[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25331-25332]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10079]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69440; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
FINRA Rule 2267 (Investor Education and Protection)

April 24, 2013.
    On January 7, 2013, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 2267 (Investor Education and
Protection) to require that members include a prominent description of
and link to FINRA BrokerCheck, as prescribed by FINRA, on their Web
sites, social media pages, and any comparable Internet presence, and on
Web sites, social media pages, and any comparable Internet presence
relating to a member's investment banking or securities business
maintained by or on behalf of any person associated with a member. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on January 25, 2013.\3\ The Commission received 24 comment letters on
the proposal.\4\ On March 7,

2013, the Commission extended the time period in which to either
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change, to April 25, 2013.\5\ On April 18, 2013, FINRA
withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68700 (Jan. 18,
2013), 78 FR 5542.
    \4\ See Letter from Charles Barker, dated Jan. 29, 2013; Letter
from David M. Sobel, Esq., Abel/Noser Corp., dated Jan. 30, 2013;
Letter from Pamela Albanese, Legal Intern, and Christine Lazaro,
Esq., Acting Director, St. John's University School of Law,
Securities Arbitration Clinic, dated Feb. 4, 2013; Letter from Peter
J. Chepucavage, General Counsel, Plexus Consulting Group, LLC, dated
Feb. 6, 2013; Letter from Jonathan W. Evans and Michael S. Edmiston,
Jonathan W. Evans Associates, dated Feb. 10, 2013; Letter from Scott
R. Shewan, Pape Shewan, LLP, dated Feb. 11, 2013; Letter from David
Neuman, Stoltmann Law Offices, dated Feb. 12, 2013; Letter from
Barry D. Estell, dated Feb. 12, 2013; Letter from Scott C.
Ilgenfritz, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association,
dated Feb. 13, 2013; Letter from Bert Savage, dated Feb. 13, 2013;
Letter from William A. Jacobson, Esq., Associate Clinical Professor,
Cornell Law School, Director, Securities Law Clinic, and Alexander
Wingate, Cornell Law School, dated Feb. 14, 2013; Letter from A.
Heath Abshure, President, North American Securities Administrators
Association, Inc., dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from Robert J.
McCarthy, Director of Regulatory Policy, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC,
dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from Tamara K. Salmon, Senior Associate
Counsel, Investment Company Institute, dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter
from David T. Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice President & General
Counsel, Financial Services Institute, dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter
from Scott A. Eichhorn, Supervising Attorney, and Julianne S.
Bisceglia, Legal Intern, University of Miami School of Law, Investor
Rights Clinic, dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from Melissa MacGregor,
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association, dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from
Brendan Daly, Legal and Compliance Counsel, Commonwealth Financial
Network, dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from James Cooper, Chief
Operating Officer, Zions Direct, dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from
Melissa Callison, Vice President, Compliance, Charles Schwab & Co.,
Inc, dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from James Smith, Chief Compliance
Officer, BlackRock Investments, LLC, Ned Montenecourt, Chief
Compliance Officer, BlackRock Capital Markets, LLC, BlackRock
Execution Services, and Joanne Medero, Managing Director, BlackRock,
Inc., dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from Clifford E. Kirsch and Eric
A. Arnold, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, for the Committee of
Annuity Insurers, dated Feb. 15, 2013; Letter from Steven B. Caruso,
Maddox Hargett Caruso, P.C., dated Feb. 16, 2013; and Letter from
Lisa Catalano, Esq., dated Feb. 18, 2013.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69063, 78 FR 15994
(Mar. 13, 2013).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10079 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32192-32193]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13875]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Extension: Rule 204; SEC File No. 270-586, OMB Control No. 3235-0647]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 204 (17 CFR 242.204) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 204 requires that, subject to certain limited exceptions, if a
participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to deliver
position at a registered clearing agency it must immediately close out
the fail to deliver position by purchasing or borrowing securities by
no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the settlement
day following the day the participant incurred the fail to deliver
position. Rule 204 is intended to help further the Commission's goal of
reducing fails to deliver by maintaining the reductions in fails to
deliver achieved by the adoption of temporary Rule 204T, as well as
other actions taken by the Commission. In addition, Rule 204 is
intended to help further the Commission's goal of addressing
potentially abusive ``naked'' short selling in all equity securities.
    The information collected under Rule 204 will continue to be
retained and/or provided to other entities pursuant to the specific
rule provisions and will be available to the Commission and self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') examiners upon request. The
information collected will continue to aid the Commission and SROs in
monitoring compliance with these requirements. In addition, the
information collected will aid those subject to Rule 204 in complying
with its requirements. These collections of information are mandatory.
    Several provisions under Rule 204 will impose a ``collection of
information'' within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    I. Allocation Notification Requirement: As of December 31, 2014,
there were 4,184 registered broker-dealers. Each of these broker-
dealers could clear trades through a participant of a registered
clearing agency and, therefore, become subject to the notification
requirements of Rule 204(d). If a broker-dealer has been allocated a
portion of a fail to deliver position in an equity security and after
the beginning of regular trading hours on the applicable close-out
date, the broker-dealer has to determine whether or not that portion of
the fail to deliver position was not closed out in accordance with Rule
204(a). We estimate that a broker-dealer will have to make such
determination with respect to approximately 2.44 equity securities per
day.\1\ We estimate a total of 2,572,657 notifications in accordance
with Rule 204(d) across all broker-dealers (that were allocated
responsibility to close out a fail to deliver position) per year (4,184
broker-dealers notifying participants once per day \2\ on 2.44
securities, multiplied by 252 trading days in a year). The total
estimated annual burden hours per year will be approximately 411,625
burden hours (2,572,657 multiplied by 0.16 hours/notification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis
(``DERA'') estimates that there are approximately 10,208 fail to
deliver positions per settlement day as of January 2015. Across
4,184 broker-dealers, the number of securities per broker-dealer per
day is approximately 2.44 equity securities.
    \2\ Because failure to comply with the close-out requirements of
Rule 204(a) is a violation of the rule, we believe that a broker-
dealer would make the notification to a participant that it is
subject to the borrowing requirements of Rule 204(b) at most once
per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    II. Demonstration Requirement for Fails to Deliver on Long Sales:
As of December 31, 2014, there were 175 participants of NSCC, the
primary registered clearing agency responsible for clearing U.S.
transactions that were registered as broker-dealers.\3\ If a
participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to deliver
position in an equity security at a registered clearing agency and
determines that such fail to deliver position resulted from a long
sale, we estimate that a participant of a registered clearing agency
will have to make such determination with respect to approximately 38
securities per day.\4\ We estimate a total of 1,675,800 demonstrations
in accordance with Rule 204(a)(1) across all participants per year (175
participants checking for compliance once per day on 38 securities,
multiplied by 252 trading days in a year). The total approximate
estimated annual burden hour per year will be approximately 268,128
burden hours (1,675,800 multiplied by 0.16 hours/documentation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Those participants not registered as broker-dealers include
such entities as banks, U.S.-registered exchanges, and clearing
agencies. Although these entities are participants of a registered
clearing agency, generally these entities do not engage in the types
of activities that will implicate the close-out requirements of the
rule. Such activities of these entities include creating and
redeeming Exchange Traded Funds, trading in municipal securities,
and using NSCC's Envelope Settlement Service or Inter-city Envelope
Settlement Service. These activities rarely lead to fails to deliver
and, if fails to deliver do occur, they are small in number and are
usually closed out within a day.
    \4\ DERA estimates approximately 65.1% of trades are long sales
and applies this percentage to the number of fail to deliver
positions per day as of March 2014. DERA estimates that there are
approximately 10,208 fail to deliver positions per settlement day as
of January 2015. Across 175 broker-dealer participants of the NSCC,
the number of securities per participant per day is approximately 58
equity securities. 65.1% of 58 securities per day is approximately
38 securities per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    III. Pre-Borrow Notification Requirement: As of December 31, 2014,
there were 175 participants of NSCC, the primary registered clearing
agency responsible for clearing U.S. transactions that were registered
as broker-dealers.\5\ If a participant of a registered clearing agency
has a fail to deliver position in an equity security and after the
beginning of regular trading hours on the applicable close-out date,
the participant has to determine whether or not the fail to deliver
position was closed out in accordance with Rule 204(a). We estimate
that a participant of a registered clearing agency will have to make
such determination with respect to approximately 58 equity securities
per day.\6\ We estimate a total of 2,557,800 notifications in
accordance with Rule 204(c) across all participants per year (175
participants notifying broker-dealers once per day on 58 securities,
multiplied by 252 trading days in a year). The total estimated annual
burden hours per year will be approximately 409,248 burden hours
(2,557,800 @0.16 hours/documentation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See supra note 3.
    \6\ DERA estimates that there are approximately 10,208 fail to
deliver positions per day as of January 2015. Across 175 broker-
dealer participants of the NSCC, the number of securities per
participant per day is approximately 58 equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IV. Certification Requirement: If the broker-dealer determines that
it has not incurred a fail to deliver position on settlement date in an
equity security for which the participant has a fail to deliver
position at a registered clearing agency or has purchased securities in
accordance with the conditions specified in Rule 204(e), we estimate
that a broker-dealer will have to make such determinations with respect
to

approximately 2.44 securities per day. As of December 31, 2014, there
were 4,184 registered broker-dealers. Each of these broker-dealers may
clear trades through a participant of a registered clearing agency. We
estimate that on average, a broker-dealer will have to certify to the
participant that it has not incurred a fail to deliver position on
settlement date in an equity security for which the participant has a
fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency or,
alternatively, that it is in compliance with the requirements set forth
in Rule 204(e), 2,572,657 times per year (4,184 broker-dealers
certifying once per day on 2.44 securities, multiplied by 252 trading
days in a year). The total approximate estimated annual burden hour per
year will be approximately 411,625 burden hours (2,572,657 multiplied
by 0.16 hours/certification).
    V. Pre-Fail Credit Demonstration Requirement: If a broker-dealer
purchases or borrows securities in accordance with the conditions
specified in Rule 204(e) and determines that it has a net long position
or net flat position on the settlement day on which the broker-dealer
purchases or borrows securities we estimate that a broker-dealer will
have to make such determination with respect to approximately 2.44
securities per day.\7\ As of December 31, 2014, there were 4,184
registered broker-dealers. We estimate that on average, a broker-dealer
will have to demonstrate in its books and records that it has a net
long position or net flat position on the settlement day for which the
broker-dealer is claiming credit, 2,572,657 times per year (4,184
broker-dealers checking for compliance once per day on 2.44 securities,
multiplied by 252 trading days in a year). The total approximate
estimated annual burden hour per year will be approximately 411,625
burden hours (2,572,657 multiplied by 0.16 hours/demonstration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total aggregate annual burden for the collection of information
undertaken pursuant to all five provisions is thus 1,912,251 hours per
year (411,625 + 268,128 + 409,248 + 411,625 + 411,625).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE. Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 2, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13875 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55800-55801]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0062]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Devices; Exception From
General Requirements for Informed Consent

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Medical Devices; Exception From
General Requirements for Informed Consent'' has been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 23, 2014, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Medical Devices;
Exception From General Requirements for Informed Consent'' to OMB for
review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0586.
The approval expires on August 31, 2017. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: September 11, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-22089 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36403-36404]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0096; Notice 1]

Tesla Motors, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2008 Roadster 1.5 passenger cars do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.4(c)(2), of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. TESLA has filed an
appropriate report dated August 1, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Tesla's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Tesla
submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Tesla's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 542 MY 2008
Roadster 1.5 passenger cars manufactured from February 1, 2008 through
October 29, 2009.
    III. Noncompliance: Tesla explains that if a fault is detected in a
sensor, because the sensor is faulty, missing or unapproved, the Tire
Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) malfunction telltale will flash for
60 to 90 seconds and then remain continuously illuminated as required
by FMVSS No. 138. However, the TPMS malfunction telltale fails to
operate properly when a faulty, missing or unapproved sensor is
detected and then the vehicle's ignition is cycled off and back on. In
this situation, the malfunction telltale in the

subject vehicles does not re-illuminate immediately as required when
the ignition locking system is re-activated. Instead, the affected
vehicles must reach a speed between 20 mph and 25 mph for a maximum
period of at least 90 seconds before the TPMS malfunction telltale re-
illuminates.
    Rule Text: Paragraph S4.4(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 138 requires in
pertinent part:

    S4.4 TPMS Malfunction.
    (c) Combination low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. The
vehicle meets the requirements of S4.4(a) when equipped with a
combined Low Tire Pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale that:
    (2) Flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer
than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition specified in S4.4(a)
after the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On''
(``Run'') position. After each period of prescribed flashing, the
telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a
malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the ``On''
(``Run'') position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be
repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the
``On'' (``Run'') position until the situation causing the
malfunction has been corrected. . . .
    V. Summary of Tesla's Analyses: Tesla stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
    (A) Tesla states that they provide warnings and alerts in several
ways above and beyond the minimal requirements of the regulations.
Specifically, the TPMS on the subject vehicles automatically checks the
wheel sensors fitted on the vehicle. The TPMS then checks the tire
pressure from each sensor and that the check system for tire pressure
occurs prior to the vehicle moving. The TPMS detects one or more new
sensors (meaning different from those calibrated by the TPMS during the
vehicles last ignition cycle), the TPMS will automatically ``learn''
the new sensors. After calibration, the TPMS will again review all four
tires for any low pressure situation.
    If a low pressure situation occurs in one or more of the four tires
on the vehicle, the system will continuously illuminate the combined
low pressure/malfunction indicator lamp (MIL), thus providing the
driver a timely warning of low tire pressure. In addition, the subject
vehicles are also equipped with an auxiliary screen that provides
additional warnings and information regarding a low pressure condition.
When one or more of the four tires have a detected low tire pressure
condition, the auxiliary screen in the lower portion of the center
console area will automatically display an alert screen alerting the
driver to a low tire pressure condition. In addition, the auxiliary
screen will also display a diagram of the vehicle and note the tire at
issue in a conspicuous manner. The system's auxiliary screen will also
show the condition of all remaining tires. Information regarding the
status of the tire pressures is available to the driver through a menu
on this auxiliary screen at any time, even if the tires are properly
inflated. This type of detailed information and multiple alerts ensures
the drivers are well informed of a potential low tire pressure
condition.
    (B) Tesla also states that the TPMS only fails to operate properly
when a faulty, missing or non-approved sensor is detected and the
ignition is cycled. Specifically, if such a fault is detected, but the
ignition is then cycled off, then on, the MIL will reset, thus
requiring the system to re-detect the fault or missing or unapproved
sensor versus immediately re-illuminating the MIL from the previously
detected fault. The noncompliance is confined to this one particular
aspect of TPMS function. All other functions remain in compliance with
the requirements of FMVSS No. 138.
    (C) Tesla further stated that although the MIL fails to re-
illuminate immediately after a subsequent ignition off/on cycle, the
TPMS remains functional. As a result, the system will still accurately
detect the continued presence of a fault in a sensor and illuminate the
MIL anew. Specifically, after ignition off/on, the TPMS will detect
anew the faulty, missing or non-approved sensor and the MIL will flash
for 60-90 seconds before staying on. This will occur no more than 90
seconds after the vehicle reaches a speed of between 20mph and 25 mph.
Once illuminated, the MIL will remain on throughout the course of the
ignition cycle, regardless of further operating speeds or other
conditions. Moreover, the additional warnings via the ``fault'' display
in the dashboard, and the auxiliary display warnings will appear anew.
Clearing the new warning in the auxiliary screen will once again
require the driver to actively clear the screen. Tesla believes this is
especially effective in notifying vehicle operators in that the
reanimation of the center auxiliary screen warning and subsequent
action required to clear the screen ensures review of the warning by
the driver.
    (D) Tesla says they have not received any complaints, noted any
issues, or had any incidents or other issues relating to the failure of
the TPMS module noncompliance.
    In summation, Tesla believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt Tesla from providing recall notification
of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the
recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Tesla no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Tesla
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-15424 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 67)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17712-17720]
[DOCID:fr07ap06-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0197, FRL-8054-6]
RIN 2060-AK09

Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final decision.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes our decision not to revise the Ethylene
Oxide Emission Standards for Sterilization Facilities, originally
promulgated on December 6, 1994. Within 8 years of promulgating these
standards, the Clean Air Act directs us to assess the risk and to
promulgate more stringent standards if necessary to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety and to prevent adverse
environmental effects. Also, within 8 years of promulgating the
national emission standards, the Clean Air Act requires us to review
and revise the standards as necessary, taking into account developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies. Today's action
reflects our findings that after conducting these risk and technology
reviews, no additional control requirements are warranted.

DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0197. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General and Technical Information. Mr.
David Markwordt, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E-143-
01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number (919) 685-
3195, electronic mail (e-mail) address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Residual Risk Assessment Information. Mr. Mark Morris, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts
Division, Sector Based Assessment Group (C539-02), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic
mail (e-mail) address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The regulated categories
and entities affected by the national emission standards include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                  NAICS a         (SIC b)             Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................          329112          (3841)  Operations at major and area sources that
                                          339113          (3842)   sterilize or fumigate medical supplies,
                                          325412          (2834)   pharmaceuticals, and spice.
                                          311942          (2099)
                                          311423          (2034)
Federal/State/ local/tribal
 governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System.
b Standard Industrial Classification.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
national emission standards. To determine whether your facility would
be affected by the national emission standards, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.360. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of the national emission standards to a
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final decision will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature, a copy of the final decision will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.

    Judicial Review. Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1),
judicial review of this final decision is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by June 6, 2006. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to a rule or procedure
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2)
of the CAA, the requirements established by the final decision may not
be challenged separately in civil or criminal proceedings brought to
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
    A. What Is the Statutory Authority for These Actions?
    B. What Did We propose?
II. Risk and Technology Review Final Decision
III. Summary of Comments and Responses
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for These Actions?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a comprehensive regulatory
process to address hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In implementing this process, we have identified categories of
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in the CAA, and ethylene
oxide sterilization facilities are identified as both major and area
source categories. Section 112(d) requires us to promulgate national
technology-based emission standards for sources within those categories
that emit or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10
tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or
more per year (known as major sources), as well as for certain area
sources emitting less than those amounts. These technology-based
national emission standards for HAP (NESHAP) must reflect the maximum
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and nonair health and environmental impacts) and are
commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards. We promulgated the National Emission Standards for Ethylene
Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations Facilities at
59 FR 62585 on December 6, 1994 (Ethylene Oxide Sterilization NESHAP).
As for area sources, we established MACT standards for certain emission
points pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and generally available control
technology (GACT) standards for other emission points pursuant to
section 112(d)(5).
    In what is referred to as the technology review, we are required
under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA to review these technology-based
standards no less frequently than every 8 years. Further, if we
conclude that a revision is necessary, we have the authority to revise
these standards, taking into account ``developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies.''
    The residual risk review is described in section 112(f) of the CAA.
Section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for each section 112(d)
source category, except area source categories for which we issued a
GACT standard, whether the NESHAP protects public health with an ample
margin of safety (AMOS). If the NESHAP for HAP ``classified as a known,
probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source
in the category or subcategory to less than one in one million,'' we
must decide whether additional reductions are necessary to provide an
ample margin of safety. As part of this decision, we may consider
costs, technological feasibility, uncertainties, or other relevant
factors. We must determine whether more stringent standards are
necessary to prevent adverse environmental effect (defined in section
112(a)(7)) as ``any significant and widespread adverse effect, which
may reasonably be anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or other
natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas,'' but in making this decision
we must consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant factors.

B. What Did We Propose?

    We promulgated the Ethylene Oxide Sterilization NESHAP in 1994. On
October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61406), we proposed not to revise the Ethylene
Oxide Sterilization NESHAP and requested public comments on the
residual risk and technology review for the Ethylene Oxide
Sterilization NESHAP.

II. Risk and Technology Review Final Decision

    In our proposal, we presented the analysis and conclusions on
residual risk and technology review, concluding that the maximum
individual cancer risk for this source category already meets the level
we generally consider acceptable, and that further control requirements
would achieve, at best, minimal emission and risk reductions at a very
high cost from emission vents controlled with MACT at both major and
area sources. Further, the analyses showed that both the chronic
noncancer and acute risks from this source category are below their
respective relevant health thresholds, and that there are no adverse
impacts to the environment (i.e., ecological risks). As a result, we
concluded that no additional control should be required because an
ample margin of safety (considering cost, technical feasibility, and
other factors) has been achieved by the NESHAP MACT requirements for
the

ethylene oxide major and area source categories.
    In the technology review, we concluded that additional controls at
existing sources would achieve, at best, minimal emission and risk
reductions at a very high cost. Additionally, we did not identify any
significant developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies since promulgation of the original standards in 1994 which
represent the best controls that can be implemented nationally. Thus,
we proposed no additional controls under the technology review under
CAA section 112(d)(6).
    We conclude in this rulemaking, as proposed, that there is not a
need to revise the Ethylene Oxide Sterilization NESHAP under the
provisions of CAA section 112(f) or 112(d)(6).

III. Summary of Comments and Responses

    The proposal provided a 45-day comment period ending December 8,
2005. We received comments from eight commenters. Commenters included
three State agencies, one State and local agency association, three
industry trade associations, and one coalition of trade associations.
We have considered the public comments as discussed below and did not
find that the comments changed any of our determinations.

1. Source Category Risk Approach

    Comment: One commenter disagreed that EPA can utilize approaches
different from that specified in the Benzene NESHAP. The commenter
believes that EPA misinterpreted the CAA legislative history stating
that EPA could read section 112(f)(2)(B) as directing it to use the
interpretation set out in the Benzene NESHAP or use approaches
affording the same level of protection. According to the commenter, EPA
must use only the Benzene NESHAP approach and cannot use any other
approach by relying on a Senate manager's statement that EPA should
interpret the section 112(f)(2)(B) requirement to establish standards
reflecting an ample margin of safety in a manner no less protective of
the most exposed individual than the policy set forth in the Benzene
NESHAP.
    Response: In the proposed rule, EPA followed the approach set out
in National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESAHP):
Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene
Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-
Product Recovery Plants, 54 FR 38044 (September 14, 1989). EPA used the
two-step decision process of first determining a level of acceptable
risk followed by finding an ample margin of safety. As the commenter
concedes EPA's approach is fully consistent with the Benzene NESHAP
approach and therefore acceptable. Since, in this instance, EPA did not
use any other approach, the comment is not applicable to this
particular rulemaking.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Congress was clear in requiring
EPA to evaluate only the risks from an individual source category or
subcategory in establishing residual risk standards. The commenter
stated EPA should not include the risk from area sources in determining
whether risks from the major source category exceeds the one-in-a-
million risk trigger under section 112(f)(2) or in making judgments on
acceptable risk and ample margin of safety for major sources.
    Response: We listed separate source categories for major and area
commercial sterilization facilities under section 112(c) of the CAA,
and we agree with the commenter that a separate determination of
acceptable risk and ample margin of safety should be made for each
source category under section 112(f) of the CAA. Our risk assessment
for commercial sterilization facilities includes risk estimates for all
known sources, including mostly major sources and the area sources with
the highest emissions. Only two area sources have estimated cancer risk
greater than 1 in 1 million (highest is 20 in 1 million), and no area
sources have modeled ethylene oxide concentrations near the reference
concentration. For additional information on our risk assessment of
area sources see section III.2.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, we stated that risks were
acceptable considering all known sources (major and area sources) and
that an ample margin of safety was achieved without control
requirements beyond those in the current standards. Although the
preamble to the proposed rule does not discuss separate determinations
of acceptability and ample margin of safety for major and areas source
categories, our conclusions would not have changed whether we had
considered all sources together, or separately for major sources and
area sources.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA did not comprehensively
consider the plants' impacts because it did not consider all HAP
emissions or all source categories at the facilities. The commenter
stated that in considering only a portion of the facilities' emissions,
the determination of low-risk is based on a distorted and unrealistic
view of their impact. The commenter included an example of a facility
that uses and emits methyl bromide from its sterilization operations.
    Response: In general, there is much less co-location of commercial
sterilization operations with other industrial processes than there is
for the typical source category. Many facilities are contract
sterilizers with no co-location. In some cases, there is co-location of
commercial sterilizers with other processes, such as pharmaceuticals
production. We do not have sufficiently detailed information to analyze
the possibility of controls on the various specific sources within a
facility but outside the commercial sterilizer source category. As a
result, we could not evaluate the existing levels of control or the
potential for applying additional controls at the facilities where HAP
emissions from other sources contribute to the risk. Therefore, we did
not consider emissions from co-located sources in our decision to
require no additional controls because we did not have the control cost
and feasibility data necessary to do so. Our position on the potential
consideration of co-located source categories is fully discussed in the
coke oven final rule (70 FR 19995-19998).
    Regarding emissions of methyl bromide, we searched the 1999
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for the 76 identified ethylene oxide
sterilization facilities to determine which emit both ethylene oxide
and methyl bromide. According to the NEI data base, only two of the
facilities emit both HAP. One of the facilities emits so little methyl
bromide that the risk estimates would not be significantly different if
methyl bromide were considered. The other facility emits more methyl
bromide than ethylene oxide (about 2 to 3 times as much). However,
because there is no cancer unit risk estimate for methyl bromide, the
emissions of methyl bromide would not affect our cancer risk estimate
(3 in 1 million). Considering effects other than cancer, the reference
concentration for chronic inhalation exposures to methyl bromide is
approximately six times lower than that of ethylene oxide.
Consequently, the methyl bromide emissions could result in an increase
in our estimate of the hazard index for the facility by as much as a
factor of 20 (assuming similar source release parameters like stack
height, etc.). This is not a concern because our current estimate of
the hazard index is 0.001, and a factor greater than 1000 would be
necessary before a hazard index of 1 would be exceeded. Therefore, even
considering these emissions would not change our regulatory decision.

    Comment: One commenter stated EPA should not conduct a separate
technology review for ethylene oxide sources under section 112(d)(6).
The commenter believes that once EPA has made a residual risk
determination under section 112(f), emissions from the category are
``safe,'' and the Agency must find a revision of the MACT standard
under section 112(d)(6) is unnecessary. Another commenter urges EPA to
avoid expenditure of resources by conducting further analysis geared to
tightening control requirements when an AMOS has already been provided
by a protective standard.
    Response: As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, we
performed a separate technology review for both the area and major
source categories under section 112(d)(6), but recommended no changes
to the NESHAP. It is possible that future advances in control
technologies for this source category could allow for meaningful
emission reductions at a reasonable cost. We believe that the
technology review required under section 112(d)(6) was appropriate
here.
    Comment: One commenter believes that there is no mechanism to
revisit section 112(f) assessments and, therefore, that the risk
assessment should be corrected to account for reasonably foreseeable
changes that could result in increased risk, such as new residences
being built closer to the facility, or increases in actual emissions
within the current permit limitations.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that there is
no mechanism to revisit risks from the source category, and that,
therefore, the risk assessment must include consideration of
foreseeable changes that may occur in the future. We have the authority
to revisit (and revise, if necessary) any rulemaking if there is
sufficient evidence that changes within the affected industry or
significant improvements to science suggests the public is exposed to
significant increases in risk as compared to the risk assessment
prepared for the rulemaking (e.g., CAA section 301).

