5546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1For instance, by adopting the ATF system to 

classify explosives storage magazines, or by 

following the example of DOT, which adopted the 

United Nations Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals to classify 

explosives. This rulemaking goal is actively being 

addressed, as OSHA recently issued a proposal to 

conform its Hazard Communication Standard, 29 

CFR 1910.1200, to the GHS. (74 FR 50280.) This 

proposal generally adopts the GHS’s requirements 

for classifying, labeling, and providing safety data 

sheets for explosives. 

wastes involved in the manufacture, 

use, and disposal of explosives. 

2. Even with respect to activities 

regulated by OSHA, the proposed rule 

had a limited scope. It would not have 

covered the sale or use of consumer and 

public display fireworks (72 FR 18799). 

OSHA’s construction standards at 29 

CFR 1926 subpart U cover the hazards 

associated with blasting in the 

construction and demolition industries. 

The general industry uses addressed by 

the proposal include blasting of rocks, 

slag pockets, and beaver dams, as well 

as blasting associated with metal 

hardening, stump removal, pond 

creation, and avalanche control, and 

various types of blasting used to create 

art sculptures. Compared to the use of 

explosives by the construction and 

demolition industries, these general 

industry uses do not require large 

amounts of explosives, and employers 

perform them relatively infrequently. 

Moreover, employers engaged in the 

manufacture of explosives (other than 

blasting agents) and pyrotechnics must 

already meet the requirements 

contained in OSHA’s Process Safety 

Management (PSM) Standard at 29 CFR 

1910.119, which covers working 

conditions during the manufacture of 

highly hazardous chemicals (29 CFR 

1910.109(k)). The PSM Standard 

addresses many of the hazards 

associated with the manufacture of 

explosives and pyrotechnics. 

3. Finally, OSHA did not propose 

substantive changes to many of the 

requirements in the existing standard. 

Whether or not the rulemaking 

continues, the existing protective 

provisions addressing hazards 

associated with storing explosives; 

transporting explosives; using 

explosives and blasting agents; packing, 

marking, and storing explosives at piers, 

railway stations, and cars or vessels; 

mixing, storing, and transporting 

blasting agents; mixing water gel 

explosives; storing ammonium nitrate; 

and storing small arms ammunition, 

small arms primers, and small arms 

propellants, will remain in effect. 

The limited scope of the rulemaking 

and the breadth of existing Federal 

protections necessarily constrained the 

relative safety benefits of the 

rulemaking, especially when compared 

with OSHA’s higher priority rulemaking 

activities. The Preliminary Economic 

and Regulatory Screening Analysis 

conducted by OSHA in conjunction 

with the proposed rule supports this 

conclusion (72 FR 18828). In this 

analysis, OSHA examined the extent to 

which the proposed rulemaking would 

reduce the number of deaths and 

injuries attributable to explosive 

accidents in general industry by 

reviewing its accident-investigation 

reports for the years 1992–2002. OSHA 

concluded that compliance with the 

new requirements of the amended 

standard might have prevented only one 

of the 39 documented explosives 

accidents. Therefore, the proposed 

standard would have had limited 

benefit for workers exposed to explosive 

hazards. 

B. Using Limited Resources Efficiently 

In light of these limited benefits, 

OSHA cannot justify allocating the 

substantial resources it would need to 

utilize in order to issue a new proposal, 

analyze comments submitted by the 

regulated community, conduct a 

hearing, and promulgate an amended 

standard. As noted above, the existing 

standard already addresses many of the 

hazards associated with explosives, and 

much of the proposal involved 

clarifying the terms and scope of that 

standard. The proposal would have: (1) 

Increased the clarity and focus of the 

standard by rewriting requirements in 

plain language, correcting internal 

inconsistencies and duplicative 

requirements, and removing references 

to public safety that are beyond OSHA’s 

regulatory authority; (2) increased 

harmonization with other Federal 

standards that regulate explosives; 1 and 

(3) addressed the scope of preemption 

by other Federal agencies (notably DOT 

and ATF) of OSHA authority over 

working conditions in the explosives 

industry. While these revisions could 

have reduced confusion among the 

regulated community regarding 

compliance and enforcement authority, 

they would have no substantive effect 

on the safety measures employers must 

take to control explosives hazards. 

