[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 240 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 74200]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4085-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

New York; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4085-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 13, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 30, 2012.

    Orange, Putnam, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties for Public
Assistance, including direct federal assistance (already designated
for Individual Assistance).

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-30154 Filed 12-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 69614-69617]
[DOCID:fr16no05-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52752; File No. SR-NASD-2004-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments
Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Short Sale Delivery Requirements

November 8, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1 \ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 10, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. On October
6, 2005, NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On
October 28, 2005, NASD filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On account of the adoption of Regulation SHO, Amendment No.
1 to SR-NASD-2004-044, among other things, narrows the scope of the
proposed rule change to those equity securities not otherwise
covered by the delivery requirements of Rule 203(b) of Regulation
SHO.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 to SR-NASD-2004-044, which replaces and
supersedes Amendment No. 1, makes technical changes to the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD is proposing new Rule 3210 to require participants \5\ of
registered clearing agencies \6\ (referred to herein as ``clearing
agency participants'') to take action on failures to deliver that exist
for 13 consecutive settlement days in certain specified securities. In
addition, if the fail to deliver position is not closed out in the
requisite time period, a clearing agency participant or any broker-
dealer for which it clears transactions would be prohibited from
effecting further short sales in the particular specified security
without borrowing, or entering into a bona-fide arrangement to borrow,
the security until the fail to deliver position is closed out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 3(a)(24) of the Act.
    \6\ A ``registered clearing agency'' is a clearing agency, as
defined in Section 3(a)(23)(A) of the Act, that is registered with
the SEC pursuant to Section 17A of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
3210. [Reserved.] Short Sale Delivery Requirements

    (a) If a participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to
deliver position at a registered clearing agency in a non-reporting
threshold security for 13 consecutive settlement days, the participant
shall immediately thereafter close out the fail to deliver position by
purchasing securities of like kind and quantity.
    (b) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the amount of
the fail to deliver position that the participant of a registered
clearing agency had at a registered clearing agency on the settlement
day immediately preceding the day that the security became a non-
reporting threshold security; provided, however, that if the fail to
deliver position at the clearing agency is subsequently reduced below
the fail to deliver position on the settlement day immediately
preceding the day that the security became a non-reporting threshold
security, then the fail to deliver position excepted by this paragraph
(b)(1) shall be the lesser amount.
    (c) If a participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to
deliver position at a registered clearing agency in a non-reporting
threshold security for 13 consecutive settlement days, the participant
and any broker or dealer for which it clears transactions, including
any market maker that would otherwise be entitled to rely on the
exception provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of SEC Rule 203 of
Regulation SHO, may not accept a short sale order in the non-reporting
threshold security from another person, or effect a short sale in the
non-reporting threshold security for its own account, without borrowing
the security or entering into a bona-fide arrangement to borrow the
security, until the participant closes out the fail to deliver position
by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity.
    (d) If a participant of a registered clearing agency reasonably
allocates a portion of a fail to deliver position to another registered
broker or dealer for which it clears trades or for which it is
responsible for settlement, based on such broker or dealer's short
position, then the provisions of this rule relating to such fail to
deliver position shall apply to the portion of such registered broker
or dealer that was allocated the fail to deliver position, and not to
the participant.
    (e) A participant of a registered clearing agency shall not be
deemed to have fulfilled the requirements of this rule where the
participant enters into an arrangement with another person to purchase
securities as required by this rule, and the participant knows or has
reason to know that the other person will not deliver securities in
settlement of the purchase.
    (f) For the purposes of this rule, the following terms shall have
the meanings below:
    (1) the term ``market maker'' has the same meaning as in section
3(a)(38) of the Exchange Act.
    (2) the term ``non-reporting threshold security'' means any equity
security of an issuer that is not registered pursuant to section 12 of
the Exchange Act and for which the issuer is not required to file
reports pursuant to section 15(d) of the Exchange Act:
    (A) for which there is an aggregate fail to deliver position for
five consecutive settlement days at a registered clearing agency of
10,000 shares or more and for which on each settlement day during the
five consecutive settlement day period, the reported last sale during
normal market hours for the security on that settlement day that would
value the aggregate fail to deliver position at $50,000 or more,
provided that if there is no reported last sale on a particular
settlement day, then the price used to value the position on such
settlement day would be the previously reported last sale; and
    (B) is included on a list published by NASD.
    A security shall cease to be a non-reporting threshold security if
the aggregate fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency
does not meet or exceed either of the threshold tests specified in
paragraph (f)(2)(A) of this rule for five consecutive settlement days.
    (3) the term ``participant'' means a participant as defined in
section 3(a)(24) of the Exchange Act, that is an NASD member.
    (4) the term ``registered clearing agency'' means a clearing
agency, as defined in section 3(a)(23)(A) of the Exchange Act, that is
registered with the Commission pursuant to section 17A of the Exchange
Act.
    (5) the term ``settlement day'' means any business day on which
deliveries of securities and payments of money may be made through the
facilities of a registered clearing agency.
    (g) Pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series, the staff, for good cause
shown after taking into consideration all relevant factors, may grant
an exemption from the provisions of this rule, either unconditionally
or on specified terms and conditions, to any transaction or class of
transactions, or to any security or class of securities, or to any
person or class of persons, if such exemption is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified

in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose

Rule Filing History

    On March 10, 2004, NASD filed with the Commission proposed rule
change SR-NASD-2004-044, proposing amendments relating to short sale
delivery requirements in all classes of equity securities. Given the
SEC's adoption of Regulation SHO under the Act, which imposes delivery
requirements related to short selling activities, on October 6, 2005,
NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to SR-NASD-2004-044 to, among other things,
narrow the scope of its proposal to those equity securities not
otherwise covered by the delivery requirements of Rule 203 of
Regulation SHO.\7\ NASD filed Amendment No. 2 to SR-NASD-2004-044
(``Amendment No. 2'') to make certain technical changes. Amendment No.
2 replaces and supersedes in its entirety the filing made on October 6,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On November 30, 2004, NASD filed for immediate effectiveness
a rule change that repealed, among others, Rule 3210 and Rule 11830
in light of the requirements of the SEC's new short sale regulation,
Regulation SHO under the Act. See Exchange Act Release No. 50822
(December 8, 2004), 69 FR 74554 (December 14, 2004) (File No. SR-
NASD-2004-175). Therefore, deletion of those rules as part of this
filing is no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On June 23, 2004, the SEC adopted Regulation SHO under the Act,
which provides a new regulatory framework governing the short selling
of equity securities.\8\ Regulation SHO includes several new provisions
relating to short sales, one of which imposes delivery requirements on
clearing agency participants for certain securities that have a
substantial level of failures to deliver. Specifically, Rule 203(b)(3)
of Regulation SHO requires clearing agency participants to close out
all failures to deliver in a ``threshold security,'' as defined in
Regulation SHO, that have existed for thirteen consecutive settlement
days. Regulation SHO defines a ``threshold security'' as any equity
security of an issuer that is registered under Section 12 of the Act or
that is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Act
(commonly referred to as ``reporting securities'') that (1) for five
consecutive settlement days has had aggregate fails to deliver at a
registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares or more; (2) the level of
fails is equal to at least one-half of one percent of the issue's total
shares outstanding (``TSO''); and (3) is included on a list published
by a self-regulatory organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR
48008 (August 6, 2004) (``Regulation SHO Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the fail to deliver is not closed out in the requisite time
period, the clearing agency participant and any broker-dealer for which
it clears transactions, including market makers, are prohibited from
effecting further short sales in the particular threshold security
without borrowing, or entering into a bona-fide arrangement to borrow,
the security until the fail to deliver position is closed out. To the
extent that the participant can identify the broker-dealer(s) that have
contributed to the fail to deliver position, the requirement to borrow
or arrange to borrow prior to effecting further short sales should
apply only to those particular broker-dealers.

Description of Proposed Rule Change

    As noted above, the Regulation SHO delivery requirements apply only
to reporting securities. NASD staff believes applying delivery
requirements to non-reporting securities is an important step in
reducing long-term fails to deliver in this sector of the marketplace.
    Accordingly, NASD is proposing new Rule 3210, which would apply a
delivery framework to non-reporting OTC equity securities substantially
similar to that described above. Under the proposal, a non-reporting
security that, for five consecutive settlement dates, has: (1) A
failure to deliver equal to or greater than 10,000 shares; and (2) a
reported last sale during normal market hours (9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Eastern Time (ET)) for the security on that settlement day that would
value the aggregate fail to deliver position at $50,000 or more; would
be deemed a non-reporting threshold security and thus, subject to the
delivery requirements proposed herein. In the event there is no
reported last sale on any settlement day during such five-day period,
the aggregate fail position would be valued based on the previously
reported last sale.
    In the Regulation SHO Adopting Release, the SEC indicated that it
did not apply the Regulation SHO delivery framework to non-reporting
securities because of the difficulties in capturing TSO information for
those securities to determine whether they met the Regulation SHO
threshold requirements.\9\ NASD believes that under the proposed rule
change described herein, the lack of TSO information for non-reporting
securities would not be an issue, given that the only calculations
necessary would be whether the failure to deliver position is equal to
or greater than 10,000 shares and whether the failure to deliver
position meets the dollar threshold test specified above.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. Footnote 82.
    \10\ According to the NASD, similar to the rationale behind the
Regulation SHO threshold test relative to TSO, NASD has proposed the
dollar threshold test to ensure that the non-reporting threshold
security list is not overly broad or impracticable. NASD is
concerned that having a security on the non-reporting threshold
security list solely based on whether the failure to deliver
position is equal to or greater than 10,000 shares may not represent
a significant failure to deliver position relative to the price of
the security, particularly given that many non-reporting securities
trade at less than $1.00. As noted in the Regulation SHO Adopting
Release, there may be many different causes of fails to deliver that
could be unrelated to a market participant engaging in naked short
selling. See Regulation SHO Adopting Release. Thus, NASD staff
believes that imposing too low of a threshold may be an overly broad
method of addressing any potential abuses and also could disrupt the
efficient functioning of the Continuous Net Settlement system
operated by the National Securities Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD will publish a list daily of the non-reporting securities that
meet the threshold requirements under proposed Rule 3210. To be removed
from the list, a security must not meet or exceed either of the
threshold tests described above for five consecutive settlement days.
    NASD believes that, as discussed previously, the proposed rule
change would apply a delivery framework substantially similar to
Regulation SHO to non-reporting securities. As such, NASD intends to
apply and interpret these proposed requirements consistent with the
SEC's application and interpretation of Regulation SHO, and to the
extent there are subsequent amendments to Regulation SHO, NASD will
consider amending its requirements accordingly.
    Among other issues relating to the filing, NASD is seeking comment
on the proposed threshold tests for non-reporting OTC equity securities
described above. Specifically, NASD is seeking comment on whether the
proposed thresholds are an accurate indicator of non-reporting OTC
equity securities with excessive fails to deliver, including but not
limited to, whether the $50,000 aggregate fail to deliver position is
the appropriate dollar threshold and whether the 10,000 shares or
greater failure to deliver threshold is the appropriate share
threshold, given the trading characteristics in this sector of the
marketplace.

    NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be 30 days following
publication of the Notice to Members announcing Commission approval.
 2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will
reduce significant, long-term fails to deliver in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (a) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission notes that in Section 3210(b) of the proposed rule,
consistent with the application of Regulation SHO, the NASD excludes
from the close out requirement of Section 3210(a) of the proposed rule
the amount of the fail to deliver position that the participant of a
registered clearing agency had at a registered clearing agency on the
settlement day immediately preceding the day that the security became a
non-reporting threshold security. The Commission specifically requests
comment on this aspect of proposed Rule 3210.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2004-044 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2004-044. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to the File Number SR-NASD-2004-044 and should
be submitted on or before December 7, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6306 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30612-30615]
[FR Doc No: E9-15337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0553]

Material Safety Data Sheet Requirement in the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: In the interest of providing seafarers with clear, concise,
and accurate information on the health effects of certain toxic
substances, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) recently
amended the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS), 1974, to require Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for ships
carrying oil or oil fuel as defined in regulation 1 of Annex I of the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL).
Once accepted by member States in accordance with Article VIII of
SOLAS, and effective January 1, 2011, SOLAS will require that each ship
subject to SOLAS and carrying oil or oil fuel as defined in MARPOL must
be provided with MSDSs prior to loading such oil as cargo in bulk or
oil fuel. Additionally, the IMO has recommended a format and content
for the MSDSs, and that recommendation becomes effective July 1, 2009;
the Coast Guard encourages this recommended format, which is set out
below.

DATES: If accepted in accordance with the Convention, the SOLAS
requirement

that vessels be provided with MSDSs will become effective on January 1,
2011. The recommended IMO content and format for MSDS was approved
effective July 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Dr. Alan L. Schneider, CG-5223, Coast Guard, telephone
202-372-1421, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

IMO Requirement That MSDSs Be Provided

    In October of 2007, IMO adopted amendments to SOLAS chapter VI,
inserting a new regulation 5-1 to read as follows:

    Ships carrying oil or oil fuel, as defined in regulation 1 of
Annex 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
relating thereto, shall be provided with Material Safety Data
Sheets, based on the recommendations developed by the Organization,*
prior to the loading of such oil as cargo in bulk or bunkering of
oil fuel.
    * Refer to the Recommendation for material safety data sheets
(MSDS) for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils, adopted by
the Organization by resolution MSC.150(77), as may be amended.

The term ``Annex I cargoes'' refers to those oil cargoes included in
Annex I (oils and oil products) of MARPOL; the term does not refer to
chemicals.
    The 2007 amendment created an anomaly in the application of SOLAS
requirements. In June 2009, IMO amended regulation 1 of SOLAS Chapter
VI to add the following to the first sentence, ``Except as otherwise
provided, t'' and struck the ``T'', so that the text reads, ``Except as
otherwise provided, this * * * .'' Additionally, regulation 5-1, as
amended, continues to read as set forth above. The effect of this
action is to harmonize Regulation 1 with the amended Regulation 5-1.
The effective date of both regulations is January 1, 2011.
    When accepted in accordance with the Convention Article VIII, the
amendments to SOLAS chapter VI will enter into force on January 1,
2011. Accordingly, beginning January 1, 2011, State parties to SOLAS
can be expected to verify that ships subject to SOLAS have been
provided with MSDSs, as required. After that date, all U.S. flagged
SOLAS vessels traveling overseas should expect foreign Administrations
to ask for MSDSs for each Annex I cargo and marine oil fuel on board.
Also, after January 1, 2011, all U.S. and foreign flagged SOLAS vessels
in U.S. ports should anticipate that the Coast Guard will ask for
MSDSs, as part of its domestic and foreign vessel compliance activities
and in fulfillment of the United States' duties as a party to the SOLAS
convention.
    Because the IMO only recently adopted the recommended format and
content for MSDSs, the Coast Guard will provide a future notice
containing detailed enforcement guidance, including MSDS guidance for
vessels involved in lightering operations. For now, the Coast Guard
recommends that MSDSs provided to a ship follow the recommended IMO
content and format contained below. The Coast Guard anticipates that
these MSDSs will be provided by the oil terminal or bunker supplier,
unless otherwise arranged by the cargo/bunker supplier and the ship
interests. It is further expected that ship-board personnel will have
access to these MSDSs in a working language or languages understood by
them. Additionally, occupational exposure limits referenced in an MSDS
should be based on internationally recognized standards.
    Although the SOLAS requirements for MSDSs do not apply to vessels
not subject to SOLAS, such as unmanned inland barges, other
regulations, such as 46 CFR 197.565, may require MSDSs to be on board.
    In most cases, as a matter of good safety practice, vessels will
already have MSDSs for all cargoes and these MSDSs usually will contain
the recommended information. An MSDS may contain more information than
the IMO recommends. In some cases, certain recommended data may not
apply to the bulk liquid in question (data not applicable should be so
noted); however, since some IMO member States may require all of the
recommended information, it may be a good idea to include all
recommended data.

Coast Guard Recommendation as to Layout and Content of MSDSs

    Effective July 1, 2009, the IMO adopted the ``Recommendation for
Material Safety Data Sheets for MARPOL Annex I Cargoes and Marine Fuel
Oils.'' The Coast Guard supports and encourages this recommendation in
its entirety. Accordingly, the Coast Guard encourages industry to apply
the following recommendations for the layout and content of an MSDS.

 Recommendations for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for Marine Use Suitable To Meet the Particular Needs of
the Marine Industry Containing Safety, Handling, and Environmental Information To Be Supplied to a Ship Prior to
              the Loading of MARPOL Annex I Type Oil as Cargo in Bulk and the Bunkering of Oil Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Section                       Heading                                     Content
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................  Identification of the substance   Name of the category--see Guidelines following this
                           or mixture and of the supplier.   table for MARPOL Annex I type oil cargoes and oil
                                                             fuels.
                                                            The name of the substances. Trade name of the
                                                             substances.
                                                            Description on Bill of Lading (B/L), Bunker Delivery
                                                             Note or other shipping document.
                                                            Other means of identification.
                                                            Supplier's details (including name, address,
                                                             telephone number, etc.).
                                                            Emergency telephone number.
2.......................  Hazards identification..........  GHS \1\ classification of the substance/mixture and
                                                             any regional information.
                                                            Other hazards which do not result in classification
                                                             (e.g., hydrogen sulfide) or are not covered by the
                                                             GHS.
                                                            See Guidelines following this table.
3.......................  Composition/information on        Common name, synonyms, etc. Impurities and
                           ingredients.                      stabilizing additives which are themselves
                                                             classified and which contribute to the
                                                             classification of the substances.
                                                            The chemical identity and concentration or
                                                             concentration ranges of all ingredients which are
                                                             hazardous within the meaning of GHS and are present
                                                             above their cut-off levels. Cut-off level for
                                                             reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity and category
                                                             1 mutagenicity is 0.1%. Cut-off level for all other
                                                             hazard classes is 1%.
                                                            See Guidelines following this table.

4.......................  First aid measures..............  Description of necessary measures, subdivided
                                                             according to the different routes of exposure,
                                                             i.e., inhalation, skin and eye contact and
                                                             ingestion.
                                                            Most important symptoms/effects, acute and delayed.
                                                            Indication of immediate medical attention and
                                                             special treatment, if necessary.
5.......................  Fire-fighting measures..........  Suitable extinguishing media.
                                                            Specific hazards arising from the chemical (e.g.,
                                                             nature of any hazardous combustion products).
                                                            Special protective equipment and precautions for
                                                             fire-fighters.
6.......................  Accidental release measures.....  Personal precautions, protective equipment and
                                                             emergency procedures.
                                                            Environmental precautions.
                                                            Methods and materials for containment and clean-up.
7.......................  Handling and storage............  Precautions for safe handling.
                                                            Conditions for safe storage, including any
                                                             incompatibilities.
8.......................  Exposure controls/personal        Control parameters (e.g., occupational exposure
                           protection.                       limit values).
                                                            Appropriate technical precautions.
                                                            Individual protection measures, such as personal
                                                             protective equipment.
9.......................  Physical and chemical properties  See Guidelines following this table.
10......................  Stability and reactivity........  Chemical stability. Possibility of hazardous
                                                             reactions.
                                                            Conditions to avoid (e.g., static discharge).
11......................  Toxicological information.......  Concise but complete and comprehensible description
                                                             of the various toxicological (health) effects and
                                                             the available data used to identify those effects,
                                                             including:
                                                              Information on the likely routes of exposure
                                                            (inhalation, ingestion, skin and eye contact);
                                                              Symptoms related to the physical, chemical and
                                                            toxicological characteristics;
                                                              Delayed and immediate effects and also chronic
                                                            effects from short- and long-term exposure.
                                                            Numerical measures of toxicity (such as acute
                                                             toxicity estimates).
                                                            See Guidelines following this table.
12......................  Ecological information..........  Ecotoxicity (aquatic and terrestrial, where
                                                             available).
                                                            Persistence and degradability.
                                                            Bioaccumulation potential.
                                                            Mobility in soil.
                                                            Other adverse effects.
                                                            See Guidelines following this table.
13......................  Disposal considerations.........  Description of waste residues and information on
                                                             their safe handling and methods of disposal, in
                                                             line with MARPOL requirements.
14......................  Transport information...........  UN number, where applicable.
                                                            UN Proper shipping name, where applicable.
                                                            Transport Hazard class(es), where applicable.
                                                            Special precautions which a user needs to be aware
                                                             of or needs to comply with in connection with
                                                             transport (e.g., heating and carriage
                                                             temperatures).
                                                            Note that this product is being carried under the
                                                             scope of MARPOL Annex I.
15......................  Regulatory information..........  Safety, health and environmental regulations
                                                             specific for the product in question.
16......................  Other information including       Version No.
                           information on preparation and   Date of issue.
                           revision of the MSDS.            Issuing source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), United Nations (2007 edition,
  as revised).

Guidelines for the Completion of MSDSs for MARPOL Annex I Type Oil as
Cargo in Bulk and Oil Fuel

1. Categories of Liquids

    The following categories subdivide the full scope of substances
covered by Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 and set in groups specific products
for general identification purposes.

1.1 crude oils;
1.2 fuel and residual oils, including ship's bunkers;
1.3 unfinished distillates, hydraulic oils and lubricating oils;
1.4 gas oils, including ship's bunkers;
1.5 kerosenes;
1.6 naphthas and condensates;
1.7 gasoline blending stocks;
1.8 gasoline and spirits; and
1.9 asphalt solutions.

2. Properties and Information

    In addition to properties and information specified in the above
table containing the recommended MSDS format, the following properties
and information should be reported:

2.1 for the following provide appropriate hazards identification in
section 2, composition/information on ingredients in section 3, and
toxicological information in section 11 of the MSDS:
2.1.1 Benzene--if present >=0.1% by weight (even if naturally occurring
ingredient of the material);
2.1.2 Hydrogen sulfide--if present at any concentration, in liquid and
vapor phases, or if possible to accumulate in a tank's vapor space; and
2.1.3 Total Sulfur--if present >=0.5% by weight, identify in section 3
and warn of potential for hydrogen sulfide evolution in sections 2 and
11;
2.2 for physical and chemical properties in section 9 of the MSDS:

2.2.1 appearance (physical state, color, etc.);
2.2.2 odor;
2.2.3 pour point;
2.2.4 boiling range;
2.2.5 flash point;
2.2.6 upper/lower flammability or explosive limits;
2.2.7 vapor pressure (Reid vapor pressure (RVP) when appropriate);
2.2.8 vapor density;
2.2.9 density;
2.2.10 auto-ignition temperature; and
2.2.11 kinematic viscosity; and
2.3 for ecological information in section 12 of the MSDS: Persistent or
non-persistent oil as per the International Oil Pollution Compensation
(IOPC) Fund definition.

    This notice is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231,
1321(j), and 1903(b).

    Dated: June 24, 2009.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E9-15337 Filed 6-24-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59368-59369]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 8046-004]

Big Wood Canal Company; Notice of Amendment of Application for an
Amendment of Conduit Exemption Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests, Recommendations, and Terms
and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of Application for Amendment of
Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 8046-004.
    c. Date Filed: October 24, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Big Wood Canal Company.
    e. Name of Project: Sagebrush Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the South Gooding Main Canal
in Lincoln County, near Gooding, Idaho. The project occupies federal
lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Nicholas E. Josten, GeoSense LLC, 2742
Saint Charles Ave., Idaho Falls, ID 83404,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Linda Stewart,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing responsive documents: Due to the small size
of the proposed project, as well as the resource agency consultation
letters filed with the application, the 60-day timeframe specified in
18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is shortened
to 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments
must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from the issuance date
of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-8046-004.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a
copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: On September 25, 2019 the Secretary of
the Commission issued a Notice of Application for Amendment of Conduit
Exemption for the Sagebrush Project. The notice described Big Wood
Canal Company's (exemptee) request to amend the conduit exemption,
filed on August 22, 2019, and supplemented on September 20, 2019. On
October 24, 2019, the exemptee filed additional information to reflect
a proposed design change to its amendment application. Instead of
removing the existing powerhouse, which contains three turbine
generating units with a total installed capacity of 315 kilowatts (kW),
and constructing a new powerhouse containing a single 475-kW turbine
generating unit immediately downstream of the existing intake system,
the exemptee now proposes to partially remove the existing powerhouse
and to construct a new powerhouse adjacent to the downstream wall of
the existing powerhouse. The new powerhouse would contain a single 475-
kW turbine generating unit, as originally proposed by the exemptee.
Additionally, instead of removing the approximately 400-foot-long
existing, buried penstocks (three pipes) and excavating an open
tailrace channel along the route of the existing penstocks, the
exemptee now proposes to replace the existing penstocks with a single
penstock.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number, P-8046, in the docket number
field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of
new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    n. Any entity who intervened in the amendment proceeding (sub
docket P-8046-004) pursuant to the September 25, 2019 Notice of
Application for Amendment of Conduit Exemption need not intervene
again.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'',
``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,''
``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the
heading, the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by

proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.