2. Area Source Category--MACT and GACT

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA has discretion to not
regulate MACT or GACT area sources under section 112(f). One commenter
stated that EPA has the discretion under section 112(f)(5) of the CAA
to avoid residual risk analysis for area sources subject to GACT,
regardless of whether such sources are subject to both MACT and GACT
under section 112(d). The commenter reasoned that since the CAA does
not require residual risk analysis of area sources subject to GACT
only, area sources subject to more stringent requirements under both
MACT and GACT should also not require analysis. Two commenters stated
that EPA should not omit sources subject to GACT from the residual risk
analysis because it could result in serious underestimation of the
health risks from area sources. One commenter believes that both
section 112(d) and 112(f) of the CAA were satisfied when area sources
were addressed under section 112(d)(5); since GACT controls alone would
have been sufficient for EPA to avoid a residual risk review, clearly
requiring both MACT and GACT controls obviates the need for any further
Agency review of these area sources under both 112(d) and 112(f).
    Response: For area source ethylene oxide sterilizers, EPA issued
MACT standards under section 112(d)(2) for sterilizer vents and chamber
exhaust vents and GACT standards for aeration room vents. EPA undertook
a section 112(f)(2) analysis for area source emissions standards that
were issued as MACT standards and exercised its discretion under
section 112(f)(5) to not do an 112(f)(2) analysis for those emission
points for which GACT standards were established. EPA appreciates the
responses to its question regarding the range of discretion that the
Agency has under section 112(f)(5) and will consider the points made by
commenters in developing future relevant proposals. However, for
purposes of this rulemaking, EPA believes that it exercised its
discretion appropriately by conducting a 112(f)(2) analysis for those
emission points subject to MACT standards.

3. Risk Analysis Assumptions

    Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA must use the best available
science to establish a cancer unit risk estimate for ethylene oxide,
and that it is scientifically indefensible for EPA to use the
California Environmental Protection Agency cancer unit risk factor in
risk assessments when more recent epidemiological data exist. One
commenter states that the basis for the California unit risk factor
(mononuclear leukemia in female rats) is not relevant to humans. One
commenter states that a sound scientific estimate of the cancer unit
risk for ethylene oxide has been derived by Kirman, et al. \1\ based
partly on two epidemiological studies 2 3 that include
exposure estimates for more than 20,000 workers. Two commenters stated
that EPA should plan to reevaluate the risks associated with this
source category whenever the new cancer risk estimate is made final,
regardless of whether or not the final rule has been published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Kirman, C.R., et al. 2004. Addressing nonlinearity in the
exposure-response relationship for a genotoxic carcinogen: cancer
potency estimates for ethylene oxide. Risk Anal. 24(5):1165-83.
    \2\ Steenland, K.L., et al. 1991. Mortality among workers
exposed to ethylene oxide. New England Journal of Medicine,
324(20):1402-1407.
    \3\ Teta, M.J., et al. 1993. Mortality study of ethylene oxide
workers in chemical manufacturing: A 10-year update. British Journal
of Industrial Medicine, 50:704-709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In estimating potential excess cancer risk associated
with ethylene oxide sterilizers, EPA has considered all available,
credible, and relevant information. In 1985, the EPA health assessment
for ethylene oxide \4\ concluded, based on the information available at
that time, that ethylene oxide is ``probably carcinogenic to humans,''
and derived a cancer unit risk estimate. California EPA subsequently
relied on the EPA assessment in developing their cancer unit risk
estimate using the same rat study as basis.5 6 The
California EPA assessment received concurrence from their Scientific
Review Panel.\7\ In 1994, the International Agency for Research on
Cancer categorized ethylene oxide in their Group 1 (Carcinogenic to
Humans). In 2000, the United States Department of Health and Human
Services revised its listing for ethylene oxide to ``known to be a
human carcinogen'' in the Ninth Report on Carcinogens.\8\ Support for
this listing includes epidemiological evidence from studies of workers
exposed to ethylene oxide and animal studies. Cancer in both human and
animal studies has included multiple sites, including reported
associations with leukemia.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ USEPA. 1985. Health Assessment Document for Ethylene Oxide,
EPA/600/8-84/009F. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC.
    \5\ CARB. 1987. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons For
Proposed Rulemaking and Report of the Scientific Review Panel.
California Air Resources Board. http://www/ oehha.ca.gov/air/toxic

contaminants /pdf1/ethylene% 20oxide.pdf.
    \6\ CalEPA. 2005. Technical Support Document for Describing
Available Cancer Potency Factors. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section. http://www. oehha.ca.gov/

air/hot-- spots/pdf/May2005 Hotspots.pdf.
    \7\ CARB. op. cit.
    \8\ DHHS. 2000. Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition; United
States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, National Toxicology Program.
    \9\ DHHS, op. cit.

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

    EPA is currently developing an updated cancer assessment for
ethylene oxide (http:// cfpub.epa.gov/ iristrac/index.

cfm?fuseaction=viewChemical. showChemical &iris& --sub--id= 897). EPA's
updated cancer assessment for ethylene oxide will consider all relevant
literature and studies including the Kirman, et al. paper and the
epidemiological studies referred to in the comment. However, until
completion of that assessment and given the peer review status of the
work done by the State of California, the California EPA unit risk
estimate must be considered to be the best-available science and has
therefore been used in assessing cancer risk for this rulemaking.
    The EPA cancer assessment will not receive external peer review
until mid-2006, which is after the promulgation date of the residual
risk rule for this source category. Our authority to revisit any
rulemaking is addressed in Section III.1.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that Acute Exposure Guideline
Levels (AEGL), Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG), and
Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) values should not be
used in assessing the risk from acute exposures to ethylene oxide
because these values were developed for accidental release planning and
are not appropriate for assessing daily human exposure scenarios. One
commenter stated that EPA's acute assessment discounted the use of the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 10-minute
ceiling value of 5 parts per million (ppm) (9 mg/m\3\), and noted that
EPA's maximum acute exposure estimate for this source category (23 mg/
m\3\) exceeds the NIOSH value. Two of the commenters stated that EPA's
new acute reference concentration value for ethylene oxide should be
used when it becomes available.
    Response: We are continuing to evaluate the role of acute health
effects in our section 112(f) analysis. In any event, we have concluded
that this source category does not present acute health risks that
warrant further regulation. Our authority to revisit any rulemaking is
addressed in Section III.1.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that EPA should consider the risks
from chronic exposure at facility property boundaries instead of at the
geographic centroids of census blocks. The commenters state that census
blocks can be large and that the point of maximum impact can be far
from the census block centroid.
    Response: We believe that, in a national-scale assessment of
lifetime inhalation exposures and health risks from a category of
facilities, it is appropriate to identify exposure locations where an
individual may reasonably be expected to spend a majority of his or her
lifetime. Further, we believe that it is appropriate to use census
block information on where people actually reside, rather than points
on a fence-line, to locate the estimation of exposures and risks to
individuals living near such facilities.
    Census blocks are the finest resolution available for the
nationwide population data set (as developed by the U.S. Census
Bureau); each is typically comprised of approximately 40 people or
about 10 households. In our risk assessments, we use the geographic
centroid of each census block containing at least one person to
represent the location where all the people in that census block live.
The census block centroid with the highest estimated exposure then
becomes the location of maximum exposure, and the entire population of
that census block experiences the maximum individual risk. In some
cases, since actual residence locations may be closer to or farther
from facility emission points, this may result in an overestimate or
underestimate of the actual chronic risks. However, given the
relatively small dimensions of census blocks in densely-populated areas
and the relatively large number of sources being assessed for any given
source category, we believe that these uncertainties are small and do
not bias our estimates of maximum individual risks for a source
category.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the risk assessment for ethylene
oxide sterilization facilities lacks a reliable facility-specific
inventory of emissions. The commenter stated that EPA did not acquire
the ethylene oxide usage records and emissions data needed to perform
the residual risk assessment, but instead relied on industry-supplied
data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and the National Emissions
Inventory (NEI). The commenter implied that EPA should have requested
data from facilities under its authority under section 114 of the CAA.
The commenter strongly recommend that the EPA re-conduct this residual
risk assessment by requiring the sources subject to this proposed
rulemaking to report five years of usage data and/or throughput data.
The EPA should then select the maximum usage value to calculate
emissions for each facility in the residual risk assessment based on
the current percent control requirement prescribed by the NESHAP. One
commenter stated that EPA's risk assessment considered only actual
reported emissions instead of potential emissions. The commenter stated
that since facility emissions (and associated impacts) could increase
over time for a variety of reasons EPA should have considered the risks
based on potential emissions. Two commenters stated residual risk
assessments must be performed on allowable emissions to fully
understand the potential public health implications for a source
category.
    Response: Our position on the use of allowable emissions is fully
discussed in the final Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP (70 FR 19998-19999).
    We used reported emissions (from the National Emissions Inventory
database and company reports) for the ethylene oxide source category
risk analysis. The reported emissions are a mix of actual, allowable,
and potential emissions, but we do not have the necessary information
to distinguish between the types of data reported. While we generally
recognize that most facilities over comply with the MACT requirements
(thus, actual emissions are lower than allowable), we do not have data
to determine the degree of over compliance that facilities are
achieving or reporting. For example, chamber exhaust emissions in some
cases may be lower because they are controlled by some States although
not by EPA because of the safety issue discussed in the proposal. The
removal of chamber exhaust vent controls by the States would likely
result in a significant increase in risk. However, as discussed in
section III.3, we have no basis to change conclusions presented in the
proposal and will not impose controls on chamber exhaust emissions for
either new or existing facilities.
    The commenter also recommended we use the authority under section
114 of the CAA to gather data rather than use data bases like the TRI
or data submitted by the facility but not under authority of the CAA.
Since the data ultimately is supplied by the facility we believe the
data is comparable to data gathered under section 114. The commenter
also recommended we base rule-making on 5 years of data. The commenter
provided no basis which demonstrates modeled results based on the
previous 5 years are any more representative of risks than those based
on the most recent emission estimates.

4. Additional Issues

    Comment: One commenter stated EPA concludes that ``further controls
would not meaningfully reduce emissions from emission vents'' but
indicates that the Agency is aware that the State of California's
requirement for the main sterilizer vent is 99.9 percent as contrasted
with the 99 percent MACT requirement. The Agency therefore requests
further data from the public in the form of five questions dealing
primarily with technology and costs. (70 FR 61408) EPA does not clearly
set out what decision criteria will be applied to the information that
the public is being asked to supply. The commenter also stated that EPA
does not explicitly state the decision criteria used in making ample
margin of safety decisions under the residual risk program.
Specifically, the commenter stated that for ethylene oxide
sterilization facilities, the EPA did not explicitly state that
incremental emission control costs were compared to incremental risk
reductions in making the ample margin of safety decision, as it has in
past rulemakings such as the Benzene NESHAP and radionuclide standards.
The commenter also stated that the public would better understand and
accept EPA's ample margin of safety decisions if EPA were to better
educate the public regarding its estimated risk estimates and the
contribution of stationary sources to the overall risk. One commenter
stated EPA indicates that the agency had considered increasing the
emission reduction limit to 99.9 percent in the national emission
standards but that ``we do not have data to confirm that facilities are
capable of achieving 99.9 percent on a continuous basis'' (70 FR
61409). The commenter encouraged EPA to review state data on this
source category, including information from New York and New Jersey,
indicating that such levels are achievable. Another commenter stated
that EPA needs to re-evaluate the control technologies and exemptions
from the current NESHAP. The emissions of ethylene oxide from the
largest fugitive sources evaluated in the residual risk assessment
equates to over 28 tons per year. The EPA should assess the risk
reductions associated with the additional control percentages on the
sterilizer chamber vent and aeration room vents for sources which use
between 1 and less than 10 tons and 10 tons or greater per year of
ethylene oxide.
    Response: EPA stated in the proposal, ``we considered the estimate
of health risk and other health information along with additional
factors relating to the appropriate level of control, including costs
and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility,
uncertainties, and other relevant factors.'' We used the same decision
criteria today to address the data submitted in response to the
proposal. The EPA does not have definitive criteria such as a specific
cost effectiveness value which dictates the final outcome.
    We solicited comments concerning both the control effectiveness and
costs associated with increasing the performance limit to 99.9 percent.
The summary test data submitted by the commenters lend support to the
technical feasibility of complying with a higher limit for the main
sterilizer vent. Commenters did not supply data supporting continuous
compliance with a higher limit.
    Many of the outlet concentrations are reported at the detection
limit. This implies the measurement devices were showing zero
concentration of ethylene oxide in the outlet stream. Because both the
1990s and 2000s data show no ethylene oxide in the outlet stream, we
believe there isn't a measurable difference in the control efficiencies
of the tested devices.
    We did not receive comments addressing the safe control of
emissions from the chamber exhaust vent. As we stated in the
``Memorandum: Technology Review and Residual Risk Data Development for
the Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization NESHAP'' (Docket
EPA -HQ -OAQ- 2003-0197 -0027): ``Many, if not all, source facilities
utilize a chamber exhaust fan while personnel are removing product from
the sterilization chamber. This fan removes ethylene oxide off-gassing
from the product. The Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and
Fumigation NESHAP promulgated in 1994 (59 FR 62585) required control of
the chamber exhaust vent. In 1997 there were a series of explosions
associated with control of the chamber exhaust vent (62 FR 64736). We
subsequently reassessed the control requirements and removed the
requirement to control the chamber exhaust in November 2001 (66 FR
55577); the Agency continues to believe that the action taken in 2001
is reasonable and we have found no safe way to impose controls on the
chamber exhaust vents. Approximately 1 percent of the ethylene oxide
used in the process is emitted through the chamber exhaust vent.''
    Therefore, we have no basis to change conclusions presented in the
proposal and will not impose controls on chamber exhaust emissions for
either new or existing facilities.
    To assess the risk reduction associated with increasing the
stringency of the standard for the main sterilizer vent from 99 to 99.9
percent emission reduction, we looked at the five facilities with the
highest estimated cancer risk (ETO 4, 5, 8, 18, 19, and 27). Only one
commenter provided cost estimates to retrofit existing facilities to
comply with a higher standard. This commenter estimated the retrofit
costs to be approximately one million dollars per facility. Emissions
from these five facilities range from approximately 0.3 to 4.5 tons per
year and total 18 tons per year (Docket item EPA -HQ- OAR-2003 -0197--
0003, Table 2). Approximately 12 of the 18 tons are fugitive emissions
from the chamber exhaust. Residual emissions i.e., emissions after the
application of emission control devices from the main chamber and
aeration vents for the five facilities with the highest estimated
cancer risk (ETO 4, 5, 8, 18, 19, and 27) range from approximately 0 to
1.6 tons per year, and are 4 tons per year in total (Docket item EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0197--0003 Table 2). Based on a $1 million capital
investment per facility, a 7 percent discount rate, and a 10-year
capital recovery period, the average cost per ton of emissions reduced
for the five facilities is approximately $35,000. These estimates
assume facilities complying with the 99 percent limit do not in
practice achieve a higher efficiency than 99 percent and there are zero
emissions from control devices complying with the 99.9 percent limit.
    To test the commenter's assertion that more stringent controls on
the main and aeration vents would reduce risk levels, we remodeled the
five facilities with the highest estimated cancer risk (ETO 4, 5, 8,
18, 19, and 27) with the assumption that main vent and aeration vent
emissions are essentially zero after a 99.9 percent reduction and we
compared the results to the baseline risks estimates. The risks
(estimated to one significant figure) changed for only one facility,
for which the maximum individual risk was reduced from 90 in 1 million
to 80 in 1 million. Although we did not remodel all facilities, similar
results would be expected for the other facilities because of the high
chamber exhaust emissions relative to the emissions from the main vent
and aeration vent after 99 percent control. Therefore, for existing
major sources we conclude in our ample margin of safety decision that
further controls would achieve minimal emission and risk reductions at
a very high cost.
    For existing sources under the 8 year review, in the proposal we
stated, ``Because the three vents associated

with these facilities (i.e., the main sterilization, aeration room, and
chamber exhaust emission vents) are the same for both major and area
sources, the conclusions concerning technology apply to both source
categories. We found that additional controls for emission vents
controlled with either MACT or GACT would achieve at best, minimal
emission and risk reductions at a very high cost. In our review, we did
not identify any significant developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies since promulgation of the national emission
standards in 1994.'' The analysis presented above for the five
facilities with the highest risk support the conclusion presented in
the proposal.
    As stated above we believe for new main sterilizer vent and
aeration control, increasing the stringency of the control limit from
99 to 99.9 percent achieves only a minimal reduction in risk.
Therefore, EPA does not find it necessary to increase the control limit
for new facilities.
    Comment: One commenter stated EPA appropriately concluded that
changes to the standard are not required to satisfy section 112(f) of
the CAA. However, the commenter stated EPA did not provide sufficient
data in the preamble to the document on the AMOS analysis that led to
this conclusion, including its cost versus risk-reduction benefit
analysis for a possible increase in the EO reduction requirements from
99 percent to 99.9 percent.
    Response: As we stated in the proposal, we did not find any new
technology or alternative controls for any vents for commercial EO
sterilizers. We also found no data to support the addition of down
stream control devices to existing controls as a way of further
reducing emissions. We, therefore, concluded that further controls
would achieve minimal reductions at a high cost. While we were aware of
more stringent control limits at the State level, we stated in the
proposal that we did not have data to confirm that all facilities are
capable of meeting a more stringent level and solicited both control
and cost data. Based on the data received from commenters we performed
a risk assessment which confirmed our earlier qualitative conclusion.
    Comment: One commenter stated EPA's language suggests that the
decision criterion is whether further reductions would ``meaningfully
reduce emissions or risks.'' (70 FR 61408) The commenter stated that
introducing the term ``meaningfully reduce'' without further explaining
it is potentially misleading to the public. They were further troubled
by the continued insertion of the word ``emissions'' in this
formulation of the decision criteria as reinforced by the specific
questions asked in this Federal Register notice.
    Response: EPA presented, in the proposal, its analysis and
conclusions on residual risk and technology review. Under section
112(d)(6), EPA is required to review the MACT standards and revise them
as necessary taking into account developments in practices, processes
and control technologies, no less frequently than every 8 years.
Section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for each source category
whether the NESHAP protect public health with an ample margin of safety
and prevent an adverse environmental effect. After reviewing and
analyzing data under both these sections, EPA concluded that further
controls would not meaningfully reduce emissions or risks. EPA reached
this conclusion because the maximum individual cancer risk for this
source category is already at the level we generally consider
acceptable and that further controls would achieve minimal risk
reduction at a very high cost. In addition, our conclusion referred to
both emissions and risk because EPA's analysis included both the
technology review and a residual risk determination.
    Comment: One commenter stated EPA's CAA section 112(d)(6) review of
the source category correctly concluded that the NESHAP standards did
not need to be revised. However, the commenter stated that EPA reached
this conclusion after conducting an independent technology review
instead of basing it on the conclusions of EPA's CAA section 112(f)(2)
analysis, which showed that the source category achieves an AMOS that
is not limited by cost or technological feasibility concerns. The
commenter believes that EPA should have based its determination that
further controls under 112(d)(6) are not required through the 112(f)
AMOS determination. According to the commenter, EPA did not need to
conduct a separate technology review because it considered the need for
additional controls in its AMOS analysis. The commenter goes on to
state that where the AMOS is based in large part on cost or technical
feasibility concerns, which according to the commenter was not the case
with EO sterilizer facilities, then further future review under CAA
section 112(d)(6) may remain viable and additional controls may not be
precluded if feasible control measures are identified. Further, the
commenter states that in evaluating whether action is necessary under
CAA section 112(d)(6), EPA should not apply a ``bright line'' 1 in 1
million standard for cancer risks, nor a similar ``bright line''
standard for non-cancer risks.
    Response: Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review, and
revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated
under section 112 no less often than every 8 years. We disagree,
therefore, that the Agency did not need to conduct a separate
technology review because it considered, among other factors, the need
for additional controls under its 112(f) analysis. As we noted in the
preamble to the Coke Ovens residual risk rule, the findings that
underlie a section 112(f) determination should be key factors in making
any subsequent section 112(d)(6) determinations. However, as the word
``subsequent'' indicates, we believe that we are obligated to perform
the initial section 112(d)(6) analysis. Because the timing for the
initial section 112(d)(6) analysis coincides with those of the residual
risk analysis, it is appropriate for the Agency to conduct both
analyses at the same time and for the results of the risk analysis to
impact future section 112(d)(6) technology reviews. However, we agree
with the commenters that a revision is not necessarily required under
section 112(d)(6) even if cancer risks are greater than or equal to 1
in 1 million. For example, it may be the case that a technology review
is performed, but no change in the standard results from that review.
In the preamble to the residual risk rule for Coke Ovens, we have
applied a similar logic to the need for subsequent technology revisions
under section 112(d)(6). As we stated in the Coke Ovens rule, if the
ample margin of safety analysis for a section 112(f) standard shows
that the remaining risk for non-threshold pollutants falls below 1 in 1
million and for threshold pollutants falls below a similar threshold of
safety, then further revision should not be needed because an ample
margin of safety has already been assured.
    We generally agree that where an AMOS is based on cost or technical
feasibility future review under Sec.  112(d)(6) may require additional
controls if feasible control measures are identified. If the
availability and/or costs of technology are part of the rationale for
the ample margin of safety determination, it is reasonable to conclude
that changes in those costs or in the availability of technology could
alter our conclusions regarding the ample margin of safety. For this
reason, we agree that revisions may be

appropriate if the ample margin of safety established by the residual
risk process considers cost or technical feasibility. In the EO
proposal, we noted that while some states required the facilities to
meet a more stringent standard, we believed that the costs and
feasibility concerns for implementing such a standard did not make
adopting this standard a reasonable alternative. In addition, we noted
in the preamble to the EO proposal that EPA had evaluated new
technologies and alternatives during our investigation of the safety
issue regarding chamber exhaust vents and concluded that controls on
those vents were not technologically feasible and additional controls
on these vents were limited because of the safety issues. [For a full
discussion of the safety issues, see 66 FR Notice 55577.]

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and, therefore,
subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
    (4) raise novel or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified us
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order. We have submitted this action to OMB
for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
However, OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements for the national emissions standards under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0283, EPA ICR number 1666.06. A copy of the OMB
approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    We have established a public docket for this action, which includes
the ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0197, which can be
found in http://www.regulations.gov. Today's final decision will not

change the burden estimates from those developed and approved in 1994
for the national emission standards.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final decision on
small entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We are taking no further action at this time to revise the national
emission standards. Thus, the final decision will not impose any
requirements on small entities. Today's final decision on the residual
risk assessment and technology review for the national emission
standards imposes no additional burden on facilities impacted by the
national emission standards.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1
year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
    Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small

governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    We have determined that today's final decision does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any 1 year. Therefore, today's final decision is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, today's final decision does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply
to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's
final decision is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    Today's final decision does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to today's
final decision.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    Today's final decision does not have tribal implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today's final decision.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's final decision is not subject to the Executive Order
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because, as explained earlier, the Agency does not
have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risk
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Today's final decision is not an ``economically significant energy
action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded
that today's final decision is not likely to have any adverse energy
impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, all Federal
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in
their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual
reports to OMB, with explanations when the agency does not use
available and applicable VCS.
    Today's final decision does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA are not applicable.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. We will submit a report containing this final decision
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the final decision in the Federal Register. A major
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). The final decision becomes effective on April 7, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-3314 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">

  <title>Guidance
 Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters  | Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments  | US EPA</title> <meta name="DC.title" content="Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters ">
<meta name="DC.description" content="Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters">
<meta name="Keywords" content="Data & Tools,Coastal Environments,Policies & Guidance,Governments,Monitoring,Pollution Prevention & Control,Manage Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution">
<meta name="DC.subject" content="">
<meta name="DC.type" content="">
<meta name="DC.date.created" content="2009-11-30">
<meta name="DC.date.modified" content="2009-11-30">
<meta name="DC.date.reviewed" content="">
<meta name="DC.language" content="en">
<meta name="DC.creator" content="bfields"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="US%20EPA%201993_files/default.css" type="text/css">

<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<link rel="meta" href="http://www.epa.gov/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels">

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="US%20EPA%201993_files/epa-core.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="US%20EPA%201993_files/print.css">

<link href="US%20EPA%201993_files/ow.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">

<link rel="stylesheet" href="US%20EPA%201993_files/commonspot.css" type="text/css" id="cs_maincss">

Jump to main content or area navigation.

Languages

Español

中文: 繁體版 Information in traditional Chinese

中文:  简体版 Information in simplified Chinese.

Tiếng Việt

한국어 Information in Korean.

	<form id="EPAsearch" method="get" action="http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch">
		<fieldset>

					<fieldset>
						<legend>Where should we search?</legend>

								<input name="typeofsearch" id="epa_all" value="epa" type="radio">
								All EPA

								<input name="typeofsearch" id="area_all" value="area" checked="checked" type="radio">
								This Area

Advanced Search

					</fieldset>

					<fieldset id="search">
						<legend>What are you looking for?</legend>
						<input class="ac_input" autocomplete="off" name="querytext" id="searchbox">
						<button id="searchbutton" type="submit" title="Search"></button>
					</fieldset>

			<input name="fld" value="|water.epa.gov" type="hidden">
            <input name="areaname" value="Office of Water" type="hidden">
            <input name="areacontacts" value="URL OF THE OW CONTACT PAGE HERE!" type="hidden">
            <input name="areasearchurl" value="" type="hidden">
			<input name="result_template" value="epafiles_default.xsl" type="hidden">
            <input name="filter" value="sample4filt.hts" type="hidden">
		</fieldset>
	</form>

Learn the Issues

Science & Technology

Laws & Regulations

About EPA

Contact Us

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

You are here: WaterPollution Prevention & ControlPolluted Runoff  Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters

EPA 840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Agriculture Chapter Factsheet

Chapter 3: Management Measures for Forestry

Forestry Chapter Factsheet

Chapter 4: Management Measures for Urban Areas

Urban Chapter Factsheet

Chapter 5: Management Measures for Marinas and Recreational Boating

Marinas Chapter Factsheet

Chapter
 6: Management Measures for Hydromodification: Channelization and
Channel Modification, Dams, and Steambank and Shoreline Erosion

Hydromodification Chapter Factsheet

Chapter 7: Management Measures for Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems

Wetlands Chapter Factsheet

Chapter 8: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques to Accompany Management Measures

Area Navigation

About the Office of Water

Drinking Water

Education & Training

Grants & Funding

Laws & Regulations

Our Waters

Pollution Prevention and Control

Applications & Databases

Green Infrastructure/
Low Impact Development

Impaired Waters & TMDLs

Permitting (NPDES)

Polluted Runoff

Sediments

Source Water Protection

Stormwater

Vessel Discharge

Wastewater Programs

Watershed Management

Science & Technology

Water Infrastructure

What You Can Do

Share

Del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

StumbleUpon

What is this?

News Feeds

Podcasts

EPA Mobile

News by Email

Widgets

Students

EPA Home

Privacy and Security Notice

Contact Us

Last updated on Monday, November 30, 2009.

Last updated on Tuesday, November 09, 2010

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/czara/MMGI_index.cfm

Jump to main content.