7590 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2010 / Notices 

information on the ‘‘reasonably 

ascertainable economic consequences’’ 

that would occur as a result of enacting 

the proposed regulation (Ref. 4). 

The petition states that ‘‘proteins 

inherent in Hevea brasiliensis baled 

natural-rubber can be substantially 

eliminated’’ and that ‘‘ultra low-protein 

natural-rubber latex (e.g., Vytex-NRL) 

that can be used to make Hevea 

brasiliensis baled natural-rubber that 

satisfies ASTM D 1076-06 (Category 5)’’ 

is available, but provides little other 

information on the availability and 

suitability of substitutes. In ‘‘Allergies 

and Autism,’’ the petitioner reports that 

non-Hevea brasiliensis latex does not 

provide a suitable substitute. According 

to the petitioner: ‘‘Efforts have been 

made to commercialize alternative latex 

having inherently lower antigenic 

protein content (i.e., guayule rubber 

latex and the Russian dandelion), but 

such materials are reported to be higher 

in cost and presently are available only 

in limited quantities’’ and ‘‘both of these 

materials have their own unique set of 

proteins with potential allergenic 

behavior not yet clearly understood.’’ 

With respect to Vytex, the petitioner 

reports that it ‘‘can be used for making 

surgical and examination gloves, 

condoms, foam, tubing, breather bags, 

balloons, adhesives as well as many 

other natural–latex based products 

across a wide range of industries’’ (Ref. 

4). Vytex does not appear to be a viable 

substitute for use in tires, however, at 

this time. Vytex was developed and is 

produced by the Vystar Corp. According 

to the Vystar Corp. website, Vytex is 

Vystar Corp.’s first commercial product 

and is presently used only in Envy 

condoms, which were introduced 

commercially only in October of 2009. 

In addition, Vystar Corp.’s webpage 

focuses on Vytex’s suitability for the 

specialty use of medical devices. See 

http://www.vytex.com, last visited 

January 11, 2010. 

Nor does the petition provide 

evidence showing that prohibiting the 

use of ‘‘Hevea brasiliensis baled naturalrubber’’ that does not have a ‘‘total 

protein content less than 200 μg/dm2

and an antigenic Hev-b protein content 

less than 10 μg/dm2’’ in the manufacture 

of tires would be the least burdensome 

requirement to address the potential 

risks the petition identifies. 

Finally, the petition has not 

demonstrated that a regulation 

prohibiting the use of ‘‘Hevea 

brasiliensis baled natural-rubber’’ that 

does not have a ‘‘total protein content 

less than 200 μg/dm2 and an antigenic 

Hev-b protein content less than 10 μg/ 

dm2’’ in the manufacture of tires is 

likely to be successful in reducing the 

incidence of latex allergy or autism. 

IV. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this notice and placed in 

the docket that was established under 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2010–0015. For information on 

accessing the docket, refer to Unit I.B. 

1. Dochniak, M. ‘‘Citizen Petition 

under TSCA to prohibit the use of 

Hevea brasiliensis baled natural-rubber 

for the manufacture of tires, wherein 

said baled natural-rubber fails to satisfy 

The American Society for Testing and 

Materials method ASTM D1076-06 

(Category 5).’’ November 19, 2009. 

2. EPA. Letter from OPPT, to Michael 

Dochniak, acknowledging receipt of his 

petition under TSCA section 21: 

‘‘Citizen Petition under TSCA to 

prohibit the use of Hevea brasiliensis 

baled natural-rubber for the 

manufacture of tires, wherein said baled 

natural-rubber fails to satisfy The 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials method ASTM D1076-06 

(Category 5).’’ December 8, 2009. 

3. EPA. Natural Rubber Latex 

Adhesives; Disposition of TSCA Section 

21 Petition; Notice. Federal Register (73 

FR 32573, June 9, 2008) (FRL–8368–4). 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2008–0273. Available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

4. Dochniak, M. and Dunn, D. 

Allergies and Autism. Nova Science 

Publishers, Inc. 2008. 

5. Mostafa, G. A.; Hamza, R. T.; and 

El-Shahawi, H. H. Allergic 

manifestations in autistic children: 

Relation to disease severity. Journal of 

Pediatric Neurology. 2008. 6(2):115– 

123. 

6. Buie, T., et al., Evaluation, 

Diagnosis, and Treatment of 

Gastrointestinal Disorders in 

Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus 

Report. Pediatrics. 2010. 125:S1–S18. 

7. Williams, P. B.; Buhr, M. P.; Weber, 

R. W.; Volz, M. A.; Koepke, J. W.; and 

Selner, J. C. Latex Allergen in Respirable 

Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of 

Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 1995. 

95:88–95. 

8. Miguel, A. G.; Cass, G. R.; Weiss, 

J.; and Glovsky, M. M. Latex Allergens 

in Tire Dust and Airborne Particles. 

Environmental Health Perspectives. 

November 1996. 104(11):1180–1186. 

9. Miguel, A. G., Cass, G. R., Weiss, 

J., and Glovsky, M. M. Allergens in 

Paved Road Dust and Airborne Particles. 

Environmental Science Technology. 

1999. 33:4159–4168. 

10. Hirsch, T.; Neumeister, V.; 

Weiland, S. K.; von Mutius, E.; Hirsch, 

D.; Grafe, H.; Duhme, H.; and Leupold, 

W. Traffic exposure and allergic 

sensitization against latex in children. 

Journal of Allergy and Clinical 

Immunology. 2000. 106:573–8. 

11. Vermeulen, R.; Doekes, G.; and 

Kromhout, H. Latex Allergy Risk among 

the General Population due to TrafficRelated Airborne Dust? Epidemiology. 

Cambridge, MA. 2000. 11(1):92. 

12. Rubber Manufacturers Association 

Letter to EPA (Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2008–0273), Comments on 

Mr. Michael Dochniak TSCA Section 21 

Petition. May 12, 2008. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Antigenic 

proteins, Autism, Health, Hevea 

brasiliensis baled natural rubber, Latex, 

Tires. 

Dated: February 16, 2010. 

Stephen A. Owens, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3414 Filed 2–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9114–9] 

North Carolina Waters Along the Entire 

Length of New Hanover County; Final 

No Discharge Zone Determination 

On August 24, 2009, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a notice that the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (DENR) Division 

of Water Quality (DWQ) had petitioned 

the Region 4 Regional Administrator to 

determine that adequate and reasonably 

available pumpout facilities exist for the 

designation of New Hanover County, 

North Carolina, Coastal Waters as a No 

Discharge Zone (NDZ). One comment in 

favor of this designation was received. 

Specifically, these waters extend three 

nautical miles (nm) into the Atlantic 

Ocean along the entire length of New 

Hanover County, including Futch Creek, 

Pages Creek, Bradley Creek, Hewlett’s 

Creek, Howe Creek, Whiskey Creek, 

Snow’s Cut, as well as unnamed 

tributaries and all unnamed tidal creeks 

to those waters. 

The geographic description including 

latitudes and longitudes are as follows: 

northern border of New Hanover County 

with southern border of Pender County 

(34°17′53.5′′ N 77°42′32.2′′ W), to a point 

3 nm off the coast at the intersection of 

New Hanover and Pender Counties 

(34°16′01.9′′ N 77°40′20.5′′ W). 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 34 / Monday, February 22, 2010 / Notices 7591 

Intersection of the southern tip of 

New Hanover County with Brunswick 

County at the Cape Fear River 

(33°55′43.0′′ N 77°56′13.6′′ W), 

southeastward along the extended 

intersection of the two counties, 3 nm 

into the Atlantic Ocean (33°53′07.5′′ N 

77°55′34.5′′ W). 

This petition was filed pursuant to the 

Clean Water Act, Section 312(f)(3), 

Public Law 92–500 as amended by 

Public Law 95–217 and Public Law 

100–4. A NDZ is defined as a body of 

water in which the discharge of vessel 

sewage, both treated and untreated, is 

prohibited. 

Section 312(f)(3) states: 

‘‘After the effective date of the initial 

standards and regulations promulgated under 

this section, if any State determines that the 

protection and enhancement of the quality of 

some or all of the waters within such States 

require greater environmental protection, 

such State may completely prohibit the 

discharge from all vessels of any sewage, 

whether treated or not, into such waters, 

except that no such prohibition shall apply 

until the Administrator determines that 

adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary 

removal and treatment of sewage from all 

vessels are reasonably available for such 

water to which such prohibition would 

apply.’’ 

According to DENR DWQ the 

following facilities are located in New 

Hanover County for pumping out vessel 

holding tanks: 

(1) Carolina Beach Municipal Marina, 

Carolina Beach, 910–458–2540, open 24 

hours per day, 7 days per week, 6′ draft 

at mean low tide. 

(2) Carolina Beach State Park Marina, 

Carolina Beach State Park, Carolina 

Beach, 910–458–7770, 8 AM–5:45 PM, 7 

days/week, 6′ draft at mean low tide. 

(3) Federal Point Yacht Club, 910 

Basin Road, Carolina Beach, 910–458– 

4511, only available to club members, 5′ 

draft at mean low tide. 

(4) Mona Black Marina, Carolina 

Beach, 910–458–0575, open 24/7, 20′ 

draft at mean low tide. 

(5) Joyner Marina, Carolina Beach, 

910–458–5053, open 7 AM–6 PM, 7 

days per week, 6′ draft at mean low tide. 

(6) Bridge Tender Marina, City of 

Wilmington, 910–256–6550, 7 AM– 

8 PM, 7 days/week, 10′ draft at mean 

low tide. 

(7) Creekside Yacht Club, City of 

Wilmington, 910–350–0023, 

Operational December 2009, 4′ draft at 

mean low tide. 

(8) Sea Path Yacht Club, Town of 

Wrightsville Beach, 910–256–3747, 7 

AM–7 PM, 7 days/week, 10′ draft at 

mean low tide. 

(9) Wrightsville Beach Marina & 

Transient Dock, Town of Wrightsville 

Beach, 910–256–6666, 7 AM–7 PM, 7 

days/week, 12′ draft at mean low tide. 

Two Marinas that are located within 

7 nautical miles of the proposed NDZ 

are: 

(A) Wilmington Marine Center, 910– 

395–5055, 8 AM—5 PM 7 days/week, 7′ 

draft at mean low tide. 

(B) Bald Head Island Marina, 910– 

457–7380, 8:30 AM–5:30 PM 7 days/ 

week, 8′ draft at mean low tide. 

The total vessel population for New 

Hanover County as of August 5, 2008, 

was 13,940. This number reflects active 

vessel registrations and was obtained 

from the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission. During the 

period of 2006 to 2008, the total number 

of active registered vessels increased 

nearly 15%. The result is that there are 

nearly 1,800 more pleasure boats in the 

area waters today than just two years 

ago, with the largest increase occurring 

in boats between 16′ and 25′ in length. 

It is recognized that only a percentage 

of the vessels in the coastal waters of 

New Hanover County are equipped with 

a Marine Sanitation Device (MSD). To 

estimate the number of MSDs in use, 

percentages obtained from EPA (Region 

2) were applied, and are listed below: 

Boat length Percent with 

MSDs 

<16′ ........................................... 8.3 

16′–25′ ...................................... 10.6 

26′–40′ ...................................... 78.5 

>40′ ........................................... 82.6 

This yields an estimated 2,046 MSDs 

in use by registered boats within New 

Hanover County. 

Through the use of a marina survey, 

the number of transient boats serviced 

by marinas in New Hanover County was 

calculated to be approximately 180 per 

month. This figure was arrived at by 

using the peak season transient boat 

figures from each marina. Using the 

figures for both county and transient 

boats, the total number of MSDs in the 

New Hanover County waters is 

estimated to be 2,194. There are 9 

marinas within New Hanover County 

and this yields a ratio of about 244 boats 

per pumpout facility. This figure does 

not include the two marinas that are 

located within 7 nautical miles of this 

proposed NDZ area. 

All vessel pumpout facilities that are 

described either discharge into State 

approved and regulated septic tanks or 

State approved on-site waste treatment 

plant, or the waste is collected into a 

large holding tank for transport to a 

sewage treatment plant. Thus all vessel 

sewage will be treated to meet existing 

standards for secondary treatment. 

Based on the examination of this 

petition, its supporting documentation, 

and public response, EPA concurs with 

the State of North Carolina’s 

determination that adequate and 

reasonably available facilities for the 

safe and sanitary removal and treatment 

of sewage from all vessels are present in 

New Hanover County North Carolina, 

and therefore this area is designated as 

a NDZ. 

Dated: January 29, 2010. 

J. Scott Gordon, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3372 Filed 2–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0907; FRL–9114–6] 

RIN 2050–ZA05 

Guidance on Recommended Interim 

Preliminary Remediation Goals for 

Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA 

Sites; Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of public comment; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

the public, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is providing an 

additional 35 days for the public to 

provide its comments on the draft 

recommended interim preliminary 

remediation goals (PRGs) developed in 

the draft Guidance on Recommended 

Interim Preliminary Remediation Goals 

for Dioxin in Soil at Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) and Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites. In 

EPA’s initial notice, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 7, 2010 (75 FR 984), the 

deadline for the public to provide its 

comments was February 26, 2010. The 

purpose of this notice is to provide 

additional time until April 2, 2010. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Provide your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2009–0907, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

your views. 

• E-mail: OSWER.Docket@epa.gov. In 

contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s e-mail system is not an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you send 

an e-mail comment directly to the 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES