91296 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

their files, in accordance with the 

instructions below. Anyone submitting 

business confidential information 

should clearly identify the business 

confidential portion at the time of 

submission, file a statement justifying 

nondisclosure and referring to the 

specific legal authority claimed, and 

provide a non-confidential version of 

the submission. For comments 

submitted electronically containing 

business confidential information, the 

file name of the business confidential 

version should begin with the characters 

‘‘BC.’’ Any page containing business 

confidential information must be clearly 

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ 

on the top of that page. The 

corresponding non-confidential version 

of those comments must be clearly 

marked ‘‘PUBLIC.’’ The file name of the 

non-confidential version should begin 

with the character ‘‘P.’’ Any 

submissions with file names that do not 

begin with either a ‘‘BC’’ or a ‘‘P’’ will 

be assumed to be public and will be 

made publicly available at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Commenters 

submitting business confidential 

information are encouraged to scan a 

hard copy of the non-confidential 

version to create an image of the file, 

rather than submitting a digital copy 

with redactions applied, to avoid 

inadvertent redaction errors which 

could enable the public to read business 

confidential information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions, contact Joseph A. 

Cristofaro, Director, Sensors, Aerospace 

and Marine Division, Office of National 

Security Controls, Bureau of Industry 

and Security, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, at 202–482–2440 or by 

email: Joseph.Cristofaro@bis.doc.gov. 

For general questions, contact 

Regulatory Policy Division, Office of 

Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry 

and Security, U.S. Department of 

Commerce at 202–482–2440 or by email: 

RPD2@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 23, 2024, BIS published 

in the Federal Register the proposed 

rule, ‘‘Export Administration 

Regulations: Revisions to Space-Related 

Export Controls, Including Addition of 

License Exception Commercial Space 

Activities (CSA)’’ (RIN 0694–AH66) (89 

FR 84784), which proposes changes to 

controls for spacecraft and related items 

under the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR) that would conform 

to proposed changes to the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 

related to U.S. Munitions List (USML) 

Categories IV and XV. This rule also 

proposes the addition of a new license 

exception for certain Commercial Space 

Activities (CSA). This proposed rule is 

published alongside the Department of 

State proposed rule, ‘‘International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR): U.S. 

Munitions List Categories IV and XV’’ 

(1400–AE73), which includes proposed 

changes for certain space-related 

defense articles and related controls. 

These proposed rules are intended to 

better enable a globally competitive U.S. 

space industrial base while continuing 

to protect U.S. national security and 

foreign policy interests. In response to 

requests from the regulated community, 

the Department of Commerce is 

extending the comment period for this 

rule (RIN 0694–AH66) by 30 days. 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Strategic Trade and Technology Security. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26883 Filed 11–15–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Parts 120, 121, and 126 

[Public Notice: 12585; DOS–2024–0035] 

RIN 1400–AE73 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations: U.S. Munitions List 

Categories IV and XV; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

extending the comment period for a 

proposed rule published on October 23, 

2024. The original comment period 

required submission of comments on or 

before November 22, 2024. In response 

to requests from the public, the 

Department extends the comment 

period through December 23, 2024. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published October 23, 

2024, at 89 FR 84482, is extended. 

Comments should be received on or 

before December 23, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

• Email: DDTCPublicComments@

state.gov with the subject line: 

‘‘Regulatory Change: Categories IV and 

XV RIN 1400–AE73’’. 

• Internet: At www.regulations.gov, 

search for this notice, by docket number 

DOS–2024–0035. Additional 

instructions regarding submission of 

comments can be found in the 

document published at 89 FR 84482, 

October 23, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Rasmussen, Office of Defense 

Trade Controls Policy, Department of 

State, telephone (202) 663–2217; email 

DDTCCustomerService@state.gov; 

SUBJECT: International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations: USML Categories IV and 

XV (RIN 1400–AE73). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 23, 2024, the Department of 

State published a proposed rule (89 FR 

60980) proposing revisions to the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR, 22 CFR parts 120 

through 130). Specifically, the 

publication proposed to amend the 

ITAR to revise U.S. Munitions List 

(USML) Categories IV and XV and 

related sections of the ITAR to clarify 

and standardize the regulatory text, add 

items that warrant designation on the 

USML, and remove those items that no 

longer warrant designation on the 

USML. The publication further 

proposed to add three new license 

exemptions to the ITAR and requested 

public comment by November 22, 2024. 

