14(d)(1) or 13(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Schedule TO--Tender Offer Statement Under Section 14(d)(1) or 13(e)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

* * * * *
    If applicable, check the appropriate box(es) below to designate the
appropriate rule provision(s) relied upon:
    [ ] Rule 13e-4(i) (Issuer Tender Offer)
    [ ] Rule 14d-1(d) (Third-Party Tender Offer)
* * * * *
    18. Amend Sec.  240.14e-5 by:
    a. Removing ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (b)(9) and (c)(6);
    b. Removing the period at the end of paragraphs (b)(10) and (c)(7)
and in its place adding ``; and''; and
    c. Adding paragraphs (b)(11), (b)(12), (c)(8), and (c)(9).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  240.14e-5.  Prohibiting purchases outside of a tender offer.

* * * * *
    (b) Excepted activity. * * *
    (11) Purchases or arrangements to purchase pursuant to a foreign
tender offer(s). Purchases or arrangements to purchase pursuant to a
foreign offer(s) where the offeror seeks to acquire subject securities
through a U.S. tender offer and a concurrent or substantially
concurrent foreign offer(s), if the following conditions are satisfied:
    (i) The U.S. and foreign tender offer(s) meet the conditions for
reliance on the Tier II cross-border exemptions set forth in Sec.
240.14d-1(d);
    (ii) The economic terms and consideration in the U.S. tender offer
and foreign tender offer(s) are the same, provided that any cash
consideration to be paid to U.S. security holders may be converted from
the currency to be paid in the foreign tender offer(s) to U.S. dollars
at an exchange rate disclosed in the U.S. offering documents;
    (iii) The procedural terms of the U.S. tender offer are at least as
favorable as the terms of the foreign tender offer(s);
    (iv) The intention of the offeror to make purchases pursuant to the
foreign tender offer(s) is disclosed in the U.S. offering documents;
and
    (v) Purchases by the offeror in the foreign tender offer(s) are
made solely pursuant to the foreign tender offer(s) and not pursuant to
an open market transaction(s), a private transaction(s), or other
transaction(s); and
    (12) Purchases or arrangements to purchase by an affiliate of the
financial advisor and an offeror and its affiliates.
    (i) Purchases or arrangements to purchase by an affiliate of a
financial advisor and an offeror and its affiliates that are
permissible under and will be conducted in accordance with the
applicable laws of the subject company's home jurisdiction if the
following conditions are satisfied:
    (A) The subject company is a foreign private issuer as defined in
Sec.  240.3b-4(c);
    (B) The covered person reasonably expects that the tender offer
meets the conditions for reliance on the Tier II cross-border
exemptions set forth in Sec.  240.14d-1(d);
    (C) No purchases or arrangements to purchase otherwise than
pursuant to the tender offer are made in the United States;
    (D) The United States offering materials disclose prominently: The
possibility of, or the intention to make, purchases or arrangements to
purchase subject securities or related securities outside of the tender
offer, and if there will be public disclosure of purchases of

subject or related securities, the manner in which information
regarding such purchases will be disseminated;
    (E) There is public disclosure in the United States, to the extent
that such information is made public in the subject company's home
jurisdiction, of information regarding all purchases of subject
securities and related securities otherwise than pursuant to the tender
offer from the time of public announcement of the tender offer until
the tender offer expires;
    (F) Purchases or arrangements to purchase by an offeror and its
affiliates must satisfy the following additional condition: the tender
offer price will be increased to match any consideration paid outside
of the tender offer that is greater than the tender offer price; and
    (G) Purchases or arrangements to purchase by an affiliate of a
financial advisor must satisfy the following additional conditions:
    (1) The financial advisor and the affiliate maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
transfer of information among the financial advisor and affiliate that
might result in a violation of U.S. federal securities laws and
regulations through the establishment of information barriers;
    (2) The financial advisor has an affiliate that is registered as a
broker or dealer under section 15(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(a));
    (3) The affiliate has no officers (or persons performing similar
functions) or employees (other than clerical, ministerial, or support
personnel) in common with the financial advisor that direct, effect, or
recommend transactions in the subject securities or related securities
who also will be involved in providing the offeror or subject company
with financial advisory services or dealer-manager services; and
    (4) The purchases or arrangements to purchase are not made to
facilitate the tender offer.
    (ii) The provisions of paragraph (b)(12)(i) of this section shall
not apply to risk arbitrage trading by an affiliate of a financial
advisor.
    (c) Definitions. * * *
    (8) Subject company has the same meaning as in Sec.  229.1000 of
this chapter.
    (9) Home jurisdiction has the same meaning as in the Instructions
to paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec.  240.14d-1.
* * * * *

PART 239--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

    19. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read in part
as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a et. seq., 7202, 7233, 7241, 7262, 7264,
and 7265; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    20. Amend Form CB (referenced in Sec.  239.800 and Sec.  249.480)
by:
    a. Removing the line ``Filed or submitted in paper if permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(8) [ ]'' and the corresponding Note on the
cover page;
    b. Revising General Instruction II.A.(1);
    c. Removing General Instruction II.A.(2) and redesignating General
Instruction II.A.(3) and (4) as General Instruction II.A.(2) and (3);
and
    d. Revising General Instructions B and D.

