[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45460-45462]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2966; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-051-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of fuel leaking onto the hot exhaust portion of an
engine as a result of an un-intended leak path from the leading edge
through the pylons. This proposed AD would require installing new seal
dams in the inboard and outboard corners of the aft pylon frame on the
left and right engines, including an inspection for damage of the
outboard blade seal and applicable corrective actions. We are proposing
this AD to prevent fuel leaking from an unintended drain path from the
leading edge through the pylons and onto the hot engine parts or
brakes, which could lead to a major ground fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 14,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2966.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2966; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Vevea, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6514; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2966;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-051-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report of fuel leaking onto the hot exhaust portion
of an engine as a result of an un-intended leak path from the leading
edge through the pylons. An incorrect installation of a flexible
coupling in a wing leading edge led to the leakage of fuel into the aft
pylon compartment. During an investigation, it was determined that the
pylon-to-wing interface design did not address drain paths for
potential low-flow leakage rates, and that a seal dam at the inboard
and outboard corners of the aft pylon compartment would correct the
drain path. This condition, if not corrected, could result in fuel
leaking from an unintended drain path from the leading edge through the
pylons and onto the hot engine parts or brakes, which could lead to a
major ground fire.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00,
Issue 001, dated October 24, 2014. This service information describes
procedures for installing new seal dams in the inboard and outboard
corners of the aft pylon frame on the left and right engines, doing a
general visual inspection to detect damage of the outboard blade seal,
and doing corrective actions if necessary. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' correct or address any condition found.
Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                          Labor cost                   Parts cost                Cost per product          Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of seal dams...........  Up to 22 work-hours X $85    Up to $14,611                Up to $16,481                Up to $280,177.
                                       per hour = $1,870
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-2966; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-051-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 14, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-00, Issue 001, dated October 24, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of fuel leaking onto the hot
exhaust portion of the engine as a result of an unintended leak path
from the leading edge through the pylons. We are issuing this AD to
prevent fuel leaking from an unintended drain path from the leading
edge through the pylons and onto the hot engine parts or brakes,
which could lead to a major ground fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Installation of Inboard and Outboard Seal Dams

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install
new seal dams in the inboard and outboard corners of the aft pylon
frame on the left and right engines, including a general visual
inspection to detect damage of the outboard blade seal, and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB540004-
00, Issue 001, dated October 24, 2014. Do all applicable corrective
actions before further flight.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sherry Vevea,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 22, 2015.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-18561 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36363-36365]
[DOCID:fr26jn08-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57986; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Align the
Reporting Requirements and Dissemination Protocols for OTC Equity
Transactions Involving Foreign Securities With All Other OTC Equity
Securities

June 18, 2008.
    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 April 25, 2008, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a 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 substantially prepared by
FINRA. On June 12, 2008, FINRA submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to: (1) Amend NASD Rule 6620 to align the
reporting requirements for over-the-counter (``OTC'') equity
transactions involving foreign securities with the reporting
requirements for other OTC equity transactions; and (2) align the
dissemination protocols for all last sale reports of OTC equity
transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at FINRA's principal office,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    NASD Rule 6620(a) generally requires that transactions in OTC
Equity Securities that are executed between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern
Time be reported to the OTC Reporting Facility within 90 seconds of
execution.\3\ This 90-second reporting requirement currently applies to
transactions in OTC Equity Securities that are domestic equity
securities, ADRs, and Canadian issues.\4\ Thus, all ADRs and Canadian
issues, including those that are not registered with the Commission and
otherwise subject to financial reporting, are subject to 90-second
reporting under NASD Rule 6620. All other foreign equity securities are
excluded from the 90-second reporting requirement and instead must be
reported by 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time the day after the transaction is
executed.\5\ Although not required, a member may choose to report
transactions in foreign securities within 90 seconds of execution.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of the NASD Rule 6600 Series, ``OTC Equity
Securities'' means equity securities for which real-time trade
reporting is not otherwise required. See NASD Rule 6600. NASD Rule
6610(d) further defines ``OTC Equity Security'' as ``any non-
exchange-listed security and certain exchange-listed securities that
do not otherwise qualify for real-time trade reporting.''
    \4\ An ADR is a negotiable instrument that represents an
ownership interest in a specified number or fraction of securities
that have been deposited with a depositary. The deposited securities
are typically equity securities of a foreign issuer, and the
depositary is usually a U.S. bank or trust company. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 48482 (September 11, 2003), 68 FR 54644
(September 17, 2003) (File No. S7-16-03).
    \5\ See NASD Rule 6620(a)(3)(C)(iii).
    \6\ See NASD Rule 6620 n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the disparity in the trade reporting requirements
under NASD Rule 6620, there is also a disparity in the way last sale
information of OTC equity transactions is disseminated to the
marketplace. Although last sale information for transactions in
domestic OTC Equity Securities reported pursuant to Rule 6620 is
disseminated on a real-time basis, irrespective of whether the security
is registered with the Commission, there is no uniformity regarding the
dissemination of last sale information for transactions in ADRs and
foreign securities. Last sale reports of ADRs and Canadian issues that
are quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board (``OTCBB''), which requires
registration with the Commission, are disseminated on a real-time
basis. However, only summary information is disseminated at the end of
each trading day for OTC ADRs and Canadian issues that are not quoted
on the OTCBB, whether or not they are registered with the Commission.
Transactions in foreign securities, other than Canadian issues and
ADRs, that are quoted on the OTCBB are disseminated on a real-time
basis if they are received on the day of the trade. However, as noted
above, there is no current requirement to report these trades to FINRA
within 90 seconds of execution, or even on the trade date. If an OTC
transaction in a foreign security is not reported on the trade date,
last sale information for that transaction is not disseminated.
    The bifurcation with respect to dissemination of OTC ADRs and
foreign securities arose in the broader context of the establishment
and evolution of the OTCBB. When real-time reporting for OTC Equity
Securities, including ADRs and Canadian securities, was proposed in
1992, FINRA agreed not to publish quotations and trade reports of
foreign securities and ADRs in order to avoid any reconsideration of
the exemption from registration pursuant to SEC Rule