In response to requests received from 

the public to extend the comment 

period, the Department of State is 

extending the comment period for the 

proposed rule for an additional 30 days, 

through December 23, 2024. 

Stanley L. Brown, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 

Political-Military Affairs, Department of 

State. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27059 Filed 11–15–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 166 

[Docket No. USCG–2024–0248] 

RIN 1625–AC97 

Shipping Safety Fairways in the Gulf of 

Maine 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks 

comments regarding the possible 

establishment of shipping safety 

fairways (‘‘fairways’’) in the Gulf of 

Maine identified in the Approaches to 

Maine, New Hampshire, and 

Massachusetts Port Access Route Study. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 91297 

1Port Access Route Study: Approaches to Maine, 

New Hampshire, and Massachusetts Final report, 

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/ 

pdf/PARS/FINAL_REPORT_Approaches_to_Maine_

New_Hampshire_and_Massachusetts_Port_Access_

Route_Study.pdf. Last accessed July 5, 2024. A 

notice of availability for the MNMPARS was 

published April 6, 2023 (88 FR 20547). 

This potential system of fairways is 

intended to ensure that traditional 

navigation routes are kept free from 

fixed structures that could impact 

navigation safety. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before January 21, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2024–0248 using the Federal DecisionMaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document call or 

email Mr. Brian Mottel, Coast Guard; 

telephone 202–372–1526, email 

David.B.Mottel2@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Background 

V. Information Requested 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

The Coast Guard views public 

participation as essential to effective 

rulemaking, and will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. Your comment can 

help shape the outcome of this 

rulemaking. If you submit a comment, 

please include the docket number for 

this rulemaking, indicate the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision-Making Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to 

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2024– 

0248 in the search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this document 

in the Search Results column, and click 

on it. Then click on the Comment 

option. If you cannot submit your 

material by using www.regulations.gov, 

call or email the person in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking as being 

available in the docket, find the docket 

as described in the previous paragraph, 

and then select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material’’ in the Document Type 

column. Public comments will also be 

placed in our online docket and can be 

viewed by following instructions on the 

www.regulations.gov ‘‘Frequently Asked 

Questions’’ web page. That web page 

also explains how to subscribe for email 

alerts that will notify you when 

comments are posted or if a final rule is 

published. We review all comments 

received, but we will only post 

comments that address the topic of this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 

We may choose not to post off-topic, 

inappropriate, or duplicate comments 

that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see the 

Department of Homeland Security’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

Public meeting. We do not plan to 

hold a public meeting, but we will 

consider doing so if we determine from 

public comments that a meeting would 

be helpful. We would issue a separate 

Federal Register notice to announce the 

date, time, and location of such a 

meeting. 

II. Abbreviations 

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

Fairways Shipping safety fairways 

FR Federal Register 

MNMPARS Approaches to Maine-New 

Hampshire-Massachusetts Port Access 

Route Study 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

§ Section 

TSS Traffic separation scheme 

U.S.C. United States Code 

WEA Wind Energy Area 

III. Basis and Purpose 

The purpose of this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is to 

seek public input on the potential 

establishment of shipping safety 

fairways (‘‘fairways’’) in the Gulf of 

Maine. The fairway locations would be 

added to title 33 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 166. The 

Approaches to Maine, New Hampshire, 

and Massachusetts Port Access Route 

Study (MNMPARS) 1 found that 

fairways are needed to preserve safe 

navigation routes to and from U.S. ports 

throughout the study area, and 

recommended coordinates for these 

fairways. The Coast Guard is 

considering these coordinates as its 

starting point for the potential 

establishment of fairways in the Gulf of 

Maine. 

Establishing the recommended 

fairways would prohibit artificial 

islands or fixed structures within 

designated areas and would reduce the 

risk of vessel collisions, allisions, and 

groundings. Fairways would also reduce 

the potential for increased transit time 

and associated economic impacts that 

could result from redirecting vessel 

traffic, should offshore structures be 

integrated into the Marine 

Transportation System on the outer 

continental shelf (OCS). 

The MNMPARS and follow-on 

analysis confirmed the need to codify 

traditional routes into fairways in the 

study area. As such, the Coast Guard 

believes it is prudent to proceed with an 

ANPRM, followed by a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and final 

rule. This strategy enables robust 

engagement with interested persons 

who may not have contributed to the 

MNMPARS, supports further evolution 

of regulatory alternatives, enhances the 

Coast Guard’s understanding of regional 

spatial planning needs, and reduces the 

need for a supplemental NPRM before a 

final rule. 

The legal basis for the potential 

establishment of fairways is Title 46 of 

the United States Code (U.S.C.), section 

70003; Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Delegation No. 

00170.1(II)(70), Revision No. 01.4. 

IV. Background 

The First Coast Guard District 

conducted the MNMPARS from March 

31, 2022, to April 6, 2023. The study 

concluded that vessels transiting in the 

vicinity of offshore renewable energy 

lease areas may be affected, especially 

near or within traditional vessel traffic 

routes. Existing traffic separation 

schemes (TSSs) are established for 

vessels entering and exiting the ports of 

Portland, ME and Boston, MA; however, 

the TSSs do not extend far enough into 

the OCS to account for planned offshore 

renewable energy development within 

the study area. 

Currently, no commercial leases have 

been awarded in the MNMPARS study 

area; however, on March 15, 2024, the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
91298 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2 ‘‘BOEM Finalizes Wind Energy Area in the Gulf 

of Maine and Announces Upcoming Environmental 

Review of Potential Offshore Wind Leasing 

Activities,’’ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; 

https://www.boem.gov/newsroom/press-releases/ 

boem-finalizes-wind-energy-area-gulf-maine-andannounces-upcoming. Last accessed April 23, 2024. 

(BOEM) announced 2 the designation of 

a Final Wind Energy Area (WEA) in the 

Gulf of Maine, containing 

approximately 2 million acres of Federal 

waters for potential leasing. The agency 

issued a Final Sale Notice on September 

17, 2024, identifying the final lease 

areas that will be auctioned at an 

October 29, 2024 lease sale. A portion 

of BOEM’s initially proposed lease areas 

(OCS–A–562 and OCS–A–563) 

overlapped the recommended Gulf of 

Maine Fairway identified in the 

MNMPARS. However, BOEM’s Final 

Sale Notice removes the conflicting 

overlap with the recommended fairway 

in the final lease areas. 

In addition, BOEM has finalized and 

issued a 15,000-acre research lease to 

the State of Maine with an effective date 

of Sep 1, 2024. The project would 

construct up to 12 floating wind 

turbines adjacent to the Eastern 

Approach TSS, which is approximately 

20 nautical miles off the coast of 

Portland, ME. BOEM, USCG, and the 

state of Maine have worked together to 

deconflict the research lease with the 

recommended fairways and existing 

navigation safety systems. In order to 

provide a dependable and safe corridor 

for mariners in the area, the Coast Guard 

is considering an alternative fairway 

design for the Portland Eastern 

Approach Fairway that is different in 

design than the fairway recommended 

by the MNMPARS. This alternative 

fairway design is intended to meet 

vessel traffic needs, while also 

considering other uses of the waterway. 

In summary, the Coast Guard is 

seeking input on the potential to 

establish four fairways, as 

recommended by the MNMPARS 

(Massachusetts Bay Fairway, Coastal 

Zone Fairway, Portland Southern 

Approach Fairway, and Gulf of Maine 

Fairway), and one fairway (Portland 

Eastern Approach Fairway) that is a 

different design than the fairway 

recommended by the MNMPARS. 

V. Information Requested 

In this ANPRM, the Coast Guard seeks 

information and your input to assist us 

in establishing, through a potential 

future rulemaking, fairways in the Gulf 

of Maine. The Coast Guard seeks public 

comments, positive or negative, on the 

impacts that the potential fairways may 

have on navigational safety and on other 

activities in these offshore areas to aid 

us in developing an NPRM and the 

supporting analyses. 

Where possible and pertinent, please 

provide sources, citations, and 

references to back up or justify your 

responses. Also, for all pertinent 

responses, please provide a detailed 

explanation of how you arrived at this 

conclusion, and your underlying 

assessment that supports your 

conclusion. Finally, for all numerical 

responses, please provide us with 

sufficient information to recreate your 

calculations. 

The following questions were 

designed to scope this process: 

A. General Questions 

The Coast Guard encourages all 

respondents to review and reference the 

MNMPARS, specifically the Executive 

Summary, Purpose, and Background 

sections, as well as the illustrations, 

when responding to the following 

questions. These resources can be found 

in the docket. 

1. Do the recommended fairways 

provide safe and efficient routes for 

vessels transiting to and from 

international ports and the United 

States? Why or why not? If not, what 

would you recommend instead? 

2. Are the recommended fairways 

described in this ANPRM necessary for 

ensuring a safe and orderly passage for 

vessels transiting among U.S. domestic 

ports of call? Why or why not? Please 

explain your answer, including your 

specific comments on how the fairways 

described in this ANPRM would affect 

maritime traffic patterns, navigational 

safety, and access to ports. 

3. Are there any positive or negative 

impacts of not establishing the 

recommended fairways noted in this 

ANPRM? If so, please describe them. 

4. If these recommended fairways are 

established, how would commercial 

fishing vessels be positively or 

negatively impacted? 

5. If these recommended fairways are 

established, what other persons, 

entities, or organizations would be 

positively or negatively impacted? In 

other words, which groups of people, 

businesses, or industries (maritime and 

non-maritime) would be positively or 

negatively impacted by these potential 

fairways? 

6. What other offshore uses may be 

positively or negatively affected by the 

recommended fairways? Please include 

specific locations, potential impact, and 

associated costs or benefits. Please also 

describe the safety significance of the 

recommended fairways on the activity. 

7. Do the recommended fairways 

unduly limit offshore development? If 

so, is there information on costs, or cost 

model or structure that should be 

considered for analysis? 

8. From an environmental 

perspective, would the recommended 

fairways (on traditional routes) 

negatively impact living marine 

resources? If so, which marine resources 

would be impacted and how? What 

measures should the Coast Guard take to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate any such 

impacts? 

9. Beyond the environmental impacts 

mentioned in question 8, are there any 

other positive or negative environmental 

impacts from the recommended 

fairways? If so, please provide detail as 

to how and what would be impacted. To 

the degree possible, please provide the 

data, impact assessments, and other 

pertinent background information 

necessary to understand and reproduce 

your results. 

10. Are there additional measures that 

should be considered to improve safety 

or to relieve the area should an 

economic burden be imposed by the 

recommended fairways? What are the 

expected costs and/or associated 

benefits of the suggested additional 

measures? 

11. Are there other variables that 

should be considered in developing this 

system of recommended fairways? If so, 

please indicate particular issues and the 

specific areas to which they pertain. 

12. Have there been any offshore 

developments built or installed in the 

past 10 years that have impacted traffic 

patterns, navigational safety, or 

maritime commerce? If so, were the net 

impacts positive or negative? Please 

provide a detailed explanation of how 

you arrived at this conclusion. 

13. Please offer any other comments 

or suggestions that may improve this 

initiative. 

B. Portland Eastern Approach Fairway 

The Coast Guard is proposing a 

Portland Eastern Approach Fairway that 

is slightly different in design than the 

fairway recommended by the 

MNMPARS. The fairway contemplated 

in this ANPRM is designed to meet the 

needs of vessel traffic entering and 

departing the Port of Portland via the 

Eastern Approach TSS, while also 

considering the state of Maine’s lease 

adjacent to the TSS to develop a 15,000- 

acre research array of up to 12 floating 

offshore wind turbines. 

1. Are there any positive or negative 

impacts from the recommended 

Portland Eastern Approach Fairway? 

Please explain your answer, including 

specific comments on how this 

recommended fairway would affect 

maritime traffic patterns, navigational 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 91299 

safety, marine or other environmental 

resources, and access to ports. 

2. Does the recommended Portland 

Eastern Approach Fairway provide a 

safe and efficient route for vessels 

transiting to and from the Eastern 

Approach TSS? Why or why not? If not, 

what would you recommend instead? 

3. Would the recommended Portland 

Eastern Approach Fairway have any 

positive or negative environmental 

impacts? 

4. Would the recommended Portland 

Eastern Approach Fairway have any 

positive or negative tribal impacts? 

C. Gulf of Maine Fairway 

The Coast Guard is proposing a Gulf 

of Maine Fairway to meet the needs of 

vessel traffic primarily proceeding 

between Boston, Massachusetts, and the 

Bay of Fundy. The Coast Guard may 

consider design alternatives to the 

recommended Gulf of Maine Fairway to 

ensure safe transit for vessels, while 

providing ocean space for wind energy 

leasing. 

1. Are there any positive or negative 

economic impacts from the 

recommended Gulf of Maine Fairway? 

2. Is the recommended Gulf of Maine 

Fairway necessary to provide safe and 

efficient routes for vessels transiting to 

and from domestic and international 

ports? Why or why not? If not, what 

would you recommend instead? 

3. What are the positive or negative 

vessel transit impacts to altering the 

recommended fairway’s design, 

location, and characteristics, such as 

narrower width and change in cardinal 

direction? Please explain your answer, 

including specific comments on how 

any changes to this recommended 

fairway would affect maritime traffic 

patterns, navigational safety, marine or 

other environmental resources, and 

access to ports. 

4. What other offshore uses may be 

positively or negatively impacted by 

alteration to this recommended fairway 

design, location, and characteristics, 

such as narrower width and change in 

cardinal direction? Please include 

specific locations, potential impact, and 

associated costs or benefits. Please also 

describe the safety significance of 

alterations to this recommended fairway 

on other offshore use activity. 

5. If this fairway is established as 

recommended, what persons, entities, or 

organizations would be positively or 

negatively impacted? In other words, 

which groups of people, businesses, or 

industries (maritime and non-maritime) 

would be positively or negatively 

impacted by this recommended fairway? 

6. Would the recommended Gulf of 

Maine Fairway have any positive or 

negative environmental impacts? 

7. Would the recommended Gulf of 

Maine Fairway have any positive or 

negative tribal impacts? 

Linda L. Fagan, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26830 Filed 11–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 751 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2024–0403; FRL–11628– 

01–OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AL16 

N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-pphenylenediamine (6PPD) and its 

Transformation Product, 6PPDquinone; Regulatory Investigation 

Under the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: In granting a petition filed 

under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) by Earthjustice on behalf of the 

Yurok Tribe, the Port Gamble S’Klallam 

Tribe, and the Puyallup Tribe of 

Indians, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) committed to 

pursuing an action to solicit and collect 

information from the public on the 

potential risks associated with N-(1,3- 

Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-pphenylenediamine (6PPD) (CASRN 793– 

24–8, DTXSID 9025114) and its 

transformation product, 6PPD-quinone 

(CASRN 2754428–18–5, DTXSID 

301034849). With this document, EPA is 

soliciting that information, along with 

information about potential alternatives 

and regulatory options to help inform 

the Agency’s consideration of potential 

future regulatory actions under TSCA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 21, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2024–0403, 

through https://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

and visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information: Wyn 

Zenni, Existing Chemicals Risk 

Management Division (7404M), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

565–6294; email address: zenni.wyn@

epa.gov. 

For general information on TSCA: The 

TSCA Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture 

(including import), process (including 

recycling), distribute in commerce, 

dispose of, or use 6PPD and/or 6PPDquinone. The following list of North 

American Industry 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: 

• 325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment 

Manufacturing; 

• 325199 All Other Basic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing ; 

• 325212 Synthetic Rubber 

Manufacturing; 

• 325998 All Other Miscellaneous 

Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing; 

• 326211 Tire Manufacturing (Except 

Retreading); 

• 326291 Rubber Product 

Manufacturing for Mechanical Use; 

• 336999 All Other Transportation 

Equipment Manufacturing; and 

• 424690 Other Chemical and Allied 

Products Merchant Wholesalers. 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to you, 

please consult the technical information 

contact listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This action is being taken under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 

TSCA section 21 allows any person to 

petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding for the issuance, 

amendment, or repeal of a rule under 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1