    Note: The text of Form CB does not and this amendment will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form CB

TENDER OFFER/RIGHTS OFFERING NOTIFICATION FORM

(AMENDMENT NO. ----)
* * * * *

General Instructions

* * * * *

II. Instructions for Submitting Form

    A. (1) Regulation S-T Rule 101(a)(1)(vi) (17 CFR 232.101(a)(1)(vi))
requires a party to submit the Form CB in electronic format via the
Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system
(EDGAR) in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T
(17 CFR Part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR
or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at
(202) 551-8900.
* * * * *
    B. When submitting the Form CB in electronic format, the persons
specified in Part IV must provide signatures in accordance with
Regulation S-T Rule 302 (17 CFR 232.302). When submitting the Form CB
in paper in accordance with a hardship exemption, the persons specified
in Part IV must sign the original and at least one copy of the Form and
any amendments. You must conform any unsigned copies. The specified
persons may provide typed or facsimile signatures in accordance with
Securities Act Rule 402(e) (17 CFR 230.402(e)) or Exchange Act Rule
12b-11(d) (17 CFR 240.12b-11(d)) as long as the filer retains copies of
signatures manually signed by each of the specified persons for five
years.
* * * * *
    D. If filing in paper pursuant to a hardship exemption, in addition
to any internal numbering you may include, sequentially number the
signed original of the Form and any amendments by handwritten, typed,
printed or other legible form of notation from the first page of the
document through the last page of the document and any exhibits or
attachments. Further, you must set forth the total number of pages
contained in a numbered original on the first page of the document.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 6, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10388 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64495-64497]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27170]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0790; FRL-9987-51-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision provides for the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to construct and
operate specified transit facilities and high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes established therein. Implementation and continued monitoring of
these projects will help reduce the use of automobiles and improve
traffic operations on the region's roadways, resulting in improved air
quality. This action will have a beneficial effect on air quality
because it is intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
traffic congestion in the Boston Metropolitan Area. Massachusetts has
adopted these revisions to reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC), particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0790 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0628, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Administrative Changes
III. Summary of Changes to the Amended High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Regulation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On July 9, 1996, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MassDEP) submitted a revision to the Massachusetts State
Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of amendments to 310 CMR 7.37:
High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes. The submitted amended 310 CMR 7.37
contains added definitions, revised due dates for certain requirements,
minor technical amendments, and clarifying language. This regulation is
designed to help

reduce the use of automobiles in the Metropolitan Boston Area, and to
improve traffic operations on the region's roadways. Reducing the
number of vehicles on the road and easing traffic conditions on major
highways will result in a reduction in VMT, which eases traffic
congestion and will lead to improved air quality by lowering mobile
source emissions.
    EPA previously approved 310 CMR 7.37 into the Massachusetts SIP on
October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50495). That SIP revision required Massachusetts
to study the feasibility of constructing HOV lanes on certain roadways
to reduce VMT and traffic congestion. The 1994 SIP revision also
required the construction of HOV lanes for certain roadways, i.e. on
Interstate-93 (I-93) southbound, north of Boston, and south of Boston
on I-93 (both northbound and southbound) between Interstate-90 (I-90)
and Route 3.
    The SIP-approved 310 CMR 7.37 roadway trip time threshold standards
were established to reflect a significant increase in traffic volume
above baseline roadway conditions which, if exceeded, would trigger
construction of additional HOV lanes. The threshold standards were
calculated to represent an average weekday peak trip time increase of
35% from baseline roadway conditions. The SIP-approved regulation also
established monitoring and reporting standards to ensure and enforce
the successful implementation and desired outcome of HOV lanes, and to
determine the feasibility and necessity of constructing additional HOV
lanes. The updated regulation being proposed for SIP approval in this
rulemaking addresses and incorporates into the regulation a number of
comments and suggestions made by the public, including EPA, during the
Commonwealth's public comment period on the regulation.

II. Administrative Changes

    It is EPA's understanding that in June 2009, Governor Deval Patrick
signed Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009, ``An Act Modernizing the
Transportation Systems of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.'' This
transportation reform legislation integrated transportation agencies
and authorities into a new, streamlined MassDOT, which is a merger of
the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC), and its
divisions, with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA), the
Massachusetts Highway Division (MHD), the Registry of Motor Vehicles
(RMV), the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC), and the Tobin
Bridge. On December 8, 2015, EPA approved into the Massachusetts SIP a
transportation-related regulation that reflected this reorganization.
See 80 FR 76225. These changes did not interfere with attainment,
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirement, satisfying CAA section 110(l) and, for the
regulation in question, made the Massachusetts SIP consistent with the
Commonwealth's administrative agency organizational structure.
    This proposed rulemaking publication will use ``MassDOT'' in lieu
of all references to the former agencies (MTA, MHD, and EOTC)
referenced within the submitted 310 CMR 7.37. Though MassDOT did not
exist at the time the regulation was written, it is EPA's understanding
that MassDOT has replaced or absorbed all referenced transit agencies
found within the regulation we are proposing to approve today.

