[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72056-72057]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection(s): Criteria
for Internet Communications of Aviation Weather, NOTAM, and
Aeronautical Data

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. An Advisory Circular (AC) establishes criteria for
Qualified Internet Communications Providers (ICP), who provide access
to aviation weather, Notices to Airmen (NOTAM), and aeronautical data
via the Public Internet. The information collected is used to determine
the provider's eligibility.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a)

Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA
to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information
collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will
summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0672.
    Title: Criteria for Internet Communications of Aviation Weather,
NOTAM, and Aeronautical Data.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection of information.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Any interested person or organization desiring to
become a QICP shall provide the FAA Aviation Weather Division, ANG-C6
with a written application documenting their capability to meet the
QICP criteria. The purpose of the information is to ensure the
reliability, accessibility and security of aviation weather data, NOTAM
and aeronautical data accessed via the Internet as well as to encourage
data providers to identify the approval status (e.g., experimental or
operational) of aviation weather products.
    Respondents: Approximately 6 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 240 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,840 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-28521 Filed 12-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 24338-24339]
[DOCID:fr02my08-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57730; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Reduce Its Routing Fee for Floor Brokers

April 28, 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 22, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to reduce the routing fee charged to floor
brokers from $0.0030 per share to $0.0029 per share. While the change
to the Exchange's 2008 Price List pursuant to this proposal will be
effective upon filing, the fee change will be implemented on May 1,
2008. The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://
www.nyse.com, the Exchange, and 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, NYSE 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.
NYSE 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
    The Exchange proposes to reduce the fee charged to floor brokers in
connection with the routing of their orders to other markets from
$0.0030 per share to $0.0029 per share. The routing fee charged to all
other market participants will remain at $0.0030 per share.\5\ While
the change to the Exchange's 2008 Price List pursuant to this proposal
will be effective upon filing, the change will become operative on May
1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange represents that: (i) these routing fees are
charged only to Exchange member organizations; and (ii) customers
have the ability to submit an order that can only be executed at the
Exchange itself and may not be routed to other markets, and
therefore the possibility that an order would be routed is within
the customer's control. See e-mail from John Carey, Assistant
General Counsel, Exchange, to Nathan Saunders, Special Counsel,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated April 28, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is justified in charging a slightly
lower routing fee to floor brokers because of their importance to the
continuation of the floor as an integral part of the Exchange's market
model, which integrates the auction market with automated trading.
Essential to this model is the interaction between the specialists,
floor brokers and orders in the Display Book system, which creates
opportunities for price improvement, provides information about
changing market conditions and serves as a catalyst to trading. The
Exchange believes that this decrease in the routing fee will assist
floor brokers in remaining competitive.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act \6\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposed reduction in the routing fee for floor brokers
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges because floor brokers are integral to the Exchange's market
model and the proposed fee reduction will assist floor brokers in
remaining competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange 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.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by a self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-31 on the subject line.

Paper comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-31. 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. 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-NYSE-2008-31 and should be
submitted on or before May 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-9693 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 7586-7590]
[DOCID:fr22fe10-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0015; FRL-8810-4]

Baled Natural Rubber in Tires; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Agency
Response

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's response to a
petition it received under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA). The petition was received from an individual on November
19, 2009. The petitioner requested EPA to ``establish regulations
prohibiting the use and distribution in commerce of Hevea brasiliensis
baled natural-rubber for the manufacture of tires, wherein said rubber
fails to satisfy The American Society for Testing Materials method ASTM
D1076-06 (Category 5).'' The petition states: ``Implementation of an
EPA regulation that guides tire

manufacturers to use Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber that
satisfies ASTM D1076-06 (Category 5) may affect the incidence of Hevea
brasiliensis natural-rubber allergies and allergy induced autism.''
After careful consideration, EPA has denied the TSCA section 21
petition for the reasons discussed in this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Robert Jones, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to you if you manufacture, process, import, or
distribute in commerce Hevea brasiliensis natural rubber. Potentially
interested entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Tire Manufacturing (NAICS code 32621).
     Tire Manufacturing, except retreading (NAICS code 326211).
     Tire Retreading (NAICS code 326212).
     Tire and Tube Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423130).
     Tire Dealers (NAICS code 441320).
     Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code
423930).
     Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
(NAICS code 424690).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Information About this Petition?

    EPA has established a docket for this TSCA section 21 petition
under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0015. All
documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov,
or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket
is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West
Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the
EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to
show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and
sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-
ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.

II. Background

A. What Action was Requested Under this TSCA Section 21 Petition?

    On November 19, 2009, an individual filed a petition with EPA to
``establish regulations prohibiting the use and distribution in
commerce of Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber for the manufacture
of tires, wherein said rubber fails to satisfy The American Society for
Testing Materials method ASTM D1076-06 (Category 5),'' because
``Implementation of an EPA regulation that guides tire manufacturers to
use Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber that satisfies ASTM D1076-
06 (Category 5) may affect the incidence of Hevea brasiliensis natural-
rubber allergies and allergy induced autism'' (Refs. 1 and 2).
    This petition is similar to a previous petition that the same
individual filed with EPA in March 2008 requesting that EPA ``establish
regulations prohibiting the use and distribution in commerce of Hevea
brasiliensis [italics added] natural rubber latex adhesives having a
total protein content greater than 200 micrograms per [gram] dry weight
of latex based on the American Society for Testing and Materials method
ASTM D1076-06 (Category 4).'' EPA denied the petition in June 2008
(Ref. 3).

B. What Support Does the Petitioner Offer for this Request?

    1. Exhibit A is a Portable Document Format (PDF) of a webpage from
the website of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (http://
www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(95)70156-7/abstract), dated
November 13, 2009, providing an abstract of an article entitled ``Latex
Allergen in Respirable Particulate Air Pollution'' (Ref. 1). Exhibit A
is offered to support the petition's statements that ``tires contain
... Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber,'' ``Hev-b
proteins1 are extractable from tire natural-rubber dust,''
``urban air samples have been shown to contain irregular inhalable-
black particulates from airborne tire natural-rubber dust,'' and ``the
impact of the particles should be considered in the issue of morbidity
and mortality rates associated with respiratory diseases and air
pollution.'' For purposes of reviewing the petition, EPA obtained a
full copy of the article (Ref. 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petition refers to antigenic proteins from Hevea
brasiliensis as ``Hev-b proteins.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Exhibit B is a PDF of a webpage from the website of NOVA Science
Publishers, Inc., (http://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/advanced_
search_result.php?keywords=allergies+and+autism&x=13+y=9) dated
November 13, 2009, which advertises, and includes an abstract of, a
publication written by the petitioner entitled ``Allergies and Autism''
(Ref. 1, Exhibit B) is offered to support the petitioner's statements
that ``Hev-b proteins affect the incidence of hyper-adaptive immunity
and atypical neurological development in allergy sensitive children,''
and ``repeated exposure to the Hev-b proteins from Hevea brasiliensis
baled natural-rubber has been shown to cause an increased incidence of
allergies.'' According to NOVA Science Publishers, Inc., ``Allergies
and Autism'' is scheduled to be published in the first quarter of 2010.
At EPA's request, the petitioner provided EPA with a copy of his
publication, which ``explores how certain proteins induce hyper
adaptive-immunity affecting Autism Spectrum Disorders'' (Ref. 4).
    3. Exhibit C is a PDF of a photograph labeled ``VYTEX-BALE.''
Exhibit C is offered to support the petitioner's statement that ``ultra
low-protein Hevea

brasiliensis baled natural-rubber is available commercially'' (Ref. 1).

C. What are the Legal Standards Regarding TSCA Section 21 Petitions and
TSCA Section 6 Rules?

    Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition ``set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary'' to issue the
rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21
implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that are required to
issue the requested rule or order. In addition, TSCA section 21
establishes standards that a court must use to decide whether to order
EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit after denial of a
TSCA section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B).
    The petition asks EPA to ``establish regulations prohibiting the
use and distribution in commerce of Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-
rubber for the manufacture of tires, wherein said rubber fails to
satisfy The American Society for Testing Materials method ASTM D1076-06
(Category 5),'' but does not state under which provision of TSCA the
regulation should be issued. Only TSCA section 6, however, appears to
be applicable, because it authorizes the promulgation of regulations on
chemical substances and mixtures to the extent necessary to protect
adequately against unreasonable risk, including prohibiting the
manufacture or distribution in commerce of a chemical substance for a
particular use. Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA
section 21 and section 6 to evaluate this petition.
    In order to promulgate a rule under TSCA section 6, the EPA
Administrator must find that ``there is a reasonable basis to conclude
that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or
disposal of a chemical substance or mixture . . . presents or will
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.''
15 U.S.C. 2605(a). This finding cannot be made considering risk alone.
In promulgating any rule under TSCA section 6(a), the statute requires
that the EPA Administrator consider:
     The effects of such substance or mixture on health and the
magnitude of the exposure of human beings to such substance or mixture.
     The effects of such substance or mixture on the
environment and the magnitude of the exposure of the environment to
such substance or mixture.
     The benefits of such substance or mixture for various uses
and the availability of substitutes for such uses.
     The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the
rule, after consideration of the effect on the national economy, small
business, technological innovation, the environment, and public health.
15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1).
    Furthermore, the control measure adopted is to be the ``least
burdensome requirement'' that adequately protects against the
unreasonable risk. 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).
    Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides the standard for judicial
review should EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TSCA section
6(a): ``If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court
by a preponderance of the evidence that ... there is a reasonable basis
to conclude that the issuance of such a rule or order is necessary to
protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment,'' the court shall order the EPA
Administrator to initiate the requested action. 15 U.S.C.
2620(b)(4)(B).

III. Disposition of the TSCA Section 21 Petition

A. What is EPA's Response?

    After careful consideration, EPA has denied the petition. A copy of
the Agency's response, which consists of a letter to the petitioner, is
available in the docket for this TSCA section 21 petition.

B. What is EPA's Reason for this Response?

    The petition asks EPA to ``establish regulations prohibiting the
use and distribution in commerce of Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-
rubber for the manufacture of tires, wherein said rubber fails to
satisfy The American Society for Testing Materials method ASTM D1076-06
(Category 5),'' because ``Implementation of an EPA regulation that
guides tire manufacturers to use Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-
rubber that satisfies ASTM D1076-06 (Category 5) may affect the
incidence of Hevea brasiliensis natural-rubber allergies and allergy
induced autism.'' According to the petition, ASTM D1076-06 (Category 5)
``defines Hevea brasiliensis natural-rubber latex having total protein
content less than 200 [micro]g/dm\2\ and an antigenic Hev-b protein
content less than 10 [micro]g/dm\2\'' (Ref. 1).
    However, there is at present no ASTM D1076-06 (Category 5). ASTM
refers to ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing
Materials), which is a voluntary organization that develops consensus
technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services. See
http://www.astm.org, ASTM D 1076-06, ``Standard Specification for
Rubber-Concentrated, Ammonia Preserved, Creamed, and Centrifuged
Natural Latex,'' is a specification that ``covers requirements for
first grade concentrated natural rubber latex'' in only four
categories. An ASTM D1076-06 (Category 5) does not yet exist. See
http://engineers.ihs.com/document/abstract/SKGGJBAAAAAAAAAA, last
visited December 9, 2009.
    For the following reasons, the petition does not set forth facts
sufficient to establish that it is necessary to issue a rule that
prohibits the use and distribution in commerce of Hevea brasiliensis
baled natural rubber for the manufacture of tires that has a ``total
protein content less than 200 [micro]g/dm\2\ and an antigenic Hev-b
protein content less than 10 [micro]g/dm\2\'' (Ref. 1) in order to
protect human health or the environment against unreasonable risk of
injury.
    First, the petitioner has not presented or identified any direct
evidence that Hevea brasiliensis natural rubber antigens, or any other
antigens, cause, induce, or affect autism. Based on the evidence
provided by the petitioner (Exhibit B and the petitioner's publication
entitled ``Allergies and Autism'') and evidence otherwise available to
EPA, this idea is an unproven hypothesis (Refs. 1, 5, and 6). In
``Allergies and Autism,'' the petitioner states that ``[a]llergy
induced Autism is an area of research wherein immune responses to
certain environmental proteins, and foodstuff proteins, may affect the
development and intensity of atypical behaviors within the Autism
Spectrum.'' Thus, the petitioner recognizes that the allergy-induced-
autism proposition remains indefinite and unproven. Moreover, reviewing
different paths of research, the petitioner repeatedly characterizes
``allergy induced autism'' as a ``hypothesis.'' The petitioner also
asserts that ``research has shown that allergy may play a role in the
pathogenesis of Autism,'' and cited a study that purported to find ``a
significant positive association between autistic severity and the
frequency of allergic manifestations.'' However, the cited study does
not directly test the allergy-induced-Autism hypothesis, notes that the
causes of autism are ``an area of significant controversy,'' and only
concludes that the ``significant positive association between these
manifestations and important disease characteristics ... may shed light
on the possible causal role of allergy in some

autistic children'' (Ref. 5). A recent consensus report published in
Pediatrics, the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy
of Pediatrics, concludes that a direct cause-and-effect relationship
between immune dysfunction and Autism Spectrum Disorders has yet to be
proven (Ref. 6). Based on its controversial nature, the allergy-
induced-Autism hypothesis and the supporting evidence are insufficient
to sustain a finding of unreasonable risk required to support a
regulation under TSCA section 6.
    In addition, as noted in the Federal Register notice (Ref. 3)
denying the petitioner's previous petition, Hevea brasiliensis natural
rubber latex allergies have already been the subject of considerable
Federal Government evaluation. For example, the Consumer Protect Safety
Commission concluded that the incidence of natural rubber latex allergy
in the general population was very low (below 1%), that many consumer
products contain natural rubber latex, and that ``in spite of the
prevalence of [natural rubber latex] in consumer products, there are
few documented cases of reactions to [natural rubber latex]-containing
consumer products,'' most of which involved medical devices. See EPA's
response to the petitioner's previous petition for a more detailed
discussion (Ref. 3).
    Second, the petition fails to demonstrate that there is a
sufficient level of exposure to Hevea brasiliensis antigenic
proteins2 from the use of Hevea brasiliensis baled natural
rubber in tires to cause adverse effects from this exposure. Available
data are ambiguous and do not support the position that the general
population is subject to widespread exposure to natural rubber latex
proteins from tires. EPA obtained the full article referenced in
Exhibit A and considered it in light of this petition (Ref. 7). In the
study, particulates were collected and analyzed from ambient air
samples from the Denver metropolitan area. The size of the particles
was determined using optical microscopy, and it was reported that a
significant portion (58.5%) was in the respirable range. The particles
were also characterized using chemical solubility tests and mass
spectrometry. The authors of the study hypothesized that the particles
represent abraded tire fragments and concluded that their hypothesis
was supported by the mass spectroscopic, physical, and chemical data.
In the study, the authors also demonstrated that Hevea brasiliensis
antigenic proteins can be extracted from rubber tire fragments. The
authors speculated that airborne tire fragments ``could contribute,
through direct and indirect mechanisms, to the increase in both latex
sensitization and asthma,'' but did not investigate the hypothesis or
demonstrate that airborne tire fragments directly or indirectly
contribute to an increase in, or have any impact on, latex
sensitization and asthma. Moreover, the study only showed that Hevea
brasiliensis antigenic proteins could be extracted from rubber tire
fragments, not from particles that were collected from air samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ASTM D1076-06 uses the term ``Hevea antigenic protein'' to
refer to antigenic proteins in natural rubber and its products as
measured by test method ASTM D6499. EPA uses Hevea brasiliensis
antigenic proteins throughout this notice to refer to any antigenic
proteins from Hevea brasiliensis and not just those measured by test
method ASTM D6499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Allergies and Autism'' describes a study that reports the
presence of extractable Hevea brasiliensis antigenic proteins in
ambient samples of sedimented freeway dust and airborne particulate
matter from two locations within the Los Angeles basin (Ref. 8).
However, in a subsequent study examining paved road dust and
atmospheric particulate matter for allergen exposure in three sites
within the greater Los Angeles area, the same authors reported no Hevea
brasiliensis antigenic proteins were detected in paved road dust
samples (Ref. 9). The authors concluded that the different results
could be explained by ``differences in driving conditions and sampling
locations for the roadways examined in each of the two studies.'' The
authors also reported that material collected from guardrails contained
about 75% rubber particles, but paved road dust collected from the
center two-thirds of straight sections of city surface streets did not
contain rubber particles.
    EPA identified another study that investigated whether exposure to
road traffic in a large city in Germany (Dresden) is associated with
allergic sensitization to latex in children (Ref. 10). In this study,
immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels against Hevea brasiliensis antigenic
proteins and a panel of common aeroallergens were measured in 2,505
children, ages 5-11, and an analysis was conducted to determine whether
there was any correlation between latex sensitization and exposure to
road traffic as measured by parental self-reporting, traffic counts,
and measurements of benzene. The authors concluded that their data
suggest exposure to road traffic is not associated with allergic
sensitization to latex in children.
    Finally, a letter published in Epidemiology, the official, peer-
reviewed journal of the International Society of Environmental
Epidemiology, reported that ``[o]btaining solid natural rubber (NR) out
of latex,'' unlike ``production and use of dipped latex products'' used
in personal products and medical devices, ``involves intensive heating,
which destroys many, [though] not all, proteins,'' and that, ``[i]n the
rubber manufacturing industry, exposure to inhalable NR particles can
be orders of magnitude higher ..., without producing any evidence of
latex allergies,'' and concluded that, ``[b]ased on these results[,] an
association between heavy traffic and sensitization to NRL in the
general population seems to be unlikely'' (Ref. 11). This letter is
consistent with comments submitted by the Rubber Manufacturers
Association in response to the petitioner's previous petition to ban
antigenic natural rubber latex adhesives. According to the Rubber
Manufacturers Association, natural rubber latex ``proteins in dry
rubber products [including tires] are largely denatured, diluted, and
immobilized to a far greater extent than in products formed from liquid
latex'' and ``most dry rubber products that have been tested have had
no detectable levels of latex allergens'' (Ref. 12).
    Third, the petition provides little information on the specific
factors listed in TSCA section 6(c) that must be considered for a TSCA
section 6 rulemaking. See Unit II.C.
    For example, the petition provides little specific information on
the magnitude of exposure of human beings or the environment. Exhibit A
concludes that Hevea brasiliensis latex antigens are extractible from
rubber tire fragments, which are abundant in urban air samples, but
provides little factual information on the magnitude of exposure of
human beings to the Hevea brasiliensis antigenic proteins from the tire
fragments. See discussion in Unit II.B.1. concerning natural rubber
latex proteins in tire particles, as referenced in Exhibit B (Ref. 4).
    The petition provides little factual information on the reasonably
ascertainable economic consequences of prohibiting the use and
distribution in commerce of Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber in
tires that does not have a ``total protein content less than 200
[micro]g/dm\2\ and an antigenic Hev-b protein content less than 10
[micro]g/dm\2\.'' In ``Allergies and Autism,'' for example, the
petitioner recounts who are the major natural rubber latex consuming
and producing countries, the percentage of natural rubber latex
consumed today, and rates of natural latex consumption in the past 43
years. However, this information fails to offer specific factual

information on the ``reasonably ascertainable economic consequences''
that would occur as a result of enacting the proposed regulation (Ref.
4).
    The petition states that ``proteins inherent in Hevea brasiliensis
baled natural-rubber can be substantially eliminated'' and that ``ultra
low-protein natural-rubber latex (e.g., Vytex-NRL) that can be used to
make Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber that satisfies ASTM D
1076-06 (Category 5)'' is available, but provides little other
information on the availability and suitability of substitutes. In
``Allergies and Autism,'' the petitioner reports that non-Hevea
brasiliensis latex does not provide a suitable substitute. According to
the petitioner: ``Efforts have been made to commercialize alternative
latex having inherently lower antigenic protein content (i.e., guayule
rubber latex and the Russian dandelion), but such materials are
reported to be higher in cost and presently are available only in
limited quantities'' and ``both of these materials have their own
unique set of proteins with potential allergenic behavior not yet
clearly understood.'' With respect to Vytex, the petitioner reports
that it ``can be used for making surgical and examination gloves,
condoms, foam, tubing, breather bags, balloons, adhesives as well as
many other natural-latex based products across a wide range of
industries'' (Ref. 4). Vytex does not appear to be a viable substitute
for use in tires, however, at this time. Vytex was developed and is
produced by the Vystar Corp. According to the Vystar Corp. website,
Vytex is Vystar Corp.'s first commercial product and is presently used
only in Envy condoms, which were introduced commercially only in
October of 2009. In addition, Vystar Corp.'s webpage focuses on Vytex's
suitability for the specialty use of medical devices. See http://
www.vytex.com, last visited January 11, 2010.
    Nor does the petition provide evidence showing that prohibiting the
use of ``Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber'' that does not have a
``total protein content less than 200 [micro]g/dm\2\ and an antigenic
Hev-b protein content less than 10 [micro]g/dm\2\'' in the manufacture
of tires would be the least burdensome requirement to address the
potential risks the petition identifies.
    Finally, the petition has not demonstrated that a regulation
prohibiting the use of ``Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber'' that
does not have a ``total protein content less than 200 [micro]g/dm\2\
and an antigenic Hev-b protein content less than 10 [micro]g/dm\2\'' in
the manufacture of tires is likely to be successful in reducing the
incidence of latex allergy or autism.

IV. References

    The following is a list of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this notice and placed in the docket that was established
under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0015. For information on
accessing the docket, refer to Unit I.B.
    1. Dochniak, M. ``Citizen Petition under TSCA to prohibit the use
of Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber for the manufacture of
tires, wherein said baled natural-rubber fails to satisfy The American
Society for Testing and Materials method ASTM D1076-06 (Category 5).''
November 19, 2009.
    2. EPA. Letter from OPPT, to Michael Dochniak, acknowledging
receipt of his petition under TSCA section 21: ``Citizen Petition under
TSCA to prohibit the use of Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber for
the manufacture of tires, wherein said baled natural-rubber fails to
satisfy The American Society for Testing and Materials method ASTM
D1076-06 (Category 5).'' December 8, 2009.
    3. EPA. Natural Rubber Latex Adhesives; Disposition of TSCA Section
21 Petition; Notice. Federal Register (73 FR 32573, June 9, 2008) (FRL-
8368-4). Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0273. Available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov.
    4. Dochniak, M. and Dunn, D. Allergies and Autism. Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. 2008.
    5. Mostafa, G. A.; Hamza, R. T.; and El-Shahawi, H. H. Allergic
manifestations in autistic children: Relation to disease severity.
Journal of Pediatric Neurology. 2008. 6(2):115-123.
    6. Buie, T., et al., Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of
Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus
Report. Pediatrics. 2010. 125:S1-S18.
    7. Williams, P. B.; Buhr, M. P.; Weber, R. W.; Volz, M. A.; Koepke,
J. W.; and Selner, J. C. Latex Allergen in Respirable Particulate Air
Pollution. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 1995. 95:88-95.
    8. Miguel, A. G.; Cass, G. R.; Weiss, J.; and Glovsky, M. M. Latex
Allergens in Tire Dust and Airborne Particles. Environmental Health
Perspectives. November 1996. 104(11):1180-1186.
    9. Miguel, A. G., Cass, G. R., Weiss, J., and Glovsky, M. M.
Allergens in Paved Road Dust and Airborne Particles. Environmental
Science Technology. 1999. 33:4159-4168.
    10. Hirsch, T.; Neumeister, V.; Weiland, S. K.; von Mutius, E.;
Hirsch, D.; Grafe, H.; Duhme, H.; and Leupold, W. Traffic exposure and
allergic sensitization against latex in children. Journal of Allergy
and Clinical Immunology. 2000. 106:573-8.
    11. Vermeulen, R.; Doekes, G.; and Kromhout, H. Latex Allergy Risk
among the General Population due to Traffic-Related Airborne Dust?
Epidemiology. Cambridge, MA. 2000. 11(1):92.
    12. Rubber Manufacturers Association Letter to EPA (Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0273), Comments on Mr. Michael Dochniak TSCA
Section 21 Petition. May 12, 2008.

List of Subjects

     Environmental protection, Antigenic proteins, Autism, Health,
Hevea brasiliensis baled natural rubber, Latex, Tires.

    Dated: February 16, 2010.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.

[FR Doc. 2010-3414 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 6110]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2716]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-845-000]

Bishop Hill Interconnection LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bishop Hill Interconnection LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 21, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 31, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2716 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 65 (Thursday, April 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16735]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0147]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Yellow Mill Channel, Bridgeport,
CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Stratford Avenue Bridge across
Yellow Mill Channel, mile 0.3 at Bridgeport, Connecticut. This
deviation is necessary to complete electrical repairs, install new
rebar and concrete, repair/replace structural steel, and retrofit
navigation lighting. This deviation allows the bridge to remain fully
closed for two weeks followed by a two-week period during which the
bridge will open for vessels upon 72 hours of advance notice.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on April 1, 2017 to
12:01 a.m. on May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0147, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4334, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Connecticut Department of
Transportation, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary
deviation to facilitate rehabilitation of the bridge and bascule
leaves. The Stratford Avenue Bridge, across Yellow Mill Channel, mile
0.3 at Bridgeport, Connecticut is a double-leaf bascule bridge offering
mariners a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water and 17 feet
at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge
operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.225.
    The bulk of traffic utilizing the waterway is recreational in
nature, requiring only occasional openings of the bridge in order to
proceed.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Stratford Avenue Bridge shall
remain in the closed position from April 1, 2017 to April 15, 2017.
Between April 15, 2017 and May 1, 2017, the span will open for the
passage of vessels requiring an opening provided 72 hours of advance
notice is furnished to the owner of the bridge.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so
at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.
There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 31, 2017.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-06818 Filed 4-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P