    Dated: October 28, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23985 Filed 11-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57445-57447]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22743]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0297; FRL-9912-69-Region 9]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa
County Air Quality Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerns particulate matter (PM) emissions from
incinerators, burn-off ovens and crematories. We are approving a local
rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on November 24, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 27, 2014. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0297, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idalia P[eacute]rez, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3248<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that it was
adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                         Table 1--Submitted Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Local agency    Rule No.       Rule title        Adopted     Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD                  313  Incinerators, Burn-    05/09/12     08/27/12
                             Off Ovens and
                             Crematories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 27, 2013, the submittal for MCAQD Rule 313 was deemed
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    The MCAQD adopted an earlier version of Rule 313 on July 13, 1988
and ADEQ submitted it to us on January 4, 1990. EPA never took action
on this version of the rule. While we can only act on the most recently
submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous
submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions. Rule 313 limits PM emissions from incinerators, burn-off
ovens and crematories through a combination of emission standards and
work practices. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more
information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). In addition, areas designated and classified as moderate
nonattainment for PM-10 must implement Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM), and areas designated and classified as serious
nonattainment for PM-10 must implement Best Available Control

Measures (BACM) (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)). The MCAQD
regulates a PM-10 nonattainment area classified as serious (see 40 CFR
Part 81.303).
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate this rule
include the following:

    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
Federal Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability
published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant requirements
and policy regarding enforceability, BACM and SIP revisions. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we
receive adverse comments by October 27, 2014, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on November 24, 2014. This will incorporate the
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. 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 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 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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.
    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 action 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 is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 24, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 30, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(163) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (163) The following plan was submitted on August 27, 2012 by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
    (1) Rule 313, ``Incinerators, Burn-Off Ovens and Crematories,''
revised May 9, 2012.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-22743 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The following information is provided as follow-up to FHR and Molex conference call with EPA on 3/22/22.

Detection Floor
 Current AMEL Draft verbiage - Section IV. A (a)(2):
            The sensor must be capable of maintaining a detection floor of less than 10 ppbe on a rolling 10-minute average, when adjusted for the system response to the most recent successful bump test conducted in accordance with IV.A(e)(2). The detection floor is determined at three times the standard deviation of the previous 10 minutes of data excluding excursions related to emissions peaks.

In comments submitted by Molex and FHR during Nov 2021,  we requested to remove the bump test factor from the equation shown above. The need to remove the bump test factor was described in detail as part of those comments. It is important to note that the sensor network which was installed in these process units was shown to be equivalent or better than the emission control provided in the applicable rule. However, that system would not meet the detection floor requirements that were proposed by EPA in the AMEL draft.  FHR would not be able to implement the AMEL as written.

In addition to returning to an equation without bump test adjustments, after thoroughly reviewing the available data, Molex/FHR also requests that 2 minutes of data (instead of 10 minutes as originally proposed) be used for the detection floor calculation. The detection floor calculation utilizes baseline modeling, i.e.  correction for baseline drift associated with environmental effects such as temperature and humidity changes. Because the baseline drift is generally more pronounced over a longer time period, the calculation is considered to be more accurate and representative by using data from a shorter duration. Therefore, Molex/FHR requests the following changes to the specification:

            The sensor must be capable of maintaining a detection floor of less than 10 ppbe on a rolling 102-minute average, when adjusted for the system response to the most recent successful bump test conducted in accordance with IV.A(e)(2). The detection floor is determined at three times the standard deviation of the previous 102 minutes of data excluding excursions related to emissions peaks.

 Current AMEL Draft verbiage - Section IV. A (e)(3):
            The health of each sensor must be confirmed for power and data transmission at least once every 15 minutes. Data transmission, which includes data recorded by the sensor every second as noted in IV.A(a)(3), must occur at least once every 15 minutes. The rolling 10-minute average detection floor data collected in accordance with IV.A(a)(2) must be updated with each new minute of data every 15 minutes.

Because a sensor can be continuously exposed to gas for several hours during the automated  PSL generation process and until the leak is corrected during the DRF work practice , Molex/FHR  proposes the detection floor be validated once every 72 hours which is in sync with the minimum time required for the generation of the PSL and detection notification. Thus, at least one of the calculated detection floor values within the past 72 hours should meet the 10ppbe specification, starting at 00:00 UTC of the 1[st] day and ending at 23:59 UTC of the 3[rd] day. For a sensor that is continuously experiencing positive detections during the 72 hour period, FHR will utilize the sensor data to demonstrate that the detection floor calculation was not feasible. Due to the time required to obtain valid data, the sensor detection floor is not included in the continuous sensor health monitoring, which is to occur once every 15 minutes.

Also, Molex's comments from Nov 2021 included "If a sensor reset or repair is necessary, FHR must test the responsivity and wireless communication of the sensor through a bump test ...". To better clarify this comment, Molex asks to remove "reset or" from the verbiage since a sensor reset is often caused by brief power outage or automatic WiFi reconnection. These types of resets do not negatively impact the gas sensor's performance and dispatching a technician to perform a bump test in the field is unnecessary for these types of resets.

Molex/FHR propose the following clarification.

            IV.A.(e)(3): The health of each sensor must be confirmed for power and data transmission at least once every 15 minutes. Data transmission, which includes data recorded by the sensor every second as noted in IV.A(a)(3), must occur at least once every 15 minutes. Appropriate corrective actions must be taken for any sensors that fail to collect data in accordance with IV.A(a)(2) and (3) and transmit data in accordance with this paragraph to ensure any errors or malfunctions are corrected in a timely manner. Such periods are considered downtime until corrected. If a sensor reset or repair is necessary, FHR must test the responsivity and wireless communication of the sensor through a bump test according to the procedure specified in IV.A(e)(2). FHR must maintain records of sensor health in accordance with IV.C(f).
            The sensor detection floor shall be reviewed at 00:00 UTC each day to confirm each sensor detection floor remains below established threshold of 10 ppbe on a rolling 2-minute average during at least one 2-minute period in the past 72 hour period. If a sensor does not pass the detection floor review, then a sensor fault notification shall be issued, and the sensor issue shall be corrected through recalibration, repair, replacement, or another appropriate measure, unless FHR can demonstrate the sensor was continuously experiencing positive detections during this time.
 Current AMEL DRAFT - Recordkeeping Section IV. C (g): (g) Raw sensor readings. Additionally, for each sensor, the percent of time positive detections were registered during the 72-hour lookback must be recorded each day and the minimum, average, and maximum detection floor.
            Molex/FHR requests a change to the above specification to remove the requirement for recording the maximum and average detection floor values due to the difficulty in calculating these values in the presence of gas detections. The detection floor is more accurately represented by the minimum detection floor value, i.e. the sensor output without gas.
                  (g) Raw sensor readings. Additionally, for each sensor, the percent of time positive detections were registered during the 72-hour lookback must be recorded each day and the minimum, average, and maximum together with the minimum detection floor.