III. Summary of Changes to the Amended High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Regulation

    The Commonwealth's July 9, 1996 submittal of 310 CMR 7.37 contains
several minor changes compared to the SIP-approved version. These
changes contain new and revised definitions of certain terms for the
existing HOV regulation. The updated regulation also contains revised
due dates for certain actions and reporting requirements, and new
language clarifying certain sections of the regulation. The main
updates are summarized as follows:
    Definitions: Notably, the updated definitions establish the
Baseline Roadway Conditions to be the average weekday peak hour trip
time in minutes for each roadway segment based on monitoring of traffic
and recording of trip times during the 12 months period from April 1,
1992 to April 1, 1993. This section also establishes the Roadway
Threshold Standards to be the Baseline Roadway Conditions increased by
35%.
    Attainment of Performance Standards: MassDOT is required to monitor
the referenced roadways and HOV performance, as measured by trip times,
during peak periods of travel, to ensure HOV performance standards are
being met. Trip times are required to be measured at least monthly and
during at least five sample days each month. MassDOT is required to use
all appropriate and feasible measures to maintain compliance with the
HOV lane performance standards. MassDOT is also required to submit
performance standard reports for each HOV facility or HOV lane being
monitored. The updated regulation also removed the language ``not
increase congestion in general purpose traffic flow lanes,'' found in
the original SIP-approved regulation. EPA and MassDEP believed this
language could have been interpreted to mean that HOV lanes could be
moving as slowly or slower than general traffic, without giving MassDOT
the ability to take corrective action.
    Substitute HOV Projects: This section has been updated to include
stronger language than in the previous version of the regulation for
deeming a substitute project appropriate. If studies demonstrate that
an HOV lane is infeasible, MassDOT must substitute an alternative
project by petitioning MassDEP. All such petitions shall include a
demonstration that the substitute project achieves equal or greater
emission reductions of VOC, CO, and NOX from mobile sources
than the installation of an HOV lane. The petition must also show that
the substitute project provides for greater improvement in air quality
for these pollutants in the area where the required HOV lane is
targeted, both in the short and long term.
    EPA's review of this regulation indicates that the implementation
and operation of HOV lanes will result in improved air quality by both
reducing vehicle trips and easing traffic congestion. A reduction in
VMT results in a reduction in total vehicle emissions.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the Massachusetts
SIP, revised regulation 310 CMR 7.37, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes.
This regulation was submitted to EPA on July 9, 1996. This updated
regulation includes technical amendments, changes in due dates for
certain actions, and clarifying language in relation to the previous
SIP-approved version of 310 CMR 7.37. EPA is proposing to approve 310
CMR 7.37 into the Massachusetts SIP because EPA has found that the
requirements are consistent with the CAA, including CAA section 110(l)
in that the regulation will not interfere with attainment, reasonable
further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or
on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rulemaking by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference of 310 CMR 7.37, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 10, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-27170 Filed 12-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Customer Service Hotline: 1 800 438 2474 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 2029 December 24, 2002 Stephanie Timmermeyer, Director Division of Air Quality West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 7012 MacCorkle Ave., S. E. Charleston, WV 25304 Dear Ms. Timmermeyer:

With the signing of the enclosed Eastern Panhandle Region of West Virginia Early Action Compact ( EAC) agreement and this letter, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), in partnership with the State of West Virginia, Berkeley County, Jefferson County and the City of Martinsburg, enter into a commitment to develop and implement a comprehensive air quality plan for attainment of the 8 hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in Berkeley and Jefferson Counties. Through voluntary, local, enforceable measures to be approved as part of the State Implementation Plan ( SIP), the EAC is designed to achieve the 8 hour ozone standard faster than the Clean Air Act would otherwise require.

In signing the EAC, EPA recognizes the local area's commitment to early action by provisionally deferring the effective date of the nonattainment designation for participating areas that are monitoring a violation of the 8 hour ozone standard. The deferral of the effective date of the designation is contingent upon the participating area's meeting all terms and milestones of the EAC and boundary designations. EPA has not yet designated areas as attainment or nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone standard. That will take place by April, 2004. Prior to EPA's designations for the 8 hour ozone standard, EPA will go through a dialogue with interested stakeholders concerning appropriate designations, including soliciting recommendations from the states by April, 2003. The metropolitan statistical area ( MSA) is EPA's presumptive boundary for the 8 hour ozone standard, as described in EPA's March 28, 2000, boundary guidance memorandum. While the EPA cannot prejudge the 2004 designations process, States are advised that if an EAC area is determined to be part of an area that is designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone standard, its nonattainment designation would not be deferred.

Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has announced changes for Core Based Statistical Areas ( Vol. 65, No. 249, page 82228, 12/ 27/ 2000) and plans to publish new lists of areas in June, 2003. EPA will be evaluating the impacts the new lists will have on establishing nonattainment area boundaries. At that time, EPA will also look at the nonattainment boundary guidance memo of March 28th, 2000 to see if it might need updating. These actions could potentially affect the EACs.

We commend the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's commitment to improve air quality by pursuing alternatives to conventional controls and providing local areas with the flexibility to control air emissions from sources. We look forward to our partnership with State of West Virginia, Berkeley County, Jefferson County and the City of Martinsburg, to achieve air quality reductions earlier than would otherwise be required.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or have your staff contact Judith M. Katz, Director, Air Protection Division, at ( 215) 814 2654.

Sincerely,

Donald S. Welsh Regional Administrator Enclosure cc/ enc: George Karos, Mayor of City of Martinsburg Jane K. Peters, President of the Jefferson County Commission Howard L. Strauss, President of Berkeley County Commission


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

	February 21, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Review of Cyromazine Incident Reports

		DP Barcode D335283, Chemical #031301

FROM:	Monica Hawkins, M.P.H., Environmental Health Scientist

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

		Hans Allender, Ph.D., Statistician

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THRU:	David J. Miller, Chief

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		James Parker, Chemical Review Manager

		Special Review and Registration Division (7508P)

BACKGROUND

	The following data bases have been consulted for the poisoning incident
data on the active ingredient Cyromazine (031301):

1)  OPP Incident Data System (IDS) - reports of incidents from various
sources, including registrants, other federal and state health and
environmental agencies and individual consumers, submitted to OPP since
1992.  Reports submitted to the Incident Data System represent anecdotal
reports or allegations only, unless otherwise stated.  Typically no
conclusions can be drawn implicating the pesticide as a cause of any of
the reported health effects.  Nevertheless, sometimes with enough cases
and/or documentation risk mitigation measures may be suggested.

2)  Poison Control Centers - as the result of a data purchase by EPA,
OPP received Poison Control Center data covering the years 1993 through
2003 for all pesticides.  Most of the national Poison Control Centers
(PCCs) participate in a national data collection system, the Toxic
Exposure Surveillance System which obtains data from about 65-70 centers
at hospitals and universities.  PCCs provide telephone consultation for
individuals and health care providers on suspected poisonings, involving
drugs, household products, pesticides, etc.

3)  National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health’s Sentinel
Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (NIOSH SENSOR) performs
standardized surveillance in nine states from 1998 through 2003.  States
included in this reporting system are Arizona, California, Florida,
Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.  Reporting
varies from state to state because of the differing degrees of
cooperation from different sources of reporting (e.g., workers
compensation, Poison Control Centers, emergency departments and
hospitals, enforcement investigations, private physicians, etc.).
Therefore, these reports should not be characterized as estimating the
total magnitude of poisoning.  The focus is on occupationally-related
cases not residential or other non-occupational exposures.   However,
the information collected on each case is standardized and categorized
according to the certainty of the information collected and the severity
of the case.

CYROMAZINE REVIEW

I. Incident Data System

	There were no reports located in the Incident Data System.

II. Poison Control Center Data - 1993 through 2005

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	Results for the years 1993 through 2005 on the
Poison Control Center show only one case reported in the occupational
class for Cyromazine. The individual exposed presented mild symptoms but
did not visit a HCF; the symptoms are unknown.

III. NIOSH SENSOR

	Out of 5,899 reported cases from 1998 to 2003, there is no case
reported in the SENSOR database involving Cyromazine.

IV. Conclusion

	There were almost no reports of ill effects from exposure to Cyromazine
in the available data bases.

V.  Recommendations

	No recommendations are made based on the limited information available.

cc:
Cy潲慭楺敮映汩〨ㄳ〳⤱ऍ慄楶⹊䴠汩敬⁲㜨〵倹
ऩउउउउ̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄ഍഍഍഍഍഍഍഍

഍

഍഍഍

഍

hY


Georgia Power EGU Closures and Conversions  16 units closed  2 units converted to gas

Plant/Unit (county) Fuel (MW) Comments Documentation of Closure or Conversion

Branch 1 (Putnam) Coal (300)  2015 closure request approved[3] MATS and Rule (sss) Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20 Branch 2 Coal (360) 2013 closure request approved[2]; shut down 9-30-2013 MATS and Rule (sss) Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20 Branch 3 Coal (540)  2015 closure request approved[3] MATS and Rule (sss) Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20 Branch 4 Coal (540) 2015 closure request approved[3] MATS and Rule (sss) Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20

Yates 1 (Coweta) Coal (100) 2015 closure request approved[3]

MATS and Rule (sss) Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20 Yates 2 - 5 Coal (460 total) 2015 closure request approved[3]

MATS and Rule (sss) Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20 Yates 6 Coal (350) 2015 switch to gas approved[3]