12g3-2(b).\7\ In connection with the permanent approval of the OTCBB in
1997, unregistered ADRs and foreign securities became ineligible for
quotation on the OTCBB, and at that time, real-time dissemination of
transactions in those securities was limited to only those quoted on
the OTCBB.\8\ Since the Commission approved FINRA's assumption of
direct authority for the activities related to OTC trading, including
but not limited to the OTCBB,\9\ FINRA staff has been reviewing, among
other areas, the trade reporting and dissemination requirements for OTC
Equity Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31695 (January 6,
1993), 58 FR 4189 (January 13, 1993) (notice of filing of proposed
rule change SR-NASD-92-48). FINRA notes that, during the OTCBB pilot
phase, the Commission had permitted the quotation of unregistered
foreign securities on the OTCBB, but raised concerns that quotation
of such securities on the OTCBB would provide an active secondary
trading market in unregistered securities and could result in such
securities no longer meeting the terms of the SEC Rule 12g3-2(b)
exemption, which is not available for securities quoted in an
automated inter-dealer quotation system. Therefore, the quotation of
foreign securities on the OTCBB was limited at that time to ``non-
firm'' quotations that could be updated a maximum of two times per
day (thus, quotes in foreign securities on the OTCBB were
effectively stale), and trade report information was not publicly
disseminated. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38456
(March 31, 1997), 62 FR 16635 (April 7, 1997) (order approving SR-
NASD-92-7).
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52508 (September 26,
2005), 70 FR 57346 (September 30, 2005) (order approving SR-NASD-
2005-089).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA staff believes that the different treatment with respect to
the reporting and dissemination of trade reports for OTC equity
transactions in domestic securities, foreign securities, ADRs, and
Canadian issues should be eliminated and that all transactions in OTC
Equity Securities should be reported within 90 seconds of execution and
that last sale information regarding those transactions should be
disseminated on a real-time basis. FINRA created the exclusion to the
90-second reporting requirement for foreign securities in the early
1990s in response to concerns that requiring 90-second reporting for
transactions in foreign equity securities could pose significant and
costly operational problems for firms.\10\ Currently, FINRA receives an
overwhelming majority of reports for OTC transactions in foreign
securities within 90 seconds of execution. FINRA believes that the
operational issues that may have been present when the exclusion was
adopted are no longer applicable. Consequently, the proposed rule
change would eliminate the distinctions between domestic, foreign, ADR,
and Canadian securities and would treat all OTC transactions in the
same manner, from both a reporting and a dissemination standpoint.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32647 (July 16,
1993), 58 FR 39262 (July 22, 1993) (order approving SR-NASD-92-48).
    \11\ The single exception would be for transactions in foreign
equity securities executed over-the-counter in a foreign country and
reported to the regulator of securities markets for that country.
See NASD Rule 6620(g)(2)(B). Transactions in foreign equity
securities executed on and reported to a foreign securities exchange
also are excepted from the FINRA reporting requirements. See NASD
Rule 6620(g)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By requiring 90-second reporting for foreign securities
transactions, FINRA can uniformly disseminate that information on a
real-time basis as well, providing improved transparency to the OTC
market. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would not only eliminate
the exclusion to the 90-second reporting requirement for transactions
in foreign securities (and thus impose the same reporting requirements
on all transactions in OTC equity securities), but would also provide
for the real-time dissemination of this information.\12\ FINRA believes
that moving to a transaction reporting regime where all transactions in
OTC Equity Securities are subject to prompt last sale reporting and
real-time dissemination would substantially improve the transparency of
the OTC market.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ With the exception of NASD Rule 6250, which applies to
dissemination of transaction information for TRACE-eligible
securities, dissemination of trade reports is typically not governed
by FINRA's rules, but rather by its protocols. Thus, FINRA is not
proposing to amend any rules to effectuate the changes to the
dissemination protocols discussed in this rule filing.
    \13\ Section 31 of the Act requires FINRA to pay transaction
fees and assessments to the Commission for sales transacted by or
through its members otherwise than on a national securities exchange
of securities subject to prompt last sale reporting (pursuant to the
rules of the Commission or FINRA). This fee is designed to recover
the costs related to the government's supervision and regulation of
the securities markets and securities professionals. To recover the
costs of FINRA's section 31 obligation, FINRA assesses a regulatory
transaction fee on its members under section 3 of Schedule A to the
FINRA By-Laws, the amount of which is set in accordance with section
31. Because transactions in foreign securities (other than ADRs and
Canadian issues) are not currently required to be reported
``promptly,'' they are excluded from the regulatory transaction fee.
The requirement to report transactions in foreign securities to
FINRA within 90 seconds of execution would result in those
transactions being subject to the regulatory transaction fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that prompt last sale reporting and real-time
dissemination of trade reports for all OTC transactions in ADRs,
foreign securities, and Canadian issues will enhance the amount of
market information available to investors and better enable investors
to monitor the executions they receive in these securities. FINRA
believes that it would not be providing a vehicle for quoting or
trading unregistered securities, a prior concern raised by the
Commission.\14\ Instead, FINRA would merely be disseminating, on a
real-time basis, reports of transactions that have already occurred in
the OTC market and have been submitted to FINRA by its members within
90 seconds of execution. FINRA believes that real-time dissemination is
wholly consistent with the Commission's own views stated in its order
approving the OTCBB on a permanent basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Quotations in unregistered ADRs and foreign securities,
including some Canadian issues, already are published via the
Electronic Pink Sheets.

    [FINRA] could increase transparency with less customer confusion
by requiring transaction reporting for foreign securities traded
over-the-counter in the U.S. Transaction reporting information has
the potential to greatly enhance the amount of market information
available to investors and better enable investors to monitor the
executions they receive in foreign securities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38456 (March 31,
1997), 62 FR 16635 (April 7, 1997) (order approving SR-NASD-92-7).

    Because FINRA would simply be collecting and disseminating trade
reports and not providing a vehicle for quoting or trading securities,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change gives rise to the
concerns previously voiced by the Commission in the context of the
OTCBB regarding the quotation of ``unregistered securities on a visible
U.S. market operated by a self-regulatory organization.'' \16\ Nor
would it produce what the Commission has sought to avoid: ``a regulated
public marketplace for unregistered securities.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA intends to announce the effective date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days
following Commission approval of this proposed rule change. The
effective date will be 30 days following publication of the Regulatory
Notice announcing Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\18\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA 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. In addition, section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \19\
articulates the

Congressional findings and policy goals and objectives with respect to
the development of a national market system.\20\ Essentially, Congress
found that new data processing and communication techniques should be
applied to improve the efficiency of market operations, broaden the
distribution of market information, enhance opportunities to achieve
best execution and promote competition among market participants. FINRA
believes that the proposed rule change will enhance transparency in
foreign securities and promote pricing efficiency. Investors and other
market participants will be afforded greater market information and be
better able to monitor the executions they receive in these securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
    \20\ Although section 11A does not provide the Commission with
authority to approve a self-regulatory organization's proposal, it
is relevant in that it sets forth the Act's general policy goals for
securities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA 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.

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. However, in
connection with two other rule filings, SR-NASD-2005-089 and SR-NASD-
2007-039, the Commission received eight written comment letters,\21\ in
which the commenters urged the Commission to require real-time
dissemination of OTC-traded ADRs. For example, several commenters noted
that real-time trade information enables investors to evaluate the
quality of executions they receive and deters ``trading ahead'' of
orders and other improper trading practices.\22\ One commenter argued
that the ``assertion that the dissemination of this data will encourage
trading in unregistered securities is unsustainable, given the fact
that FINRA already releases real-time data on unregistered domestic
issues. Especially as regards unregistered ADRs, more information,
delivered in a more timely way, can only serve to benefit investors.''
\23\ Another commenter, in discussing the delisting of an ADR from the
NYSE, stated that ``[d]eprived of access to real time trading
information, I, a market participant, just lost the ability to monitor
the quality and firmness of quotation and executions of the security,
thus hampering my ability to have a full grasp of the pulse of its
trading.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Letter dated August 26, 2005 from R. Cromwell Coulson,
Pink Sheets LLC, to Jonathan Katz; Letter dated September 19, 2005
from William Vance and Kimberly Unger, The Security Traders
Association of New York, Inc., to Jonathan Katz; Letter dated August
13, 2007 from R. Cromwell Coulson, Pink Sheets LLC, to Nancy Morris
(``Coulson Letter''); Letter dated August 13, 2007 from Stephen Kay
and Kimberly Unger, The Security Traders Association of New York,
Inc., to Nancy Morris (``Kay/Unger Letter''); Letter dated August
13, 2007 from Lisa Utasi and John Giesea, Security Traders
Association, to Nancy Morris (``Utasi/Giesea Letter''); Letter dated
August 17, 2007 from Bryce Engel, TD Ameritrade, Inc., to Nancy
Morris (``Engel Letter''); Letter dated August 23, 2007 from Xin Ye
to Nancy Morris (``Ye Letter''); and Letter dated August 30, 2007
from Leonard Amoruso, Knight Capital Group Inc., to Nancy Morris.
    \22\ See Coulson Letter; Kay/Unger Letter; Engel Letter.
    \23\ Utasi/Giesea Letter. See also Coulson Letter.
    \24\ Ye Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Specifically, the Commission
requests comment as to whether the proposed rule change would
significantly change the factors considered by foreign private issuers
in deciding whether to list on a U.S. securities exchange and register
with the Commission, and whether the proposed rule change would serve
to promote the U.S. over-the-counter market for unregistered foreign
securities.
    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-FINRA-2008-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-016. 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, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
FINRA-2008-016 and should be submitted on or before July 17, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-14466 Filed 6-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47936]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0148]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and
Kent Island, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rule to establish
temporary special local regulations for certain waters of the
Chesapeake Bay. The rulemaking was initiated to establish a special
local regulation during the ``Bay Bridge Paddle,'' a marine event to be
held on certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay located between Sandy
Point in Anne Arundel County, MD, and Kent Island in Queen Anne's
County, MD. The proposed rule is being withdrawn because it is no
longer necessary. The event sponsor has cancelled the paddling event.

DATES: The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rule for the event
scheduled on September 27, 2020 from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. published on
June 2, 2020 (85 FR 33592) as of August 7, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view the docket for this withdrawn rulemaking, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2020-0148 in the ``SEARCH'' box
and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone
410-576- 2674, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information and Regulatory History

    On June 2, 2020, we published an NPRM entitled ``Special Local
Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD''
in the Federal Register (85 FR 33592). The proposed rulemaking
concerned the Coast Guard's establishment of a temporary special local
regulation for certain navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay,
effective from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on September 27, 2020. This action
was necessary to provide for the safety of life on these waters during
a paddling event. This rulemaking would have prohibited persons and
vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander.

Withdrawal

    The proposed rule is being withdrawn due to the regulated area no
longer being necessary following a cancellation of the paddling event
by the event sponsor.

Authority

    We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 46 U.S.C.
70041.

    Dated: July 28, 2020.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-16829 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31225-31233]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12287]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471; FRL-10024-24-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS26

Addition of 1-Bromopropane to Clean Air Act Section 112 HAP List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Having previously granted a public petition to add 1-
bromopropane (1-BP) to the list of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting information that will aid in
addressing the impacts of the regulatory action. This is the first time
that a substance will be added to the HAP list since the initial list
was established by the 1990 CAA Amendments. The addition of 1-BP to the
HAP list could have immediate regulatory compliance impacts to
facilities that emit 1-BP. The EPA is soliciting data and information
on 1-BP usage, emission controls, and costs to inform the process to
address the implementation of the upcoming listing action and to ensure
that the regulatory infrastructure is in place to effectively and
efficiently control the emissions of 1-BP. The EPA is not soliciting
comments on the decision that granted petitions to list 1-BP as a HAP
and has not reopened that decision for comments.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0471, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0471 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0471.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operation
are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471 for this rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited
exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a delay in
processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received
by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Susan Miller, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket. The EPA has a docket for this document and the future
listing action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471. This docket is
the same docket used during the petition process. All documents in the
docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. With the
exception of such material, publicly available docket materials are
available electronically in Regulations.gov.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0471. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit electronically any information that you consider
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. This type of information should be submitted by mail as
discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA has temporarily suspended its Docket Center and Reading
Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a delay in processing mail and
faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled
appointment only. For further information and updates on EPA Docket
Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, local area health
departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as
conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA

through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471. Note that
written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed
and no hand deliveries will be accepted.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

1-BP 1-bromopropane (also known as n-propyl bromide or nPB)
APCD air pollution control device
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HAP list list of HAP under authority of section 112 of the CAA
HSIA Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PERC perchloroethylene
PPA Pollution Prevention Act
PTE potential to emit
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Will this upcoming action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the HAP list?
    B. What is 1-BP?
    C. What is the petition process for the addition of a substance
to the HAP list?
    D. What has happened to date on the listing of 1-BP?
    E. What other actions has the EPA taken on 1-BP?
    F. What is the purpose of this ANPRM?
III. Future Impacts of Listing
    A. Profile of 1-BP
    B. Possible Regulatory Impacts of Listing Action and Data Needs
    C. Information Needed To Assist in Evaluating Compliance Timing
and Potential New Source Categories
IV. Additional Requests for Data and Comments
    A. Additional Requests
    B. Types of Data and Comment Not Requested at This Time
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Will this upcoming action apply to me?

    The upcoming action to add 1-BP to the CAA section 112 list of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP list) may result in regulatory
obligations that will apply to your facility if it emits 1-BP. The
types of regulatory compliance impacts will depend on several factors,
including the amount of 1-BP used and the way that it is used (e.g., as
a solvent in a plastic parts coating operation as compared to as a
solvent in a dry cleaning machine) and the amount of 1-BP and other HAP
emitted by your facility. In some instances, permits for planned
construction, reconstruction, or modification of emissions sources at
your facility could also be affected. There may also be impacts for
regulatory authorities, including state, local, and tribal authorities,
who are delegated the authority to implement national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under delegation and
title V programs.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this action at https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications#mods. Following publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register version of this document and key
technical documents at this same website.

II. Background

A. What is the HAP list?

    The HAP list, which can be found in CAA section 112(b)(1), is a
list of organic and inorganic substances that Congress identified as
HAP in the 1990 CAA Amendments. These HAP are associated with a wide
variety of adverse health effects, including, but not limited to
cancer, neurological effects, reproductive effects, and developmental
effects. The health effects associated with various HAP differ
depending upon the toxicity of the individual HAP and the particular
circumstances of exposure, such as the amount of chemical present, the
length of time a person is exposed, and the stage of life at which the
person is exposed. Modifications to the HAP list are codified in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart C.
    Section 112(c)(1) of the CAA directs the EPA to first identify and
list source categories that emit HAP listed pursuant to CAA section
112(b). Then, under CAA section 112(e)(1), the EPA was to set
``emission standards for categories and subcategories as expeditiously
as practicable'' but no later than the overall deadline of November 15,
2000. CAA section 112(e)(1)(e). The EPA sets emissions standards under
CAA section 112(d) for those listed source categories based on sources
being characterized as ``major'' or ``area.''
    A major source of HAP is defined under CAA section 112(a) as any
``stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per
year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more
of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.'' Stationary sources of
HAP that are not major sources are defined as ``area sources.''
Standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d) are commonly referred to
as NESHAP but are also frequently referred to as either maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards or generally available
control technology (GACT) standards. While MACT

standards are required for major sources and certain categories of area
sources, the CAA allows for the use of GACT standards for most
categories of area sources rather than specifically requiring MACT.

B. What is 1-BP?

    The compound 1-bromopropane, or 1-BP, is also known as n-propyl
bromide or nPB (CAS No. 106-94-5). The compound is a brominated organic
colorless liquid that is insoluble in water but soluble in ethanol and
ether. 1-BP has been classified as a probable human carcinogen,
neurotoxicant, and is associated with adverse reproductive effects. In
addition, it can produce acute health effects in humans, such as
dizziness and nausea.\1\ The vapor pressure for 1-BP is 146 millimeters
of mercury at 20 degrees Celsius. The vapor pressure for 1-BP is higher
than the vapor pressures for perchloroethylene (PERC; CAS No. 127-18-4)
and trichloroethylene (TCE; CAS No. 79-01-6), two chemicals for which
1-BP has frequently been used as a substitute in recent years. This has
led to concerns that air emissions associated with 1-BP use could be
higher than those caused by similar use of other solvents with lower
vapor pressures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A more detailed discussion of the potential health impacts
can be found in the June 18, 2020 (85 FR 36851) document granting
the petitions to add 1-BP to the HAP list or in the risk evaluation
of 1-BP conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
detailed in an August 12, 2020, Federal Register document (85 FR
48687). See also https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managingchemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-1-bromopropane-1-bp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While 1-BP is predominantly used as a solvent cleaner/degreaser, it
also has numerous other uses, as reported in literature and by
manufacturers, distributors, and end users of 1-BP. These other uses
include, but are not limited to, dry cleaning, adhesives and adhesive
accelerant, mold release agent, solvent in aerosol spray applications,
and as an intermediate chemical in the manufacture of organic and
inorganic chemical manufacturing including pharmaceuticals and
agricultural products.

C. What is the petition process for the addition of a substance to the
HAP list?

    Section 112(b)(3)(A) of the CAA specifies that any person may
petition the Administrator to modify the HAP list contained in CAA
section 112(b)(1) by adding or deleting a substance. CAA section
112(b)(3)(B) sets out the substantive criteria for granting a petition.
It calls for the Administrator to add a substance to the CAA section
112(b)(1) list, otherwise known as the HAP list, ``upon a showing by
the petitioner or on the Administrator's own determination that the
substance is an air pollutant and that emissions, ambient
concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance are
known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse
effects to human health or adverse environmental effects.''
    After a petition is submitted to the EPA to modify the HAP list,
the EPA conducts a completeness determination and then a technical
review of the petition. During the completeness determination, a broad
review determines whether all necessary data requirements for the
petition are addressed. In addition, the EPA determines whether
adequate data, analyses, and evaluations are included to meet the
petition requirements. The EPA may request additional information
during this process. If a petition is determined to be complete, then
the EPA places a notice of receipt of a complete petition in the
Federal Register. That document announces a public comment period on
the petition and starts the technical review phase. The technical
review determines whether the petition has satisfied the necessary
requirements and can support a decision to list or delist a HAP. All
comments and data submitted during the public comment period are
considered during the technical review.

