[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67383-67385]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0811; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-36]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Alpine, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Alpine Airport,
Alpine, WY. The airspace is designed to accommodate new IFR area
navigation (RNAV) approaches and IFR departure procedures at the
airport, which will support the airport's transition from VFR to IFR
operations. This action would ensure the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2020.

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;
telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA-2019-0811 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-36, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S

216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. 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 Class E airspace at Alpine Airport, Alpine, WY to
support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-
2019-0811 and Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-36) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address
and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov. Persons 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-2019-0811; Airspace
Docket No. 17-ANM-36.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov//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 the ADDRESSES section for the 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, except federal holidays, at the Northwest Mountain
Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at the Alpine Airport,
Alpine, WY. The establishment of the new Class E airspace will support
the airport's transition from VFR to IFR operations. Specifically, it
will, to the extent possible, contain IFR departures until reaching
1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals when descending below
1,500 feet above the surface.
    The airspace will extend upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.0-mile radius to the airport, and within 1 mile each side of
the 179[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.0-mile
radius to 5.8 south of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of
the 321[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.0-mile
radius to 10.5 miles northwest of the airport.
    Finally, an additional Class E airspace area will extend upward
from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 13-mile radius of the
airport.
    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. 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. Given this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``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

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.171.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or more above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 ALPINE, WY [New]

Alpine Airport, WY
    (lat. 43[deg]10' 55'' N, long. 111[deg]02'19'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.0-mile radius of the airport, and within 1 mile each side
of the 179[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.0-mile
radius to 5.8 miles south of the airport, and 1.8 miles each side of
the 321[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.0-mile
radius to 10.5 miles northwest of the airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 13-mile
radius of the Alpine Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 2, 2019.
Byron Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-26378 Filed 12-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 Tridemorph Reader =

s Guide 1 Reader =

s Guide to Tridemorph Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2005 0505 EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the tridemorph docket. The docket index groups related documents. The first group contains the Federal Register and docket organizational documents, the second group contains Special Review and Reregistration Division documents, and the third group contains the Health Effects Division documents. The Agency is providing the Reader =

s Guide to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various items contained in the tridemorph docket.

Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Item 1. Tridemorph; Notice of Availability This document formally and publicly announces the availability of EPA's Tolerance Reassessment Decision ( TRED) for tridemorph, and opens a public comment period on this document, related risk assessments, and other supporting documents.

Docket Item 2. Reader =

s Guide to the Tridemorph Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2005 0505 This document is designed to annotate all the documents in the Tridemorph Docket.

Special Review and Reregistration Documents for Public Comment:

Docket Item 3. Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Tridemorph; Clayton, 1/ 11/ 06 This document describes the tolerance reassessment and risk management decision for tridemorph.

Human Health Risk Assessment Documents for Public Comments:

Docket Item 4. Tridemorph: HED Risk Assessment for Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) Document PC Code No. 121401; DP Barcode Nos. D322126 & D322128; Daiss, 11/ 07/ 05 This document describes all the human health risks from the use of tridemorph for the purpose of issuing a Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) document for this active ingredient.

Docket Item 5. Tridemorph Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED). Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data; Otakie, 11/ 02/ 05 This document describes the residue chemistry for the Tridemorph Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) document.


1 COMMENTS FROM EPA REGION III On DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION THE VAPOR INTRUSION TO INDOOR AIR PATHWAY FROM GROUNDWATER AND SOILS Prepared by Andrew Fan, Fan. andrew@ epa. gov, 215 814 3426 3WC23, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pa 19103 2029 General Comments ( 1) Target Concentration Tables The guidance provides tables of media target concentrations by back calculating groundwater and soil gas concentrations from indoor air Risk Based Concentrations ( RBCs). The Region understands that HQ's intent was to simplify the risk screening process by standardizing the results, reducing irregularities, and avoiding the burden to collect indoor air samples until it was proven necessary. Unfortunately, the proposed tables present new concerns such that the Region recommends their removal from the guidance.

One concern about the guidance is that although the target concentrations are provided for risk screening purpose only, the tabulated values are capped at Maximum Contamination Limits ( MCLs). While the Region agrees that below MCL extrapolation needs to be addressed, there are inherent problems using the proposed approach. For example, if MCLs are back calculated to soil air and indoor air levels, they will not match the corresponding levels back calculated in the other direction from indoor air RBCs. Also there is no technical basis to cap the target concentrations at MCLs. Therefore, the guidance's disclaimer that the target concentrations are not risk management goals is contradictory. Further evidence of this confusion is that a section of the guidance is devoted to discussing the applicability of target concentrations to occupational settings and non residential settings where OSHA standards may or may not apply. This clearly implies that the target concentrations provide risk management function comparable to the OSHA standards.

Another concern is that the target concentrations, once published, will likely be perceived and misinterpreted as risk management goals by some users despite disclaimers to the contrary. The target concentrations were derived from RBCs. The implementing agencies may choose to use background, technological limitation, or other policy considerations besides RBCs to establish risk management goals. In fact, several states have already established indoor air standards by considering background levels, which can deviate from RBCs by several orders of magnitude. Once the target concentration numbers are published, comparison and dispute of the numbers will likely occur. This will increase the burden of the implementing agencies to defend the risk management goals that deviate from the target concentrations. 2 In addition, it has been the Region's experience that target concentrations can change rather drastically with corresponding changes in the RBCs. Most likely, by the time this guidance is finalized, some RBC values that the tables are based on may have already been changed. Unlike policy standards, revisions of RBC values do not require a promulgation process that mandates public participation and comment on the proposed changes. RBCs were established by consensus values based on the best available scientific data. The consensus process has not been defined. The best available scientific data do not mean that the data are necessarily the best data or even sound scientific data. The scientific basis of the RBCs are not equal as some values are more or less certain than others. The guidance has acknowledged such uncertainty by stating in Appendix D, Toxicity Values paragraph, that " for most compounds, extrapolation from oral data introduces considerable uncertainty into the resulting inhalation value. Values obtained from inhalation studies or from pharmacokinetic modeling applied to oral doses will be less uncertain than those calculated using the equations below." Note that about half the values in the tables were extrapolated from provisional oral toxicity values. Since the RBCs can change rather drastically ( as evidenced by recent proposed revision of TCE and 1, 1 DCE toxicity values), the implementing agencies will have to bear the burden to explain such drastic changes to the public after an action has been implemented based on an outdated RBC.

The Region does not believe there is an easy way to fix the tables to address all underling problems in a satisfactory and clear manner. As long as the target concentrations are RBC based, the uncertainty, confusion and misinterpretation of the RBC linked values will remain. Therefore, the Region recommends the elimination of the target concentration tables as an integral component of the guidance. This will remove potential misinterpretation of the target concentrations and all uncertainty associated with RBC linked values. In lieu of the target concentration tables, the guidance should recommend and tabulate attenuation factors under different scenarios. Deriving risk screening or risk management values from the recommended attenuation factors is a simple task and the guidance can provide a series of examples on how to perform the calculation. This approach will make it clear that implementation agencies have multiple options to choose a risk management policy most appropriate for the region, state or site as well as to validate alternate approaches already established out there.

A sample of the tables can be included in the appendix as a reference for one of the examples. The entire set of tables can also be moved to a web link as independent, life update tables. The tables should be renamed " Risk Screening Tables" so that there is no ambiguity of their intended use. An appropriate location for the tables is in the EPA J& E Model spreadsheet web page and the tables can be described as pre calculated screening values based on default EPA parameters. By segregating the tables and clearly defining their function, there is no need to cap the values at MCLs. 3 ( 2) Guidance Format The guidance follows the Q & A format of the EI forms. This was an appropriate choice when the guidance was developed for EI use only. However, the guidance has now expanded to cover multiple objectives. It addresses not only EI determination, but also remedy selection for the RCRA and Superfund programs. It may eventually address the LUST program as well. Although the guidance has improved greatly in content by considering many factors neglected in the original EI version, it has become very prescriptive and cumbersome to read. Reconciling multiple objectives with different standards in one guidance can be challenging. The Region recommends that the guidance to be reorganized to make it easier to follow. One solution is to move the EI component to an appendix by retaining the Q& A format in simplified form, and rewrite the guidance in narrative format.

( 3) Future Land Use While it is prudent to consider future land uses, experience has shown that it is not possible to reliably predict future use. An alternative approach is to recommend the use of appropriate institutional controls, and monitoring sites where contaminated soil or groundwater will remain in place. Institutional controls with proper verification can be designed to ensure that the land use will not change in the future that would pose unacceptable risk, and that future construction must be modified in such a way that entry of subsurface vapor can be minimized. When the contaminated media is groundwater, long term monitoring may be necessary to ensure that a stable plume will not be affected by external influences.

( 4) Risk Goal  EI versus Final Remedy As written, the guidance is ambiguous as to whether the Agency expects re evaluation of the conditions based on a 10 6 risk level at final remedy phase. If the Agency has chosen to go forward with screening at a 10 5 risk level for the EI, then from an implementation standpoint, it is unrealistic to expect the site to be re evaluated at 10 6 risk level at the final remedy phase. Re screening at the final remedy phase contradicts the concept that the EI serves as an intermediate step toward final remedy. Re screening is an inefficient use of resources and would be difficult to justify in light that 10 5 risk level is already within the EPA acceptable risk range. And, if the re evaluation of a residential neighborhood resulted in a determination of an unacceptable risk, it would significantly undermine the credibility of " Human Exposures Under Control" determinations in general. If the agency goes forward with a screening at a 10 5 risk, they should be prepared to accept that level as a final remedy. If a 10 5 risk level is inconsistent with the Agency policy for final clean up goals, then a lesser standard should not be employed just to meet the Agency's EI goals. 4 ( 5) Incomplete Pathway terminology In several places the guidance uses the determination of an " incomplete pathway" interchangeably with a " complete pathway at levels such that the risk is negligible." This is confusing, since the terminology " incomplete pathway" has the very specific meaning of " no exposure" in the field of environmental science. The guidance should distinguish between an incomplete pathway and a complete pathway which does not pose an unacceptable risk. This change is necessary to avoid confusion and misinterpretation which could lead to unacceptable exposures in the future. If the guidance states that there is an " incomplete exposure," then that should mean that the use of that building can change without concern for potential exposures in the future. However, in the current dual meaning, a change in use can create a complete pathway. This is not logical. This clarification would require some editing of text throughout the document. Suggestions are provided in the editorial comments section.

Specific Comments ( 6) Page 2, Section C, " We recommend that State and Regional UST Corrective Action Programs continue to use a risk based decision making approach as described in OSWER Directive 9610.17: Use of Risk Based Decision Making in UST Corrective Action Program to address this pathway."

The Region does not recommend referencing OSWER Directive 9610.17 which cited ASTM RBCA guidance approach and state guidance as examples. ( The OSWER Directive 9610.17: Use of Risk Based Decision Making in UST Corrective Action Programs, March 1995, can be found at: www. epa. gov/ swerust1/ directiv/ od961017. pdf ) The reason is that the ASTM guidance uses a simplified form of J& E Model to generate screening values that are substantially different from, and less conservative than the guidance target concentrations. In light of the fact that EPA is still investigating the best approach for UST sites, it is recommended that this guidance not endorse the ASTM RBCA numerical criteria that is implicit in the OSWER directive.

Strictly speaking, only the numerical criteria ( attenuation coefficients and target media concentrations) in the guidance may not be appropriate for petroleum sites because the numerical criteria were derived almost exclusively ( 239 of 274 data points) from chlorinated solvents data. The technical information and tools presented in the guidance are largely appropriate. The Region recommends that the exclusion statement be limited to numerical criteria only.

( 7) Exclusion criteria in Questions 4( f), 4( i) and 5( b). Also, Page 3 under non residential settings, " The recommendations in this guidance may be appropriate for such situations, although we recommend adjustments appropriate for non residential exposure durations, the building specific air volumes and air exchange rates, as well as other relevant factors be considered. The model used in this guidance accommodates the inclusion of these kinds of variables and for comparison of computed values with the recommended numerical criteria in Tables 2 and 3." 5 Notwithstanding the need to adjust for exposure assumptions, the numerical criteria in Tables 2 and 3 are categorically inapplicable to non residential buildings where air exchange rates and pressure differential are completely different from residential homes. The heating and ventilating system designs in commercially buildings are fundamentally different from systems in residential homes. It is not uncommon for commercial buildings to be positively pressured partially or wholly and so the " chimney effect" assumption may not necessarily be valid for commercial buildings. Therefore, the exclusion criteria should include all commercial buildings.

( 8) OSHA The paragraphs on page 3, Section D, referring to occupational settings are problematic because a) this section allows for a risk management decision to supercede an evaluation of actual risk, and b) OSHA is not applicable to all RCRA sites. As stated in Subpart S, under OSHA Instruction CPL 2 2.37A of January 29, 1986, OSHA and EPA have agreed that OSHA has the lead role in providing for the safety and health of workers at hazardous waste sites. Many RCRA sites are no longer operating as hazardous waste sites due to changes in use. Some sites currently undergoing corrective action are being leased as commercial office space. It is EPA's responsibility to ensure that the individuals in these buildings are provided with adequate protection. After screening a site to determine the risk, the risk manager can then decide whether the situation is appropriate to defer to OSHA. This approach would be consistent with the overall objective of the guidance which is to assess whether there is a complete pathway, and if so to determine whether the exposure may pose an unacceptable risk. As specifically stated on page 9, this guidance does not address setting risk management goals. To remedy this situation, The Region recommends that the guidance recognize OSHA as an appropriate risk management option to consider after proper risk screening.

( 9) Page 7, " Primary Screening . . . immediate action . . . If inhabited buildings are located ( or will be constructed under future development scenarios except for Environmental Indicator determinations . . .) above or in close proximity to subsurface contamination."

This is a vague criterion because immediate action has no bearing with future development, and potential future development cannot be determined or ruled out under present condition. Even if future development is contemplated, there are ways to construct buildings to prevent subsurface vapor intrusion and so potential future development is not a valid screening criterion.

( 10) Detection limits in Table 2a, b, c and Tables 3 a, b and c A number of values in the above tables are below Average Practical Detection Limits as listed in Table A 2 of Appendix A. Whereas the table values are capped at MCL and pure compound vapor concentrations, no consideration is given to below detection limits. The Region understands that there is no one detection limit as it varies with the methods and testing condition and so it is impossible to pre determine the detection limits. However, this important issue must be addressed somewhere in the guidance. 6 Also, it is unclear why some compounds, such as Benzo( b) fluranthene in Table 2c is capped at maximum pure compound vapor concentration in groundwater. Is it a reference error as it really means to cap at maximum solubility?

( 11) Appendix A, Table A 2 Appendix A provides valuable summary information on EPA analytical methods; however, Table A 2 is incomplete with exclusion of several important EPA methods for VOC analysis, such as TO 14a, 8015b, 8021b . . . etc. Also, there should be a discussion on the pros and cons of common air sampling devices such as Tedlar bag, vial, vacuum box, canister, sorbent tube, syringe and peristaltic pump.

( 12) Appendix E, Section III, " This ( the presence of LNAPL) can be indicated by analytical results from water samples taken at the water table having values higher than the theoretical solubility of the specific LNAPL compound present."

The statement is incorrect. Numerous field studies in petroleum sites have found that ground water constituent concentrations do not typically reach solubility limits of the pure compounds in contact with groundwater. An API report has shown that concentrations of compounds leached from a blend of pure compounds in gasoline can be as small as 0.01 of the concentration leached from the pure compound. The analogy can be drawn from the observation that constituent vapor concentrations above the water table rarely reach Henry Law limits due to dynamic nature of the subsurface systems and the presence of other competing compounds.

( 13) Page 10, " E. What Has Changed From Previous Guidance Related To Vapor Intrusion That I Should Be Aware Of?"

The title of this section, " Previous Guidance", is confusing to majority of the audience who are not aware of a previous version written for EI determination. Since the EI version is still in its draft form and has never been finalized, it is unnecessary and incorrect to reference it as " Previous Guidance." The soil screening guidance was written for a different objective and scenario and has little if anything to do with the present guidance. The changes to the EPA J & E Model spreadsheet is best explained in the spreadsheet web page itself. If it is necessary to address the relationship of the present guidance to the above listed documents, it is best be placed in the cover letter to address a narrow audience.

A previous Superfund Guidance, entitled " Assessing Potential Indoor Air Impacts for Superfund Sites ( EPA 451/ R 92 002, September 1992)," does exist and is relevant, but it is not mentioned at all. If it is necessary to explain the changes of this guidance from the previous one, the 1992 Superfund Guidance is the rightful reference and should be addressed.

( 14) Page 5, Paragraph B, " For example, where groundwater used as drinking water is found to be highly contaminated, the groundwater plume may be cleaned up or its volume/ concentration reduced, or people may drink bottled water, or they can be connected to other potable sources. In the case of significant vapor intrusion, ventilation is likely the most appropriate approach." 7 Actually, the options for immediate groundwater protection are as limited as for indoor air. Cleaning up groundwater will likely take decades to achieve the risk protection level, and providing bottled drinking water will not eliminate the risk associated with vapor release from nonpotable use. Therefore, neither option can provide immediate groundwater protection. The only viable option for immediate groundwater protection is to provide quick connection to an alternate source of clean water but it can still take weeks or months to complete the connection. In comparison, it is relatively easy to vent or pressurize a house to control subsurface vapor intrusion.

( 15) Appendix I, Consideration of Background The Region is in the opinion that it is best to tabulate literature background concentrations in the Appendix for quick reference. The Region understands that background concentrations are highly dynamic because they vary with study, location and time and no published concentrations can be fully representative. However, by clearly citing the reference sources, mis representation of the information can be minimized. The Region does not see the difference between publishing literature background concentrations versus publishing attenuation factors or any other numerical criteria in the guidance.

( 16) Appendix I, Tap Water Sampling This Appendix addresses background sources and should include a recommendation to sample tap water even if the source is public water. All public water must meet MCLs which are not solely risk based standards. Volatilization from below MCL contaminated water can still impact indoor air and should not be overlooked..

( 17) Appendix I, Individual risk versus cumulative risk A paragraph should be devoted to discussing individual constituent risk versus cumulative risk. Such discussion should not be limited to only subsurface related constituents, but also background constituents unrelated to the subsurface source. The implementing agencies must be cognizant of the total cumulative risk from all sources in making decision on how to manage the risk from the subsurface component.

Editorial Comments ( new words shown in bold)

Page 4, Section II, second sentence  Include the word " soil" in the following sentence. " Volatile chemical in buried wastes and/ or contaminated soils or groundwater can emit vapors..."

Page 6, Section III  This paragraph is internally redundant and could be significantly streamlined, by removing the middle portion and modifying the end. The following revision is recommended. " This draft guidance employs a tiered approach to assist the user in determining assessing whether the exposure pathway is complete ( subsurface vapors intrude into indoor air spaces); and if so, whether the vapor are present at levels that may pose an unacceptable exposure risk. By 8 following the tiered approach, individuals can evaluate whether the indoor pathway is incomplete; complete, but present at such low levels that the risk is negligible; or complete at levels which may pose an unacceptable risk to human health."

Page 8, Tier 2 Secondary Screening, last sentence  Please revise this sentence as follows to eliminate the inappropriate use of the term " incomplete pathway." " When results from secondary screening do not support a determination that the pathway is incomplete suggest an unacceptable risk may be present, we recommend the user proceed to the Site Specific Pathway.

Page 16, Q2  This question is confusing as written since the parallel structure should belong to " current buildings" and " areas under future development." The question should be revised as follows. " Are currently ( or potentially) inhabited buildings or areas of concern under future development scenarios ( alternative choice  areas expected to be developed) located near ( see discussion below) subsurface contaminants found in Table 1?" The answers to this question would also need some modification.

Page 22, top paragraph  For ease of reading, the second sentence should be revised as follows. " However we recommend that groundwater data be evaluated in conjunction with soil gas data, particularly when a plume extends beyond a contaminated source located in the unsaturated zone."

Page 38 39, Site Specific Assessment  To address the situation where no buildings currently exist, but there may be a problem if built, the Region recommends that this section be revised to specifically recommend the use of institutional controls or administrative actions that will ensure that the sites will be evaluated when they are ready for development.

Page 42, first full paragraph  To address incorrect use of " incomplete pathway" terminology, please revise as follows. " The site specific pathway assessment is designed.... further consideration prior to concluding either that the pathway is incomplete exposure does not pose an unacceptable risk, or that..."

Page 45, question 8  To address incorrect use of " incomplete pathway" terminology, please revise as follows. " What do you do if the pathway is found to be incomplete to pose an unacceptable risk?" And, revise the answer as follows. " If the pathway is judged to pose an unacceptable risk during the..."


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25388-25392]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10306]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577; FRL-9385-1]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rule on Ethoxylated, Propoxylated Diamine
Diaryl Substituted Phenylmethane Ester With Alkenylsuccinate,
Dialkylethanolamine Salt

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance
identified generically as ethoxylated, propoxylated diamine diaryl
substituted phenylmethane ester with alkenylsuccinate,
dialkylethanolamine salt, which was the subject of premanufacture
notice (PMN) P-01-384. This action requires persons who intend to
manufacture, import, or process this chemical substance for an activity
that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to
notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The
required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to
evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the
activity before it occurs.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 31, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-

1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
import, process, or use the chemical substance generically identified
as ethoxylated, propoxylated diamine diaryl substituted phenylmethane
ester with alkenylsuccinate, dialkylethanolamine salt. The following
list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes
is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help
readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially
affected entities may include:
     Manufacturers, importers, or processors of one or more
subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g.,
chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing
import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical
importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import
certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127
and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of
the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders
under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a final SNUR must certify
their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support
of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In
addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical
substance that is the subject of this final SNUR, are subject to the
export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C.
2611(b)) (see Sec.  721.20), and must comply with the export
notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

II. Background

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is finalizing a significant new use rule (SNUR) under section
5(a)(2) of TSCA for the chemical substance identified generically as
ethoxylated, propoxylated diamine diaryl substituted phenylmethane
ester with alkenylsuccinate, dialkylethanolamine salt, which was the
subject of PMN P-01-384. This final SNUR designates as a significant
new use the use of the substance other than as an ink colorant, as
described in the amended PMN. This action requires persons who intend
to manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for an
activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at
least 90 days before commencing that activity.
    In the Federal Register of April 27, 2012 (77 FR 25236) (FRL-9343-
4), EPA issued a direct final SNUR on this chemical substance in
accordance with the procedures at Sec.  721.160(c)(3)(i). EPA received
notice of intent to submit adverse comments on this SNUR. Therefore, as
required by Sec.  721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA withdrew the direct final SNUR
in the Federal Register of July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43520) (FRL-9356-1),
and subsequently proposed a SNUR on the chemical substance using notice
and comment procedures in the Federal Register of December 19, 2012 (77
FR 75085) (FRL-9370-1). The record for the direct final SNUR on this
substance was established as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577. That record
includes information considered by the Agency in developing the direct
final rule and the proposed rule.
    EPA did not receive comments on the proposed rule. However, during
the public comment period, the PMN submitter relinquished the
confidentiality claim in the original PMN on the use description of the
PMN substance. Therefore, EPA is issuing the final rule on the chemical
substance that identifies, under Sec.  721.80(j) in the regulatory
text, the specific use in the PMN as an ink colorant.

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

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all
relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2)
factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a
chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B)
requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA
at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the
chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described
in Sec.  721.5.

C. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.
These provisions describe persons subject to the final rule,
recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and
applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date
of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR
part 700. According to Sec.  721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs
must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory
procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In
particular, these requirements include the information submission
requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions
authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and
the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may
take regulatory action under TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to
control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does
not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in
the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

III. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use
of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after
consideration of all relevant factors, including:
     The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use changes the type or form of
exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and
duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
     The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a
chemical substance.
    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2),
the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
    To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the
chemical substance that is the subject of this final SNUR, EPA
considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical
substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated
with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors
listed in this unit.

IV. Rationale and Objectives of the Final Rule

A. Rationale

    During review of the PMN submitted for the chemical substance
generically identified as ethoxylated, propoxylated diamine diaryl
substituted phenylmethane ester with alkenylsuccinate,
dialkylethanolamine salt, EPA determined that one or more of the
criteria of concern established at

Sec.  [emsp14]721.170 were met, as discussed in Unit IV. of the
proposed rule.

B. Objectives

    EPA is issuing this final SNUR for the chemical substance
generically identified as ethoxylated, propoxylated diamine diaryl
substituted phenylmethane ester with alkenylsuccinate,
dialkylethanolamine salt, which has undergone premanufacture review,
because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with
regard to the significant new uses designated in this final rule:
     EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to
manufacture, import, or process a listed chemical substance for the
described significant new use before that activity begins.
     EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data
submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing,
importing, or processing a listed chemical substance for the described
significant new use.
     EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers,
importers, or processors of a listed chemical substance before the
described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs,
provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e),
5(f), 6.
    Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that
the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical
substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/tscainventory/index.html.

V. Applicability of the Significant New Use Designation

    If uses begun after the proposed rule was published were considered
ongoing rather than new, any person could defeat the SNUR by initiating
the significant new use before the final rule was issued. Therefore,
EPA has designated December 19, 2012 as the cutoff date for determining
whether the new use is ongoing. Consult the Federal Register document
of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376) for a more detailed discussion of the
cutoff date for ongoing uses.
    Any person who began commercial manufacture, import, or processing
of the chemical substance identified generically as ethoxylated,
propoxylated diamine diaryl substituted phenylmethane ester with
alkenylsuccinate, dialkylethanolamine salt (PMN P-01-384) for any of
the significant new uses designated in the proposed SNUR after the date
of publication of the proposed SNUR, must stop that activity before the
effective date of the final rule. Persons who ceased those activities
will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification
requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any
extensions, expires, before engaging in any activities designated as
significant new uses. If a person were to meet the conditions of
advance compliance under Sec.  [emsp14]721.45(h), the person would be
considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those
activities.

VI. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any
particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions
are:
    1. Development of test data is required where the chemical
substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA
section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).
    2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical
substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section
5(b)(2)).
    In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section
5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required
only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe
any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see Sec.
720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the
authority to require appropriate testing. Recommended testing for this
substance were described in Unit IV. of the proposed rule. Descriptions
of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly
encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the
Agency pertaining to protocol selection.
    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to
evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
     Human exposure and environmental release that may result
from the significant new use of the chemical substance.
     Potential benefits of the chemical substance.
     Information on risks posed by the chemical substance
compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

VII. SNUN Submissions

    According to Sec.  [emsp14]721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must
comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory
procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test
data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50.
SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN
software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Sec.  720.40 and Sec.  721.25. E-PMN software is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

VIII. Economic Analysis

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN
requirements for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of
the chemical substance during the development of the direct final rule.
EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    This final rule establishes a SNUR for a chemical substance that
was the subject of a PMN. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless
it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of
the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB
approval number for the information collection requirements contained
in this final rule. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their
subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements
of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This
Information Collection Request (ICR) was previously subject to public
notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical
nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend
it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause''
under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to

amend this table without further notice and comment.
    The information collection requirements related to this action have
already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number
2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden
requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN
to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and
170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed
to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and
maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required
SNUN.
    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and
any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including
through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information
(2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control
number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to
this address.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
where the following are true:
    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small
entities in response to the SNUR.
    2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost
significantly more than $8,300.

A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this final
rule.
    This final rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012
certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit VIII.
and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the
certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
     A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by
small entities in response to the SNUR.
     Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity
significantly more than $8,300.

Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs,
State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these
rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any
State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule.
As such, EPA has determined that this final rule does not impose any
enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any
effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA
sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

E. Executive Order 13132

    This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This
final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities
of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any
requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements
of Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not
apply to this final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or
safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because
this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or
use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical
standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to
this action.

J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental
justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).

X. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 24, 2013.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
    Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

0
2. In Sec.  [emsp14]9.1, add the following section in numerical order
under the undesignated center heading ``Significant New Uses of
Chemical Substances'' to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB Control
                     40 CFR Citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
721.10308...............................................       2070-0012

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

0
4. Add Sec.  [emsp14]721.10308 to subpart E to read as follows:

Sec.  721.10308  Ethoxylated, propoxylated diamine diaryl substituted
phenylmethane ester with alkenylsuccinate, dialkylethanolamine salt
(generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as
ethoxylated, propoxylated diamine diaryl substituted phenylmethane
ester with alkenylsuccinate, dialkylethanolamine salt (PMN P-01-384) is
subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) The significant new uses are:
    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(j) (ink colorant).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125(a), (b), (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers,
importers, and processors of this substance.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.

[FR Doc. 2013-10306 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71412]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-94-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC submits Information
Requested in Compliance with the October 31, 2012 Commission Order.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-304-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: 20121130 CenterPoint and MUD Non-conforming to be
effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/21/12.
    Accession Number: 20121121-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-305-000.
    Applicants: Golden Triangle Storage, Inc.
    Description: Order No. 587-V Revised Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/21/12.
    Accession Number: 20121121-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-306-000.
    Applicants: Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing Response to 110812 Comm Ltr Order to
be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/21/12.
    Accession Number: 20121121-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-307-000.
    Applicants: Atmos Energy Corporation.
    Description: Petition for Temporary Waivers of Atmos Energy
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/21/12.
    Accession Number: 20121121-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/12.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-62-001.
    Applicants: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: DCP--Compliance Filing--NAESB Version 2.0 to be
effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/21/12.
    Accession Number: 20121121-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-81-001.
    Applicants: Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C.
    Description: Caledonia Change to FERC Gas Tariff to Comply with
FERC Order No. 587-V to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/21/12.
    Accession Number: 20121121-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-98-001.
    Applicants: East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: East Cheyenne November 21 Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/21/12.
    Accession Number: 20121121-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/12.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: November 23, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28961 Filed 11-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44258-44259] [FR Doc No: 2011-18667]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0355; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-8]

Removal of Class D and E Airspace; Willow Grove, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes the Class D and Class E airspace areas at

Willow Grove, PA. The Willow Grove Naval Air Station (NAS) has closed

and therefore controlled airspace associated with the airport is being

removed. The FAA is taking this action to ensure the efficient use of

airspace within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 20, 2011. The Director of the

Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under

title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual

revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Airspace Specialist,

Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic

Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,

Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

part 71 to remove Class D and E airspace at Willow Grove, PA. The

closing of the Willow Grove NAS and cancellation of all standard

instrument approach

procedures eliminates the need of controlled airspace. Since this

action eliminates the impact of controlled airspace on users of the

National Airspace System in the vicinity of Willow Grove, PA, notice

and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in

Paragraphs 5000, 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August

15, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by

reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations

listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    The FAA has determined that this 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, would 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 United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106

describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,

Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's

authority.

    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 removes controlled airspace at Willow Grove, PA.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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 Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, signed August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is

amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

AEA PA D Willow Grove, PA [Removed]

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace designated as an extension to a

Class D surface area.

* * * * *

AEA PA E4 Willow Grove, PA [Removed]

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15, 2011.

Mark D. Ward,

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic

Organization.

[FR Doc. 2011-18667 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P