[Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 37266-37268]
[DOCID:fr28jy09-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60365; File No. 4-443]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 to the
Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed
To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options

July 22, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On June 30, 2009, June 16, 2009, June 12, 2009, June 22, 2009, June
12, 2009, June 18, 2009, June 23, 2009, July 8, 2009, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''), NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``Phlx''), NYSE Amex LLC
(``NYSE Amex''), NYSE Arca Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC''), respectively, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 11A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608
thereunder,\2\ Amendment No. 3 to the Plan for the Purpose of
Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the
Listing and Trading of Standardized Options (``Plan'' or ``OLPP'').\3\
The amendment would apply uniform objective standards to the range of
options series exercise (or strike) prices available for trading on the
Plan Sponsor exchanges. This notice solicits comment on Amendment No. 3
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On July 6, 2001, the Commission approved the OLPP, which was
originally proposed by the American Stock Exchange LLC (k/n/a NYSE
Amex), CBOE, ISE, OCC, Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (k/n/a
Phlx), and Pacific Exchange, Inc. (k/n/a NYSE Arca). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 44521, 66 FR 36809 (July 13, 2001). On
February 5, 2004, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (k/n/a BX) was
added as a sponsor to the OLPP. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 49199, 69 FR 7030 (February 12, 2004). On March 21, 2008, NASDAQ
was added as a sponsor to the OLPP. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57546 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR 16393 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

    Amendment No. 3 proposes to apply uniform objective standards to
the range of options series exercise (or strike) prices available for
trading on the Plan Sponsor exchanges as a quote mitigation
strategy.\4\ According to the Plan Sponsors, by agreeing to uniform
standards, the Plan Sponsor exchanges intend to reduce the overall
number of option series available for trading, which will in turn
lessen the rate of increase in quote traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CBOE, ISE, NASDAQ, BX, Phlx, NYSE Amex, and OCC have
represented that the Penny Pilot Program has resulted in an
explosion of quote traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposal applies certain ``range limitations'' to
the addition of new series strike prices for options classes overlying
equity securities, Exchange Traded Fund Shares, or Trust Issued
Receipts. As proposed, if the price of the underlying security is less
than or equal to $20, the Series Selecting Exchange would not list new
option series with an exercise price more than 100 percent above or
below the price of the underlying security.\5\ If the price of the
underlying security is greater than $20, the Series Selecting Exchange
would not list new option series with an exercise price more than 50
percent above or below the price of the underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This restriction would not prohibit the listing of at least
three options series per expiration month in an option class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal provides for an objective basis upon which the
underlying prices for the price range limitations described above shall
be determined, specifically, in regards to intra-day add-on series and
next-day series additions, new expiration months and for option series
to be added as a result of pre-market trading. Furthermore, 8 a.m.
Chicago time is proposed as the earliest permissible time at which a
Series Selecting Exchange may notify the OCC, and each other exchange
also trading the same options class, that it has commenced trading new
series as a result of pre-market trading. This earliest permissible
time is established to ensure that outlier prices for the underlying
security which occur at 6 a.m. Chicago time, for example (i.e., well in
advance of the opening of the standard trading session), are not relied
upon for purposes of the exercise price range limitations.

    Example: XYZ closes on Tuesday at $20, but trades in the evening
aftermarket trading session from a range of $35-$40 on speculation
of a merger. At 8:15 a.m. Chicago time the next day (Wednesday), the
exchanges wish to list additional series, for trading that day, with
strike prices that reflect the anticipated price increase in XYZ
relative to the previous trading day. There is no official high/low
price since the market has not yet opened for trading for Wednesday,
so the exchanges use the most recent pre-open trade price of $40.
The exchanges could therefore add series with strike prices from
$20-$60 based upon the proposed exercise price range limitations.
    As of 2 p.m. Chicago time during the Wednesday standard trading
session XYZ has traded from a range of a low price of $40 to

a high price of $45. An exchange wishes to add additional series
during the standard trading session (``intra-day add-on series'').
According to the proposed exercise price range limitations the
exchanges may list series with strike prices between $20 and $67.50
(i.e., $40-(40 x .50) and $45 + (45 x .50). Note that the exchanges
were already able to list series with strike prices as low as $20
based upon the pre-open determinations).
    As of the 3 p.m. Chicago time close on Wednesday XYZ hit a low
price of $35 and a high price of $50 during Wednesday's standard
trading session. The exchanges wish to add additional series for
trading the following day (Thursday) (``next-day series
additions''). According to the proposed exercise price range
limitations, the exchanges may list additional series with strikes
between $17.50-$75 (i.e., $35-(35 x .50) and $50 + (50 x .50)). The
exchanges also wish to add XYZ series the following Monday to
replace the series expiring this Friday (``new expiration months''),
and would use this same range ($17.50-$75) for those additional
series.