MATS and Rule (sss) Permit Amendment 4911-077-0001-V-03-5, Condition 3.2.4 gas operation effective 4-16-15 Yates 7 Coal (350) 2015 switch to gas approved[3]

MATS and Rule (sss) Permit Amendment 4911-077-0001-V-03-5, Condition 3.2.4 gas operation effective 4-16-15                                                                                McManus (Glynn) Oil (115) 2015 closure (units 1 and 2) request approved[3]   PSC approved

MATS Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20

Kraft (Chatham) Coal, gas (200, 130)

2016 closure (units 1-4) request approved[3]

MATS Compliance Extension granted Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20

Mitchell Unit 3 (Dougherty) Coal (165) Conversion of Unit 3 to biomass approved;  Jan. 2014 announcement GA Power will request to close unit in 2015, PSC Decertification expected 2016 Retired Unit Exemption EPA Form 7610-20

Note: there is no footnote 1

(2)  GA PSC has approved request to shut down Unit 2 in 2013.  Source:  Georgia Power Integrated Resource Plan, updated August 2011

(3) GA PSC has approved request to do the following in 2015: Close Branch 1, 3, and 4, close Yates 1  -  5, switch Yates 6 and 7 to gas combustion, close McManus 1 and 2, and close Kraft 1 - 4 . Source: Georgia PSC Final Order on GA Power IRP, decided 7-11-13 (docket no. 36498)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46384-46387]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18832]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0243; A-1-FRL-9913-08-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Volatile Organic Compound Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve four State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Maine. These revisions establish Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for two categories of volatile organic compound (VOC)
sources and revise two existing VOC RACT regulations previously
approved into Maine's SIP. The intended effect of this action is to
propose approval of the requirements of the four submittals into the
Maine SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 8,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2014-0243 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0243,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2014-0243. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state's submittals are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the State Air Agency: Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta
Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (617) 918-
0697, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. What is included in Maine's submittals?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of Maine's submittals?
    A. Chapter 159, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds From
Adhesives and Sealants
    B. Chapter 154, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds From
Flexible Package Printing
    C. Chapter 111, Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor Controls
    D. Chapter 112, Bulk Terminal Petroleum Liquid Transfer
Requirements
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over an 8-hour time frame.
    On April 20, 2004, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act,
or CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., EPA designated portions of the country
as being in nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858).
In Maine two areas were designated as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
standard: The Portland, ME ozone nonattainment area, including
Sagadahoc County and portions of York, Cumberland and Androscoggin
Counties; and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Cos. (Counties) ME
ozone nonattainment area. The remainder of the State was designated as
unclassifiable/attainment. The Portland, ME and Hancock, Knox, Lincoln
and Waldo Cos., ME ozone nonattainment areas were subsequently
redesignated to attainment effective January 10, 2007. See 71 FR 71489,
December 11, 2006.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA issued a new 0.075 ppm 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088), EPA designated
areas with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The entire state of Maine
was designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Maine is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under Section
184(a) of the CAA. Sections 182(b)(2) and 184 of the CAA compel states
with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas, as well as areas in
the OTR, respectively, to, among other things, submit a SIP revision
requiring the implementation of RACT for all sources of VOC covered by
a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) issued by EPA and for all major
sources of VOC. A CTG is a document which establishes a ``presumptive
norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC source category.

II. What is included in Maine's Submittals?

    On June 20, 2014 and October 26, 2011, the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (herein ``ME DEP'') submitted revisions to its
SIP containing new regulations to address two of EPA's CTG categories,
Chapter 159 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Adhesives and
Sealants (herein ``Chapter 159'') and Chapter 154 Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Flexible Package Printing (herein ``Chapter
154''), respectively.
    In addition, on October 13, 1999, ME DEP submitted revised Chapter
111 Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor Controls (herein ``Chapter 111'')
and on February 26, 1998, revised Chapter 112 Bulk Terminal Petroleum
Liquid Transfer Requirements (herein ``Chapter 112''). Earlier versions
of Chapters 111 and 112 had been previously approved by EPA into
Maine's SIP.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of Maine's submittals?

A. Chapter 159, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds From Adhesives
and Sealants

    Maine's Chapter 159 applies to the sale, use, and manufacturing for
use in Maine of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primer, and sealant
primer used in product manufacturing, packaging, construction, and
installation of metal, wood, rubber, plastic, ceramic, or fiberglass
materials. However, adhesives, sealant applications, and products used
for the following operations are exempt from the Chapter 159: tire
repair; repair and manufacturing of undersea-based weapon systems;
testing and evaluation associated with research and development;
solvent welding operations for medical devices; plaque laminating
operations; products or processes subject to other state rules; and
low-VOC products (less than 20 grams/liter).
    Pursuant to Chapter 159, on or after January 1, 2011, all
applicable sources are required to either limit VOC emissions through
the use of adhesives, sealants, and adhesive and sealant primers which
meet specified VOC limits or the use of add-on control equipment with
an overall control efficiency of 85%, with the exception of roofing
adhesives and sealants which have a compliance date of on or after
January 1, 2016. The regulation specifies VOC limits for aerosol
adhesives, clean-up solvents, and surface preparation solvents. In
addition, the new regulation specifies applications methods, as well as
work practices for waste and cleaning materials, to further limit VOC
emissions for industrial adhesive activities.
    Maine's Chapter 159 is generally consistent with the
recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesives (EPA-453/R-08-005, September 2008) and a model
rule developed by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) in 2007. The
exemptions contained in Chapter 159 described above are consistent with
those recommended in the CTG. Although there may be minor differences
in the terminology used to describe certain adhesive categories
regulated in the CTG and Chapter 159, EPA is proposing to find that
those differences are inconsequential due to the Maine rule's broader
applicability. Maine's Chapter 159 is more comprehensive than the CTG
in that it establishes VOC content limits for sealants and sealant
primers (in addition to adhesives as covered by the CTG), regulates
sellers and manufactures, not just appliers, of regulated adhesives,
adhesive primers and sealants, and contains a VOC composite vapor
pressure limit for cleaning materials. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve Chapter 159 and to find that the rule satisfies RACT
requirements for this source category.

B. Chapter 154, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds From Flexible
Package Printing

    Maine's Chapter 154 applies to any flexible package printing press
that has the potential to emit from a dryer, prior to controls, at
least 25 tons per year of VOC from the use of inks, coatings and
adhesives combined. On and after January 1, 2011, flexible package
printing sources subject to the rule are required to limit VOC
emissions by one or more of the following techniques: use of low VOC
content materials; averaging of the VOC content materials to meet low-
VOC content standards; or operating add-on VOC pollution control. The
rule also contains recordkeeping, testing, and reporting requirements,
as well as work practices for handling VOC-containing materials.
Facilities with flexible package printing presses with a potential to
emit of less than 25 tons per year of VOC from the use of inks,
coatings and adhesives combined are only required to comply with the
rule's recordkeeping and work practice requirements. Facilities with
flexible package printing presses with a potential to emit of less than
25 tons per

year of VOC from the use of inks, coatings and adhesives combined and
which are used solely for quality control/quality assurance and for
research and development purposes, are required only to meet the rule's
recordkeeping requirements.
    Maine's Chapter 154 Flexible Package Printing rule is consistent
with recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Flexible Package
Printing (EPA-453/R-06-003, September 2006). Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve Chapter 154 and to find that Chapter 154 satisfies
RACT requirements for this source category.

C. Chapter 111, Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor Controls

    Maine's Chapter 111 was originally approved into the Maine SIP on
February 19, 1980 (see 45 FR 10766) and a revised version of the rule
was approved by EPA on February 3, 1992 (see 57 FR 3946) as meeting
RACT requirements.\1\ Maine's October 13, 1999 submittal containing
revised Chapter 111 decreases the petroleum storage vessel complete
inspection (of cover and seal) frequency requirement from annually to
once every ten years and each time the vessel is emptied and degassed,
thereby reducing the overall VOC emissions from this activity.\2\ The
revised inspection schedule is consistent with the following EPA
guidance document: ``Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for
Reasonably Available Control Technology,'' Staff Working Draft, June
1992. The revised rule was also amended to prohibit the emptying and
degassing of petroleum storage vessels, for the purpose of performing a
complete inspection, on days for which ME DEP has issued an ozone
health advisory between June 1 and August 31 each year beginning
January 1, 2004. In addition, the revised rule increases the schedule
for ``routine inspections'' conducted through roof hatches from once
every six months to once every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's February 3, 1992 rulemaking found that Maine's revised
Chapters 111 and 112 met the VOC RACT ``fix-up'' requirements of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Section 182(a)(2)(A)).
    \2\ The emptying of such tanks during inspections causes a
release of VOCs. Therefore, minimizing the occurrence of such
inspections reduces VOC emissions. For example, the EPA document
``Gasoline Distribution Industry--Stage 1--Background information
for Promulgated Standards'' (November, 1994), notes that emptying
and refilling a 150 foot diameter tank will generate approximately 7
tons of VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA shall not approve any
implementation plan revision if it would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA, i.e. the SIP submittal must
demonstrate anti-backsliding. The revision to Chapter 111 reduces the
VOC emissions from petroleum storage vessels. Therefore, the anti-
backsliding requirements of section 110(l) have been met. For all of
the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve Maine's
revised Chapter 111 Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor Controls.

D. Chapter 112, Bulk Terminal Petroleum Liquid Transfer Requirements

    Maine's Chapter 112 was originally approved into the Maine SIP on
February 19, 1980 (see 45 FR 10766) and several updates to the rule
have also been subsequently approved by EPA. In particular, a revised
version of the rule was approved by EPA on February 3, 1992 (see 57 FR
3946) as meeting RACT requirements. The most recent approval of Chapter
112 occurred on October 15, 1996 (see 61 FR 53635). As noted in that
approval, Maine's Chapter 112 is generally consistent with 40 CFR Part
60 Subpart XX and the following CTG: ``Control of Hydrocarbons from
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals'' (EPA-450/2-77-026). Maine's
February 26, 1998 submittal, containing revised Chapter 112, includes a
new, more stringent requirement for the following major sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs): (1) All existing and new bulk
terminals and pipeline breakout stations that emit 10 tons/year or more
of a HAP or 25 tons/year or more of a combination of HAPs; and (2) all
existing and new bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations that are
located at plant sites that emit 10 tons/year or more of a HAP or 25
tons/year or more of a combination of HAPs. Emissions from a vapor
collection and processing system (due to loading of gasoline cargo
tanks) for major sources of HAPs are, under the revised rule, limited
to 10 milligrams of total organic compound per liter of gasoline
loaded, a reduction from the rule's previous limit of 35 milligrams of
total organic compound per liter of gasoline loaded. The emission limit
for sources that are not major sources of HAPs remains at 35 milligrams
of total organic compound per liter of gasoline loaded. The revised
rule also incorporates by reference the following federal maximum
available control technologies (MACT) standards: ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline
Distribution (Stage I)'' at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart R; and ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Marine Tank Vessel
Loading Operations'' at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart Y.
    Maine's revised Chapter 112 includes a more stringent VOC limit
than the previous SIP-approved version of the rule (i.e. 10 versus 35
milligrams, respectively, for major sources of HAPs). Therefore, CAA
section 110(l)'s anti-backsliding requirement has been met. For all of
the reasons above, EPA is proposing to approve Maine's revised Chapter
112.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate into the Maine SIP,
Chapter 159, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Adhesives and
Sealants, and Chapter 154, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Flexible Package Printing, as meeting RACT for the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives and flexible package printing CTG categories,
respectively. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate
into the Maine SIP revised Chapter 111, Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor
Controls, and revised Chapter 112, Bulk Terminal Petroleum Liquid
Transfer Requirements, both of which are consistent with CAA
requirements and with EPA guidance for reducing VOC emissions from
petroleum liquid storage facilities and from bulk terminal petroleum
liquid transfer operations, respectively.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 29, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2014-18832 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

OF THE VERY MANY OTHER WAYS I HAVE TRIED, AND SUFFERING ATTEMPTS THAT I HAVE MADE TO QUIT SMOKING OVER THE PAST THIRTY YEARS, NOTHING HAS WORKED BEFORE TO ACTUALLY HELP ME TO COMPLETELY GIVE UP SMOKING CIGARETTES.  ON FEBRUARY 23, 2011 I ACTUALLY ACQUIRED MY FIRST TRULY "working" ECIG AND I HAVE NOT SMOKED SINCE!!!!!!!    AND I HAVE BEEN THANKING MY DEAR LORD IN HEAVEN EVERY DAY SINCE THEN TOO!!!!

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 94958-94961]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0708; Amendment No. 91-334A]
RIN 2120-AK93

Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the
Damascus (OSTT) Flight Information Region (FIR)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the prohibition of certain flight
operations in the Damascus (OSTT) Flight Information Region (FIR) by
all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising
the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons
are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators
are foreign air carriers. The FAA finds that this action continues to
be necessary to address a potential hazard to persons and aircraft
engaged in such flight operations.

DATES:  This final rule is effective on December 30, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Filippell, Air Transportation
Division, AFS-220, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This action continues the prohibition against certain flight
operations in the

Damascus (OSTT) Flight Information Region (FIR) by all U.S. air
carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges
of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a
U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of
U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign
air carriers. The FAA finds this action necessary to address a
continuing hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight
operations. This rule extends SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, (SFAR 114)
from December 30, 2016, to December 30, 2018.

II. Authority and Good Cause

A. Legal Authority

    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the United
States and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered
civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The
FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49
of the U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), describes the authority
of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section
40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the
public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and
enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air
commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise
his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government
under international agreements.
    This SFAR is promulgated under the authority described in Title 49,
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, General requirements.
Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe
flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other
things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and
procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security. This regulation is within the scope of
that authority because it continues the prohibition against certain
flight operations in the OSTT FIR due to the hazard to persons and
aircraft engaged in such flight operations that is described in the
Background section of this final rule.

B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to
dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency
for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' In this instance,
the FAA finds that notice and public comment to this final rule, as
well as any delay in the effective date of this rule, are contrary to
the public interest due to the immediate need to address the continuing
hazard to civil aviation that exists in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR, as
described in the Background section of this final rule.

III. Background

    The significant threat identified when the FAA first published SFAR
114 to civil aviation operating in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR continues
due to the presence of anti-aircraft weapons controlled by non-state
actors, threats made by the extremist groups, de-confliction concerns,
and ongoing military fighting. Flight safety risks associated with a
lack of de-confliction between various military forces conducting
operations in Syria and civil aviation, as identified in the original
prohibition, also continue unabated.
    Due to the presence of foreign national military forces and non-
state actors operating in Syria, the FAA has determined that safety of
flight continues to be a serious safety concern for U.S. civil aviation
flight operations in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR. There are multiple
extremist groups, known to be equipped with a variety of anti-aircraft
weapons including radar-guided surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and man-
portable air defense systems (MANPADs), which have the capability to
threaten civil aircraft. Syrian and Russian military aircraft have been
shot down during the course of the current conflict and these groups
have previously warned civilian air carriers against operating within
(or providing service to) Syria.
    In 2015 and in support of the Asad regime, Russia began conducting
military operations using fighter and bomber aircraft and employed
advanced cruise missiles. These operations further increase the risk to
civilian flight operations within the Damascus (OSTT) FIR.
    The FAA continues to assess the situation in the Damascus (OSTT)
FIR and believes there is a significant threat to civil aviation
operating in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR at all altitudes due to the
presence of anti-aircraft weapons controlled by non-state actors,
threats made by the extremist groups, de-confliction concerns, and
ongoing military fighting.
    Due to the continuation of the previously described hazards to U.S.
civil aviation operations, the FAA is extending the expiration date of
SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, from December 30, 2016 to December 30,
2018, to maintain the prohibition on flight operations in the Damascus
(OSTT) FIR by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons
exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when
such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air
carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when
such operators are foreign air carriers.
    The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and, based
on evaluations, determine the extent U.S. civil operators may be able
to safely operate in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR in the future. Amendments
to this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, may be appropriate if the risk to
aviation safety and security changes. Thus, the FAA may amend or
rescind this SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, as necessary prior to its
expiration date.
    Because the circumstances described herein warrant a continuation
of the flight restrictions imposed by SFAR 114, I find that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. I also find that this action is fully
consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105 to ensure that I
exercise my duties consistently with the obligations of the United
States under international agreements.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354),
as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13,
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25, requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by

State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for
inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final
rule.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this final rule
has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant
regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive
Order; further, this rule is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce
of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits a statement to
that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows.
    For SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, the FAA determined that
incremental costs were minimal for U.S. operators of large transport
category airplanes (four part 121 operators and two part 125M
operators) because they had voluntarily ended their overflights in
March, 2011, before the FAA's August 18, 2014 issuance of FDC NOTAM 4/
4936. The FAA also determined that the incremental costs of SFAR No.
114 were minimal for about 15 ``on-demand'' large carriers (part 121
and part 121/135) and about 75 small ``on-demand'' operators (parts
135, 125, 125M, and 91K). These operators had previously flown into and
out of Syria or conducted overflights in the OSTT FIR. But because of
sanctions imposed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the ongoing conflict, the FAA
believed that few, if any, of these ``on-demand'' operators were still
operating in the OSTT FIR immediately before the FAA issued FDC NOTAM
4/4936.
    Due to significant and increased hostilities, and because the OFAC
sanctions remain in place, the reasons for the FAA's previous finding
of minimal cost for SFAR No. 114 remain unchanged. Therefore, the FAA
finds that the incremental cost of the SFAR No. 114 extension will be
minimal.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, ``RFA''), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance
that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the
rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
5 U.S.C. 605(b) provides that the head of the agency may so certify and
a regulatory flexibility analysis will not be required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    Prior to the hostilities leading to the earlier published SFAR No.
114, Sec.  91.1609, there were many small entities conducting
operations through the now restricted airspace. After the FAA published
SFAR No. 114, Sec.  91.1609, the FAA received no request to use this
airspace. Given no requests have occurred, the FAA believes the earlier
determination of minimal cost is accurate. Thus, extending the airspace
restriction will not impose a significant economic impact. Therefore,
as provided in Sec.  605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this
rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended,
prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in
related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment
of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate
domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined
that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from a
hazard outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the
Trade Agreements Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO

Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation.
    While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air
carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers
from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that
operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.
Further, following the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, there
is increased attention in the international community and ICAO to
conflict-related threats to civil aircraft. Foreign air carriers and
other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised/directed by
their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA
has issued a flight prohibition.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f of this order and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
    The FAA has reviewed the implementation of this SFAR and determined
it is categorically excluded from further environmental review
according to FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.6f. The FAA has examined possible
extraordinary circumstances and determined that no such circumstances
exist. After careful and thorough consideration of the action, the FAA
finds that this Federal action does not require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement in
accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' The
agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, and,
therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001). The agency has
determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the
executive order, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

VI. Additional Information

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
     Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
     Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
http://www.fdsys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
docket or amendment number of the rule) to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in
developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical
reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal referenced above.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under
the For Further Information Contact section at the beginning of the
preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Freight, Syria.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126
Stat. 11).

0
2. Revise Sec.  91.1609, paragraph (e), to read as follows:

Sec.  91.1609   Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 114--
Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Damascus (OSTT) Flight
Information Region (FIR).

* * * * *
    (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain in effect until December 30,
2018. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR No. 114, Sec.
91.1609, as necessary.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), in Washington, DC, on
December 19, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-31237 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P