On October 3, 2019, DOE published a NOPR in the Federal Register (84 FR 52819) to propose procedures for the imposition of civil penalties for violations of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) that restrict participation by U.S. persons in the development or production of special nuclear material outside of the United States. The proposed procedures would be incorporated in the DOE regulations on Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10 CFR part 810). Comments on the proposed procedures were due by November 4, 2019. On October 18, 2019, DOE received a comment from Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requesting a 90-day comment period extension. DOE has reviewed the NEI request and considered the benefit to the public in providing additional time for comments on the NOPR. DOE has also considered the fact that timely implementation of this rule is important for national security, since the proposed civil penalties procedures would serve to deter illicit transfers of controlled nuclear technology and assistance.

Accordingly, DOE has determined that an extension of the comment period is appropriate and is hereby extending the comment period by 30 days, until December 4, 2019. DOE has determined to not hold a public meeting because the resources necessary to do so are greater than the benefit that could be achieved. DOE assesses that a 30 day extension strikes an appropriate balance between the requestor's desire for additional time and the national security benefits of implementing this rulemaking on a timely basis.

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2019-0860; Product Identifier 2019-NM-123-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

The FAA issued AD 2019-03-14, Amendment 39-19566 (84 FR 7269, March 4, 2019) (“AD 2019-03-14”), for certain Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes. AD 2019-03-14 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. AD 2019-03-14 resulted from a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA issued AD 2019-03-14 to address, among other things, fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking and damage could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Since AD 2019-03-14 was issued, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0142, dated June 17, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes.

This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address continued structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0860.

Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40-01, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 10, dated January 1, 2019, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 20 Maintenance Manual, specifically for aircraft that have incorporated the supplemental structural inspection program (SSIP). This service information describes airworthiness limitations for safe life limits.

This proposed AD would also require Chapter 5-40-01, Airworthiness Limitations, DMD 44729, Revision 9, dated November 29, 2017, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 20 Maintenance Manual, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of April 8, 2019 (84 FR 7269, March 4, 2019).

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2019-03-14. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (l)(1) of this proposed AD.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 61 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2019-03-14 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

Background I. Overview

Section 385 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate (Secretary) to prescribe rules to determine whether an interest in a corporation is treated as stock or indebtedness (or as in part stock and in part indebtedness). On October 21, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS published T.D. 9790 in the Federal Register (81 FR 72858), which included final regulations under section 385 and temporary regulations under section 385 (Temporary Regulations). On the same date, the Treasury Department and the IRS also published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-130314-16) in the Federal Register (81 FR 72751) (2016 Proposed Regulations) by cross-reference to the Temporary Regulations, which include §§ 1.385-3T and 1.385-4T. Technical corrections to the final regulations and the Temporary Regulations were published in the Federal Register (82 FR 8169) on January 24, 2017.

The final regulations under section 385, the Temporary Regulations, and the 2016 Proposed Regulations address the classification of certain related-party debt as debt or equity for Federal tax purposes. Treasury Decision 9790 included rules set forth in § 1.385-2, which establish minimum documentation requirements that ordinarily must be satisfied in order for debt obligations among related parties to be treated as debt for Federal tax purposes (Documentation Regulations). Treasury Decision 9790 also included §§ 1.385-3, 1.385-3T, and 1.385-4T, which treat as stock certain debt that is issued by a corporation to a controlling shareholder in a distribution or in another related-party transaction that achieves an economically similar result (the Distribution Regulations). The Distribution Regulations are applicable for taxable years ending on or after January 19, 2017.

The Temporary Regulations set forth rules regarding the treatment under the Distribution Regulations of certain qualified short-term debt instruments, transactions involving controlled partnerships, and transactions involving consolidated groups. The Temporary Regulations apply to taxable years ending on or after January 19, 2017. The Temporary Regulations expired on October 13, 2019. See section 7805(e); § 1.385-3T(l); § 1.385-4T(h).

The 2016 Proposed Regulations cross-referencing the Temporary Regulations are proposed to apply to taxable years ending on or after January 19, 2017; in contrast to the Temporary Regulations, the 2016 Proposed Regulations do not expire.

Executive Order 13789 (E.O. 13789), issued on April 21, 2017, instructed the Secretary to review all significant tax regulations issued on or after January 1, 2016, and to take concrete action to alleviate the burdens of regulations that (i) impose an undue financial burden on U.S. taxpayers; (ii) add undue complexity to the Federal tax laws; or (iii) exceed the statutory authority of the IRS. E.O. 13789 further instructed the Secretary to submit to the President within 60 days a report (First Report) that identifies regulations that meet these criteria. Notice 2017-38, 2017-30 I.R.B. 147, which was published on July 24, 2017, included the final section 385 regulations in a list of eight regulations identified by the Secretary in the First Report as meeting at least one of the first two criteria specified in E.O. 13789.

E.O. 13789 further instructed the Secretary to submit to the President a report (Second Report) that recommended specific actions to mitigate the burden imposed by regulations identified in the First Report. On October 16, 2017, the Secretary published in the Federal Register the Second Report (82 FR 48013), which stated that (i) the Treasury Department and the IRS were considering a proposal to revoke the Documentation Regulations as issued and (ii) the Treasury Department will reassess the distribution regulations in light of impending tax reform and the Treasury Department and the IRS may then propose more streamlined and targeted regulations. On September 24, 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued proposed regulations that, if finalized, would remove the Documentation Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. See 83 FR 48265 (September 24, 2018). The Treasury Department and the IRS are publishing in the Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register final regulations that remove the Documentation Regulations.

Some taxpayers submitted comments in response to E.O. 13789 and the September 2018 proposed regulations recommending that the Treasury Department and the IRS revoke the Distribution Regulations in addition to the Documentation Regulations, while another comment recommended that the Treasury Department and the IRS issue more streamlined and targeted Distribution Regulations. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking announces that the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to propose more streamlined and targeted Distribution Regulations.

Under the Distribution Regulations' general rule, the issuance of a debt instrument by a member of an expanded group to another member of the same expanded group in a distribution, or an economically similar transaction, may result in the treatment of the debt instrument as stock. See § 1.385-3(b)(2). The Distribution Regulations include a funding rule that treats as stock a debt instrument that is issued as part of a series of transactions that achieves a result similar to a distribution of a debt instrument. See § 1.385-3(b)(3)(i). Specifically, § 1.385-3(b) treats as stock a debt instrument that was issued in exchange for property, including cash, to fund a distribution to an expanded group member or another transaction that achieves an economically similar result. Id. Furthermore, the Distribution Regulations include a per se rule, which treats a debt instrument as funding a distribution to an expanded group member or other transaction with a similar economic effect if it was issued in exchange for property during the period beginning 36 months before and ending 36 months after the issuer of the debt instrument made the distribution or undertook a transaction with a similar economic effect. See § 1.385-3(b)(3)(iii). The Distribution Regulations also include several exceptions limiting their scope. See, e.g., § 1.385-3(c).

The Distribution Regulations address debt instruments that do not finance any new investment in the operations of the borrower and therefore have the potential to create significant Federal tax benefits, including interest deductions that erode the U.S. tax base, without having meaningful non-tax significance. The Treasury Department and the IRS are cognizant that a complete withdrawal of the Distribution Regulations could restore incentives for multinational corporations to generate additional interest deductions without new investment. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the Distribution Regulations continue to be necessary at this time.

Pursuant to E.O. 13789, the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations modifying the Distribution Regulations. To make the Distribution Regulations more streamlined and targeted, the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations substantially modifying the funding rule, including by withdrawing the per se rule. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend that the proposed regulations would not treat a debt instrument as funding a distribution or economically similar transaction solely because of their temporal proximity; rather, the proposed regulations would apply the funding rule to a debt instrument only if its issuance has a sufficient factual connection to a distribution to a member of the taxpayer's expanded group or an economically similar transaction (for example, when the funding transaction and distribution or economically similar transaction are pursuant to an integrated plan). Thus, under the proposed regulations, a debt instrument issued without such a connection to a distribution or similar transaction would not be treated as stock. As a result, the proposed distribution regulations would be more streamlined and targeted while continuing to deter tax-motivated uneconomic activity. As part of the intended revisions of the funding rule, the Treasury Department and the IRS also are considering substantial revisions to, or removal of, certain exceptions in the regulations, consistent with the revised standard. The proposed distribution regulations would not alter materially the definition of a covered member (defined in § 1.385-1(c)(2) as a member of an expanded group that is a domestic corporation).

The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to provide that the proposed regulations would apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting those rules as final regulations in the Federal Register .

For periods after October 13, 2019 (the expiration date of the Temporary Regulations), a taxpayer may rely on the 2016 Proposed Regulations until further notice is given, provided that the taxpayer consistently applies the rules in the 2016 Proposed Regulations in their entirety.

The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the rules described in part III of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking. In particular, the Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the appropriate standard for determining the existence of a connection between a debt instrument and a distribution or economically similar transaction under the funding rule. For example, the funding rule could apply solely in cases in which a debt instrument is issued as part of an overall plan to fund the distribution or economically similar transaction. The Treasury Department and the IRS also request comments on whether the proposed regulations should include particular factors that indicate when the funding rule applies and factors that indicate when the funding rule does not apply. The Treasury Department and the IRS also request comments on what additional guidance, if any, should be issued (or which provisions should be eliminated from the final regulations) to reduce the compliance burdens associated with the Distribution Regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS also request comments on how the Distribution Regulations may affect small businesses. All comments will be available at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request.

Notice 2019-58, 2019-44 I.R.B. 1022 (October 28, 2019), which addresses the status of the 2016 Proposed Regulations after October 13, 2019, is obsoleted.

IRS Notices and other guidance cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at https://www.irs.gov .

The principal author of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking is Azeka J. Abramoff of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in its development.

Section 155(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish, by regulation, and with the approval of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”), an assessment schedule to collect assessments from certain companies equal to the total expenses of the OFR. Included in the OFR's expenses are expenses of the Council, pursuant to section 118 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and certain expenses of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), pursuant to section 210 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 401 of the Economic Growth Act, Public Law 115-174, also provides that any bank holding company, regardless of asset size, that has been identified as a global systemically important bank (“G-SIB”) under § 217.402 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be considered a bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $250 billion for purposes of section 155(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. On May 21, 2012, Treasury published a final regulation implementing section 155(d) in the Federal Register , codified at 31 CFR part 150 (the “Original Rules”). Before the enactment of the Economic Growth Act, pursuant to section 155(d) and the implementing regulation, Treasury collected assessments from bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50,000,000,000 or greater and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board.

On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth Act was signed into law. Section 401(c)(1) of the Economic Growth Act replaced the $50 billion reference in section 155(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act with $250 billion. In addition, section 401(f) of the Economic Growth Act required any bank holding company identified as a G-SIB pursuant to 12 CFR 217.402 to be considered a bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $250 billion for purposes of section 155(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of this statutory amendment, bank holding companies with less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets that are not G-SIBs are not to be assessed under Dodd-Frank Act section 155(d).

The Economic Growth Act sets forth two different effective dates. For bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $100 billion, it became effective on May 24, 2018 (the date of enactment). For bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more and for G-SIBs, the effective date is November 24, 2019 (18 months after the date of enactment). This proposed rule is, in part, intended to implement section 401.

Under section 118 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the expenses of the Council are treated as expenses of, and are paid by, the OFR. In addition, under section 210 of the Dodd-Frank Act, certain implementation expenses of the FDIC associated with the FDIC's orderly liquidation authority are treated as expenses of the Council, 1 and the FDIC is directed to periodically submit requests for reimbursement to the Chairperson of the Council. The total expenses for the OFR therefore include the combined expenses of the OFR and the Council and certain expenses of the FDIC. All of these expenses are paid out of the Financial Research Fund (the “FRF”), a fund managed by Treasury.

The Council was established by the Dodd-Frank Act to identify risks to U.S. financial stability, promote market discipline, and respond to emerging threats to the stability of the U.S. financial system. The Council is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, and its 15 members include all of the federal financial regulators, an independent member with insurance expertise appointed by the President, and state financial regulators.

The OFR was established within Treasury by the Dodd-Frank Act to support the Council and its member agencies. Among the OFR's key duties are:

• Collecting data on behalf of the Council and proving such data to the Council and member agencies;

• Standardizing the types and formats of data reported and collected;

• Performing research;

• Developing tools for risk measurement and monitoring; and

• Reporting to Congress and the public on the OFR's assessment of significant financial market developments and potential emerging threats to U.S. financial stability.

Under this proposed rule, Treasury would implement the changes to the FRF assessments required by the Economic Growth Act. The proposed rule would also make certain other amendments to 31 CFR part 150 to simplify the method for determining the amount of total assessable assets for certain entities and would remove outdated references to the initial assessment period, which concluded in 2013, and other non-substantive changes to add clarifying or remove redundant language.

Treasury is seeking comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking.

To impose assessments under section 155 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Treasury must identify companies that are subject to the assessment. As described in the Original Rules, and below, Treasury works closely with the Board to determine the population of assessed companies.

The original text of Dodd-Frank Act section 155(d) required assessments to be collected from bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or greater and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board. The Economic Growth Act raised the asset threshold for bank holding companies to $250 billion and also stated that a bank holding company, regardless of asset size, that has been identified as a G-SIB under § 217.402 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be considered a bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $250 billion for purposes of section 155(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Accordingly, we are proposing changes to the definitions of “Assessed Company” and “Total Assessable Assets” in 12 CFR 150.2, as well as the deletion of a reference to foreign banking organizations with less than $50 billion in 12 CFR 150.5, in accordance with the clear mandate of the Economic Growth Act with respect to an increase in the asset threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion and the inclusion of G-SIBs within the scope of companies subject to assessments under section 155.

At the time of adoption of the Original Rules, there was no single regulatory reporting form that provided a foreign banking organization's total assets of combined U.S. operations, including its U.S. branches, agencies, and subsidiaries. The preamble to the Original Rules specifically noted the possibility that reporting requirements for foreign banking organizations would change over time and that the list of reports would need to be adjusted. 2 To allow for the possibility of these changes, the Original Rules did not include a list of specific reference reports for foreign banking organizations, in contrast to U.S. bank holding companies. It was noted that calculating banking organizations' total assets of combined U.S. operations based on multiple reports could result in double-counting. 3 The preamble to the Original Rules stated that Treasury would make every effort to avoid double-counting, consulting with the Board and the affected firms as necessary, and that any questions could be addressed through the appeals process. 4

After the adoption of the Original Rules, the Board modified its form FR Y-7Q by adding a line item for reporting the total combined assets of a foreign banking organization's U.S. operations. Line item 6 of part 1A of FR Y-7Q now requires reporting of the total combined assets of a top-tier foreign banking organization's U.S.-domiciled affiliates, branches, and agencies, excluding intercompany balances and intercompany transactions between those entities to the extent such items are not already eliminated in consolidation. 5 Accordingly, to simplify the method for determining the amount of total assessable assets for foreign banking organizations and to adopt an approach for foreign banking organizations that is comparable to the approach under the Original Rules for U.S. bank holding companies, we are proposing changes to the definition of “total assessable assets” by specifying that the calculation of a foreign banking organization's total assessable assets shall be based on the data reported in the FR Y-7Q.

Under the Original Rules, assessments are semiannual. On the specified determination date before each assessment period, Treasury determines the pool of assessed companies, which receive confirmation statements. After any appeals, assessments are debited from assessed companies' accounts on the assessment payment date.

The Original Rules generally use a period of four calendar quarters to measure the total assessable assets of both U.S. and foreign entities for assessments. Thus, for the assessment period with a November 30 determination date, total assessable assets are based on the company's regulatory filings for the fourth quarter of the previous calendar year and the first three quarters of the same calendar year. For the assessment period with a May 31 determination date, total assessable assets are based on the company's filings for the last three quarters of the previous year and the first quarter of the same calendar year.

Both the Federal Reserve's form FR Y-9C, which the Original Rules require to be used to determine total assessable assets of U.S. bank holding companies, and the FR Y-7Q, which we are now proposing to use to determine the total assessable assets of foreign banking organizations, are quarterly reports. Their filing deadlines, however, are asynchronous, as the FR Y-9C generally must be filed within 40 calendar days after each calendar quarter, 6 and the FR Y-7Q generally must be filed within 90 calendar days after the quarter ends. The timing of updated reports therefore varies. For example, on the determination date of May 31 under the Original Rules, the FR Y-9C reports are already available for Q1 of the same year, but Q1 reports on FR Y-7Q are not due until approximately one month later (June 29).

To enable consistency in the timing of determining assessable assets for U.S. and foreign entities we are proposing to move each of the two semiannual determination dates one month earlier. Accordingly, the first determination date in each calendar year would be April 30 instead of the current May 31, and the second determination date would be October 31, instead of November 30. This proposed change would enable each assessment to be based on companies' filings for the last two calendar quarters of the previous year and the first two quarters of the current calendar year for assessment periods with an October 31 determination date, and all four quarters of the previous calendar year for assessment periods with an April 30 determination date.

Consistent with Treasury's existing process, before each assessment period, after determining the pool of assessed companies and publishing an assessment fee rate, Treasury will calculate the assessment fee for each assessed company, send an electronic billing notification to each assessed company, and, on the assessment payment date, initiate a direct debit to each company's account through www.pay.gov to collect the assessments. Treasury proposes to retain the existing process, with one additional month added to the beginning of each cycle, as described above, while keeping the existing dates for the notice of fees, billing, and payment. In order to provide additional clarity as to when redetermination requests must be received from companies wishing to appeal their status as an assessed company or the total assessable assets that the Department has determined will be used for calculating the company's assessment, Treasury proposes to amend the reference to such date in 12 CFR 150.6(b) from “one month” to “30 calendar days.”

The table below shows approximate dates of the proposed assessment billing and collection process:

The timeframe for sending confirmation statements and receiving appeals would remain the same. Specifically, confirmation statements would continue to be mailed no later than 15 calendar days after the determination date, and appeals by assessable companies would continue to be due one month later. In addition to promoting consistent measurements of U.S. and foreign entities, as noted above, adding a month to the beginning of the FRF assessments cycle would also afford assessed companies additional time to address appeals and make payment arrangements, and would provide Treasury additional time to calculate assessments and administer the billing process.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (the “RFA”) to address concerns related to the effects of agency rules on small entities. 7 Treasury is sensitive to the impact its rules may impose on small entities. The RFA requires agencies either to provide an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with a proposed rule for which general notice of proposed rulemaking is required, or to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 8

Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a “small entity” includes those firms within the “Finance and Insurance” sector with asset sizes that vary from $7.5 million in assets to $550 million or less in assets. 9 For purposes of the RFA, entities that are banks are considered small entities if their assets are less than or equal to $550 million.

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to develop and submit to the EPA for approval into the SIP, preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the New Source Review (NSR) SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. The EPA codified minimum requirements for these State permitting programs including public participation and notification requirements at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. Requirements specific to construction of new stationary sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas are codified in 40 CFR 51.165 for the NNSR program. Requirements for permitting of new stationary sources and major modifications in attainment areas subject to PSD, including additional public participation requirements, are found at 40 CFR 51.166. This action addresses revisions to the Texas SIP submitted on February 22, 2019 by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) that amend the State's NSR permitting rules by amending the criteria for air pollution control permits for new construction or modification, as well as make other non-substantive revisions.

Additionally, this action addresses portions of an April 16, 2014, Texas SIP submittal that relate to the permitting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) for Step 2 or “non-anyway” sources. 1 The April 2014 submittal was affected by a United States Supreme Court ruling titled Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA (134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014)) where the Court invalidated those portions of the federal rules that related to the permitting of non-anyway sources. 2 Consequently, the State and EPA determined the portions of the State's SIP submittal that addressed “non-anyway” sources were no longer appropriate for SIP action. 3 As explained in more detail below, the February 22, 2019 GHG related revisions appropriately address the April 16, 2014, GHG provisions that were affected by the Court's decision.

On February 22, 2019, the TCEQ submitted revisions to the Texas SIP (Rule Project No. 2018-003-116-AI) revising their rules that address applicable requirements for air pollution control permits for new construction or modification under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Sections 116.114, 116.160, 116.164(a), 116.196, 116.198, 116.310, 116.611, and 116.615. Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 were partly in response to the passage of House Bill (HB) 4181, 85th Texas Legislature, 2017 that amended Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), § 382.055 to provide TCEQ with the option to use an electronic method or system to notify new source review (NSR) air permit holders that an air permit is scheduled for review.

The February 22, 2019 revisions revise the Texas SIP at 30 TAC Sections 116.160(b)(2), 116.164(a), 116.164(a)(3)-(5), 116.196(a), 116.310, 116.611(a), 116.615(2), and 116.615(2)(A)-(D). The revisions to 30 TAC Sections 116.196(a), 116.310, and 116.611(a) provide the State the ability to implement existing rules and regulations pertaining to the control of air quality by air permits utilizing electronic methods for various air permitting processes. These include permit renewal notification for Plant-wide Applicability Limit (PAL) permits, notification to permit holders of approaching permit expiration, and the ability to apply for standard permit registration via electronic methods. The substantive revisions at 30 TAC Section 116.615(2)(A) clarify registration requirements when a new facility is added to an existing operation authorized under standard permitting. Additional substantive revisions at 30 TAC Section 116.615(2)(B)-(D) clarify notification and registration requirements for changes in the representation of emissions at facilities authorized by standard permits for air quality.

Other amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116 include revisions that are minor or non-substantive in nature and do not change the intent or substance of the originally approved SIP requirements; these minor and administrative type revisions to 30 TAC Sections 116.114(c)(3)(A), 116.196(b)-(f), 116.198(a), and 116.198(b) update cross references, correct grammar, and renumber existing SIP approved provisions. The accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action includes a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the submitted revisions to the Texas SIP that includes both the substantive and minor, non-substantive revisions. The TSD is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

The EPA has determined it is appropriate to propose approval of the above-cited February 22, 2019, revisions to the Texas SIP as these amendments to the Texas air permitting process clarify existing processes and promote efficiency by implementing electronic notifications and registrations. These revisions are consistent with federal permitting regulations; therefore, these revisions will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirements of the Act.

As stated earlier, the State's February 22, 2019, SIP submittal appropriately revises provisions in 30 TAC Section 116 to be consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 UARG v. EPA decision. The TCEQ originally submitted revisions to the Texas SIP on April 16, 2014 (adopted March 16, 2014) to address the permitting for GHG emissions. 4 That submittal contained provisions that would have required a permit applicant to conduct PSD review based solely on GHG emissions, commonly referred to as non-anyway or Step 2 GHG permitting. Based on the outcome of the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision, provisions that related to the permitting of non-anyway sources in 30 TAC Sections 116.160(a) and 116.164(a)(3)-(5) were no longer appropriate for SIP action. See 79 FR 66626. The February 22, 2019 submittal appropriately removes these provisions consistent with the Court's decision. Therefore, EPA has determined it is appropriate to approve the February 22, 2019 submitted revisions to 30 TAC Sections 116.160(a) and 116.164(a)(3)-(5) that remove the provisions. The February 22, 2019, revisions ensure that the Texas NSR program is consistent with the EPA's policy, guidance, case law and regulations for permitting GHG emissions; therefore, these revisions will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirements of the Act. The TSD that is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking contains a detailed analysis and discussion of these revisions.

We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that revise the State's New Source Review permit rules. We are also proposing to approve revisions to the Texas NSR rules related to the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions as being consistent with federal requirements. As explained in this proposed action and the accompanying TSD, we have determined that the revisions submitted on February 22, 2019, were developed in accordance with the CAA and EPA's regulations, case law, policy, and guidance for NSR permitting. Therefore, under section 110 of the CAA, the EPA proposes approval of the following revisions adopted on October 31, 2018 and submitted February 22, 2019:

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.114;

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.160;

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.164(a);

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.196;

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.198;

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.310;

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.611; and

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.615.

In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 CAA; 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 proposed 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).

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), called the good neighbor provision, states are required to address interstate transport of air pollution. Specifically, the good neighbor provision provides that each state's SIP must contain provisions prohibiting emissions from within that state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other state.

On October 27, 1998, EPA published the NO X SIP Call, which required eastern states, including Ohio, to submit SIPs that prohibit excessive emissions of ozone season NO X by implementing statewide emissions budgets (63 FR 57356). The NO X SIP Call addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 ozone NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of transported NO X emissions, one of the precursors of ozone. EPA developed the NO X Budget Trading Program, an allowance trading program that states could adopt to meet their obligations under the NO X SIP Call. This trading program allowed certain sources to participate in a regional cap and trade program: Electric Generating Units (EGUs) with capacity greater than 25 megawatts; and large non-EGUs, such as boilers and turbines, with a rated heat input greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). The NO X SIP Call also identified potential reductions from Portland cement kilns and stationary internal combustion engines.

In fulfillment of the requirements of the NO X SIP Call, Ohio EPA promulgated OAC Chapter 3745-14 which, among other things, required EGUs and large non-EGUs in the state to participate in the NO X Budget Trading Program. On August 5, 2003, EPA published an action approving this initial version of OAC Chapter 3745-14 into the Ohio SIP (68 FR 46089).

On May 12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required eastern states, including Ohio, to submit SIPs that prohibited emissions consistent with annual and ozone season NO X budgets and annual sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) budgets (70 FR 25152). CAIR addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of transported NO X emissions, a precursor of ozone as well as PM 2.5 , as well as transported SO 2 emissions, another precursor of PM 2.5 . Like the NO X SIP Call, CAIR also established several trading programs that states could use as mechanisms to comply with the budgets. When the CAIR trading program for ozone season NO X was implemented beginning in 2009, EPA discontinued administration of the NO X Budget Trading Program, but the requirements of the NO X SIP Call continued to apply.

To meet the requirements of CAIR, Ohio EPA promulgated OAC Chapter 3745-109, which required EGUs to participate in the CAIR annual SO 2 and annual and ozone season NO X trading programs. Participation by EGUs in the CAIR trading program for ozone season NO X addressed the state's obligation under the NO X SIP Call for those units. Ohio EPA also opted to incorporate large non-EGUs previously regulated under OAC Chapter 3745-14 into OAC Chapter 3745-109, to meet the obligations of the NO X SIP Call with respect to those units through the CAIR trading program as well. On September 25, 2009, EPA published an action approving OAC Chapter 3745-109 into the Ohio SIP (74 FR 48857).

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, modified, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The ruling allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule consistent with the court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued as planned with the NO X annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and the SO 2 annual program beginning in 2010.

On August 8, 2011, acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA published the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and to address the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 48208). Through Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), CSAPR required EGUs in eastern states, including Ohio, to meet annual and ozone season NO X budgets and annual SO 2 budgets implemented through new trading programs. CSAPR also contained provisions that would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of the CSAPR compliance requirements. Participation by a state's EGUs in the CSAPR trading program for ozone season NO X generally addressed the state's obligation under the NO X SIP Call for EGUs. However, CSAPR did not initially contain provisions allowing states to incorporate large non-EGUs into that trading program to meet the requirements of the NO X SIP Call for non-EGUs.

CSAPR was intended to become effective January 1, 2012; however, the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by subsequent litigation in which the D.C. Circuit stayed implementation of the rule pending judicial review. After subsequent litigation, 1 the court granted EPA's motion to lift the stay  2 and, on December 3, 2014, EPA issued an interim final rule, setting the updated effective date of CSAPR as January 1, 2015 (79 FR 71663). In accordance with the interim final rule, EPA stopped administering the CAIR trading programs with respect to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014, and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015. 3

On October 26, 2016, EPA published the CSAPR Update, which established a new ozone season NO X trading program for EGUs in eastern states, including Ohio, to address the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 74504). As under CSAPR, participation by a state's EGUs in the new CSAPR trading program for ozone season NO X generally addressed the state's obligation under the NO X SIP Call for EGUs. The CSAPR Update also expanded options available to states for meeting NO X SIP Call requirements for large non-EGUs by allowing states to incorporate those units into the new trading program.

After evaluating the various options available following the CSAPR Update, Ohio EPA chose to meet the ongoing NO X SIP Call requirements for existing and new large non-EGUs by modifying its existing regulations at OAC Chapter 3745-14 to make the portion of the budget assigned to large non-EGUs under that program enforceable without an allowance trading mechanism. Ohio also rescinded its CAIR trading program rules in OAC Chapter 3745-109 in full. On September 17, 2019, EPA published an action approving Ohio EPA's request to modify its SIP to include the revisions at OAC Chapter 3745-14 and to remove OAC Chapter 3745-109 (84 FR 48789).

Under 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) of the NO X SIP Call regulations as originally promulgated, where a state's SIP contains control measures for EGUs and large non-EGUs, the SIP must also require these sources to monitor emissions according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 75, which generally entails the use of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). Ohio triggered this requirement by including control measures in their SIP for these types of sources, and the requirement has remained in effect despite the discontinuation of the NO X Budget Trading Program after the 2008 ozone season. On March 8, 2019, EPA finalized updates to the provision at 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) to make the inclusion of 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements for these sources in SIPs optional rather than mandatory for NO X SIP Call purposes (84 FR 8422). Under the updated provision, a state's SIP would still need to include some form of emissions monitoring requirements for these types of sources, consistent with the NO X SIP Call's general enforceability and monitoring requirements at §  51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1), respectively, but states would no longer be required to satisfy these general NO X SIP Call requirements specifically through the adoption of 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements.

After evaluating the various options available following EPA's March 8, 2019, amendments to the NO X SIP Call regulations, Ohio EPA chose to further revise its rules at OAC Chapter 3745-14 to include alternate monitoring requirements for certain covered sources. These revisions provide a process by which the designated representative for certain NO X budget units may submit to the Ohio EPA director an application for an installation or operating permit requesting alternative monitoring and reporting requirements, either in the form of 40 CFR part 60 monitoring or in the form of monitoring of heat input and fuel use combined with use of an approved emission factor.

Ohio's August 26, 2019, submission requests that EPA update Ohio's SIP to reflect the revised rules at OAC Chapter 3745-14. Additionally, this submission includes a demonstration under Section 110(l) of the CAA intended to show that this SIP revision does not interfere with any applicable CAA requirement.

Given EPA's revision to the NO X SIP Call's emissions monitoring requirements, Ohio updated its NO X SIP Call rules at OAC Chapter 3745-14 to establish emissions monitoring requirements for certain units other than requirements to monitor according to 40 CFR part 75. Specifically, Ohio adopted revisions to OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 with a state-effective date of August 22, 2019. Ohio's August 26, 2019, submission includes a request that EPA approve these updated rules into its SIP.

The state regulations addressing the NO X SIP Call are established at OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-03, 3745-14-04, 3745-14-08, 3745-14-11, and 3745-14-12. On September 17, 2019, EPA approved revisions to OAC rule 3745-14-03 concerning NO X budget permit requirements, and Ohio has not further amended OAC rule 3745-14-03 subsequent to EPA's approval (84 FR 48789). Ohio has also retained OAC rules 3745-14-11 and 3745-14-12 regarding cement kilns and stationary internal combustion engines outside the former trading program. EPA's September 17, 2019, rulemaking also included approval of revisions to OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 pertaining to applicability, the statewide emissions budgets for EGUs and large non-EGUs, and monitoring and reporting under the former trading program. Subsequent to the revisions approved in EPA's September 17, 2019, rulemaking, Ohio further revised OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 to establish alternative monitoring requirements for certain sources, and Ohio's August 26, 2019 submission requests that EPA approve these further revised rules into its SIP.

Specifically, a new provision at OAC rule 3745-14-08 paragraph (H) provides that the Ohio EPA director may approve alternative monitoring and reporting requirements in lieu of the existing requirements at OAC rule 3745-14-08 paragraphs (A) through (G). These alternative requirements shall be based on the best available data, provide for reporting the nature and amount of emissions of a NO X budget unit, and shall be sufficient to determine compliance with the requirements of OAC Chapter 3745-14. Per OAC rule 3745-14-01 paragraph (C) as approved into Ohio's SIP in EPA's September 17, 2019, rulemaking, the monitoring requirements at OAC rule 3745-14-08 apply only to units that would have been subject to the former NO X Budget Trading Program and that are not subject to a CSAPR trading program for NO X emissions pursuant to 40 CFR 52.38, and the revised provisions authorizing alternative monitoring requirements therefore would also apply only to units that are not subject to a CSAPR trading program for NO X emissions.

The alternative requirements may take one of two forms: Either monitoring and reporting in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, combined with a methodology for determining NO X mass emissions from 40 CFR part 60 NO X emission rate data, or monitoring of heat input and fuel use combined with use of an approved emission factor for current operating conditions.

A request under OAC rule 3745-14-08 paragraph (H) for alternative monitoring and reporting requirements must be made by the designated representative of a NO X budget unit via application for an installation or operating permit. The request must specify which of the two forms is requested. If 40 CFR part 60 monitoring is requested, the application must describe how the amount of NO X emissions in tons will be determined from the 40 CFR part 60 NO X emission rate data. If monitoring of heat input and fuel use combined with use of an approved emission factor is requested, then the request must include an analysis evaluating potential emission factors for each fuel type. The analysis of potential emission factors must include an analysis of any historical CEMS data representative of current operating conditions as well as the results of a valid stack test conducted within the two years preceding the application, if available. The application must also describe how monitoring data will be obtained, recorded, and quality-assured and how NO X emissions will be accounted for during periods of missing or inaccurate data.

If alternative monitoring and reporting is requested to begin within a control period, the application must include a description of the transition process ensuring there will not be gaps in data monitoring and reporting.

The alternative monitoring and reporting requirements must be approved, prior to use, in the applicable installation or operating permit. By April 15 of each year, a report must be made to the Ohio EPA director of actual NO X emissions for the previous control period, as determined using the approved alternative monitoring procedures. Records must be maintained in accordance with the terms and condition in the installation or operating permit and shall be made available to the Ohio EPA director.

Units using approved emissions factors must conduct stack testing according to an approved test method at least once every five years to demonstrate that the approved emission factors continue to be representative. If an initial application did not include stack test data, an initial stack test must be conducted within 90 days of permit issuance. The results of each stack test must be submitted to Ohio EPA within 30 days of the test. Based on the results of any stack test, Ohio EPA may require submission of a new application to establish more representative emission factors.

Ohio's revisions provide that the rule does not authorize exemptions or alternatives to any 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements that might apply to a source under a different legal authority. The revised rule further states that Ohio EPA will transmit annually to EPA a report of NO X emissions reported under OAC rule 3745-14-08 paragraph (H), in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.122(c)(1)(i).

Given the addition of paragraph (H) to OAC rule 3745-14-08, Ohio's revisions also include changes throughout the remainder of OAC rule 3745-14-08 which clarify that sources not adopting approved alternative monitoring and reporting requirements are only subject to the requirements of paragraphs (A) through (G). In OAC rule 3745-14-01, Ohio's revisions clarify references to the revised OAC rule 3745-14-08, and additionally provide updated definitions regarding emissions and emission factors. Ohio's revisions to OAC rule 3745-14-04 provide for a compliance certification process for sources subject to approved alternative monitoring and reporting requirements.

EPA proposes to find that Ohio's revisions to OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 are consistent with Ohio's obligation to demonstrate continued compliance with NO X SIP Call requirements for large non-EGUs. Under the ongoing requirements of the NO X SIP Call, the Ohio SIP must: (1) Include enforceable control measures for ozone season NO X mass emissions from existing and new large EGUs and large non-EGUs and (2) require those sources to monitor and report ozone season NO X emissions. The emissions monitoring and reporting requirements must be sufficient to ensure compliance with the control measures but there is no mandatory specific methodology; use of 40 CFR part 75 is allowed but not required. See 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) and (i).

With respect to the NO X SIP Call requirement that the state have enforceable control measures to limit ozone season NO X , Ohio is currently subject to the Federal CSAPR Update trading program for ozone season NO X that addresses these requirements for existing and new EGUs. Because Ohio's non-EGUs are not subject to that CSAPR trading program, the state must meet this requirement for non-EGUs through other SIP provisions. In our September 17, 2019, action, EPA previously approved provisions at OAC rule 3745-14-01 intended to satisfy this requirement for non-EGUs that prohibit ozone season NO X emissions from existing and new large non-EGUs from exceeding 4,028 tons, the portion of the state's NO X SIP Call budget assigned to large non-EGUs. Ohio's revisions do not substantively alter the existing provisions at OAC rule 3745-14-01 that address the requirement for enforceable control measures for non-EGUs. 4 Emissions reported to EPA from the state's large non-EGUs for the 2018 ozone season were 543 tons, well below this limit.

As to the requirement for sources to monitor and report ozone season NO X emissions under the NO X SIP Call, these SIP revisions would continue to require emissions monitoring from all covered sources, consistent with the NO X SIP Call's enforceability and monitoring requirements, but certain NO X budget units would no longer be required to satisfy these requirements specifically through part 75 monitoring requirements. Instead, these revisions would allow large non-EGUs that follow the application process described above to monitor and report their NO X mass emissions for each ozone season using alternative monitoring requirements.

In EPA's March 8, 2019, rulemaking amending the NO X SIP Call's monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4), EPA observed that, under 40 CFR 51.121(i), the principal criterion for approval of monitoring and reporting requirements for purposes of the NO X SIP Call following the amendments would be that the requirements must be sufficient to determine whether sources are in compliance with the control measures adopted to achieve the required emissions reductions. 5 EPA noted that for purposes of demonstrating the sufficiency of the monitoring and reporting requirements, a state generally would be able to cite the same types of data ( e.g., data indicating substantial compliance margins) that EPA cited to support finalizing the amendments to the NO X SIP Call regulations. 6 In addition, EPA pointed out the need to consider whether the regulation contains provisions to avoid gaps in required monitoring and whether any monitoring approach that uses emissions factors is designed to avoid any bias toward understatement of emissions. 7

In Ohio's case, the relevant control measure is the collective cap of 4,028 tons of ozone seasons NO X emissions established for the set of existing and new non-EGUs in OAC rule 3745-14-01 paragraph (D). As noted above, for the 2018 ozone season, Ohio's large non-EGUs subject to this cap reported collective NO X emissions of 543 tons, indicating a compliance margin of more than six times recent emissions levels.

While the alternative monitoring requirements available under Ohio's regulation would not provide the same degree of detailed reporting or quality assurance as part 75 monitoring data, and may therefore be more likely to overstate or understate actual emissions to some degree, there is nothing in Ohio's regulation that suggests the data obtained using the alternative monitoring methodologies would be biased toward understatement of emissions. The regulation expressly requires the use of the best available data, it calls for consideration of both historical CEMS data and stack test results when establishing source-specific emission factors, it requires periodic stack testing to verify the continued representativeness of the approved emission factors, and it includes provisions to address cases where an emission factor is found to no longer be representative. Further, the regulation requires procedures to account for emissions during periods of missing or inaccurate data and procedures to avoid data gaps during the transition from 40 CFR part 75 monitoring to alternative monitoring. Given the substantial compliance margin in this instance, EPA believes that the data monitored and reported under Ohio's alternative monitoring requirements would be sufficient to determine whether the state's large non-EGUs are in compliance with their collective emissions cap.

EPA proposes to find that, as revised, OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-04 and 3745-14-08 meet the state's ongoing obligations under the NO X SIP Call with respect to existing and new large non-EGUs. Specifically, we propose to find that the revised rules meet the requirement under 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) for enforceable limits on the units' collective emissions of ozone season NO X mass emissions and the requirement under 40 CFR 51.121(i)(1) for monitoring sufficient to ensure compliance with those limits. The state's EGUs are currently complying with their analogous NO X SIP Call requirements through participation in the CSAPR Update trading program for ozone season NO X .

EPA is proposing to find that Ohio EPA's revisions at OAC Chapter 3745-14 are consistent with applicable requirements under the CAA and the NO X SIP Call, and EPA is therefore proposing to approve these changes into the Ohio SIP.

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's request to approve updated rules related to the NO X SIP Call into its SIP. Ohio EPA's submission includes a noninterference demonstration intended to show that its SIP revision is approvable under Section 110(l) of the CAA; such a demonstration is sometimes called an anti-backsliding demonstration. Section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Additionally, section 110(l) makes clear that each SIP revision is subject to the requirements of section 110(l). As such, EPA will only approve a SIP revision that removes or modifies control measures in the SIP if the state has demonstrated that such removal or modification would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA generally considers whether the SIP revision would worsen, preserve, or improve the status quo in air quality.

For the reasons explained below, we find that EPA's proposed action to update the provisions relating to the NO X SIP Call satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(l). As explained above, this action would not alter the NO X SIP Call emission budgets that limit emissions in the state. The alternate monitoring requirements at OAC Chapter 3745-14 are permanent, enforceable and sufficient to determine whether Ohio's sources are in compliance with the control measures adopted to meet the NO X SIP Call's emissions requirements. Given continued implementation of SIP requirements governing the unchanged amounts of allowable emissions, accompanied by replacement monitoring requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the unchanged emissions requirements, this SIP revision is not expected to result in increases in emissions that could interfere with other statutory or regulatory requirements. Importantly, the substitute measure ensures compliance with the existing NO X SIP Call budgets and thus will preserve the status quo in air quality. For these reasons, we conclude that the revisions will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

For the reasons explained above, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio EPA's SIP submission under section 110(l) of the CAA.

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio EPA's request to modify its SIP to include the revisions at OAC Chapter 3745-14.

In this rule, 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08, with a state-effective date of August 22, 2019. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 CAA; 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).

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On March 26, 2018, the NSAQMD adopted the “Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area” (“ 2018 RACT SIP ”), and on June 7, 2018, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted it to the EPA for approval as a revision to the California SIP. On November 29, 2018, the EPA determined that the submittal for the NSAQMD's 2018 RACT SIP met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There are no previous versions of this document in the NSAQMD portion of the California SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog, and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOCs and NO X emissions. CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and classified as Moderate or above implement RACT for any source covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document and for any major source of VOCs or NO X .

The NSAQMD is subject to this RACT SIP requirement, as the District regulates the Western Nevada County, California, ozone nonattainment area, which was classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May 4, 2016. See 81 FR 26697, 26713. Therefore, to satisfy sections 182(b)(2) and (f) of the Act, the NSAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a CTG document and for all major non-CTG sources of VOCs or NO X within the ozone nonattainment area that it regulates.

The EPA issued a final rule on August 23, 2019, in which it reclassified Western Nevada County as “Serious” nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 84 FR 44238, 44250. NSAQMD adopted its RACT SIP in 2018, when it was still classified as a Moderate ozone nonattainment area. However, in anticipation of the area being reclassified as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the NSAQMD's 2018 RACT SIP evaluated whether the District had any major VOC/NO X sources emitting at least 50 tons per year (tpy), which is the major source threshold for ozone precursors for Serious ozone nonattainment areas. 1

Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that no sources in the nonattainment area are covered by a specific CTG. Id. at 12278. It also provides that states must submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions as described in the EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See id. and 70 FR 71612, 71652 (November 29, 2005). The 2018 RACT SIP, including its negative declarations, provide the NSAQMD's analysis of its compliance with CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The EPA's technical support document (TSD) for this action has more information about the District's 2018 RACT SIP submittal and the EPA's evaluation thereof.

Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG document as well as each major source of VOCs or NO X in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f), and 40 CFR 51.1112(a) and (b)). The NSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Serious for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305) so the District's rules must implement RACT. Because Western Nevada County was recently reclassified as Serious nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and because NSAQMD's 2018 RACT SIP provided an analysis of RACT that addresses the requirements for a Serious area as well as a Moderate area in anticipation of this reclassification, we evaluated the 2018 RACT SIP submittal to determine whether it met RACT requirements for a Serious ozone nonattainment area as well those for a Moderate ozone nonattainment area. Specifically, as part of our evaluation of the 2018 RACT SIP, we evaluated NSAQMD's 2018 RACT SIP using the 50 tpy threshold for major stationary sources of VOC or NO X in Serious ozone nonattainment areas.

As part of their RACT submittals, States should also submit for SIP approval negative declarations for CTG source categories for which the States have not adopted CTG-based regulations because they have no sources above the CTG-recommended applicability threshold, regardless of whether such negative declarations were made for an earlier SIP. 2 To do so, the RACT submittals should provide reasonable assurance that no sources subject to the CTGs' requirements currently exist in the relevant ozone nonattainment area.

With respect to the NSAQMD, the District's analysis must demonstrate that each major source of VOCs or NO X in the Western Nevada County ozone nonattainment area is covered by a RACT-level rule. In addition, for each CTG source category, the District must either demonstrate that a RACT-level rule is in place, or submit a negative declaration. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate CAA section 182 RACT requirements include the following:

1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

2. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” May 25, 1988 (“the Bluebook,” revised January 11, 1990).

3. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” (“the NO X Supplement”), 57 FR 55620, (November 25, 1992).

4. Memorandum dated May 18, 2006, from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Subject: “RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers.”

5. “Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2,” 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).

6. “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements,” 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).

The NSAQMD's 2018 RACT SIP provides the District's demonstration that the applicable SIP for the Western Nevada County ozone nonattainment area, which is under the jurisdiction of the NSAQMD, satisfies CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The District's conclusion is based on its analysis of SIP-approved requirements that apply to the following: (1) Source categories for which a CTG has been issued, and (2) major non-CTG stationary sources of VOC or NO X emissions.

With respect to CTG source categories, the NSAQMD determined that it only had sources subject to the CTGs covering gasoline service stations and vapor recovery operations, gasoline tank truck vapor tightness, and cutback asphalt. The District also stated that it no longer had sources subject to the miscellaneous metal coating CTG, but “. . . would like to keep the rule in the SIP for the 2008 standard in case a new source opens . . .” For each of these CTG source categories, the District's submittal provided an analysis to support the District's finding that a District rule previously approved by the EPA into the SIP as RACT for Western Nevada County remains RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, Section 5 of NSAQMD's 2018 RACT SIP provides a short discussion of the following District rules and why they continue to implement RACT: Rule 214, “Phase I Vapor Recovery Requirements;” Rule 215, “Phase II Vapor Recovery System Requirements;” Rule 227, “Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials;” and Rule 228, “Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products.” We reviewed NSAQMD's evaluation of its rules addressing the CTG source categories that are subject to RACT  3 in Western Nevada County. We agree that the District's rules are generally consistent with the CTGs and recently adopted rules in other air districts, and therefore satisfy CAA RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With respect to the CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coating, the 2018 RACT SIP states that the District has no sources subject to Tables 3-6 of this CTG, and is adopting negative declarations for coatings covered by those tables. The 2018 RACT SIP also states that the only source in the Western Nevada County ozone nonattainment area that was subject to the CTG's Table 2 “Metal Parts and Products” has closed, but the District did not adopt a negative declaration for the category sources subject to Table 2, and stated its preference to leave the applicable rule—Rule 228—in the RACT SIP. We agree that Rule 228's VOC content limits are consistent with Table 2 of the CTG and the rule continues to meet RACT.

Where there are no existing sources covered by a particular CTG document, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT requirements for those sources, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no such sources in the relevant nonattainment area. States may also use negative declarations to certify that there are no major non-CTG sources subject to RACT, where applicable. NSAQMD's 2018 RACT SIP contains a table listing the EPA's CTGs and annotates those CTGs for which the District is adopting a negative declaration, indicating that the District has no sources subject to the applicable CTG for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These negative declarations are listed in Table 1 below. The District concludes that it has no sources subject to the relevant CTGs, based on a review of its permit files and emission inventory, as well as business listings and county planning records.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed rule. 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 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 final SNURs 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 proposed rule on or after December 4, 2019 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

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 preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html .

EPA is proposing these SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. These proposed SNURs would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture or processing of a chemical substance for any activity proposed as a significant new use. Receipt of such notices would allow EPA to assess risks and, if appropriate, to regulate the significant new use before it may occur. Additional background regarding SNURs is more fully set out in the preamble to EPA's first direct final SNUR published in the Federal Register issue of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376). Consult that preamble for further general information on the objectives, rationale, and procedures for SNURs and on the basis for significant new use designations, including provisions for developing test data.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) (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.

General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the proposed rule, recordkeeping requirements, and exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(A)). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1) (15 U.S.C. 2604(b) and 2604(d)(1)), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions of use for the chemical substance or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. In the case of a determination other than not likely to present unreasonable risk, the applicable review period must also expire before manufacturing or processing for the new use may commence. If EPA determines that the use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the Federal Register , a statement of EPA's findings.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) 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 determining significant new uses for the 26 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances and potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be associated with the substances, in addition to the factors in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4), for the five chemical substances subject to an order under TSCA section 5(e), EPA is proposing to identify any use not conforming to the restrictions of the order as a significant new use. For the 21 chemical substances that EPA has determined “not likely” to present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, EPA is proposing to identify other circumstances that, while not reasonably foreseen, would warrant further EPA review before manufacture or processing for such a use is commenced.

EPA is proposing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 26 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:

• PMN number.

• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).

• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).

• Basis for the SNUR or basis for the TSCA 5(e) Order.

• Potentially Useful Information. This is information identified by EPA that would help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the chemical substance in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use designated by the SNUR.

• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of the proposed rule. The regulatory text section of each proposed rule specifies the activities that would be designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including exceedance of production volume limits ( i.e., limits on manufacture volume) and other uses designated in this proposed rule, may be claimed as CBI.

These proposed rules include five PMN substances that are subject to Orders issued under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A), as required by the determinations made under section 5(a)(3)(B). Those Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The proposed SNURs would identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).

These proposed rules also include 21 PMN substances that received “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination in TSCA section 5(a)(3)(c). However, during the course of these reviews, EPA identified concerns for certain health and/or environmental risks if the chemicals were not used following the limitations identified by the submitters in the notices, but the TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations did not deem such uses as reasonably foreseen. The proposed SNURs would identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to those same limitations.

The chemicals subject to these proposed SNURs are as follows:

Chemical Name: Triarylsulfonium salt (generic).

CAS Number: Not available.

Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) Order: July 22, 2019.

Basis for TSCA section 5(e) Order: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the PMN substance will be as a resin catalyst. Based on physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance (as described in the New Chemical Program's PBT category at 64 FR 60194; November 1999), the PMN substance is a potentially persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical. EPA estimates that that PMN substance will persist in the environment for more than 2 months and estimates a bioaccumulation factor of greater than or equal to 1,000. Based on comparison to structurally analogous chemical substances, the estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN, and test data for the PMN substance, EPA has identified concerns for eye irritation, systemic, developmental, blood, and reproductive effects. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

1. Refraining from domestic manufacture in the United States ( i.e., import only);

2. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use specified in the Order;

3. No manufacture (including import) of the PMN substance beyond the confidential annual manufacture volume specified in the Order;

4. Refraining from processing or using the PMN substance in any manner that generates a mist, vapor, or aerosol; and

5. No release of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information about the human health effects of the PMN substance may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the TSCA section 5(e) Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of specific target organ toxicity and reproductive/developmental toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substance. Although the TSCA section 5(e) Order does not require this information, the TSCA section 5(e) Order's restrictions remain in effect until the TSCA section 5(e) Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11383.

Chemical Names: Organic acid, compds. with bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin-polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether polymer-disubstituted amine-disubstituted polypropylene glycol reaction products (generic) (P-17-312); Phenol, 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene)bis-, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and alpha-(2-oxiranylmethyl)-omega-(2-oxiranylmethoxy)poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], reaction products with disubstituted amine and disubstituted polypropylene glycol, organic acid salts (generic) (P-17-313); Organic acid, 2-substituted-, compds. with bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin-polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether polymer-disubstituted aminedisubstituted polypropylene glycol reaction products (generic) (P-17-314); Phenol, 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene)bis-, polymer with alpha-(2-substituted-methylethyl)-omega-(2-substituted-methylethoxy)poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and alpha-(2-oxiranylmethyl)-omega-(2-oxiranylmethoxy)poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], alkylphenyl ethers, reaction products with disubstituted amine, organic acid salts (generic) (P-17-315); Organic acid, compds. with bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin-disubstituted polypropylene glycol-polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether polymer alkylphenyl ethers-disubstituted amine reaction products (generic) (P-17-316); Organic acid, compds. with bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin-polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether polymer-disubstituted polypropylene glycol reaction products (generic) (P-17-317).

CAS Numbers: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substances will be as additives for electrocoat. Based on the estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN substances, comparison with structurally analogous substances, and Structural Activity Relationships (SAR) analysis on analogous polycationic polymers, EPA has identified concerns for lung effects, nasal epithelial damage, skin and eye irritation, and aquatic toxicity if the chemical substances are not used following the limitations noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substances as described in the PMNs include the following protective measures:

1. No modification of the manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substances that result in the generation of a dust, mist, or aerosol; and

2. No release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States exceeding a surface water concentration of 78 ppb.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substances if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of pulmonary effects, skin irritation/corrosion, eye damage, and acute aquatic toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substances.

CFR Citations: 40 CFR 721.11384 (P-17-312), 40 CFR 721.11385 (P-17-313), 40 CFR 721.11386 (P-17-314), 40 CFR 721.11387 (P-17-315), 40 CFR 721.11388 (P-17-316), and 40 CFR 721.11389 (P-17-317).

Chemical names: Branched cyclic and linear hydrocarbons from plastic depolymerization (generic) (P-17-398), Alkane, alkene, styrenic compounds derived from plastic depolymerization (generic) (P-17-399), Carbon compound derived from plastic depolymerization (generic) (P-18-1), and Branched cyclic and linear hydrocarbons from plastic depolymerization (generic) (P-18-28).

CAS numbers: Not available.

Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) Order: June 10, 2019.

Basis for TSCA section 5(e) Order: The PMNs state that the use of P-17-398 and P-17-399 will be as a refinery feedstock or fuel blending additive, the generic use of P-18-1 will be as an additive, and the use of P-18-28 will be as a chemical feedstock. Based on the physical/chemical properties of the PMN substances and comparison to structurally analogous chemical substances, EPA has identified concerns for neurological impairment, and hematological effects including aplastic anemia and acute myelogenous leukemia for PMN substance P-18-28. There is concern for lung effects for P-18-1, if respirable, based on the respirable, poorly soluble particles category. Based on SAR analysis on analogous substances, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb for P-17-398 and P-17-399, and 15 ppb for P-18-28. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. The Order was also issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(II) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II), based on a finding that the substances are or will be produced in substantial quantities and that the substances either enter or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities, or there is or may be significant (or substantial) human exposure to the substances. To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

1. Refraining from manufacturing, processing, or using P-17-398 and P-17-399 other than as a refinery feedstock or a fuel blending additive and refrain from manufacturing, processing, and using P-18-28 other than as a chemical feedstock or a fuel blending additive;

2. Manufacture of P-18-1 via the enclosed manufacturing process described in the PMN; and

3. Manufacture of P-18-1 according to the particle sizes described in the PMN: 1% or less of the particles at less than 75 microns.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information about the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substances may be potentially useful in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the TSCA section 5(e) Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of additional particle size characterization testing for P-18-1 and acute and chronic aquatic toxicity testing for P-17-398, P-17-399, and P-18-28 would help EPA determine the potential human and environmental effects of the PMN substances. Although the TSCA section 5(e) Order does not require this information, the Order's restrictions remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

CFR citations: 40 CFR 721.11390 (P-17-398), 40 CFR 721.11391 (P-17-399), 40 CFR 721.11392 (P-18-1), and 40 CFR 721.11393 (P-18-28).

Chemical Name: Phosphonic acid, dimethyl ester, polymer with alkyl diols (generic).

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the PMN substance will be as a lubricant additive. Based on estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance, test data on the PMN substance, comparison to structurally analogous chemical substances, and SAR analysis of test data on analogous esters, EPA has identified concerns for gastrointestinal and kidney effects, reproductive/developmental toxicity, and aquatic toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitations noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measures:

1. No release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States exceeding a surface water concentration of 300 ppb; and

2. No manufacture, process, or use of the PMN substance that generates a dust, mist, or aerosol.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of aquatic toxicity, specific target organ toxicity, and reproductive/developmental toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11394.

Chemical Name: 1H-Imidazole, 1,2,4,5-tetramethyl-.

CAS Number: 1739‐83‐9.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the PMN substance will be as a chemical intermediate in the synthesis of a polymer. Based on estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance, test data on analogous chemical substances, comparison to structurally analogous chemical substances, and SAR analysis of test data on analogous pyrroles/diazoles, EPA has identified concerns for irritation and corrosion to all tissues, developmental effects, liver toxicity, and aquatic toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitations noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measures:

1. Refraining from domestic manufacture in the United States ( i.e., import only);

2. No release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States exceeding a surface water concentration of 7 ppb; and

3. No use of the PMN substance other than as a chemical intermediate.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of skin corrosion, developmental/reproductive toxicity, specific target organ toxicity, and aquatic toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11395.

Chemical Name: 1-Propanaminium, N,N′-(oxydi-2,1-ethanediyl)bis[3-chloro-2-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyl-, chloride (1:2).

CAS Number: 96320-92-2.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the PMN substance will be for use in textile treatment. Based on the physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance, comparison of structurally analogous chemical substances, and SAR analysis on cationic surfactants, EPA has identified concerns for surfactant effects on the lungs, developmental effects, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, systemic toxicity, skin and respiratory sensitization, liver and kidney toxicity and aquatic toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitations noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measures:

1. No manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance that results in inhalation exposures; and

2. No release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States exceeding a surface water concentration of 164 ppb.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of specific target organ toxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity, and chronic aquatic toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11396.

Chemical Name: Fatty acid, polymer with alkanedioic acid dialkyl ester, hydroxyl alkyl substituted alkanediol, substituted carbomonocycle and alkylol substituted alkane (generic). Polymer exemption flag: The chemical must be manufactured such that it meets the polymer exemption criteria as described under 40 CFR 723.250(e)(1), in addition to meeting the definition of polymer at 40 CFR 723.250(b).

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the PMN substance will be as an adhesion-enhancing resin for wood applications for industrial and commercial use. Based on estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance and comparison to structurally analogous chemical substances, EPA has identified concerns for developmental and reproductive effects if the chemical substance is not used following the limitation noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measure:

• No use of the PMN substance in a consumer product.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that reproductive/developmental toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11397.

Chemical Names: 2,5-Furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 4-hydroxy-substituted butyl amide, polymers with epichlorohydrin and trimethylolpropane, sodium salts (generic) (P-18-190); 2,5-Furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 4-hydroxy-substitutedbutyl [3-[2-[1-[[(substitutedphenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2-oxopropyl]diazenyl]phenyl]methyl amide, polymers with epichlorohydrin and trimethylolpropane, sodium salts (generic) (P-18-191).

CAS Numbers: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMNs state that the use of the substances will be as a pigment dispersing aid for pigments in inkjet printing inks. Based on the estimated physical/chemical properties, high pH, chelating potential of the polyanionic groups and comparison with structurally analogous chemical substances, EPA has identified concerns for developmental and blood effects, and eye, skin, and lung irritation if the chemical substances are not used following the limitation noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substances as described in the PMNs include the following protective measure:

• Use of the PMN substances only as pigment dispersing aids for pigments in inkjet printing inks.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health effects of the PMN substances if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of reproduction/developmental toxicity, skin irritation, and eye damage testing would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substances.

CFR Citations: 40 CFR 721.11398 (P-18-190) and 40 CFR 721.11399 (P-18-191).

Chemical Name: Alkane, bis(alkoxymethyl)-dimethyl- (generic).

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the PMN substance will be as a selectivity improver for catalysts used in polyolefin production. Based on estimated physical/chemical properties, comparison to structurally analogous chemical substances, test data on the PMN substance, and SAR analysis on analogous neutral organics, EPA has identified concerns for eye irritation, systemic and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity and aquatic toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitation noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measure:

• No manufacture of the PMN substance beyond the confidential annual production volume specified in the PMN.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of toxicokinetics, specific organ toxicity, irritation, neurotoxicity, systemic toxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity, and aquatic toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11400.

Chemical Name: Butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, polymer with 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonic acid, sodium zinc salt.

CAS Number: 2220235-78-7.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the PMN substance will be for odor neutralization for pet litter and cleaning/deodorizing hard surfaces, fabrics, skin and hair, odor neutralization for air care, and odor neutralization for waste processing and solid waste management in paper, oil, gas, mining, agriculture, and food and municipal industries. Based on SAR analysis on analogous polyanionic polymers, EPA has identified concerns for aquatic toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitation noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measure:

• No release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States exceeding a surface water concentration of 143 ppb.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of chronic aquatic toxicity testing would help characterize the potential environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11404.

Chemical Name: Heteromonocycle, alkenoic 1:1 salt, polymer with alpha-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-y)l-omega-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) and methyl-alkenoic acid (generic).

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the PMN substance will be as an additive for automatic dishwashing detergent. Based on the estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance, comparison with structurally analogous chemical substances, and available data on the new chemical substance, EPA has identified concerns for lung effects if the chemical substance is not used following the limitations noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measures:

1. No manufacturing, processing, or use that results in particles less than 50 microns; and

2. No use that results in consumer inhalation or dermal exposure and use only in sealed, single-use packets.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of pulmonary effects, specific target organ effects, and developmental/reproductive toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11405.

Chemical Name: Substituted benzylic ether polyethylene glycol alkyl ether derivative (generic).

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the PMN substance will be as a chemical intermediate. Based on estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance, comparison to structurally analogous chemical substances, and test data on the PMN substance, and SAR analysis on analogous nonionic surfactants, EPA has identified concerns for ocular, lung and mucous membrane irritation, lung effects, skin and respiratory sensitization, systemic effects, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and aquatic toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitation noted. The condition of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN includes the following protective measures:

1. No use of the PMN substance involving application methods that generate a vapor, mist, or aerosol; and

2. No release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States exceeding a surface water concentration of 4 ppb.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of specific target organ toxicity, neurotoxicity, sensitization, eye damage, skin irritation, and algal toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11406.

Chemical Name: Alkylmultiheteroatom, 2-functionalisedalkyl-2-hydroxyalkyl-, polymer with alkylheteroatom-multialkylfunctionalised carbomonocycleheteroatom and multiglycidylether difunctionalised polyalkylene glycol (generic).

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the PMN substance will be as an epoxy curing agent used in molding formulations for the manufacture of wind turbine blades. Based on estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance and comparison of structurally analogous chemical substances, EPA has identified concerns for pulmonary effects, skin corrosion, eye irritation, skin sensitization, and kidney toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitations noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measures:

1. No manufacturing (including import), processing, or use of the PMN substance that results in inhalation exposures; and

2. No release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information about the health effects of the PMN substance may be potentially useful if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that pulmonary toxicity, specific target organ toxicity, and skin sensitization testing using the reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium test method would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11407.

Chemical Name: Benzenedicarboxylic acid, reaction products with isobenzofurandione and diethylene glycol (generic).

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the PMN substance will be as a resin component for polyisocyanurate resins and specialty polyurethane kits and systems for aerospace and military applications. Based on comparison to structurally analogous chemical substances, EPA has identified concerns for bladder, kidney, and reproductive/developmental toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitation noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measure:

• No manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance that results in inhalation exposures.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information about the health effects of the PMN substance may be potentially useful if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of developmental/reproductive toxicity, specific target organ toxicity, and eye and skin irritation testing would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11408.

Chemical Name: Formaldehyde, polymer with N1-(2-aminoethyl)-alkanediamine, 5-amino-1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexanemethanamine, 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane, 4,4′-(1-methylethylidene)bis[Phenol] and alpha-hydro-omega-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) (generic).

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the PMN substance will be as a curing agent for epoxy coating systems. Based on the estimated physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance, comparison with structurally analogous chemical substances, and SAR analysis on analogous polycationic polymers, EPA has identified concerns for irritation, lung effects, carcinogenicity, systemic toxicity, neurotoxicity, and aquatic toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitations noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measures:

1. No release of a manufacturing, processing, or use stream associated with any use of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States exceeding a surface water concentration of 1 ppb; and

2. No manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance that results in inhalation exposures.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of specific target organ toxicity, skin irritation, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity and aquatic toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11409.

Chemical Name: 2,4-Hexadienoic acid, 1,1′-[2-ethyl-2-[(1-oxo-2,4-hexadien-1-yl)oxy]methyl]-1,3-propanediyl] ester.

CAS Number: 2307636-51-5.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the PMN substance will be as a physical property modifier for polymers. Based on estimated physical/chemical properties, the comparison of structurally analogous chemical substances and SAR analysis on esters, EPA has identified concerns for liver, developmental, and aquatic toxicity if the chemical substance is not used following the limitation noted. The conditions of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN include the following protective measures:

1. Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use specified in the PMN; and

2. No manufacture of the PMN substance beyond the confidential annual production volume specified in the PMN.

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of reproductive toxicity, specific target organ toxicity, and aquatic toxicity testing would help characterize the potential health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11410.

Chemical Name: 1-Butanol, reaction products with 2-[(2-propen-1-yloxy)methyl]oxirane.

CAS Number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the PMN substance will be as a raw material used in chemical manufacture. Based on available data on the PMN substance, EPA has identified concerns for acute toxicity, corrosion to all exposed tissues, sensitization, and hematological and skin changes if the chemical substance is not used following the limitation noted. The condition of use of the PMN substance as described in the PMN includes the following protective measure:

• Use of the PMN substance only for the confidential use specified in the PMN;

The proposed SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of this protective measure.

Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the health effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of acute toxicity, sensitization, and systemic effects would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.11411.

During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these proposed SNURs, EPA concluded that for five chemical substances regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit IV. Based on these findings, TSCA section 5(e) Orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. As a general matter, EPA believes it is necessary to follow TSCA section 5(e) Orders with a SNUR that identifies the absence of those protective measures as Significant New Uses to ensure that all manufacturers and processors—not just the original submitter—are held to the same standard.

During review of the other 21 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs and as further discussed in Unit IV, EPA identified certain circumstances that raised potential risk concerns. EPA determined that deviations from the limitations identified in the submissions could result in changes in the type or form of exposure to the chemical substances and/or increased exposures to the chemical substances and/or changes in the reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of the chemical substances, and therefore warranted SNURs. The SNURs would identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the certain limitations in the submission.

EPA is proposing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants:

• To receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

• To review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.

• To either determine that the prospective manufacture or processing is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, or to take necessary regulatory action associated with any other determination, before the described significant new use of the chemical substance occurs.

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.

To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.

When chemical substances identified in this proposed rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. However, TSCA section 5(e) Orders have been issued for five of the 26 chemical substances, and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) Orders from undertaking activities which would be designated as significant new uses. The identities of 21 of the 26 chemical substances subject to this proposed rule have been claimed as confidential (per 40 CFR 720.85) for a chemical substance covered by this action. Based on this, the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses described in the regulatory text of this proposed rule are ongoing.

Therefore, EPA designates November 4, 2019 as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach is to ensure that a person cannot defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the effective date of the final rule.

Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of that date would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular new information ( e.g., generating test data) before submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a rule, order or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).

In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Unit IV. lists potentially useful information identified by EPA that would help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the PMN/SNUN substance for all of the listed SNURs. EPA recognizes that the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments have led to modifications in our approach to testing requirements, including an increased consideration of alternatives to vertebrate testing. Descriptions of tests/information needs are provided for informational purposes only and EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the potentially useful information. EPA encourages dialogue with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h). To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.” The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development test guidelines are available from the OECD Bookshop at http://www.oecdbookshop.org or SourceOECD at http://www.sourceoecd.org.

The potentially useful information listed in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

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 substances.

According to 40 CFR 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 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this proposed rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0494.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations-and-executive-orders.

This proposed rule would establish SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs and TSCA section 5(e) Orders. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

According to the 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 the 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.

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the 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, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (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.

Pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this proposed SNUR would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the final rule as a “significant new use.” Because these uses are “new,” based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was seven in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2013, 13 in FY2014, six in FY2015, 10 in FY2016, 14 in FY2017, and 18 in FY2018 and only a fraction of these were from small businesses. In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $16,000 to $2,800. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping of cost of submitting a SNUN to about $10,116 for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with this proposed SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the Federal Register of June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented its general determination that final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

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 action. As such, EPA has determined that this proposed rule would 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. ).

This proposed rule would 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor would it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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.

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this proposed rule is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

This proposed rule does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

The Great South Channel Habitat Management Area (GSC HMA) was created by the final rule to implement the New England Fishery Management Council's Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) (83 FR 15240; April 9, 2018). The use of all mobile bottom-tending fishing gear is prohibited in the GSC HMA. The GSC HMA contains complex benthic habitat that is important for juvenile cod and other fish species, and it is susceptible to the adverse impacts of fishing gear. The OHA2 included a 1-year delay of the GSC HMA closure that allowed the surfclam fishery to continue fishing with hydraulic clam dredges in the GSC HMA. This delay was intended to give the Council time to determine if a long-term exemption is warranted. The 1-year delay ended on April 9, 2019, and the GSC HMA is now closed to all mobile bottom-tending fishing gear.

On September 17, 2019, NMFS published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to implement the Clam Dredge Exemption Framework with a 30-day comment period that closed on October 17, 2019 (84 FR 48899). Full details of the proposed measures are provided in the proposed rule and are not repeated here. Subsequently, NMFS received a request from the Council to extend the comment period due to concerns that an error in a URL in the proposed rule may have prevented some individuals from submitting comments. NMFS is reopening the comment period on the proposed rule through November 18, 2019, and is including the correct URL to ensure all interested partied have an opportunity to submit comments. Comments submitted during the prior comment period have been incorporated into the public record, and will be fully considered during the preparation of our final determination.