascomycetes  Wood Rot/ Decay  Wood Rot/ Decay Fungi  Wood Rot/ Decay Fungi ( Spores)  Dry Rot  Brown Rot  White Rot Formulation Types Registered: At present there are a total of products registered with the U. S. EPA for wood preservation, containing the active ingredients arsenic and or chromium, as follows:

Sources of Chromic Acid:

Technical Grade Active Ingredient ( TGAI): Crystalline Flakes ( OPP Chemical Code 021101) 98.7 %  100 % ( products)

Industrial End Use Product ( EUP): Liquid ( OPP Chemical Code 068304) 70% ( 1 product) 4 Sources of Arsenic Acid:

Manufacturing Use Product/ Formulator Use Product ( MUP): Formulation Intermediate ( Liquid) 75% ( 2 products) ( OPP Chemical Code 006801)

Industrial End Use Product ( EUP): Liquid 75% ( products) ( OPP Chemical Code 006801)

Formulated Mixtures of CCA:

Industrial End Use Product ( EUP): Soluble Concentrate ( Liquid) 40%  72% ( products) ( OPP Chemical Codes 021101 & 006802)

Formulated Mixture of ACC:

Industrial End Use Product ( EUP): Soluble Concentrate ( Liquid) 50% ( 1 product) ( OPP Chemical Code 021101)

( Total 23 products)

Types and Rates of Application: The following covers application types and rates specified on the product labeling, or derived from information provided by industry sources [ i. e., the American Chemistry Council ( ACC) Arsenical Task Force members, and the American Wood Preservers' Association ( AWPA) Book of Standards].

Terrestrial Non Food Crop Wood Pressure Treatment to Forest Products: Nonsoil Contact Nonfumigation Soil Contact Nonfumigation Vacuum Pressure System Wood Protection Treatment Types of Treatment: Pressure Treatment; Vacuum Pressure Treatment.

Equipment: Pressure Treating Cylinder/ Vessel/ Retort.

Timing: Prior to end use of wood. 5 Use Rate: Pressure treatments conducted as specified by the AWPA Standards for wood treaters. For waterborne preservatives such as Chromated Copper Arsenate ( CCA), Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate ( ACZA), Ammoniacal Copper Arsenate ( ACA) and Acid Copper Chromate ( ACC):

AWPA Preservative Retention Requirements for Southern Pine: 1 Use Application for Wood Treated with CCA, ACZA, ACA, and ACC Retention ( lb/ ft3)

Above ground lumber/ timbers 0.25 Ground contact/ Fresh water contact lumber/ timbers 0.40 ( 0.50 for ACC)

Salt water splash contact/ Permanent wood foundation/ Structural poles ( utility poles) 2 0.60 Fresh water foundation piles 2 0.80  1.00 Salt water immersion marine piles 2 2.50 1Retention levels are specified on an oxide basis. 2Treatment with ACC not recommended for this use application.

C. Estimated Usage of Pesticide This section summarizes the best estimates available for the wood preservatives containing arsenic and/ or chromium. These estimates are derived from a variety of published and proprietary sources available to the Agency.

Technical sources of Arsenic used as wood preservatives are derived from Arsenic trioxide imported principally from China to produce Arsenic acid for formulation of CCA and related arsenicals. About 90% of all arsenic consumed is for the production of wood preservatives ( U. S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 1997). Statistics indicate that wood preservatives make up 72% of the Chromic acid market ( Chemical Market Reporter, 2000).

According to EPA sources, the most common of the waterborne preservatives is CCA ( as Type C containing 47.5% chromium, 18.5% copper, and 34% arsenic) which by the mid 1990' s represented 90% of the U. S. waterborne preservatives market. Market statistics for 2002 indicated that there were close to 350 wood treatment plants in the US that used CCA. The U. S. consumed 71,700 metric tons of CCA in 1999 ( Chemical Market Reporter, 2002). In 1996 the total volume of CCA treated wood products was estimated at 467 million cubic feet. ( American Wood Preservers Institute, 1996).

D. Data Requirements The Agency required registrants to submit studies in response to Registration Standards issued in 1986 and 1988 ( PB87 114088, and PB89 102842) for chromated arsenical compounds. 6 Data from submitted studies along with more recent industry sponsored studies were used to characterize the risks associated with the uses described in this document.

C. Regulatory History The wood preservative pesticides containing arsenic and/ or chromium compounds are registered as technical source/ manufacturing use products or formulated industrial end use product concentrates or mixtures intended for aqueous dilution to form CCA, ACZA, ACA and ACC treatment solutions. Formulated wood preservative products containing arsenic and/ or chromium compounds have been registered since the 1940' s when pesticides were under the regulatory purview of the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA), and since its' inception in the 1970' s, regulated under FIFRA with the U. S. EPA. Presently, products are registered for pressure treatment of wood intended for above ground and ground contact, as well as in fresh water and marine environments. Wood treated with these preservatives are specified for commercial, institutional, and limited residential/ farm construction uses in indoor and outdoor sites. All products are Restricted Use Pesticides; Chromic acid, 2 are manufacturing use product sources of Arsenic acid; 4 are industrial end use product sources of either Chromic acid or Arsenic acid, and 11 are industrial end use product mixtures of CCA, and 1 is an industrial end use product mixture of ACC.

In October of 1978 the Agency initiated an administrative review process by issuing notices of " Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration ( RPAR)" to consider whether the pesticide registrations of chromated and non chromated arsenical wood preservatives should be cancelled or modified due to toxicological effects attributed to the pesticides. The Federal Register Notice ( Vol. 49, No. 136) of July 13, 1984 concluded the RPAR process and announced that certain changes in the terms and conditions of registration were required if registrants and applicants wished to avoid cancellation ( see " RPAR Settlement Use Conditions" below).

EPA evaluated the potential risks of these wood preservative chemicals to public health, along with the significant economic benefits resulting from their use. The Agency subsequently determined that the use of these wood preservative chemicals in accordance with certain modifications to the terms of registrations would satisfy the statutory standard for products' registration. Details of the modifications as stated below are in the Federal Register of January 10, 1986 ( Vol. 51, No. 7) and January 21, 1987 ( Vol. 52, No. 13).

RPAR Settlement Use Conditions:

Arsenical and/ or chromated wood preservatives are now classified as " RESTRICTED USE" pesticides, meaning that these chemical are for sale and use only by certified applicators or persons under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the applicator's certification. The product labeling includes some of the following statements:

" RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE For Sale to and Use By Certified Applicators ..." 7 " RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE Due to Acute Toxicity and Because This Product Contains Arsenic and/ or Chromium Compounds Some Types of Which Have Been Associated with Tumor Development in Humans."

" Do not apply in interiors. Do not apply to wood intended for use in interiors except for those support structures which are in contact with the soil in barns, stables and similar sites and which are subject to decay or insect infestation . . ."

Protective clothing requirements for workers must be specified on labels.

All exposed arsenic treatment plant workers are required to wear a respirator if the level of ambient arsenic is unknown or exceeds a Permissible Exposure Limit ( PEL) of 10 ug/ m3 averaged over an 8 hour work day.

Manufacturers and formulators must use a closed system for mixing powdered inorganic arsenicals.

Applicators may not eat, drink, or use tobacco products during the application process. Applicators must also wash thoroughly after skin contact with the pesticide.

A Consumer Awareness Program was instituted requiring wood pressure treaters to provide Consumer Information Sheets to all lumber yards and other retailers. The information sheets instruct consumers about handling procedures, such as the use of protective gloves, coveralls and face masks when sawing treated wood products.

EPA has required specific labeling use instructions for arsenical and/ or chromated wood preservative end use products. These instructions require the use of diluted solutions ( 0.5  10%) only in closed, vacuum pressure cylinders. Industry treatment standards must be strictly adhered to in order to minimize worker exposure and environmental contamination.

The following precautions for working with wood treated with arsenic and/ or chromiumbased preservatives resulted from the special review and are included on the Consumer Safety Information Sheets, which should be available at all establishments where arsenical and/ or chromated wood preservative treated wood can be purchased. These efforts are especially important when conducting activities that generate sawdust from treated wood, since there is a greater likelihood of exposure to arsenic and/ or chromium from such activities than there is from ordinary contact to wood surfaces.

Consumers working with arsenic and/ or chromium treated wood should wear long sleeve shirts, long pants, and gloves impervious to the chemicals, such as vinyl coated gloves.

If sawdust accumulates on clothes, wash them separately from other household clothes before reuse. 8

Avoid frequent or prolonged inhalation of sawdust from treated wood. Wear a dust mask when sawing and machining. Always wear goggles to protect your eyes from flying particles when power sawing and machining.

If possible, work outdoors to avoid indoor accumulation of sawdust from treated wood.

Wash exposed body areas thoroughly with soap and water after working with treated wood. Clean up thoroughly before eating, drinking or using tobacco products.

The registrants promised to phase out all uses of CCA products with the exception of the treatment of wood products that fall under the American Wood Preservers' Association ( AWPA) standards ( based on the 2001 edition of the AWPA Standards) listed in the text of the approved label amendment. The phase out of uses affected virtually all residential uses of wood treated with CCA including wood used in play structures, decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers, gazebos, residential fencing, patios, walkways, boardwalks, etc.

In response to the Agency's solicitation for public comments, approximately 6,700 comments were submitted by the wood preservative industry, the chromium industry, the lumber industry, the agricultural industry, Kentucky and Texas State government officials, federal government officials, environmental groups, businesses and private citizens of Corpus Christi, Texas, as well as from others. A number of comments were received for uses which the commenters believed posed no or little risk of exposure to the public including the use on fence posts in agricultural settings.

On April 9, 2003, the Agency published its response to the use terminations and products cancellations voluntarily requested by the registrants in the federal register ( 68 FR 17366, Vol 68, Number 68). Rather than delay acceptance of portions of the requests until completion of the reregistration review, EPA decided to accept the requests for cancellation/ use termination for all other uses and defer action with respect to the requests to terminate agricultural fence post and permanent wood foundation uses pending the complete evaluation of these uses through the reregistration process.

Specifically, the notice announced the cancellation of the two affected products, effectively March 17, 2003, the date upon which the Agency signed and issued the cancellation order. 9 Registrants were allowed 60 days thereafter ( until May 16, 2003) in which to sell or distribute the cancelled products concerned, and to revise the labels for other products with use terminations, effective as of May 16, 2003. In addition to stating the Agency's response to the requests, the notice also addressed the considerable number of comments received in response to the Agency's requests for public comments on the registrants' requests.

As per the Federal Register Notice ( 68 FR 17366, Vol 68, Number 68) the following statements have been stipulated as label amendments for affected MUP's as arsenic source products:

" Effective December 31, 2003, this product may only be used ( 1) for formulation of the following end use wood preservative products: ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate ( ACZA) or chromated copper arsenate ( CCA) labeled in accordance with the Directions for Use shown below, or ( 2) by persons other than the registrant, in combination with one or more other products to make: ACZA wood preservative; or CCA wood preservative that is used in accordance with the Directions for Use shown below.

Effective December 31, 2003, this product may only be used for preservative treatment of the following categories of forest products and in accordance with the respective cited standard ( noted parenthetically) of the 2001 edition of the American Wood Preservers' Association Standards: Lumber and timber for Salt Water Use Only ( C2), Piles ( C3), Poles ( C4), Plywood ( C9), Wood for Highway Construction ( C14), Round, Half Round and Quarter Round Fence Posts ( C16), Poles, Piles and Posts Used as Structural Members on Farms and Plywood Used on Farms ( C16), Wood for Marine Construction ( C18), Lumber and Plywood for Permanent Wood Foundations ( C22), Round Poles and Posts Used in Building Construction ( C23), Sawn Timber Used to Support Residential and Commercial Structures ( C24), Sawn Crossarms ( C25), Structural Glued Laminated Members and Laminations Before Gluing ( C28), Structural Composite Lumber ( C33), and Shakes and Shingles ( C34). Forest products treated with this product may only be sold or distributed for uses within the AWPA Commodity Standards under which treatment occurred."

As per the Federal Register Notice ( 68 FR 17366, Vol 68, Number 68) the following statements have been stipulated as label amendments for affected EUP's:

" Effective December 31, 2003, this product may only be used for preservative treatment of the following categories of forest products and in accordance with the respective cited standard ( noted parenthetically) of the 2001 edition of the American Wood Preservers' Association Standards: Lumber and timber for Salt Water Use Only ( C2), Piles ( C3), Poles ( C4), Plywood ( C9), Wood for Highway Construction ( C14), Round, Half Round and Quarter Round Fence Posts ( C16), Poles, Piles and Posts Used as Structural Members on Farms and Plywood Used on Farms ( C16), Wood for Marine Construction ( C18), Lumber and Plywood for Permanent Wood Foundations ( C22), Round Poles and Posts Used in Building Construction ( C23), Sawn Timber Used to Support Residential and Commercial 10 Structures ( C24), Sawn Crossarms ( C25), Structural Glued Laminated Members and Laminations Before Gluing ( C28), Structural Composite Lumber ( C33), and Shakes and Shingles ( C34). Forest products treated with this product may only be sold or distributed for uses within the AWPA Commodity Standards under which treatment occurred."

In a letter to the Agency ( dated February 7, 2003), Osmose, Inc. and Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. requested the voluntary cancellation of the registration for the three non pressuretreated uses of CCA products. Following the announcement of the " notice of receipt of request to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registration" ( 68 FR 18635, April 16, 2003) with a 30 day comment period, orders were issued by the Agency granting the cancellation of the three products, effective May 28, 2003.

The Agency in its letter of June 19, 2003, informed Osmose, Inc. ( the sole registrant of Acid Copper Chromate  ACC) of the absence of data necessary to support the continued registration of ACC 50% ( the only registered ACC product), and outlined the data gaps required for reregistration. ACC contains no arsenic but does have approximately 50 percent more chromium ( hexavalent) than formulations of CCA. Due to the extensive time and technical resources that would be needed to fulfill the data gaps, Osmose, Inc. decided to no longer support the registration of the product, and submitted a request ( June 30, 2003) for voluntary cancellation.

Osmose has not sold this product for the last two years and prior to that time, its only use was on wood for cooling towers. Based on the receipt of this request, the Agency has not specifically assessed the risks associated with ACC in this RED. The Agency has however, received " metoo applications from two applicants for ACC products. A decision has been made to not act on the Osmose voluntary cancellation until such time that a decision on the " me toos" is made. The Agency has concerns about the increased amount of hexavalent chromium in ACC and has informed the " me too" applicants that it needs additional data/ information before it can accurately assess the potential risks associated with this chemical's use. Consequently, an assessment for ACC is not included in this RED document but will be separately addressed in the Agency's revised risk assessment, should the Agency make the decision to grant these applications.