By withdrawing this proposal, OSHA 

can devote the resources that would 

have been utilized in completing the 

rulemaking to deservedly higherpriority projects. For example, OSHA 

recently announced a rulemaking to 

reduce combustible dust hazards in 

general industry. Combustible dust 

explosions have resulted in more than 

130 deaths and 780 injuries since 1980. 

OSHA is also preparing to propose a 

standard governing occupational 

exposure to respirable silica. Inhalation 

of this substance, which is extremely 

widespread, causes lung disease, 

silicosis and lung cancer. Terminating 

the explosives rulemaking will free 

resources for these and other highimpact proceedings. 

C. Conclusion 

Based on the findings discussed in the 

preceding section, OSHA concludes that 

terminating the proposed rulemaking 

will not diminish worker protection 

because § 1910.109, along with other 

OSHA standards and the standards of 

other Federal agencies, provide workers 

with substantial protection from 

explosive hazards. In addition, 

alternatives exist to increase the 

protection afforded by, and to improve 

the clarity of the standard. Therefore, 

terminating the proposed rulemaking 

will enable OSHA to devote its limited 

resources to other rulemakings that will 

provide greater protection to workers 

from occupational hazards than would 

the proposed rulemaking. 

III. Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, PhD MPH, Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC, 20210, directed the 

preparation of this notice. It is issued 

pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational and Safety and Health Act 

of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 

Secretary’s Order 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), 

and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on January 29, 

2010. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2273 Filed 2–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0686; FRL–8796–7] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Proposed Significant New Use Rule for 

Multi-walled Carbon Nanotubes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a significant 

new use rule (SNUR) under section 

5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance 

identified generically as multi-walled 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5547 

carbon nanotubes (P–08–199). This 

action would require persons who 

intend to manufacture, import, or 

process the substance for an activity that 

is designated as a significant new use by 

this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 

90 days before commencing that 

activity. The required notification 

would provide EPA with the 

opportunity to evaluate the intended 

use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit 

that activity before it occurs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0686, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0686. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2009–0686. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: Jim 

Alwood, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8974; e-mail address: 

alwood.jim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, import, 

process, or use the chemical substance 

contained in this proposed rule. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Manufacturers, importers, or 

processors of the subject chemical 

substance (NAICS codes 325 and 

324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing 

and petroleum refineries. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

§ 721.5. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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 (the corresponding EPA policy 

appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B). 

Chemical importers must certify that the 

shipment of the chemical substance 

complies with all applicable rules and 

orders under TSCA. Importers of 

chemicals subject to a final SNUR must 

certify their compliance with the SNUR 

requirements. In addition, any persons 

who export or intend to export a 

chemical substance that is the subject of 

this proposed rule on or after March 5, 

2010 are subject to the export 

notification provisions of TSCA section 

12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), 

and must comply with the export 

notification requirements in 40 CFR part 

707, subpart D. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

EPA is proposing this SNUR using 

notice and comment procedures. This 

SNUR will require persons to notify 

EPA at least 90 days before commencing 

the manufacture, import, or processing 

of the specific multi-walled carbon 

nanotubes identified by the notice for 

any activity designated by this SNUR as 

a significant new use. Receipt of such 

notices allows EPA to assess risks that 

may be presented by the intended uses 

and, if appropriate, to regulate the 

proposed use before it occurs. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 

2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine 

that a use of a chemical substance is a 

‘‘significant new use.’’ EPA must make 

this determination by rule after 

considering all relevant factors, 

including those listed in TSCA section 

5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use 

of a chemical substance is a significant 

new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) 

requires persons to submit a significant 

new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 

90 days before they manufacture, 

import, or process the chemical 

substance for that use. The mechanism 

for reporting under this requirement is 

established under § 721.5. 

C. Applicability of General Provisions 

General provisions for SNURs appear 

in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These 

provisions describe persons subject to 

the rule, recordkeeping requirements, 

exemptions to reporting requirements, 

and applicability of the rule to uses 

occurring before the effective date of the 

final rule. Provisions relating to user 

fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. 

According to § 721.1(c), persons subject 

to this SNUR must comply with the 

same notice requirements and EPA 

regulatory procedures as submitters of 

PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In 

particular, these requirements include 

the information submission 

requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 

5(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 may take regulatory action under 

TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control 

the activities for which it has received 

the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, 

EPA is required under TSCA section 

5(g) to explain in the Federal Register 

its reasons for not taking action. 

Chemical importers are subject to the 

TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 1612) 

import certification requirements 

promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 

12.127, and 19 CFR 127.28 (the 

corresponding EPA policy appears at 40 

CFR part 707, subpart B). Chemical 

importers must certify that the shipment 

of the chemical substance complies with 

all applicable rules and orders under 

TSCA. Importers of chemical substances 

subject to a final SNUR must certify 

their compliance with the SNUR 

requirements. In addition, any persons 

who export or intend to export a 

chemical substance identified in a final 

SNUR are subject to the export 

notification provisions of TSCA section 

12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2612 (b)) (see § 721.20), 

and must comply with the export 

notification requirements in 40 CFR part 

707, subpart D. 

III. Significant New Use Determination 

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that 

EPA’s determination that a use of a 

chemical substance is a significant new 

use must be made after consideration of 

all relevant factors, including: 

• The projected volume of 

manufacturing and processing of a 

chemical substance. 

• The extent to which a use changes 

the type or form of exposure of human 

beings or the environment to a chemical 

substance. 

• The extent to which a use increases 

the magnitude and duration of exposure 

of human beings or the environment to 

a chemical substance. 

• The reasonably anticipated manner 

and methods of manufacturing, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

and disposal of a chemical substance. 

In addition to these factors 

enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the 

statute authorized EPA to consider any 

other relevant factors. 

To determine what would constitute a 

significant new use for the chemical 

substance that is the subject of this 

proposed SNUR, EPA considered 

relevant information about the toxicity 

of the chemical substance, likely human 

exposures and environmental releases 

associated with possible uses, and the 

four bulleted factors listed in TSCA 

section 5(a)(2) in this Unit. 

For the multi-walled carbon 

nanotubes described in P–08–199, EPA 

believes that certain changes from the 

use scenario described in the PMN 

could result in increased exposures, 

thereby constituting a ‘‘significant new 

use.’’ EPA has determined that activities 

proposed as a ‘‘significant new use’’ 

satisfy the two requirements stipulated 

in § 721.170(c)(2), i.e., these significant 

new use activities, ‘‘(i) are different from 

those described in the premanufacture 

notice for the substance, including any 

amendments, deletions, and additions 

of activities to the premanufacture 

notice, and (ii) may be accompanied by 

changes in exposure or release levels 

that are significant in relation to the 

health or environmental concerns 

identified’’ for the PMN substance. 

IV. Substance Subject to this Proposed 

Rule 

EPA is proposing to establish 

significant new use and recordkeeping 

requirements for a chemical substance 

in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. This 

SNUR applies only to the multi-walled 

carbon nanotubes described in P–08– 

199. In the past, some stakeholders have 

asked whether these types of SNURs 

apply to all variants of carbon 

nanotubes. This is not the case. 

PMN Number P–08–199 

Chemical name: Multi-walled carbon 

nanotubes (generic). 

CAS number: Not available. 

Basis for action: The PMN states that the 

substance will be used as an additive/ 

filler for polymer composites and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5549 

support media for industrial catalysts. 

Based on test data on analogous 

respirable, poorly soluble particulates 

and on other carbon nanotubes (CNTs), 

EPA identified concerns for lung effects, 

immunotoxicity, and mutagenicity from 

exposure to the PMN substance. For the 

uses described in the PMN, worker 

inhalation and dermal exposures are 

minimal due to the use of adequate 

personal protective equipment. 

Therefore, EPA has not determined that 

the proposed manufacturing, 

processing, or use of the substance may 

present an unreasonable risk. EPA has 

determined, however, that use of the 

substance without the use of gloves and 

protective clothing, where there is a 

potential for dermal exposure; use of the 

substance without a National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH)-approved full-face respirator 

with an N100 cartridge, where there is 

a potential for inhalation exposure; or 

use other than as described in the PMN, 

may cause serious health effects. Based 

on this information, the PMN substance 

meets the concern criteria at 

§ 721.170(b)(3)(ii). 

Recommended testing: EPA has 

determined that the results of the 

following tests would help characterize 

the human health effects of the PMN 

substance: A bacterial reverse mutation 

test (OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 

870.5100) in vitro; a mammalian 

erythrocyte micronucleus test (OPPTS 

Harmonized Test Guideline 870.5395 or 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

and Development (OECD) 474 test 

guideline) in vivo, in bone marrow, by 

the intraperitoneal route; an 

immunotoxicity test (OPPTS 

Harmonized Test Guideline 870.7800); 

and a 90–day inhalation toxicity test 

(OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 

870.3465), including a post-exposure 

observation period of up to 3 months. 

Evaluation should include markers of 

damage, oxidant stress, cell 

proliferation, the degree/intensity and 

duration of pulmonary inflammation, 

and cytotoxic effects and histopathology 

of pulmonary issues, in addition to the 

standard requirements in the OPPTS 

Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3465. 

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10183. 

V. Rationale and Objectives of the 

Proposed Rule 

A. Rationale 

During review of the chemical 

substance P–08–199, EPA determined 

that one or more of the criteria of 

concern established at § 721.170 were 

met, as discussed in Unit IV. 

B. Objectives 

EPA is proposing this SNUR for a 

chemical substance that has undergone 

premanufacture review because the 

Agency wants to achieve the following 

objectives with regard to the significant 

new uses designated in this proposed 

rule: 

• EPA would receive notice of any 

person’s intent to manufacture, import, 

or process a listed chemical substance 

for the described significant new use 

before that activity begins. 

• EPA would have an opportunity to 

review and evaluate data submitted in a 

SNUN before the notice submitter 

begins manufacturing, importing, or 

processing a listed chemical substance 

for the described significant new use. 

• EPA would be able to regulate 

prospective manufacturers, importers, 

or processors of a listed chemical 

substance before the described 

significant new use of that chemical 

substance occurs, provided that 

regulation is warranted pursuant to 

TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7. 

Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical 

substance does not signify that the 

chemical substance is listed on the 

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/ 

newchems/pubs/invntory.htm. 

VI. Notice and Comment Procedures 

EPA is issuing this SNUR by notice 

and comment procedure, as described in 

§ 721.170(d)(4). In accordance with 

§ 721.170(d)(4)(ii)(A), persons are being 

given the opportunity to submit 

comments on or before March 5, 2010 

on whether EPA should establish 

notification requirements. 

VII. Applicability of the Proposed Rule 

to Uses Occurring Before Effective Date 

of the Final Rule 

To establish a significant ‘‘new’’ use, 

EPA must determine that the use is not 

ongoing. EPA solicits comments on 

whether any of the uses proposed as 

significant new uses are ongoing. 

As discussed in the Federal Register 

of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376), EPA 

has decided that the intent of TSCA 

section 5(a)(1)(B) is best served by 

designating a use as a significant new 

use as of the date of publication of the 

proposed rule rather than as of the 

effective date of the final rule. If uses 

begun after publication of the proposed 

rule were considered ongoing rather 

than new, it would be difficult for EPA 

to establish SNUR notice requirements 

because a person could defeat the SNUR 

by initiating the significant new use 

before the rule became final, and then 

argue that the use was ongoing before 

the effective date of the final rule. Thus, 

persons who begin commercial 

manufacture, import, or processing 

activities with the chemical substances 

that would be regulated as a ‘‘significant 

new use’’ through this proposed rule, 

must cease any such activity before the 

effective date of the rule if and when 

finalized. To resume their activities, 

these persons would have to comply 

with all applicable SNUR notice 

requirements and wait until the notice 

review period, including all extensions, 

expires. 

EPA has promulgated provisions to 

allow persons to comply with this 

proposed SNUR before the effective 

date. If a person were to meet the 

conditions of advance compliance 

under § 721.45(h), the person would be 

considered exempt from the 

requirements of the SNUR. 

VIII. Test Data and Other Information 

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 

does not require developing any 

particular test data before submission of 

a SNUN, except where the chemical 

substance subject to the SNUR is also 

subject to a test rule under TSCA 

section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)). 

Persons are required only to submit test 

data in their possession or control and 

to describe any other data known to or 

reasonably ascertainable by them (see 

§ 720.50). However, upon review of 

PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the 

authority to require appropriate testing. 

EPA recommended certain testing in 

Unit IV. Descriptions of tests are 

provided for informational purposes. 

EPA strongly encourages persons, before 

performing any testing, to consult with 

the Agency pertaining to protocol 

selection. To access the OPPTS 

harmonized test guidelines referenced 

in this document electronically, please 

go to http://www.epa.gov/oppts and 

select ‘‘Test Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) test 

guidelines are available from the OECD 

Bookshop at http:// 

www.oecdbookshop.org or SourceOECD 

at http://www.sourceoecd.org. 

The recommended tests may not be 

the only means of addressing the 

potential risks of the chemical 

substance. However, SNUNs submitted 

for significant new uses without any test 

data may increase the likelihood that 

EPA will take action under TSCA 

section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory 

test results have not been obtained from 

a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA 

recommends that potential SNUN 

submitters contact EPA early enough so 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5550 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 substance. 

• Potential benefits of the chemical 

substance. 

• Information on risks posed by the 

chemical substance compared to risks 

posed by potential substitutes. 

IX. SNUN Submissions 

As stated in Unit II.C., according to 

§ 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN 

must comply with the same notice 

requirements and EPA regulatory 

procedures as persons submitting a 

PMN, including submission of test data 

on health and environmental effects as 

described in § 720.50. SNUNs must be 

mailed to the Environmental Protection 

Agency, OPPT Document Control Office 

(7407M), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

Information must be submitted in the 

form and manner set forth in EPA Form 

No. 7710–25. This form is available 

from the Environmental Assistance 

Division (7408M), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001 

(see § § 721.25 and 720.40). Forms and 

information are also available 

electronically at http://www.epa.gov/ 

opptintr/newchems/pubs/ 

pmnforms.htm. 

X. Economic Analysis 

EPA has evaluated the potential costs 

of establishing SNUN requirements for 

potential manufacturers, importers, and 

processors of the chemical substance 

subject to this proposed rule. EPA’s 

complete economic analysis is available 

in the public docket. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule would establish a 

SNUR for a chemical substance that was 

the subject of a PMN. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

exempted these types of actions from 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

According to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (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. EPA would amend the table 

in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB 

approval number for the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proposed rule. This listing of the 

OMB control numbers and their 

subsequent codification in the CFR 

satisfies the display requirements of 

PRA and OMB’s implementing 

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

was previously subject to public notice 

and comment prior to OMB approval, 

and given the technical nature of the 

table, EPA finds that further notice and 

comment to amend it is unnecessary. As 

a result, EPA finds that there is ‘‘good 

cause’’ under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B), to amend this table without 

further notice and comment. 

The information collection 

requirements related to this action have 

already been approved by OMB 

pursuant to PRA under OMB control 

number 2070–0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). 