    The proposal also allows each Plan Sponsor exchange to designate up
to five underlying securities to except from the aforementioned 50
percent restriction and instead apply the 100 percent restriction.
These designations would be made on an annual basis and cannot be
removed during the calendar year unless the option class is delisted by
the designating exchange, in which case the designating exchange may
designate another class to replace the delisted class. If a designated
class is delisted by the designating exchange but continues to trade on
at least one other exchange, any additional series for the class which
are added from that point forward would again be subject to the
proposed exercise price range limitations, unless the class is
subsequently designated by another exchange. The proposal also provides
an exchange with a procedure to request, if conditions warrant,
additional case-by-case exceptions even when it has already so
designated five underlying securities.
    In addition, a procedure is created for a Series Listing Exchange
to request an exemption, on a case-by-case basis, from the 100 percent
range limitation, whereby, if unanimously agreed upon by all exchanges
that list the particular options class, the Series Listing Exchange may
list options series with strike prices that are more than 100 percent
above or below the price of the underlying security.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Application of any of the aforementioned exceptions and/or
exemptions to the strike price range limitations for an underlying
security would be available to all exchanges listing options on such
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example: Exchange E has designated ABC as one of its five
classes for which the 100 percent exercise price range limitations
shall apply despite ABC's price exceeding $20. ABC hit a low price
of $25 and a high price of $30 during the standard trading session
as of the 3 p.m. Chicago time market close on Wednesday. The
exchanges are considering next-day series additions for Thursday's
opening, and, according to the proposed exercise price range
limitations, may list additional series with strikes ranging from
$0-$60. However, Exchange E believes that $60 as the high strike
available to add will be insufficient to allow for adequate customer
demand should ABC's price fluctuate to the high side.\7\ Exchange E
requests an exemption from the 100% range limitation for the purpose
of adding strikes beyond $60 beginning on Thursday. If all exchanges
that trade ABC unanimously consent then Exchange E, and all other
exchanges that list ABC, may exceed the $60 upper strike price
limitation when adding new series. If unanimous consent is not given
then all exchanges will be limited to the 100 percent exercise price
range limitations. The exchanges may add strikes beyond $60 to all
existing series months at the time of consent. They may also add
strikes beyond $60 in the series month that will be created at the
next standard expiration after consent is provided, and if
appropriate, any non-standard expiration that occurs prior to the
standard expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This belief could be based upon an expected announcement by
ABC during the after or premarket hours or an impending announcement
which would directly impact ABC's industry.

    The proposal would not allow for the listing of options series that
would otherwise be prohibited by the rules of a Series Selecting
Exchange or the Plan, nor does it restrict the ability of an exchange
to list options series that have been properly listed by another
exchange. The proposal also expressly eliminates the applicability of
the strike price range limitations with regard to: (1) The listing of
$1 strike prices in option classes participating in the $1 Strike
Program, where instead, the Series Selecting Exchange shall be
permitted to list $1 strike prices to the fullest extent as permitted
under its rules for the $1 Strike Program; and (2) the listing of
series of Flexible Exchange Options.
    The Commission directed the then-current options exchanges to act
jointly to develop strategies to address overall capacity concerns in
an Order dated September 8, 1999, as confirmed in a letter from the
Director of the Division of Market Regulation dated September 13, 2000.
According to the Plan Sponsors, this amendment is an additional
strategy to meet this goal. According to one study cited by the Plan
Sponsor exchanges, the options industry would expect an approximate
four percent reduction in the number of series traded, with only a
nominal reduction in trading volume, upon implementation of the changes
proposed in this amendment.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether proposed
Amendment No. 3 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 4-443 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-443. 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 will also be available for inspection and
copying at principal offices of the exchanges. 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 4-443 and should be submitted on or before
August 18, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17883 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


INCIDENT REPORTS ASSOCIATED WITH

Tributyltin (TBT) – containing Chemicals

(tributyltin oxide, tributyltin benzoate, and tributyltin maleate)

PC Codes: 083001, 083106, 083118

January 29, 2008

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Antimicrobials Division

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407198"  0.0 INTRODUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc189407198 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407199"  1.0 	INCIDENT REPORT DATA ASSOCIATED WITH HEALTH EFFECTS	  PAGEREF _Toc189407199 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407200"  1.1	OPP’s Incident Data System (IDS)	  PAGEREF _Toc189407200 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407201"  Summary of the Incident Reports due to Exposure to Tributyltin maleate	  PAGEREF _Toc189407201 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407202"  Summary of the Incident Reports due to Exposure to Tributyltin oxide	  PAGEREF _Toc189407202 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407203"  1.2	Poison Control Center (1993 – 2003)	  PAGEREF _Toc189407203 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407204"  1.3  	California Data - 1982 through 2003	  PAGEREF _Toc189407204 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407205"  Incidences due to exposure to TBT (alone or in combination)	  PAGEREF _Toc189407205 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407206"  Incidences due to exposure to tributyltin oxide	  PAGEREF _Toc189407206 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407207"  Incidences due to exposure to tributyltin Maleate	  PAGEREF _Toc189407207 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407208"  Incidences due to exposure to tributyltin neodecanoate	  PAGEREF _Toc189407208 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407209"  1.4	National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN)	  PAGEREF _Toc189407209 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407210"  1.5	Epidemiological Studies Published in Scientific Literature	  PAGEREF _Toc189407210 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407211"  2.0 	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION	  PAGEREF _Toc189407211 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc189407212"  3.0 	REFERENCES	  PAGEREF _Toc189407212 \h  9

0.0	INTRODUCTION tc \l1 "0.0	INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to review the evidence of health effects in humans resulting from exposure to tributyltin (TBT) – containing Chemicals (tributyltin oxide, tributyltin maleate and tributyltin benzoate).

Two approaches are used in this section:

The potential health effects of TBT in humans, reported as incident reports from different sources, are summarized.

A literature search of health effects associated with TBT exposure, including results of epidemiological studies, is summarized.