Bump Test
 Current AMEL Draft verbiage - Section IV. A (e)(2)(ii):
            (ii) The bump test is successful if the response of the sensor exceeds 50 percent of the nominal value of the standard and the adjusted detection floor does not exceed 10 ppbe. The bump test may be repeated up to two additional times if the first bump test is unsuccessful.

Molex/FHR requests to delete the phrase, "and the adjusted detection floor does not exceed 10ppbe." A bump test is a brief gas exposure test conducted quarterly to document responsiveness. The detection floor check is required to be done in a relatively clean environment when active leaks are not occurring in close proximity to the sensor. The detection floor will be checked at least every 72 hours and does not need to be included as part of a quarterly bump test.

The sensors were designed, installed and tested in a manner to ensure that responsiveness of each individual sensor could be confirmed easily through a brief in-the-field bump test. During the pilot studies, 50% of the nominal value of the gas standard was used as the pass/fail threshold. Sensors that were unable to perform at or above the threshold were replaced.  That system and the associated maintenance practices were shown to be equivalent or better than the emission control provided in the applicable rule. Using a more stringent but untested threshold would likely increase cost for LDSN adopters, increase calculated down time, but have limited/no additional emission reductions.

Molex/FHR requests the following changes to the specification.
            (ii) The bump test is successful if the response of the sensor exceeds 50 percent of the nominal value of the standard and the adjusted detection floor does not exceed 10 ppbe. The bump test may be repeated up to two additional times if the first bump test is unsuccessful.

 Current AMEL Draft verbiage - Section IV. A (e)(2)(iv):
            (iv) FHR must maintain records of the bump test in accordance with IV.C(f) and records of the detection floor must be maintained in accordance with IV.C(g).
      Based on the information included above, Molex/FHR requests the following change.
            (iv) FHR must maintain records of the bump test in accordance with IV.C(f) and records of the detection floor must be maintained in accordance with IV.C(g).

Non-LDAR Emission Sources
Although the LDSN has clearly shown the benefits of its capability to detect emissions from non-LDAR components, those benefits were not included in any equivalency representations. However, earlier detections will logically lead to earlier repairs. Non-LDAR leaks and emission events that are discovered due to PSL notifications will be handled just as they would if the detection had originated from AVO, process alarms, or process parameter changes. EPA has been clear that the scope of the alternative method addresses traditional calendar based M-21 monitoring and does not replace AVO, CVS, NDE, drain, or other inspection requirements. FHR seeks no change to current requirements for emission event evaluation, notification, record-keeping, or reporting. To augment information previously provided to EPA, FHR reviewed the data since March in the Mid-crude and Meta-xylene units. Since that time, there were 9 non-LDAR emission events recorded. Of those, 4 were corrected within 1 day, 1 in 2 days, 1 in 4 days, and 1 in 11 days. One was later identified as a permitted emission source and there is one event that remains ongoing and will require a process unit shutdown to repair. Note that each of these (with the exception of the permitted source) were recorded as emission events under the state rules (30 TAC 101) and will be included in Title V deviation reporting. FHR is already highly incentivized to make repairs as soon as practicable, minimize emissions, and return to normal conditions when emission events occur. Adding a 30-day repair requirement for emission events alerted via LDSN with no allowance in the AMEL for managing within the current regulatory framework, or, at minimum,  providing LDAR-type work practices, including delay of repair for unit shutdown, for these identified emissions events remains out of scope for this AMEL request that is specific to an alternative for M-21 monitoring of LDAR emission sources.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25790-25794]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11570]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0597; FRL-9961-92]

Chemical Data Reporting; Requirements for Inorganic Byproduct
Chemical Substances; Notice of Establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee; Notice of Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and
notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is giving notice that it is establishing a Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee (Committee) under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act
(NRA). The objective of the Committee is to negotiate a proposed rule
that would limit chemical data reporting requirements under section
8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, for
manufacturers of any inorganic byproduct chemical substances when such
byproduct chemical substances are subsequently recycled, reused, or
reprocessed. The purpose of the Committee is to conduct discussions in
a good faith attempt to reach consensus on proposed regulatory
language. This negotiation process is required by section 8(a)(6) of
TSCA. This notice lists the stakeholder groups from which EPA plans to
invite representatives to participate as members of the Committee, all
of whom have been identified as having a definable stake in the outcome
of the proposed requirements. This notice also announces the first two
meetings of the Committee, which are open to the public.

DATES: The first of the Committee meetings, which are both open to the
public, will be held on June 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on June
9, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The second Committee meeting will be
held on August 16, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on August 17, 2017,
from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Both meetings will be held at William Jefferson Clinton East
Building, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain information concerning the public meetings may contact Jonah
Richmond, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Center, Office of General Counsel, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information about the
Committee, as well as any updates concerning the meetings announced in
this notice, may be found at https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/negotiated-rulemaking-committee-chemical-data-reporting-requirements.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request accommodation for a disability, please
contact the DFO, preferably at least ten days prior to the meetings to
give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.
    For technical information contact: Susan Sharkey, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
(including manufacture as a byproduct chemical substance and including
import) chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory. The following
list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes
are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help
readers determine whether this action may apply to them:
    1. Chemical manufacturers and importers (NAICS codes 325 and
324110; e.g., chemical manufacturing and processing and petroleum
refineries).
    2. Chemical users and processors who may manufacture a byproduct
chemical substance (NAICS codes 22, 322, 331, and 3344; e.g.,
utilities, paper manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, and
semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0597, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    As required by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996 (NRA), EPA is
giving notice that the agency is establishing a Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee. The objective of this Committee is to develop a proposed
rule providing for limiting chemical data reporting requirements, under
TSCA section 8(a), for manufacturers of any inorganic byproduct
chemical substances when such byproduct chemical substances are
subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. This negotiation
process, which includes the establishment of a federal advisory
committee, is required by TSCA section 8(a)(6), as amended by the
Frank. R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
(Lautenberg Act).
    This Committee will be a statutory advisory committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec.  9(a)(1). In
accordance with Section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. App. I Sec.  9(c), EPA prepared a charter for the establishment
of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. Copies of the Committee's
charter will be filed with the appropriate congressional committees,
the Library of Congress, and available online at https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/negotiated-rulemaking-committee-chemical-data-reporting-requirements. On December 15, 2016, EPA announced its intent
to negotiate and establish this Committee (81 FR 90843). More
information on this notice and comments received in response are in
Unit VII.
    This notice announces the stakeholder groups from which EPA intends
to invite individuals as members of the Committee, all of whom will
have been identified as having a definable stake in the outcome of the
proposed requirements. EPA is also announcing the first two meetings of
the Committee. These meetings have been scheduled for the dates
indicated under DATES, and are open to the public. Under normal
circumstances, a notice of the Committee meeting must be published no
later than 15 days before the date of that meeting. Due to unavoidable
administrative circumstances, we are publishing this notice with less
than 15 days' advance notice for the first Committee meeting on June 8
and 9, 2017.

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

    This notice announcing EPA's establishment of a Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee to negotiate a proposed regulation was developed
under the authority of NRA sections 563 and 564 (5 U.S.C. 561, Pub. L.
104-320). Any proposed regulation resulting from the negotiation
process would be developed under the authority of TSCA section 8 (15
U.S.C. 2607), as amended by the Lautenberg Act (Pub. L. 114-182).

C. Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Framework

    Under TSCA, EPA regulates the manufacture (including import),
processing, distribution, use, and disposal of chemical substances in
the United States. Information submitted by manufacturers (including
importers) as required by CDR provides exposure-related data for
chemical substances in U.S. commerce that are subject to TSCA. This
information supports agency risk evaluation, risk management, and other
programs; it is made publicly available, to the extent possible, while
protecting information claimed as confidential business information.
    Prior to 2011, CDR was known as the Inventory Update Reporting
(IUR) regulation. In 1986, EPA promulgated IUR regulations under the
authority of TSCA section 8(a) to collect limited information on the
manufacture (including import) of organic chemical substances listed on
the TSCA Inventory, thereby providing more up-to-date production volume
information on the chemical substances in U.S. commerce. In 2005, EPA
amended IUR regulations to require the reporting of information on
inorganic chemical substances and to collect additional manufacturing,
processing, and use information. EPA has since made additional changes
to the reporting requirements, and in 2011 changed the name of the
reporting rule to Chemical Data Reporting. CDR regulations are
currently codified at 40 CFR part 711. EPA believes CDR is the only
current reporting obligation under TSCA section 8(a) that is likely to
affect the manufacturers of inorganic byproduct chemical substances.
    Manufacturers of inorganic chemical substances first reported this
information in 2006, with subsequent reporting in 2012 and 2016.
Specific reporting requirements for these manufacturers were phased in,
to allow for the industry to better understand the reporting
requirements and for EPA to gain a better understanding of the
industry.

D. Inorganic Byproduct Chemical Substances Under CDR

    A byproduct chemical substance is a chemical substance produced
without a separate commercial intent during the manufacture,
processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance or mixture.
40 CFR 704.3, definition of byproduct. Such byproduct chemical
substances may, or may not, in themselves have commercial value, but
they are nonetheless produced for the purpose of obtaining a commercial
advantage. 40 CFR 704.3, definition of manufacture for commercial
purposes. Because byproduct chemical substances are manufactured for a
commercial purpose, this manufacturing is reportable under CDR unless
covered by a specific reporting exemption. CDR contains a specific
reporting exemption for the manufacture of byproduct chemical
substances limited to cases where those byproduct chemical substances
are not used for any commercial purposes (or are only used for certain
limited commercial purposes) after they are manufactured. 40 CFR
711.10(c). Inorganic byproduct chemical substances are often recycled.
The recycling of a byproduct chemical substance may qualify as a
commercial purpose beyond the limited commercial purposes encompassed
by 40 CFR 711.10(c). If so, the exemption from a manufacturer of a
byproduct chemical substance from reporting this to CDR is not
applicable.
    On June 22, 2016, TSCA was amended by the Lautenberg Act. TSCA now
includes a requirement that EPA enter into a negotiated rulemaking,
pursuant to the NRA, to develop and publish a proposed rule to limit
the reporting requirements under TSCA section 8(a), for manufacturers
of any inorganic byproduct chemical substances when such byproduct
chemical substances, whether by the byproduct chemical substance
manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused,
or reprocessed. The objective of the negotiated rulemaking process is
to develop and publish a proposed rule by June 22, 2019. In the event
the Committee reaches a consensus and a proposed rule is developed
through the negotiated rulemaking process, a final rule ``resulting
from such negotiated rulemaking'' must be issued by December 22, 2019.
15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(6).

III. Facilitators

    In its Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee and Negotiate a Proposed Rule (81 FR 90843, December 15,
2016), EPA stated that it was seeking a facilitator to conduct the
negotiations. Christopher Moore, Ph.D., of Collaborative Decision
Resources Associates, and Laura Sneeringer, of the Consensus Building
Institute, have been retained for this purpose.

IV. Committee Membership

A. Qualifications for Stakeholder Representatives

    The facilitators conducted extensive interviews with interested
stakeholders, asking for recommendations for potential Committee
members. To facilitate representative selection, the facilitators
suggested qualifications, knowledge, and skills that should be
possessed by representatives, which would help promote productive
deliberations. These included:
     Knowledge of technical issues related to inorganic
byproducts;
     Experience with CDR and inorganic byproduct reporting;
     Direct representation of a constituency or a stakeholder
group as a whole, such as an industry, or as component parts, such as
large or small companies;
     Not serving as external technical consultants or legal
counsel without constituents;
     Authority to reach agreements and make commitments for
their stakeholder group;
     Willingness and flexibility to discuss issues that will be
the focus of the dialogue with parties that may have different views or
interests;
     Willingness to engage in productive interest-based
negotiations and avoid adversarial or legal argumentation; and
     A commitment to negotiate in good faith and strive to find
solutions that will meet all parties' interests to the greatest extent
possible.

B. Represented Stakeholders

    EPA is planning to invite representatives from the following
stakeholder groups to serve on the Committee:
     Inorganic chemical manufacturers and processors, including
metal mining and related activities;
     Recyclers, including scrap recyclers;
     Industry advocacy groups;
     Environmental advocacy groups; and
     Federal, State, and Tribal governments.

V. Participation by Non-Members

A. Attending Meetings

    EPA values public input during this process. The meetings announced
in this notice will be open to the public, so interested parties may
observe the meetings and communicate their views in the appropriate
time and manner, as defined in each meeting's agenda. Consistent with
the requirements of FACA, formal meeting materials and summaries will
be available online.

B. Oral Statements

    In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation
at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Each person making
an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as
their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be
expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should submit requests by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>one week prior to the meeting dates, in order
to be placed on the list of public speakers.

C. Written Statements

    Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory
process; however, for timely consideration, statements should be
supplied by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>one week prior to the meeting
dates. Members of the public should be aware that written comments,
including personal contact information, if included, may be posted to
the Committee Web site as well as placed in the EPA docket supporting
this activity. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit
permission of the copyright holder. Additionally, EPA will invite
public comment on any proposed rule resulting from the Committee's
deliberations.

VI. Meeting Schedule and Agenda

A. Meeting Schedule

    EPA anticipates up to five Committee meetings will be held between
June and October 2017, including the Committee meetings that EPA is
announcing in this Notice. Committee meetings will be one and a half
days each, and held in Washington, DC, unless the Committee decides
otherwise. The Committee will separately announce those meetings
subsequent to the meetings being announced in this notice.

B. The First Committee Meeting

    The first Committee meeting will be held on June 8, 2017, from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. and on June 9, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The second
Committee meeting will be held on August 16, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m. and on August 17, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Both meetings
will be open to the public. Meeting details and agenda information will
be available online at https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/negotiated-rulemaking-committee-chemical-data-reporting-requirements,
as well as in the EPA docket supporting this activity.

VII. Notice of Intent To Negotiate and Response to Public Comments

    On December 15, 2016, EPA published a notice of intent to establish
a Committee to negotiate a proposed rule that would limit chemical data
reporting requirements under section 8(a) of TSCA, for manufacturers of
any inorganic byproduct chemical substances, when such byproduct
chemical substances are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed
(81 FR 90843). The notice requested comment on membership, the
interests affected by the rulemaking, the issues the Committee should
address, and the procedures it should follow.
    EPA received 18 comments on the notice of intent, which can all be
found in the docket for this Notice. None of the comments opposed using
regulatory negotiation for this rulemaking; most endorsed the process
and included requests to serve on the Committee. However, one commenter
raised four substantive issues, which EPA is responding to here.

A. EPA Should Commit Staff With Appropriate Seniority and the Authority
To Negotiate for the Agency

    The commenter encouraged EPA to select representatives that are
knowledgeable about the issue and have the authority to make
commitments for the agency. EPA agrees. EPA will have two
representatives at the table--one technical expert on CDR, and the
other an EPA manager with the authority to, in consultation with other
EPA officials as needed, make commitments for the agency. EPA will also
have other technical experts available to answer questions about other
EPA programs, as recommended by the commenter.

B. Additional Recommendations Regarding Committee Participation

    The commenter recommended that the Small Business Administration
(SBA) Office of Advocacy be represented on the Committee. Because SBA's
Office of Advocacy already has multiple established processes for
providing input during rulemaking, such as serving on Small Business
Advocacy Review Panels that are convened under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 609(b)(3) (1980), and participating
in interagency review conducted under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993), and because EPA believes it is important for
the federal government to be represented as a singular entity at the
table, SBA will not serve on the Committee. EPA will coordinate with
SBA through the standard processes that apply to EPA rulemaking. In
addition, SBA, as well as other federal agencies, will be invited to
attend all Committee meetings as an observer.

C. EPA Is Required To Propose and Finalize a Rule Regardless of the
Outcome of the Negotiated Rulemaking

    The commenter believes that the Lautenberg Act requires EPA to
propose and finalize a rule lessening the reporting burdens for
inorganic byproducts sent for recycling, regardless of whether
consensus is reached by the Committee. As EPA explained in its December
15, 2016, Notice, the agency construes its obligation to propose and
finalize a rule under TSCA section 8(a)(6) as being contingent on the
Committee reaching a consensus.
    EPA's obligation under TSCA section 8(a)(6)(B) is to finalize a
rule ``resulting from such negotiated rulemaking.'' While EPA would
have authority to issue an amendment to the CDR for inorganic
byproducts even if negotiation failed to achieve any consensus, such a
rule would not be a rule resulting from the negotiated rulemaking.
Accordingly, TSCA section 8(a)(6)(B) presupposes that the negotiated
rulemaking process reached consensus in directing EPA to issue a final
rule.
    This reading is consistent with the structure of TSCA section
8(a)(6) as a whole, requiring a proposed rule within three years of the
Lautenberg Act's enactment and a final rule six months later. Under the
commenter's reading, if the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee could not
reach any consensus to limit the reporting requirements for inorganic
byproducts, EPA would still be required to come up with its own
approach by June 2019 without the benefit of agreement from the
interested parties. EPA can reasonably assume that such an approach
would draw adverse comment from the party or parties that blocked
consensus in the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, and thus the agency
would only have six months to solicit, consider, and respond to those
comments before the statutorily required deadline. EPA does not believe
that Congress intended for this to occur because it did not direct the
agency to limit reporting requirements in any

specific way that would require a rulemaking regardless of the outcome
of the negotiated rulemaking. On the contrary, Congress specifically
directed that the final rule must result from the negotiated
rulemaking, which will likely simplify the comment process enough to
enable the agency to meet these relatively short deadlines.
    By establishing the Committee in today's Notice, EPA is fulfilling
the Lautenberg Act's requirement to ``enter into a negotiated
rulemaking pursuant to'' the NRA to develop and publish a proposed
rule. 15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(6)(A). When viewed under the lens of the
statutory structure, any requirement for EPA to actually ``develop and
publish'' a proposed rule must necessarily also result from consensus
being reached by the Committee.
    For these reasons, EPA respectfully disagrees with the commenter.
If consensus cannot be reached, and there is no agreement upon which to
base a proposal, then there is no further statutory obligation to issue
a proposal or a final rule. However, as noted in the December 15, 2016,
Notice, EPA commits to working in good faith to seek consensus on a
proposal that is consistent with the legal mandate of TSCA.

D. Definition of Consensus Should Not Require Unanimous Concurrence of
the Committee

    The commenter recommended that the Committee use a definition of
consensus that does not require unanimous concurrence among the
Committee, citing the potential for one Committee member's veto to
result in no agreement. The NRA defines consensus as unanimous
concurrence, unless the Committee agrees otherwise. 5 U.S.C. 562. A
unanimous concurrence definition is important in ensuring no one
interest or group of interests is able to control the process. While
EPA believes that unanimous concurrence is not an unreasonably high
bar, particularly with the assistance of a highly skilled neutral
facilitator with expertise in building consensus, the Committee has the
power under the NRA to agree to another definition of consensus.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: May 24, 2017.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017-11570 Filed 5-31-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P