D. What has happened to date on the listing of 1-BP?

    The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) and New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted
petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list on October
28, 2010, and November 24, 2011, respectively. After requesting and
receiving additional information from the petitioners, the EPA
published a document in the Federal Register on February 6, 2015 (80 FR
6676), that the 1-BP petitions were complete and requested public
comments for consideration during the technical review phase. Following
our thorough review of the petitions, relevant scientific studies, and
comments received, we concluded that 1-BP was reasonably anticipated to
cause adverse effects to human health based on the evidence of the
carcinogenicity and toxicity of 1-BP and that petitioners' assessments
of potential ambient concentrations of 1-BP likely to result at a
facility's fenceline under normal operating conditions were reasonable.
On January 9, 2017, the EPA issued a Federal Register document of its
draft rationale for granting petitions to add 1-BP to the HAP list (82
FR 2354).
    On June 18, 2020, the EPA issued a final Federal Register document
granting the petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b) HAP list
(85 FR 36851). This was the first occasion where the EPA has granted a
petition to add a substance to the CAA section 112(b) HAP list that
Congress created in 1990. By granting these petitions, the EPA is now
obligated by CAA section 112 (b)(3) to add 1-BP to the list of HAP. In
section IV of the final document granting the petitions, the EPA
explained that a second step to list 1-BP was warranted and would
entail publishing a Federal Register document that would formally add
1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list. 85 FR 36854. The EPA also
explained that there would be a need to take further regulatory actions
as a result of the listing decision. 85 FR 36854 and 36855.
    On August 17, 2020, California Communities Against Toxics, Sierra
Club and Gasp filed a petition for judicial review of the agency's
decision to grant petitions that did not list 1-BP as a HAP under CAA
section 112(b)(1). California Communities Against Toxics v. EPA, Case
No. 20-1311 (D.C. Circuit). The State of New York is an intervenor on
behalf of petitioners. This case is currently being held in abeyance
pending review by the new administration and motions to govern further
proceedings are due on June 7, 2021.

E. What other actions has the EPA taken on 1-BP?

    The EPA evaluated 1-BP under the amended Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) and completed the final risk evaluation in August 2020. The
final risk evaluation identified unreasonable risks to workers,
occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders from 1-BP exposure.
The EPA did not find unreasonable risks to the environment or the
general population from the evaluated uses of this chemical. The next
step in the process required by TSCA is addressing these risks through
risk management in formal rulemaking. The EPA has begun the process of
developing ways to address the unreasonable risks identified and has up
to one year to propose and take public comments on any risk management
actions. (See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-08/documents/risk_evaluation_for_1-bromopropane_n-propyl_bromide.pdf).

F. What is the purpose of this ANPRM?

    The EPA has made the determination that 1-BP is an air pollutant
that should

be added to the HAP list and therefore expects to list 1-BP as required
by CAA section 112(b)(3). Once added to the HAP list, 1-BP will become
subject to regulation under CAA section 112. (EPA has a ``clear
statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP.''
National Lime Association 233 F-3d 634). There is no specific period
for promulgating standards for newly listed HAPs under CAA section
112(b)(1). As previously noted, CAA section 112(e)(1)(E) calls for EPA
to promulgate MACT for all source categories on the CAA section
112(c)(1) source category list within ten years of listing or by
November 15, 2000. EPA has promulgated standards for all currently
listed source categories; however, some standards have been remanded to
the Agency.
    While the addition of a new HAP to the HAP list can be accomplished
with a relatively simple revision to 40 CFR part 63, subpart C, the
effective incorporation of this new HAP into an existing program is
more complex. The NESHAP program under CAA section 112 is decades old
and numerous regulations exist that could be impacted by the addition
of a new HAP. In order to effectively regulate 1-BP when listed, the
EPA needs additional information on the uses of 1-BP, and compliance
issues, such as source categories that could be subject to immediate
compliance with existing requirements. This information will enable the
EPA to better ensure that the regulatory infrastructure is in place to
clearly explain obligations that might arise immediately for some
source categories without further action by the EPA as well as to
establish any new regulations needed to effectively control the
emissions of this new HAP.
    This ANPRM solicits information to identify and evaluate the
regulatory impacts, such as changes in the applicability of existing
regulations or changes in how sources comply with existing requirements
that would be expected to result from the upcoming action to add 1-BP
to the HAP list. The EPA intends to review these regulatory compliance
impacts that could potentially include impacts on numerous small
businesses that may not even be aware of any new requirements and
associated impacts and determine if further regulatory action is
required to address them. Regulatory impacts will likely depend on
several factors, including the amount of 1-BP used and the process
involved (e.g., as a cleaning agent in a solvent cleaner versus as a
spray gun cleaning solvent at an aerospace coating operation), and the
total amount of HAP emitted by a particular facility.
    The EPA is not soliciting comments on the June 18, 2020 grant of
petitions to list 1-BP as a HAP, including the technical bases for the
grant, and therefore, has not reopened that decision for comments. EPA
intends to treat any comments on the decision to grant petitions to
list as beyond the scope of this action/proceeding. Further, the EPA
currently plans to develop, propose, and promulgate revisions to the
General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 that will build the regulatory
infrastructure to provide clarity regarding changes in the
applicability of and compliance with existing NESHAP when a pollutant
is added to the HAP list. The EPA will be developing the revisions to
address the addition of both 1-BP and any subsequent HAP(s) under CAA
section 112(b). The EPA also plans to consider whether additional
revisions to other subparts regulating specific source categories are
warranted to account for the inclusion of a new HAP. While current
plans are to revise the General Provisions, the EPA may consider and
propose alternative approaches for providing the regulatory
infrastructure to ensure the effective regulation of 1-BP.
    The EPA has determined that issuance of this ANPRM is the most
efficient means for information collection such as on the types and
sizes of sources of 1-BP, as well as to identify other issues for
consideration, including whether additional source categories must be
added to regulate 1-BP. The EPA expects that this document would allow
for participation in the data gathering process by a large and diverse
group of stakeholders that includes potentially impacted facilities,
small businesses, and state, local, or tribal governments.

III. Future Impacts of Listing

A. Profile of 1-BP

1. Production, Usage, and Emissions Control
    Having a complete profile of current 1-BP usage and emission
control would assist in the EPA's analysis of the impact of listing 1-
BP as a HAP to better inform development of regulations and public
outreach. However, until recently, usage and emission records for 1-BP
have been difficult to obtain due to the lack of publicly available
data. In 2015, 1-BP was added to the list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and section 6607 of the Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. The addition of 1-BP to the EPCRA section
313 list of toxic chemicals (frequently referred to as the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI)) became effective beginning January 1, 2016,
for TRI reporting year 2016 and beyond. For more information on TRI
reporting criteria, see https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/basics-tri-reporting.
    In its petition to add 1-BP to the HAP list, the HSIA estimated the
annual global production of 1-BP in 2007 to be 20,000 to 30,000 metric
tons and estimated the use of 1-BP as a solvent in the U.S. to be
growing at a rate of 15 to 20 percent per year. During the petition
process, Enviro Tech International (ETI) commented on the HSIA's
estimates and presented its own data on the use of 1-BP in the U.S.,
such as in the precision cleaning industry sector, the dry cleaning
industrial sector, and the adhesive, coatings, and inks sector.
According to ETI, in the U.S., approximately 4,080 short tons (3,701
metric tons) of 1-BP were used within these three sectors in 2014. In
2015, the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) database estimated U.S.
production and imports of 1-BP to be 26 million pounds (11,793 metric
tons). The EPA requests information on U.S. production, usage, and
import projections for 1-BP.
2. Emissions Profile--Data Needs
    In order to assess the impacts of adding 1-BP to the HAP list, the
EPA needs additional information on the location and use of 1-BP. The
EPA is requesting information on the usage of 1-BP in all industries to
broaden our understanding of regulatory impacts that could arise
subsequent to the addition of 1-BP to the HAP list. Specifically, we
solicit comment and information on the following areas: (1) The types
of applications or processes that employ 1-BP (e.g., chemical
production, spray coating, solvent cleaner/degreaser); (2) the amount
of 1-BP used in specific applications; (3) whether 1-BP is used in a
separate process from other HAP or is used in combination with other
HAP; (4) the types of facilities where 1-BP is used; (5) whether the
facility using 1-BP is classified as a large or small business; \2\

(6) any available information on the reasons for the selection of 1-BP
(e.g., particular effectiveness, replacement for HAP); (7) whether the
processes are controlled or uncontrolled for 1-BP or HAP emissions and,
if controlled, what types of control devices or practices are utilized;
and (8) any other information that the respondent believes is important
to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), signed into law on March 29, 1996, is an amendment to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 and adopts the Small
Business Act's definition of ``small entity'' as defined in 5 U.S.C.
601, 15 U.S.C. 632, and Small Business Administration regulations.
This includes small businesses (typically 500 or 750 employees
including all parent and subsidiary employees), small governmental
jurisdictions (population of less than 50,000), and small
organizations (e.g., not-for-profit organizations) that are not
dominant in their field. The definition of a ``small business'' is
determined by a business's North American Industry Classification
System code and annual receipts or number of employees. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ121/pdf/PLAW-104publ121.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also interested in information from facilities that are
currently using and controlling the emissions of 1-BP. The EPA believes
that the same controls used to control other volatile HAP would be
equally effective in controlling 1-BP. The EPA is interested in whether
industry agrees with this assertion or if data are available to refute
this position. The EPA is also aware that the previous Federal Register
documents discussing the petitions to add 1-BP to the HAP list may have
caused many facilities to evaluate the potential to replace the use of
1-BP in their operations. The EPA is interested in examples from
industry of the steps taken to evaluate alternatives for 1-BP and
whether replacements were successfully completed. Please also provide
information on any impediments to successful control or replacement of
1-BP.
    The information will aid in identifying the specific 1-BP use
scenarios across NESHAP source categories so that the Agency is able to
fully consider and address the direct and immediate impacts of listing
1-BP in the upcoming action. The information will also assist the EPA
in addressing possible applicability and compliance questions going
forward, including questions or concerns raised about the potential
impact on small businesses, children, tribes, and environmental justice
communities. By minimizing uncertainty in compliance requirements,
identifying any barriers to compliance, and ensuring that the EPA has a
more complete inventory of emission sources, the EPA can better assure
that the intended emission reductions required by the NESHAP are
understood and that those emission reductions are expeditiously
attained. However, data are required to support the analyses of impacts
to these groups.

B. Possible Regulatory Impacts of Listing Action-Data Needs

    Once added to the HAP list, 1-BP will become subject to regulation
under CAA section 112 and as explained below, some sources' regulatory
obligations may change at that point. In granting the petitions to list
1-BP, the EPA explained that a second step to the process was
accordingly warranted that would entail publishing a Federal Register
document adding 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list. 85 FR
36854. The EPA further explained its belief at that time that most
source categories emitting 1-BP would not become subject to emissions
standards addressing the compound until the EPA amends or promulgates
new standards for specific source categories. Although the Agency still
considers this to be the case for many of the source categories
regulated under CAA section 112, the EPA has since determined that the
requirements of certain NESHAP could apply immediately to facilities
using 1-BP. As explained below, the requirements of these NESHAP apply
broadly to all HAP, and the listing of 1-BP could affect the compliance
obligations of sources subject to these requirements. In addition, for
some sources, the addition of a new HAP could change the calculation of
whether the source is a major source and the concomitant regulatory
obligations. The EPA has determined that additional rulemaking is
warranted to clarify or establish how quickly regulated sources
impacted by the change in the HAP list must adapt to ensure compliance
with existing regulations.
    The following sections describe potential impacts that could occur
once 1-BP is listed as a HAP. Some of these impacts could occur
immediately with the listing of 1-BP, while other impacts may require
additional EPA action to address compliance and implementation issues.
1. Potential Impacts on Major Source Facilities
    The EPA reviewed applicability provisions for more than 40 current
NESHAP to identify potential impacts from the listing of 1-BP as a HAP.
The focus of the EPA review was on those NESHAP that regulate solvents
used for cleaning or for applying adhesives or surface coatings, which
are identified as the main uses of 1-BP. Most surface coating rules
specify both numeric limits and work practice requirements to ensure
the control of HAP used in these kinds of operations. Our preliminary
findings indicate that for several NESHAP, the listing of 1-BP could
impact compliance requirements of the NESHAP without changes to
existing rule language.
    As an example, the numeric limits in coating rules are often based
on a limitation on the amount of organic HAP per unit, which often
results in facilities reducing the HAP content of their coatings in
order to comply with the limits. In many instances, the term coating is
defined to include adhesives and solvent cleaning used in the coating
process or ancillary operations. The addition of 1-BP to the HAP list
could immediately impact compliance calculations for many NESHAP for
coating operations because these rules often define HAP by a direct
reference to the HAP list published (and modified) under CAA section
112(b) and codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart C. When 1-BP is listed
as a HAP, in order to maintain compliance with the applicable limits,
affected sources using 1-BP that are subject to numeric limits such as
these would likely need to re-assess compliance with the numeric
emission limits in the source category rule. This may extend to
facilities that purposely selected to use 1-BP as part of their
compliance strategy because it was not a HAP at the time the facilities
reformulated their coatings. Further, since the compliance dates for
most NESHAP are long past, there may be some question as to the
reasonable time allowance that would be appropriate for sources to
include 1-BP in their compliance demonstrations. See section III.C
below for our discussion on compliance timing as it relates to listing
of 1-BP as a HAP.
    The EPA requests comments and information on actual uses of 1-BP
and detailed information on any experiences facilities have had in any
evaluations of 1-BP and its potential control or replacement. The EPA
is also interested in examples of issues that might need to be resolved
in the future for sources to achieve compliance with existing
standards. This may include the evaluation of existing air pollution
control devices (APCDs) or the need for the addition of APCDs. A
facility may also opt to consider elimination or reduction of 1-BP use
in a covered emission unit. The EPA requests comments on whether there
are additional factors that impact evaluations of compliance strategies
to include 1-BP, such as whether the facility is already complying with
the NESHAP for other HAP. The EPA is also interested in examples of
where the addition of 1-BP to the HAP list will subject previously
unregulated emissions units to a current NESHAP, as well as when the
addition would impact

units already being controlled to meet a NESHAP.
    Further, several source category rules also include work practice
requirements that require the use of ``low HAP'' or ``no HAP'' products
for either cleaning or adhesive activities. Typically, in such rules,
``no HAP'' is defined as containing less than 1 percent total HAP by
weight. The EPA believes that there are instances where 1-BP is
currently being used to meet these requirements. Once 1-BP is listed as
a HAP, affected sources might need to employ alternatives to 1-BP to
meet these low-HAP or no HAP requirements. The EPA requests comments on
available alternatives for 1-BP and any impediments to the replacement
of 1-BP, such as revisions to process specifications or other standard
operating procedures.
    Several NESHAP have requirements that apply to emission sources
that are defined to be ``in HAP service'' or ``using HAP based
materials.'' These requirements include work practices, such as covers
on all storage containers and transport equipment, requirements for
closed-loop systems, and in some cases leak detection and repair
requirements. Further, some rules regulate halogen emissions from
specific process units but define halogen to include only a subset of
halogens (e.g., chlorine and fluorine, or just fluorine). The EPA
requests comments on specific examples of regulations with requirements
such as these that could be impacted by the addition of 1-BP to the HAP
list.
2. Potential Impacts on Area Source Facilities
    Once listed, any facility using 1-BP that is currently an area
source of HAP would need to determine its HAP potential to emit (PTE)
based on calculations that include 1-BP. The facility would then need
to evaluate whether its updated PTE would make the facility a major
source as defined in CAA sections 112(a)(1) and (2) and 40 CFR 63.3.
The EPA has information from TRI that suggests that several sources
could become major HAP sources when considering their current 1-BP
emissions.
    An existing source that would begin operating as a major HAP source
would need to evaluate the applicability of specific NESHAP that would
now apply. This could include source categories that have requirements
applicable to the 1-BP emission sources or could include general source
categories, such as industrial boilers. For example, by becoming a
major source, a facility could become subject to both a surface coating
NESHAP and the NESHAP for emergency generators. The facility would need
to determine and implement their compliance strategy for each
applicable NESHAP. If a facility does not already have a title V
operating permit, they would need to apply for one consistent with the
deadlines in applicable 40 CFR part 70 program rules. A facility that
already has a title V operating permit, such as a facility that is
already a major source for criteria pollutants, may need revisions to
their existing operating permit to include major source NESHAP
applicable requirements and/or any additional state implementation
plan/state permitting requirements. The EPA solicits comments on the
steps that a facility would need to take if the facility is
transitioning from an area source to a major source of HAP due to the
addition of 1-BP. The EPA asks for details on required facility actions
for developing and implementing any new NESHAP compliance requirements,
as well as any additional permitting required for the facility. The EPA
is interested in whether the area-to-major facilities face additional
burdens not faced by those facilities that are already major HAP
sources, such as a need to install control equipment for compliance
with NESHAP standards.
    Area sources would also need to determine whether any of the NESHAP
for area sources apply to their operations. For example, area sources
that are subject to a NESHAP might be required to use a non-HAP product
or comply with specific work practices. If the facility currently uses
1-BP to meet the non-HAP product requirements, the facility may need to
either replace 1-BP with another non-HAP product or switch to the work
practice alternatives in the rule. The EPA solicits examples of area
source rules that may apply to area sources using 1-BP. In addition to
the above requests, the EPA welcomes comments on other compliance
issues or concerns that could arise from the inclusion of 1-BP on the
HAP list.

C. Information Needed To Assist in Evaluating Compliance Timing and
Potential New Source Categories

    As previously explained, this is the first occasion on which the
EPA is granting a petition to add a substance to the HAP list that
Congress established in the 1990 CAA Amendments. As also previously
explained, the addition of 1-BP to the HAP list will raise compliance
questions such as the timing of incorporating a new HAP into ongoing
compliance demonstration requirements for NESHAP that are already in
effect. The EPA is requesting comments to inform the decision on how to
best incorporate a new HAP into compliance demonstrations.
    The EPA requests comments on whether all sources subject to a
NESHAP at the time of a new HAP listing need the same amount of time to
review and update their obligations under a NESHAP and develop and
implement a compliance strategy. Alternatively, the EPA could consider
providing a different compliance timeline for sources that are already
meeting the standard for other HAP at the time 1-BP is added as opposed
to a facility that is newly subject to the specific NESHAP.
    The EPA also requests comments on whether there are different
considerations that should be taken into account for sources subject to
standards for ``existing sources'' versus standards for ``new
sources.'' This is because for emission standards, limitations, or
regulations under CAA section 112, new sources are typically required
under CAA 112(i)(1) to be in compliance ``upon start up'' or by the
effective date of a promulgated rule. Existing sources, on the other
hand, are allowed up to 3 years after the effective date of a
promulgated rule to comply under CAA section 112(i)(3). When a
pollutant is added to the HAP list, however, there could be
established, operating sources already complying with the applicable
requirements for either new affected sources or existing affected
sources. The EPA is seeking information and data that will help the EPA
to determine the appropriate compliance timeframe for these sources.
Specifically, we request information and examples on whether affected
sources subject to new or existing requirements could face different
burdens to identify and implement a compliance strategy.
    As stated previously, the EPA is considering whether changes to the
General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 would be the best approach to
provide clarification or extension to compliance schedules for
incorporating 1-BP into existing NESHAP. Under this approach, the EPA
could modify 40 CFR 63.6 to provide a consistent compliance timeline
for all sources impacted by the addition of any new HAP, rather than
addressing only 1-BP. For example, the EPA could provide a 1-year
compliance period for all facilities impacted by the addition of a new
HAP. Alternatively, the EPA could provide a schedule that is based on
the individual source category rule. For example, the General
Provisions could be revised to require that compliance demonstration
that includes a newly listed HAP must be provided in the first complete
semi-

annual reporting period that follows the addition of a new HAP.
    Instead of revising the General Provisions, the EPA may determine
that individual evaluations of the time needed are warranted for each
NESHAP with known or likely 1-BP use; the EPA could then make
individual decisions for each NESHAP and incorporate the compliance
timeline in each rule. The EPA requests comments on the relative
benefits of a NESHAP case-by-case approach as opposed to a consistent
timeline for all NESHAP. We request comments and information on any
alternative schedules and factors that should be considered.
    In its review, the EPA has identified several NESHAP that control
total HAP or volatile HAP. As mentioned above, several of these NESHAP
define HAP as all compounds in the CAA HAP list, while others regulate
a subset of the HAP list. We request comments on whether the time to
develop and implement control strategies for rules that immediately
include 1-BP differ from those categories with a category-specific HAP
list. The EPA requests comments on alternatives for incorporating 1-BP
into rules with source category-specific HAP lists.
    The EPA is also seeking information to support its determination as
to whether the Agency should establish new source categories and what
those source categories would be to ensure effective and appropriate
regulation of 1-BP. As discussed in the EPA decision to grant the
petition to list 1-BP, an example of a new source category could be one
that would cover 1-BP emissions from dry cleaning operations. 85 FR
36854. The current NESHAP for Dry Cleaning Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart M) establishes requirements only for PERC. The EPA will need to
evaluate whether this subpart, which includes regulation of both area
and major sources of HAP, should be expanded to include dry cleaning
sources using 1-BP or whether regulation would better be accomplished
by listing a new source category and then establishing MACT (or GACT)
for these 1-BP sources independent of 40 CFR part 63, subpart M. It is
also possible that no new regulation of dry-cleaning operations will be
necessary to address 1-BP. There have been numerous reports that the
use of 1-BP in dry cleaning is being eliminated by the industry. The
EPA requests information on whether there is any ongoing use of 1-BP in
dry cleaning, as well as information on the size and types of dry-
cleaning facilities that continue to rely on 1-BP as their cleaning
solvent.
    In addition to source category additions based on current NESHAP
source categories, the EPA may also conclude, based on information
provided through comment on this document and our own evaluation, that
additional categories of major sources or area sources are warranted.
The EPA requests comments and data on 1-BP uses that may not be
included in any current NESHAP but that might warrant consideration for
listing under CAA section 112(c).

IV. Additional Requests for Data and Comments

A. Additional Requests

    In addition to the comments requested elsewhere in this document,
the EPA is requesting any and all information that will enable Agency
action as it relates to adding 1-BP to the HAP list as well as on the
following specific areas:
    1. The EPA is requesting comment and information to help assess the
potential impact of the upcoming listing action on small businesses.
This includes requesting information on the number of small businesses
potentially impacted by this listing action; the source categories that
contain these entities; any unique or disproportionate burden that
these small businesses may face; and any suggestions for addressing the
specific impacts on these sources.
    2. The EPA requests comments and information on: The potential
impact of this action on permitting requirements including ongoing
preconstruction or renewal applications; any need to change state,
local, or tribal programs to address this first-time listing of a new
HAP; any potential changes to general permits that may be needed; and
any other issues that the EPA should consider as the addition of 1-BP
to the HAP list progresses. The EPA requests examples of ongoing
permitting activities that could be impacted.
    3. The EPA requests comments and data on any end- or intermediate-
uses of 1-BP we have not addressed in this ANPRM. As previously noted,
once 1-BP is listed as a HAP, it will potentially be regulated in all
applications. Early identification of specific compliance issues will
enable the EPA to more proactively address these issues.
    4. The EPA has not yet determined whether any of the potential
actions associated with addressing the impacts of the listing of 1-BP
will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities, which would require that we conduct a formal Small Business
Advocacy Review panel under SBREFA. We request comments and information
on impacts that should be included in our evaluations from the
concurrent regulatory requirements that occur with the upcoming listing
of 1-BP. The EPA is also requesting suggestions for additional outreach
opportunities to ensure that small businesses are aware of the upcoming
listing action and its potential impact on their operations.
    5. The EPA is requesting comments on whether there are any
additional impacts or factors, including health outcomes and
susceptible subpopulations, that should be considered as they relate to
any disproportionate impact on children, tribes, and environmental
justice communities.
    6. In order to better assess the cost and economic impacts of the
upcoming listing action, the EPA is soliciting comments on all
compliance-related costs created by the addition of 1-BP to the HAP
list. Compliance costs could include engineering controls, costs to
meet work practice requirements, as well as testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting costs of complying with current NESHAP.
    7. As noted above, there is another ongoing EPA regulatory effort
for 1-BP being conducted by the EPA under TSCA. We are aware that those
actions have the potential to impact some of the same facilities,
potentially including the same small businesses, as will be affected by
the addition of 1-BP to the CAA HAP list. The EPA requests comments on
additional measures that might be considered to ensure that the impacts
from these two distinct programs (TSCA and CAA) are understood by the
regulated community and to ensure that unnecessary compliance burden is
mitigated to the extent possible.

B. Types of Data and Comment Not Requested at This Time

    While the EPA is seeking comment and information on all aspects of
the impact of the addition of 1-BP to the HAP list, as discussed
elsewhere in this document, the EPA is not seeking comments on the
justification for the listing as the decision to grant the petition to
list 1-BP has been made. Those issues were fully considered and
addressed in the technical review that the Agency conducted for
purposes of granting the petitions to add 1-BP to the HAP list. 82 FR
2354, 2358 through 62. Therefore, comments on the justification for
listing would be considered as beyond the scope of this action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is a ``significant regulatory
action.'' Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action. Because this action does not
propose or impose any requirements and instead seeks comments and
suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a
subsequent proposed rule, the various statutes and Executive Orders
that normally apply to rulemaking do not apply in this case. When the
EPA develops the rulemaking, the EPA will address the applicable
statutes and Executive Orders.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-12287 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P