1.0 	INCIDENT REPORT DATA ASSOCIATED WITH HEALTH EFFECTS

The following databases have been consulted for incident data:

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

Poison Control Centers - as the result of a data purchase by EPA, OPP received Poison Control Center data covering the years 1993 through 1998 for all pesticides.  Most of the national Poison Control Centers (PCCs) participate in a national data collection system, the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, which obtains data from about 65-70 centers at hospitals and universities.  PCCs provide telephone consultation for individuals and health care providers on suspected poisonings involving drugs, household products, pesticides, etc.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation - California has collected uniform data on suspected pesticide poisonings since 1982.  Physicians are required, by statute, to report to their local health officer all occurrences of illness suspected of being related to exposure to pesticides.  The majority of the incidents involve workers.  Information on exposure (worker activity), type of illness (systemic, eye, skin, eye/skin and respiratory), likelihood of a causal relationship, and number of days off work and in the hospital are provided.

National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) - NPTN is a toll-free information service supported by OPP.  A ranking of the top 200 active ingredients for which telephone calls were received during calendar years 1984-1991, inclusive, has been prepared.  The total number of calls was tabulated for the categories of human incidents, animal incidents, calls for information, and others.

Published Incident Reports - Some incident reports associated with TBT-related human health hazards are published in the scientific literature.

OPP’s Incident Data System (IDS)

Summary of the Incident Reports due to Exposure to Tributyltin maleate

An incident in which a woman was exposed to pillows treated with Ultrafresh DM 50, containing tributyltin maleate, developed swollen mouth, cheeks, neck, lips and a swollen throat (that inhibited her from talking), irritation of the eyes and mouth, quivering of the jaws and lack of concentration. Exposures to tributyltin maleate occurred via the dermal and the ocular routes.

Summary of the Incident Reports due to Exposure to Tributyltin oxide

A total of 3 incidents were reported due to residential uses of tributyltin oxide either for painting the wall or handling the wooden joists to control a mildew problem. Inhalation of tributyltin oxide in combination with other chemicals was considered to be the primary route of exposure. One of the incidents took place when a couple painted the interior of their sail boat with a chemical containing tributyltin oxide. The husband suffered from muscle weakness, muscle fasciculation, tremors and weakness in his shoulders, and was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease; while the wife experienced muscle fatigue and numbness in her extremities. The second incident occurred in Barclay square apartments and Park lane apartments, where the residents complained of offensive odors, eye irritations, and respiratory distress. In the third incident, the building workers experienced poor co-ordination and unsteadiness 3 days after handling treated wooden joists. The route of exposure could not be determined from the information provided in the incident report.

A total of 11 incidents were reported from the use of tributyltin oxide, in combination with other chemicals, in wood preservative stain. Dermal exposure to wood preservative stain (indoor/outdoor/deck painting) led to 9 incidents of rash, hives/welts, itching, blisters, color alteration, ocular irritation, headache, nausea, and dizziness/vertigo. Inhalation of the chemical vapors resulted in chest pain and one incident of seizures.

Although these incidents have been reported for exposure to tributyltin oxide, there is no one reported incident involving tributyltin oxide as an individual chemical exposure, only in combination with other chemicals. tc \l2 "1.1 	OPPs Incident Data System (IDS)

1.2	Poison Control Center (1993 – 2003) tc \l2 "1.2 	 Poison Control Center

There is no reported TBT specific incident in the PCC’ s database.

1.3  	California Data - 1982 through 2003

The incidences associated with tributyl tin and individual compounds were presented separately in this section,

Incidences due to exposure to TBT (alone or in combination)

There are 10 incidences that have been reported in the California Pesticide Surveillance Program Database (1982-1998) as definitely or probably related to tributyltin compounds alone or in combination. As summarized in Table 1, symptoms associated with eyes are the primary reported illness in all the associated incidences.  Nausea, dizziness, headache, and sore throat are the primary systemic effects that have been reported. The primary dermal effects that have been reported are rash, burning sensation, itching.

As summarized in Table 2, although there are some people who were unable to work after exposure for a certain period of time, no one was hospitalized.

Table 1.  Cases Due to TBT compounds Exposure in California Reported by Type of Illness and Year, 1982-1998

Year	Illness Type

	Systemic a	Eye	Skin b	Respiratory	Combination c	Total

1982

1984

1987

1

1

1988

1989

1990

1991

1

1

1992	1

1

	2

1995

	1

	1

1997

1

1

1998	2	2

1	1	4

Total	3	5	2	1	1	10

a 	Category include cases where nausea, sore throat, dizziness, headache and other systemic effects occurred.

b 	Category includes burning sensation, dry scaling irritation, cracking and thickened skin, itching, and blisters and rash on hands.

c 	Category includes combined effects to eye, skin,  respiratory and/or systemic effects.

Table 2. Number of days lost from work or Hospitalized for Indicated Number of Days after being Exposed to Tributyltin compounds in California, 1982-1998.

Number of Days lost from work

Number of Persons Hospitalized

One day	1	-

Two days	-	-

3-5 days	2	-

6-10 days	-	-

11-16 days	-	-

Indefinite a	-	-

Unknownb	-	-

Note:

(a) An entry of indefinite indicates the event occurred, but the time period is not known.

(b).An entry of unknown indicates no information was provided.

Incidences due to exposure to tributyltin oxide

There are 7 incidences that have been reported in the California Pesticide Surveillance Program Database (1982-1998) as definitely or probably related to tributyltin compounds alone or in combination. As summarized in Table 1, symptoms associated with eyes including burning irritation are the primary reported illness in all the associated incidences.  Nausea, dizziness, headache, and sore throat are the primary systemic effects that have been reported. The primary dermal effects that have been reported are rash, burning sensation, itching.

As summarized in Table 4, although there are some people who were unable to work after exposure for a certain period of time, no one was hospitalized.

Table 3.  Cases Due to Tributyltin oxide Exposure in California Reported by Type of Illness and Year, 1982-1998

Year	Illness Type

	Systemic a	Eye	Skin b	Respiratory	Combination c	Total

1982

1984

1987

1

1

1988

1989

1990

1992

	1

	1

1995

	1

	1

1997

1

1

1998	1	2

3

Total	1	4	2

	7

a 	Category include cases where nausea, sore throat, dizziness, headache and other systemic effects occurred.

b 	Category includes burning sensation, dry scaling irritation, cracking and thickened skin, itching, and blisters and rash on hands.

c 	Category includes combined effects to eye, skin,  respiratory and/or systemic effects.

Table 4. Number of days lost from work or Hospitalized for Indicated Number of Days after being Exposed to Tributyltin Oxide in California, 1982-1998.

Number of Days lost from work

Number of Persons Hospitalized

One day	1	-

Two days	-	-

3-5 days	1	-

6-10 days	-	-

11-16 days	-	-

Indefinite a	-	-

Unknownb	-	-

Note:

(a) An entry of indefinite indicates the event occurred, but the time period is not known.

(b).An entry of unknown indicates no information was provided.

Incidences due to exposure to tributyltin Maleate

There are 2 incidences that have been reported in the California Pesticide Surveillance Program Database (1982-1998) as definitely or probably related to tributyltin compounds alone or in combination. As summarized in Table 1, symptoms associated with eyes are the primary reported illness in all the associated incidences.  Nausea, dizziness, headache, and sore throat are the primary systemic effects that have been reported. The primary dermal effects that have been reported are rash, burning sensation, itching. None of the people were either hospitalized or lost days from work.

Table 5.  Cases Due to Tributyltin maleate Exposure in California Reported by Type of Illness and Year, 1982-1998

Year	Illness Type

	Systemic a	Eye	Skin b	Respiratory	Combination c	Total

1989

1998	1

	1

2

Total	1

	1

2

a 	Category include cases where nausea, sore throat, dizziness, headache and other systemic effects occurred.

b 	Category includes burning sensation, dry scaling irritation, cracking and thickened skin, itching, and blisters and rash on hands.

c 	Category includes combined effects to eye, skin,  respiratory and/or systemic effects.

Incidences due to exposure to tributyltin neodecanoate

There are 2 incidences that have been reported in the California Pesticide Surveillance Program Database (1982-1998) as definitely or probably related to tributyltin neodecanoate  alone or in combination. As summarized in Table 6, symptoms associated with eyes are the primary reported illness in all the associated incidences.  Nausea, dizziness, headache, and sore throat are the primary systemic effects that have been reported. The primary dermal effects that have been reported are rash, burning sensation, itching. As summarized in Table 8, although there are some people who were unable to work after exposure for a certain period of time, no one was hospitalized.

Table 6.  Cases Due to Tributyltin Neodecanoate Exposure in California Reported by Type of Illness and Year, 1988-1992

Year	Illness Type

	Systemic a	Eye	Skin b	Respiratory	Combination c	Total

1988

1989

1991

1

1

1992	1

	1

Total	1	1

2

a Category include cases where nausea, sore throat, dizziness, headache and other systemic effects occurred.

b Category includes burning sensation, dry scaling irritation, cracking and thickened skin, itching, and blisters and rash on hands.

c Category includes combined effects to eye, skin,  respiratory and/or systemic effects.

Table 7. Number of days lost from work or Hospitalized for Indicated Number of Days after being Exposed to Tributyltin Neodecanoate in California, 1988-1992.

Number of Days lost from work

Number of Persons Hospitalized

One day	-	-

Two days	-	-

3-5 days	1	-

6-10 days	-	-

11-16 days	-	-

Indefinite a	-	-

Unknownb	-	-

Note:

(a) An entry of indefinite indicates the event occurred, but the time period is not known.

(b).An entry of unknown indicates no information was provided.

1.4	National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) tc \l2 "1.4  National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN)

There is no incident reported in the NPTN database related to TBT exposure..

1.5	Epidemiological Studies Published in Scientific Literature

No information was located regarding toxicity of tributyltin oxide in humans following oral exposure. Human data summarized by Boyer (1989) suggest that tributyltin oxide is a potent non-allergenic dermal irritant. There are several case reports claiming irritation of the respiratory tract following acute inhalation exposure of people to tributyltin oxide (Anon., 1991; Hay and Singer, 1991; and Shelton et al., 1992). None of these reports, however, contains sufficient information to characterize the exposure-response relationship for the reported effects. There is no epidemiological study can be located associated with TBT exposure.

2.0 	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

There are some incident reports associated with exposure to tributyl tin compounds.  Nausea, dizziness, headache, and sore throat are the primary systemic effects that have been reported. The primary dermal effects that have been reported are rash, burning sensation, itching.  There are several case reports claiming irritation of the respiratory tract following acute inhalation exposure of people to TBT.

3.0 	REFERENCES

Case Reports Received by the California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program, 1982 – 2005, Generated November 27, 2007 by Louise Mehler Department of Pesticide Regulation, CalEPA.

Anon. 1991. Acute effect of indoor exposure to paint containing bis(tributyltin)oxide --Wisconsin, 1991. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 40:280-281

Boyer, I.J. 1989. Toxicity of dibutyltin, tributyltin and other organotin compounds to humans and to experimental animals. Toxicology 55:253-298.

Hay, A., and C. R. Singer. 1991. Wood preservatives, solvents, and thrombocytopenic purpura (letter). Lancet. 338:766.

Shelton, D., B. Urch, and S. M. Tarlo. 1992. Occupational asthma induced by a carpet fungicide -- tributyltin oxide. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 90:274-275.

 PAGE

 PAGE  2


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44169-44170]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17955]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0440; FRL-9911-15]

Dicrotophos; Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment;
Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human
health and ecological risk assessment for the registration review of
Dicrotophos and opens a public comment period on this document.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the
Agency has completed a comprehensive draft human health and ecological
risk assessment for all Dicrotophos uses. After reviewing comments
received during the public comment period, EPA will issue a revised
risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and
respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation
before completing a proposed registration review decision for
Dictotophos. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0440, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: Rusty Wasem, Chemical Review Manager, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.

    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of Dicrotophos pursuant
to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at
40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other
things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every
15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain
registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration
given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread
and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

A. What action is the agency taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registration for Dicrotophos to ensure that it continues to satisfy the
FIFRA standard for registration--that is, that Dicrotophos can still be
used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the
environment. Dicrotophos is a broad spectrum organophosphate
insecticide used on cotton and as a tree-injection for ornamental and
non-food producing trees. EPA has completed a comprehensive draft human
health and a screening level ecological risk assessment for all
Dicrotophos uses.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and
ecological risk assessment for Dicrotophos. Such comments and input
could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment
methodologies and assumptions, as applied to this draft risk
assessment. The Agency will consider all comments received during the
public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to the draft
human health and ecological risk assessment. EPA will then issue a
revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk
assessment, and respond to comments. In the Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of the revised risk assessment, if the
revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern, the Agency may
provide a comment period for the public to submit suggestions for
mitigating the risk identified in the revised risk assessment before
developing a proposed registration review decision on Dicrotophos.
    As described in detail in the Dicrotophos Summary Document (see
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0440), the Agency believes that the
human health and ecological data sets are complete, and no additional
human health or ecological data are needed for this registration review
or dicrotophos. However, the Agency is interested in additional
information in the following areas: Existing or planned water quality
monitoring data, where aerial application of dicrotophos is important,
and suggestions for risk mitigation measures that address the risks
identified in the draft human health and ecological risk assessments
for dicrotophos.
    1. Other related information. Additional information on Dicrotophos
is available on the Pesticide Registration Review Status Web page for
this pesticide, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/.
Information on the Agency's registration review program and its
implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.
    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Dicrotophos.

    Dated: July 15, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-17955 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4171-4172]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-854-000]

Storey Energy Center, 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
Storey Energy Center, 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 7, 2023.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01300 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 97)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23793-23795]
[DOCID:fr21my09-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0089]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Red Bull Air Race, Detroit River, Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan. This zone will restrict vessels from
portions of the Detroit River during the Red Bull Air Race. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels
from the hazards associated with air races.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. on June 11, 2009 through 6:30
p.m. on June 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-0089 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0089 in the Docket
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at
the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail CDR Joseph Snowden, Prevention Department, Sector
Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On April 16, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Red Bull Air Race, Detroit River, Detroit,
MI in the Federal Register (74 FR 17627). We received one comment on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest of ensuring, to the extent practicable,
the safety and security of the spectators and participants during this
event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible injury,
loss of life, or property.

Background and Purpose

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure, to the extent
practicable, the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards
associated with an air race. The Captain of the Port Detroit has
determined air races in close proximity to watercraft and
infrastructure pose significant risk to public safety and property. The
likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, possible
alcohol use, airplanes traveling at high speeds and performing aerial
acrobatics, and large numbers of spectators in close proximity to the
water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities.
Establishing a safety zone around the location of the race course will
help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help
minimize the associated risks.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received one letter, containing several comments on this
rulemaking. First, the commenter stated that closure of the Detroit
River for these air races violates the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.
The Coast Guard disagrees that the Coast Guard's action or the action
by Canada violates this treaty. The Boundary Waters Treaty does
guarantee that ``navigation of all navigable boundary waters'' shall be
``free and open'' to ``inhabitants * * * ships, vessels, and boats'' of
both the United States and Canada, ``subject, however, to any laws and
regulations of either country.'' Both the United States and Canada have
determined, pursuant to each country's laws and regulations, that brief
closures of the Detroit River are reasonably necessary to protect
spectators and vessels from hazards associated with these air races.
Moreover, under fundamental principles of international law, only the
States that are a party to an international agreement are generally
entitled to allege a breach of the terms of the agreement by the other.
For this event, Canada has also agreed that a closure of a small
portion of the river for a short period of time is a reasonable and
necessary measure.
    Second, the commenter stated that the proposed rule constituted a
``public taking'' in contravention of the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; in that vessel owners will experience delays that
will result in lost profits. This commenter did not put forward any
specific company or vessel that would be so affected. The Coast Guard
disagrees with this comment. In general, a ``taking'' occurs when a
governmental entity uses its powers to permanently deprive a person or
entity of property. The Captain of the Port has considered the needs of
port stakeholders and the maritime community and has determined that
this safety zone is necessary to protect the public and maintain safety
of navigation. Further, the rule is only temporary in nature, not
permanent, and in the event that this temporary safety zone affects
shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of
the Port Detroit to transit through the safety zone. Moreover, the
safety zone will only be enforced for a short period of time on the
enforcement dates. Lastly, the Coast Guard believes vessel owners have
had sufficient advance notice of this safety zone, such that they
should be able to work vessel schedules around the enforcement periods
of the proposed safety zone to minimize or avoid lost profits.
    Third, the commenter stated that the race sponsor must be required
to agree in advance to reasonably compensate vessel owners for losses
incurred by delays and post a bond sufficient to cover anticipated
vessel losses. Otherwise, this commenter stated, there is no incentive
for race organizers to work collaboratively with vessel

operators. The commenter also stated that if a vessel delayed by the
proposed safety zone missed the closing of the Sault Ste. Marie locks
at the end of the navigation season in January 2010, then that vessel
owner should be compensated for any lost cargo transportation
opportunities by the race sponsors.
    This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and the Coast
Guard disagrees with this comment. The Coast Guard is authorized by
Congress to provide for safe navigation and vessel safety in U.S.
waters and to ensure the safety of all waterway users. As such, in this
rule, the Coast Guard is balancing all competing needs by enforcing the
safety zone during the air race, but also providing ample notification
to vessel owners so that they may plan according and thereby reduce or
avoid lost profits. The Coast Guard does not believe that a
compensation agreement is necessary in order for the race sponsors to
work collaboratively with vessel owners. Compensation for vessel delays
based on the existence of a safety zone is not required under the law.
Likewise, the Coast Guard has no authority to order the race sponsors
to post bond or agree to any sort of compensation scheme.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will
be restricted from the zone; the location of the zone, which is an area
where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners
from the zone's activation; and the ability of commercial vessels to
request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit
through the safety zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in the safety zone located in the Detroit River between 9
a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on June 11, through June 14, 2009.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for short period of time each day it is
enforced. Additionally, small entities such as passenger vessels, have
been informed of this event since its planning stages, and have had
ample time to make alternate arrangements with regards to mooring
positions and business operations during the hours this safety zone
will be in place. Furthermore, local sailing and yacht clubs will be
notified prior to the event by Coast Guard Station Belle Isle with
information on what to expect during the event with the intention of
minimizing interruptions in their normal business practices. In the
event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial
vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to
transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to
the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in
effect. Additionally, the COTP will suspend enforcement of the safety
zone if the event for which the zone is established ends earlier than
the expected time.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard. We did not receive any comments for this
section.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). We did not
receive any comments for this section.

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism. We did not receive any comments for this section.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. We did
not receive any comments for this section.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights. We did not receive any comments for this section.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. We did not receive any comments
for this section.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children. We did not receive any comments for
this section.

Indian Tribal Governments

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate Tribal
concerns. We have determined that this rule and fishing rights
protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this
rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes
that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options
for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We did not receive any comments
for this section.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
    We did not receive any comments for this section.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. We did not receive
any comments for this section.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This event establishes a safety zone,
therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5;
Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Section 165.T09-0089 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0089  Safety Zone; Red Bull Air Race, Detroit River,
Detroit, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all
U.S. waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI, bound by a line
extending from a point on land southwest of Joe Louis Arena at position
42[deg]19.4[min] N; 083[deg]3.3[min] W, northeast along the Detroit
shoreline to a point on land at position 42[deg]20.0[min] N;
083[deg]1.2[min] W, southeast to the international boarder with Canada
at position 42[deg]19.8[min] N; 083[deg]1.0[min] W, southwest along the
international border to position 42[deg]19.2[min] N; 083[deg]3.3[min]
W, and northwest to the point of origin at position 42[deg]19.4[min] N;
083[deg]3.3[min] W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement Period. The safety zone will be enforced daily from
9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on June 11, 2009 through June 14, 2009.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Detroit, or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so.
    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 6, 2009.
F.M. Midgette,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
 [FR Doc. E9-11835 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70482-70483]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0247; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-1]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sonora, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Sonora,
TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at JL Bar Ranch Airport. The FAA
is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2014-0247/Airspace Docket No. 14-
ASW-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0247/
Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-1.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar
Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at JL Bar Ranch Airport,
Sonora, TX.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Sonora, TX [New]

JL Bar Ranch Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]34'06'' N., long. 100[deg]26'39'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar Ranch Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on November 13, 2014.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-27973 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-14-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33198-33201]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14838]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0179; FRL-9996-36-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control
Technology Orders

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of New Hampshire. These revisions consist of single-source Orders
that New Hampshire adopted to meet reasonably available control
technology requirements (RACT), and of requests made by New Hampshire
to withdraw from its SIP a number of previously issued RACT Orders.
This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2019-0179 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, Air Quality Branch, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts, 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Submittal
    1. Revised Single Source Order for Schiller Station
    2. Revised Single Source Order for Anheuser Busch
    3. Revised Single Source Order for Metal Works, Inc.
    4. Revised Single Source Order for Polyonics, Inc.
    5. Single Source Order for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC

    6. Single Source RACT Order Withdrawals
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require
states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher)
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act
requires VOC RACT in states located in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR), and section 182(f) requires NOX RACT be adopted in
the OTR. Per section 184(a) of the CAA, New Hampshire is a member state
of the OTR. Areas subject to the RACT requirements of the CAA are
required to implement RACT for all major emission sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) and for
all sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a
document issued by EPA which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for
RACT for a specific VOC source category. A related set of documents,
Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents, exists primarily for
NOX control requirements. States must submit rules, or
negative declarations when no such sources exist for CTG source
categories, but not for sources in ACT categories. However, RACT must
be imposed on major sources of NOX, and some of those major
sources may be within a sector covered by an ACT document.
    As part of its ongoing obligation to ensure that RACT requirements
are in place for major sources in the State, New Hampshire submitted
the following revisions to its SIP over the past year: A single-source
Order containing NOX RACT requirements for the Anheuser
Busch Company, submitted on April 27, 2018; a request to withdraw from
the SIP previously issued Orders for the Waterville Valley Ski Resort
and for the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, submitted on
September 5, 2018; a single-source Order containing VOC RACT
requirements for Metal Works Inc., submitted on September 6, 2018; a
single-source Order containing NOX RACT requirements for the
Schiller Station power plant, submitted on September 6, 2018; a single-
source Order containing VOC RACT requirements for Polyonics Inc.,
submitted on October 10, 2018; a request to withdraw from the SIP
previously approved single-source Orders for the LW Packard Company,
the Groveton Paperboard Company, and the Hampshire Chemical Company,
submitted on January 8, 2019; and a single-source Order containing VOC
RACT requirements for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC, submitted on
April 25, 2019.

II. Description and Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revisions

1. Revised Single Source Order for Schiller Station

    On September 6, 2018, New Hampshire submitted NOX RACT
Order RO-003 to establish NOX RACT requirements for the
Schiller Station electric-power plant in Portsmouth, NH, as a SIP
revision request. Order RO-003 contains NOX emission limits
for two EGUs, referred to as SR4 and SR6 in the Order, which are EGUs
that can be fueled by coal or oil. New Hampshire issued the Order to
the facilities owner, Granite Shore Power, LLC, on September 6, 2018.
Both EGUs are equipped with NOX emission-reduction controls
consisting of low NOX burners, overfire air systems, and
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems. Prior to issuance of
Order RO-003, these EGUs were subject to a NOX emission
limit of 0.50 lbs per mmBTU based on a 24-hour calendar day average.
Order RO-003 lowers that limit to 0.25 lbs per mmBTU based on a 24-hour
calendar day average. New Hampshire set this emission rate to
correspond with low emission rates that were historically achieved on
days when the units operated for at least 18 hours. We are proposing
approval of New Hampshire's revised NOX emission limits for
units SR4 and SR6 as representing RACT for these EGUs.

2. Revised Single Source Order for Anheuser Busch

    On April 26, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a revision to a
previously approved NOX RACT Order for Anheuser-Busch, LLC,
in Merrimack, NH, as a SIP revision request. The revised Order,
referred to as NOX RACT Order ARD-05-001, was last approved
into the New Hampshire SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66388), and was
re-issued with updates on January 17, 2018. The update consists of a
revision to the testing requirements for two boilers at the facility
such that future testing will be based on the fuel type that provided
most of the heat input to each boiler over the previous 12 months. This
is consistent with testing requirements that boilers are subject to
pursuant to federal maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
regulations. Additionally, this change will relieve the facility of
testing requirements when burning fuels that are seldom used. For
example, in some previous years, the boilers only burned oil during
annual performance testing for that fuel. We have reviewed New
Hampshire's changes to NOX RACT Order ARD-05-001 and agree
that they are appropriate for this facility and are, therefore,
proposing to approve the revised Order into the New Hampshire SIP.

3. Revised Single Source Order for Metal Works, Inc.

    On September 4, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a revision to a
previously approved VOC RACT Order for Metal Works, Inc., in
Londonderry, NH, as a SIP revision request. The revised Order, referred
to as VOC RACT Order ARD-05-001, was last approved into the New
Hampshire SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66388), and was re-issued with
updates on August 16, 2018. Metal Works Inc. is a very small VOC source
with emissions just above the three ton per year threshold. The
revision made to its VOC RACT Order allows it to meet its RACT
obligation via the purchase of emission reduction credits generated by
other sources. New Hampshire estimates the source will need to make
minimal credit purchases each year of approximately 0.5 to 1.0 tons. We
have reviewed New Hampshire's revised VOC RACT Order for Metal Works
Inc. and agree that it represents RACT for the facility. Therefore, we
are proposing to approve it as a revision to the New Hampshire SIP.

4. Single Source Order for Polyonics, LLC

    On October 10, 2018, New Hampshire submitted RACT Order ARD07-004
issued to Polyonics, Inc., located in Westmoreland, NH, as a SIP
revision request. Three coating lines are used at the facility in the
manufacture of pressure sensitive labeling materials, and VOC emissions
from the lines are controlled by catalytic oxidizers. New Hampshire
amended a previously issued RACT Order for the facility, which EPA
approved into the NH SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66388), to allow
the facility to generate and sell discrete emission reduction credits
to other facilities in the State. We have reviewed New Hampshire's
revised VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and agree that it
represents RACT for the facility. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve it as a revision to the New Hampshire SIP.

5. Single Source Order for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC

    On April 25, 2019, New Hampshire submitted RACT Order RO-0004
issued

to Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC, in Allenstown, NH, as a SIP
revision request. The facility applies primer and coatings to trim
boards, clapboards, and other products in compliance with New
Hampshire's regulation Env-A 1214, Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, except
for one coating used as a stain blocker to prevent the tannic acid
within knots from bleeding through and discoloring the finished
product. The facility investigated use of a number of potential stain
blockers to meet its needs and to comply with Env-A 1214 but could not
find a satisfactory product. Considering this, New Hampshire issued
RACT Order RO-0004, which specified a maximum emission limit of 2.96
lbs VOC per gallon for stain block products. This will enable the
facility to continue using the stain block that meets its performance
specification needs. The facility is required to provide an annual
report to New Hampshire describing its efforts to find a lower emitting
stain block product.

6. Single Source RACT Order Withdrawals

    On August 16, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a request that a
previously approved single-source RACT Order, Order ARD-95-003 issued
to the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, be withdrawn from the SIP. EPA
approved the RACT Order for the Waterville Valley Ski Resort on April
9, 1997 (62 FR 17087) into the New Hampshire SIP. The Order contains
NOX RACT requirements for internal combustion engines and
residential boilers used at the time by the facility. After New
Hampshire issued RACT Order ARD-95-003, the State issued a permit
pursuant to Env-A 610, General State Permits and General Permits Under
Title V, which contained requirements covering the internal combustion
engines at the facility. The permit capped NOX emissions at
less than 50 tons per year; the most recent NOX emissions
data available from the facility indicated only 2.2 tons of
NOX were emitted. Additionally, some of the equipment
initially subject to the NOX RACT Order have been
recategorized as emergency engines. New Hampshire reviewed the current
equipment and permits issued to the facility and determined that the
basis and conditions for the NOX RACT Order no longer exist,
and, therefore, requested that the Order be withdrawn from the New
Hampshire SIP.
    On January 8, 2019, New Hampshire submitted a request that three
previously approved single-source RACT Orders be withdrawn from its
SIP. These include: Order ARD-94-001, issued to the L.W. Packard
Company; Order ARD-95-001, issued to Groveton Paperboard, Inc.; and
Order ARD-95-011, issued to the Hampshire Chemical Corporation. EPA
approved the RACT Order for L.W. Packard Company into the New Hampshire
SIP on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11600). The facility ceased operation in
2008, and, therefore, New Hampshire requested the Order be withdrawn
from its SIP. EPA approved the RACT Order for Groveton Paperboard,
Inc., on April 9, 1997 (62 FR 17087), which also ceased operation in
2008, and, therefore, New Hampshire requested the Order be withdrawn
from its SIP. EPA approved the RACT Order for Hampshire Chemical
Corporation on May 13, 1998 (63 FR 26455). The facility ceased
operation in 2004, and, therefore, New Hampshire requested the Order be
withdrawn from its SIP.
    On April 30, 2019, New Hampshire submitted a request that a
previously approved single-source RACT Order for the Concord Litho
Group be withdrawn from the SIP. EPA approved the Order, identified as
Order ARD-07-003, into the New Hampshire SIP on August 21, 2014 (79 FR
49462). The facility ceased operation in 2018, and, therefore, New
Hampshire requested the Order be withdrawn from its SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the following items into the New
Hampshire SIP: A single-source NOX RACT Order for Schiller
Station; a revised single-source NOX RACT Order for Anheuser
Busch; a revised single-source VOC RACT Order for Metal Works, Inc.; a
revised single-source VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc.; and a single-
source VOC RACT Order for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. EPA also
is proposing to withdraw from the New Hampshire SIP previously approved
RACT Orders for the L.W. Packard Company; the Groveton Paperboard
Company; the Hampshire Chemical Company; the Waterville Valley Ski
Resort; and the Concord Litho Group, Inc. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant
matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the following items: A single-source NOX RACT
order for Schiller Station; a single-source NOX RACT Order
for Anheuser Busch; a single-source VOC RACT Order for Metal Works
Inc.; a single-source VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc.; and a single-
source VOC RACT Order for Complete Coverage Wood Priming, LLC. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 3, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-14838 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 67977]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2021-0010]

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) invites interested parties
to submit nominations for individuals to serve on the Federal Advisory
Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH). OSHA is extending
the deadline for nominations to serve on FACOSH from November 22, 2021
to January 31, 2022.

DATES: Nominations for individuals to serve on the Council must be
submitted electronically by January 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: People interested in being nominated for the Council are
encouraged to review the Federal Register notice on nominations for
membership published on October 22, 2021 (86 FR 58693) and submit the
requested information by January 31, 2022. Nominations may be
submitted, including attachments, by the following method:
    Electronically: You may submit nominations, including attachments,
electronically into Docket No. OSHA-2021-0010 at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow
the online instructions for submissions.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
(877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this Federal Register notice (OSHA-2021-0010).
OSHA will place comments, including personal information, in the public
docket, which may be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions
interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social
Security numbers and birthdates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    General information: Mr. Francis Yebesi, Director, OSHA Office of
Federal Agency Programs; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    Copies of this Federal Register document: Electronic copies of this
Federal Register document are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information
are also available on the OSHA web page at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 30, 2021, President Joseph
Biden signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14048 continuing or reestablishing
certain federal advisory committees, including FACOSH, until September
30, 2023 (86 FR 55465 (10/05/2021)). In response, the Secretary
reestablished FACOSH and the Department of Labor (DOL) filed the FACOSH
charter on October 14, 2021. FACOSH will terminate on September 30,
2023, unless continued by the President. The FACOSH charter is
available to read or download at https://www.osha.gov. In addition, the
Secretary invites interested persons to submit nominations for
membership on FACOSH. FACOSH is authorized to advise the Secretary on
all matters relating to the occupational safety and health of federal
employees (5 U.S.C. 7902; 29 U.S.C. 668, Executive Order 12196, as
amended). This includes providing advice on how to reduce and keep to a
minimum the number of injuries and illnesses in the federal workforce,
and how to encourage the establishment and maintenance of effective
occupational safety and health programs in each federal agency.
    Notice of solicitation for nominations to serve on FACOSH was also
published on October 22, 2021. The deadline for submission of
nominations was 30 days from the date of publication, or November 22,
2021. The Secretary now extends the deadline for nomination to January
31, 2022.

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7902; 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 29 U.S.C. 668; E.O. 12196
(45 FR 12629 (2/27/1980)), as amended; 41 CFR part 102-3; and Secretary
of Labor's Order 08-2020 (85 FR 58393).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 23, 2021.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-25981 Filed 11-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P