This action would not impose any 

burden requiring additional OMB 

approval. If an entity were to submit a 

SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden 

is estimated to average between 30 and 

170 hours per response. This burden 

estimate includes the time needed to 

review instructions, search existing data 

sources, gather and maintain the data 

needed, and complete, review, and 

submit the required SNUN. 

Send any comments about the 

accuracy of the burden estimate, and 

any suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, including through 

the use of automated collection 

techniques, to the Director, Collection 

Strategies Division, Office of 

Environmental Information (2822T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. Please remember to 

include the OMB control number in any 

correspondence, but do not submit any 

completed forms to this address. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby 

certifies that promulgation of this SNUR 

would not have a significant adverse 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The rationale 

supporting this conclusion is discussed 

in this unit. 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 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 over 1,000 SNURs, the Agency 

receives on average only 5 notices per 

year. Of those SNUNs submitted from 

2006–2008, only one appears to be from 

a small entity. In addition, the estimated 

reporting cost for submission of a SNUN 

(see Unit IX.) is minimal regardless of 

the size of the firm. Therefore, the 

potential economic impacts of 

complying with this 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. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 reason to 

believe that any State, local, or Tribal 

government would be impacted by this 

proposed rule. As such, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule 

would not impose any enforceable duty, 

contain any unfunded mandate, or 

otherwise have any affect on small 

governments subject to the requirements 

of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4). 

E. Executive Order 13132 

This action 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, entitled 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5551 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). 

F. Executive Order 13175 

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 or 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, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because this is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866, and this action does not address 

environmental health or safety risks 

disproportionately affecting children. 

H. Executive Order 13211 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), because this action is not 

expected to affect energy supply, 

distribution, or use and because this 

action is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

In addition, since this action does not 

involve any technical standards, section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not 

apply to this action. 

J. Executive Order 12898 

This action does not entail special 

considerations of environmental justice 

related issues as delineated by 

Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 27, 2010. 

Wendy C. Hamnett, 

Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

part 721 be amended as follows: 

PART 721—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 721 

would continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 

2625(c). 

2. Add § 721.10183 to subpart E to 

read as follows: 

§ 721.10183 Multi-walled carbon 

nanotubes (generic). 

(a) Chemical substance and 

significant new uses subject to reporting. 

(1) The chemical substance identified 

generically as multi-walled carbon 

nanotubes (PMN P–08–199) is subject to 

reporting under this section for the 

significant new uses described in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(2) The significant new uses are: 

(i) Protection in the workplace. 

Requirements as specified in § 721.63 

(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(4), (a)(5) 

(National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved 

full-face respirators with N100 

cartridges), (a)(6)(i), and (c). 

(ii) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(j) (additive/filler 

for polymer composites and support 

media for industrial catalysts). 

(b) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph. 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in § 721.125 

(a), (b), (c), (d), and (i) are applicable to 

manufacturers, importers, and 

processors of this substance. 

(2) Limitations or revocation of 

certain notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2256 Filed 2–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. OST–2010–0022] 

RIN 2105–AD88 

Participation by Disadvantaged 

Business Enterprises in Airport 

Concessions 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is proposing to remove 

the ‘‘sunset’’ provision from its rule 

governing the airport concessions 

disadvantaged business enterprise 

program. The rule would instead 

provide for periodic program reviews. In 

addition, in the interest of initiating a 

program review, the Department is 

soliciting comments on any changes that 

should be made in the rule. These 

comments would assist the Department 

in reviewing the rule and, if warranted, 

proposing modifications to it in the 

future. 

DATES: Comments on the proposal to 

remove the sunset provision must be 

received by March 5, 2010. Responses to 

the request for comments on potential 

modifications to the rule must be 

received by November 1, 2010. Latefiled comments will be considered to 

the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the agency name and DOT 

Docket ID Number OST–2010–0022) by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name (Office of the Secretary, 

DOT) and Docket number (OST–2010– 

0022) for this notice at the beginning of 

your comments. You should submit two 

copies of your comments if you submit 

them by mail or courier. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov including any 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS