[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 55161]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

TIME AND DATE: September 22, 2011, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight
Time.

PLACE: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested
person may call<PHONE_NUMBER>, passcode, 908048 to participate in this
meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: August 26, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-22754 Filed 9-1-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8389-8390]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Preparedness Grants:
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; new information
collection; OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Form 089-2, IECGP Investment
Justification.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Office
of Records Management, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-
3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Interoperable Emergency
Communications Grant Program (IECGP).
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NEW.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-2, IECGP Investment
Justification.
    Abstract: The IECGP is an important tool among a comprehensive set
of measures to help strengthen the Nation against risks associated with
potential terrorist attacks. FEMA uses the information to evaluate
applicants' familiarity with the national preparedness architecture and
identify how elements of this architecture have been incorporated into
regional/State/local planning, operations, and investments. Respondents
are

comprised of State, local, and tribal entities.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56. The estimated number of
respondents has increased since publication of the 60-day Federal
Register Notice at 74 FR 59227, Nov. 17, 2009.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 572 hours. The
average hour burden per respondent has decreased since publication of
the 60-day Federal Register Notice at 74 FR 59227, Nov. 17, 2009.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 32,032 hours. The total annual
burden hours has decreased since publication of the 60-day Federal
Register Notice at 74 FR 59227, Nov. 17, 2009.
    Estimated Cost: There are no annual reporting or recordkeeping
costs associated with this collection.

Larry Gray
Director, Office of Records Management, Office of Management, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-3597 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50973-50978]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20777]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-1078; FRL-9717-7]

Revision to the South Coast Portion of the California State
Implementation Plan, CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking
System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental Proposed Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supplementing our
prior proposal to approve a source-specific State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision and requesting public comment on additional information
we are adding to our docket to revise the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (District or SCAQMD) portion of the California SIP.
This source-specific SIP revision is known as the CPV Sentinel Energy
Project AB 1318 Tracking System (``AB 1318 Tracking System''). We are
supplementing our proposed approval of this SIP revision to provide
additional information and request comment on three issues: (1) the
District's quantification of the offsets it transferred to the AB 1318
Tracking System; (2) the District's surplus adjustment of the offsets
in the AB 1318 Tracking System; and (3) which District Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) is appropriate for determining the base year to
evaluate the availability of offsets from shutdown sources.

DATES: Comments on this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) must be submitted no later than September 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-1078, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments that EPA receives within the public
comment period will be included in the public docket without change and
may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information where disclosure of the
information is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI
or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should
not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While documents in
the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material or
voluminous background documents), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the docket, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3524<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Facility Description and Background
    B. Procedural History of Source Specific SIP Revision
    C. Offsets in this Source-Specific SIP Revision
    D. Appropriate AQMP for Determining the Base-Year
II. Evaluation of Source Specific SIP Revision
    A. What is in the SIP revision?
    B. What are the Federal Clean Air Act requirements?
    C. What actions has EPA taken previously?
    D. How is EPA supplementing its prior proposal now?
    E. Section 110(l) Evaluation
    F. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Facility Description and Background

    For a detailed discussion of this topic, please refer to our
proposed rule at 76 FR 2294 (Jan. 13, 2011). In summary, the Sentinel
Energy Project is designed to be a nominally rated 850 Megawatt
electrical generating facility covering approximately 37 acres within
Riverside County, adjacent to Desert Hot Springs, California in the
Palm Springs area. The District determined that the Sentinel Energy
Project requires 118,120 pounds (``lbs'') of PM10 offsets
and 13,928 lbs of SOX offsets for the District to issue a
permit for construction and operation.

B. Procedural History of Source Specific SIP Revision

    The District adopted the AB 1318 Tracking System on July 9, 2010.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the AB 1318
Tracking System to EPA as a source specific SIP revision on September
10, 2010. EPA issued a completeness letter on October 27, 2010, finding
that the submittal met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V. EPA proposed approval of the source specific SIP revision
on January 13, 2011. 76 FR at 2294. On April 20, 2011, EPA responded to
comments and finalized approval of the source specific SIP revision. 76
FR 22038.
    California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT) and Communities for a
Better Environment (CBE) filed a petition for review with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 26, 2011, CCAT
and CBE filed their Opening Brief. In the Brief, CCAT and CBE alleged
that EPA committed a procedural error by failing to post all of the
back-up documentation for the offset transactions on EPA's eDocket Web
site. EPA was not and is not obligated to post all of these voluminous
documents to the eDocket Web site. Copies of those documents were
available for inspection in EPA's offices. In addition, those documents
had been provided directly to the Petitioners several months earlier.
Id.
    CCAT and CBE's Opening Brief set forth some detailed assertions
regarding the quantification and surplus adjustments of the offset
transactions in the AB 1318 Tracking System. The detailed arguments
that CCAT and CBE included in their Ninth Circuit Opening Brief were
not included in their comments on our proposed rulemaking.
    On September 13, 2011, EPA requested that the Court remand the
rulemaking to EPA to supplement the record and provide additional
justification for our action. The Ninth Circuit summarily denied this
motion. Several months later after briefing and oral argument, the
Court remanded the rulemaking to EPA for additional justification. The
Court did not vacate the rule upon remand.
    This Supplemental proposal on remand is seeking comment on three
specific issues: (1) The District's quantification of some of the
offsets in the AB 1318 Tracking System; (2) the District's surplus
adjustment of certain offsets; and (3) which District Air Quality
Management Plan is appropriate for determining the base year to
evaluate the availability of offsets from sources that shutdown. These
three issues are discussed in more detail below.

C. Offsets in This Source-Specific SIP Revision

    When equipment or an entire facility is shutdown, it no longer
emits air pollutants. The CAA allows the emission reductions from
shutdown equipment or facilities to be used to offset the operation of
new or modified stationary sources provided the offsets meet the
requirements of CAA Section 173. See 40 U.S.C. 7503(a)(1)(A). Section
173 requires offsets to be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and
surplus. Id. 7503(c). This Supplemental proposal provides additional
information regarding EPA's prior determination that at least 118,120
lbs of PM10 and 13,928 lbs of SOX offsets meet
the requirements of Section 173 as transferred by the District into the
AB 1318 Tracking System. Because the briefs that CCAT and CBE filed
with the Ninth Circuit pointed to potential deficiencies with a small
number of offsets in the AB 1318 Tracking System, EPA is providing
additional information in this Supplemental proposal to identify the
specific offsets that we are determining meet all federal requirements.
    Attachment A to the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this
Supplemental proposal includes two spreadsheets, one for
PM10 emissions and one for SOX emissions. These
spreadsheets list each source that has shut down and is no longer
operating resulting in offsets that the District transferred into the
AB 1318 Tracking System.
    The offsets listed in Attachment A meet CAA Section 173's
requirements to be permanent and enforceable because the owner or
operator surrendered the permits to the District. It is illegal under
SCAQMD Rule 203 for any source to emit any amount of an air pollutant
without a valid permit, unless the source is specifically exempted from
this requirement under District Rule 219

(Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II).
The Federal government or local air agency may bring an enforcement
action against a source operating without a permit. Citizens may also
bring such actions because Rule 203 is included in the SIP. For these
reasons, when a source shuts down and surrenders its permit to the
District, its emissions reductions are permanent and enforceable. The
source would be required to apply for a new permit, and provide new
offsets, in order to operate again.
    The offsets listed in Attachment A are also quantifiable as
required by Section 173. Each spreadsheet contains two sections,
Section I and II, each with two parts (Parts A and B). For all of the
sources listed in Section I, two years of actual emission data was used
to calculate an annual average. Section I.A. lists those sources where
District Annual Emissions Report (AER) data were used, and Section I.B.
lists sources where AER, Acid Rain or Emission Reduction Credit (ERC)
application data were used. Section II lists the sources where only one
year of AER data was reported. Section II.A. lists those sources where
only Year 2 data was reported and Section II.B. lists those sources
where only Year 1 data was reported. Quantification of the offsets for
which only one year of data is available is discussed in more detail
below in Section II.D.1.
    The offsets listed in Attachment A are surplus in addition to being
quantifiable, permanent and enforceable. Our detailed discussion in
Section II.D.2. below provides our justification for finding that each
pound of offsets listed in Attachment A is surplus to the requirements
of the CAA.
    In summary, the Sentinel Energy Project needed 118,120 lbs of
PM10 offsets and 13,928 lbs of SOX offsets. The
District transferred more than these amounts into the AB 1318 Tracking
System for the exclusive use of Sentinel Energy Project. EPA has
determined that each of the offsets listed in Attachment A meets all of
the creditability requirements of Section 173 of the CAA. The sum of
the offsets in Attachment A is 124,797 lbs of PM10 and
25,178 lbs of SOX, which exceeds the amount needed by
Sentinel. For any offset transactions the District included in the AB
1318 Tracking System that are not specifically listed in Attachment A,
EPA is not taking a position at this time on whether those offsets meet
the federal creditability requirements. Those offsets are not necessary
for the Sentinel Energy Project to comply with Section 173(a)(1) even
though the District transferred them to the AB 1318 Tracking System.

D. Appropriate AQMP for Determining the Base-Year

    CCAT and CBE raised a third objection to our approval of the
source-specific SIP revision. CCAT and CBE claim the District is
prohibited from using any emission reductions from facilities that
shutdown equipment prior to the last day of 2002. 2002 is the base-year
in the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that the District
adopted to demonstrate attainment with the federal PM2.5 and
8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii) provides that emissions
reductions from shutting down equipment may be used as offsets if
``[t]he shutdown or curtailment occurred after the last day of the base
year for the SIP planning process.'' The regulation also allows pre-
base year emissions reductions from shutdown equipment to be used ``if
the projected emission inventory used to develop the attainment
demonstration explicitly includes the emissions from such previously
shutdown or curtailed emission units.'' Id. Based on this regulation,
CCAT and CBE contend the District may not include emission reductions
from facilities shutting down equipment prior to the last day of 2002
in the AB 1318 Tracking System. In our prior rulemaking, EPA responded
to this comment by stating that the District had added the offsets into
the attainment demonstration in the 2007 AQMP for the PM2.5
and 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
    This Supplemental proposal changes our reasoning on this issue. EPA
has evaluated this issue further and determined that the District's
2003 AQMPs for PM10 for the South Coast and the Coachella
Valley Basins establish the correct base year. The base year in these
AQMPs is 1997. All of the emission reductions in the AB 1318 Tracking
System occurred after 1997, and therefore comply with 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii). This issue is discussed in more detail in
Section II.D.3. below.

II. Evaluation of Source Specific SIP Revision

A. What is in the SIP revision?

    For a detailed discussion of the SIP revision package, please see
our proposed approval from January 13, 2011. 76 FR 2294.
    The text of the proposed source-specific SIP revision, in relevant
part, is:

    The Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District shall transfer sulfur oxides and particulate emission
credits from the CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking
System, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, to
eligible electrical generating facilities pursuant to Health and
Safety Code section 40440.14, as in effect January 1, 2010, (i.e.
the Sentinel Energy Project to be located in Desert Hot Springs, CA)
in the full amounts needed to issue permits to construct and to meet
requirements for sulfur oxides and particulate matter emissions.
Notwithstanding District Rule 1303, this SIP revision provides a
federally enforceable mechanism for transferring offsets from the
AQMD's internal accounts to the Sentinel Energy Project.

    This SIP revision is intended to provide a federally approved and
enforceable mechanism for the District to transfer PM10 and
SOX offsets from the District's internal bank to the
Sentinel Energy Project and to account for the transferred offsets
through the AB 1318 Tracking System.
    The District's SIP revision incorporates by reference each of the
offsets from the facilities that shutdown equipment. Based on EPA's
analysis, however, EPA is only proposing to approve that the
PM10 and SOX offsets listed in Attachment A of
our TSD meet the federal criteria for purposes of this source-specific
SIP revision. This proposal is not taking any action on offsets that
are not listed in Attachment A.

B. What are the Federal Clean Air Act requirements?

    For a detailed discussion of these requirements, please refer to
our proposed approval. 76 FR 2294.
    This Supplemental proposal focuses on three requirements. First,
the offsets that the District transferred to the AB 1318 Tracking
System must be quantifiable. Second, the offsets must be surplus. As
discussed in more detail in Section II.D. the offsets in Attachment A
meet those requirements. Third, offsets resulting from shutting down
emissions units must occur after the base year for the applicable SIP
attainment demonstration or otherwise be explicitly included in the
SIP's attainment demonstration. The offsets transferred into the AB
1318 Tracking System meet this requirement with respect to the 2003
AQMPs for PM10 and precursors for the South Coast and
Coachella Air Basins.

C. What actions has EPA taken previously?

    Prior to our January 13, 2011 proposal to approve this SIP
revision, EPA reviewed the District's Offset Verification Forms and
attachments

provided for each source's offsets that the District had transferred to
the AB 1318 Tracking System. Our review determined that a sufficient
amount of the offsets met the requirements to offset the
PM10 and SOX emissions increases from the
operation of the Sentinel Energy Project. Specifically, the Project
required 118,120 lbs of PM10 and 13,928 lb of SOX
offsets. The District had transferred a total of 137,799 lbs of
PM10 and 25,346 lbs of SOX offsets into the AB
1318 Tracking System.
    EPA has re-evaluated the creditability of some of the offsets in AB
1318 Tracking System. We are now listing the offsets we have determined
are creditable in Attachment A. For each source of offsets listed in
Attachment A, the District provided documentation demonstrating those
offsets meet the Section 173 requirements. Attachment A contains a
total of 124,797 lbs of PM10 and 25,178 lbs of
SOX, thereby exceeding the amount required for the Project.
    Our prior rulemaking did not specifically identify the offsets that
we found met the Section 173 requirements. This Supplemental proposal
now specifically identifies the offsets that we have determined meet
the requirements of Section 173 and lists those offsets in Attachment
A. EPA is not taking any action on, and has not reached any conclusion
regarding the creditability of, any offsets the District transferred
into the AB 1318 Tracking System that are not listed in Attachment A.

D. How is EPA supplementing its prior proposal now?

    This Supplemental proposal provides additional details concerning
EPA's determination that at least 118,120 lbs of PM10 and
13,928 lbs of SOX offsets transferred into the AB 1318
Tracking System meet the offset integrity requirements of Section 173.
See Attachment A to the TSD.
1. The District Has Demonstrated That at Least 118,120 lbs of
PM10 and 13,928 lbs of SOX Offsets Are Properly
Quantified
    To determine if the offsets listed in Attachment A were properly
quantified, we reviewed the District's Offset Verification Forms and
additional documents. From these documents, we have listed the
following information in Attachment A: The type of equipment shutdown,
the year the equipment was shutdown, the year 1 (i.e. the year
immediately preceding the shutdown) and year 2 (i.e. the second year
prior to shutdown) data of pre-shutdown actual emissions, the annual
average of both years of pre-shutdown actual emissions (if available),
the amount of emissions reductions calculated by the District, the
amount calculated for this Supplemental proposal and the source of the
emissions data.
    The offsets listed in Section I.A. of Attachment A rely on two
years of emissions data reported by the source in its AER. The offsets
listed in Section I.B. rely on two years of emissions data reported to
EPA's Acid Rain database (either solely or in addition to an AER), or
in one case, in an application for an ERC.\1\ These sources of
emissions data are reliable and inherently discourage inaccurate
reporting. The permittee must pay substantial fees to the District
based on the quantity of emissions reported in the AER, thereby
discouraging over-reporting. The Acid Rain database collects data
directly from Continuous Emission Monitors or throughput combined with
a well established emissions factor. Finally, the emission data used to
evaluate the Emission Reduction Credit application was based on actual
operating data and reported emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For one project, Seagull Sanitation, the source shutdown and
applied for ERCs. The District subtracted the amount of offsets
required to comply with Best Available Retrofit Technology at the
time of shutdown. Then the District subtracted the amount of offsets
that the source ``owed'' the District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The offsets from sources listed in Section II rely upon one year of
emissions data. Section 173 of the CAA does not define how to calculate
actual emissions for purposes of providing offsets. EPA's regulations
setting forth SIP requirements for offsets are also silent on this
issue. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i)(C). EPA's Emissions Offset
Interpretative Ruling at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, however, provides
guidance for calculating the ``baseline for determining credit for
emission and air quality offsets''. Appendix S provides:

    When offsets are calculated on a tons per year basis, the
baseline emissions for existing sources providing the offsets should
be calculated using the actual annual operating hours for the
previous one or two year period (or other appropriate period if
warranted by cyclical business conditions).

Id. at IV.C. (emphasis added). Therefore, Appendix S contemplates
situations in which one year of emissions data is sufficient.
    CCAT and CBE have asserted that the District must use two years of
actual emissions to calculate the actual emissions for offsets. This
assertion relies on the definition of ``actual emissions'' in 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(xii). This definition of ``actual emissions'' is not
provided for determining offset credit.
    We do not need to resolve whether CCAT has relied on the incorrect
definition or whether 2 years of emissions data is required for
purposes of this proposal. For this proposal, the District either used
2 years of data or appropriately adjusted the single year data. Section
II.A. lists sources where we had only Year 2 data (i.e. data for the
second year prior to shutdown) and Section II.B. lists sources where
only Year 1 data (i.e. data for the year immediately preceding
shutdown) was available. For the offsets in Section II.A where the
source only reported AER data for Year 2, the District assumed that
Year 1 emissions data (the year immediately prior to shutdown) was
zero, and the Year 2 data was divided by two to calculate an annual
average. Therefore, the District's approach for the sources in II.A is
very conservative in calculating the lowest possible amount of offsets.
    For the sources listed in Section II.B. where the source only
reported AER data for Year 1, then the District assumed that Year 2
data was not reported and the Year 1 data determined the quantity of
offsets. For this small fraction of the facilities, the baseline
emissions were calculated based on the emissions data from the year
immediately preceding the shutdown date. For these facilities, because
the data from the twelve month period immediately preceding the
shutdown was available, there was no possibility that the year one
emissions over estimated the actual emissions for the facility prior to
shutdown. There was also no information to indicate that the emissions
from the year immediately preceding shutdown were not representative.
Therefore, the one year of emissions are representative and not over
estimated.
    Based on the requirement in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S and 51.165,
EPA is proposing to determine that the District appropriately
quantified the offsets for those sources with only one year of
emissions data and that these emission reductions meet the requirement
of CAA section 173 and 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S and 51.165(a)(1)(C) to
be quantifiable.
2. Offsets From Aggregate Facilities and Cement Operations Are Surplus
    When EPA proposed approval of the SIP revision in January 2011, we
received a comment from CBE and CCAT that contended generally that not
all of the offsets from aggregate facilities, spray booths and other
industrial sources were surplus. In our

response to comments, we stated that all of the emissions reductions
were surplus because ``[t]he District has not promulgated any new rules
or standards that would apply to these types of sources, and thus no
adjustments to the credits were required.'' 76 FR at 22038. After we
issued our response to comments and final rule, CBE and CCAT petitioned
for judicial review. In briefing to the Court, CBE and CCAT stated for
the first time that the District had adopted Rules 1156 and 1157 that
require reductions of emissions at cement plants and aggregate plants.
In this Supplemental proposal, EPA is adding information on the surplus
adjustment made for the offsets in the AB 1318 Tracking System subject
to Rule 1157 (PM10 Emission Reductions From Aggregate and
Related Operations).
    It is important to note that the surplus adjustment of the offsets
was not required to be performed until the time the authority to
construct permit was issued because EPA requires the surplus adjustment
``at the time of use''. The permit was not issued until after the final
approval of our prior SIP action and was not included in the docket.
However, now that the permit has been issued, we have re-evaluated the
need to surplus adjust the offsets.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We considered the surplus adjustment at the time of our
prior approval, however, the District made some final surplus
adjustments before issuing the permit. This later adjustment does
not change our prior determination that the available offsets in the
AB 1318 Tracking System were more than required for the Sentinel
Energy Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 1156 does not apply to any of the offsets included in the AB
1318 Tracking System. Rule 1156 (Further Reduction of Particulate
Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities) only applies to cement
manufacturers, not users of cement products.\3\ Two facilities in the
AB 1318 Tracking System, Elsinore Ready-Mix Co., Inc. and Oldcastle
Westile, Inc., use cement products but do not manufacture cement.
Therefore, Rule 1156 does not apply to those facilities and Rule 1156
does not require any surplus adjustment to the offsets from these
facilities or any others in the AB 1318 Tracking System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As stated in the District's Staff Report for Rule 1156, the
two facilities affected by Rule 1156 are TXI Riverside Cement and
Cal Portland Cement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 1157, which applies to aggregate facilities, was also adopted
after the earliest date equipment was shutdown for any offsets included
in the AB 1318 Tracking System (i.e. 1999). Six aggregate facilities
are included in the AB 1318 Tracking System. Matthews International
Corp. is not subject to Rule 1157 because the rule only applies to
aggregate operations which are defined as ``operations that produce
sand, gravel, crushed stone, and/or quarried rocks.'' Since Matthews is
a foundry operation that uses, but does not produce sand, the facility
is not subject to Rule 1157.
    Rule 1157 applies to the six aggregate facilities in the AB 1318
Tracking System. If any of these facilities were already operating in
compliance with the new standards in Rule 1157, then no surplus
adjustment was required to ensure the emission reductions were surplus
(i.e. went beyond the reductions required by the rule). In other words,
the emissions from these facilities were already equal to or less than
the emissions allowed by Rule 1157. The rule requires various
techniques to be used throughout the facility to minimize
PM10 emissions. These techniques include housekeeping
provisions such as cleaning spills on paved roads; control techniques
such as the application of water or dust suppressants, enclosures and
baghouses; and equipment and work standards to minimize track out of
materials. The District establishes emission factors based on the use
of these techniques as part of the rulemaking process for adopting Rule
1157. If the facility's total emissions are below the material
throughput multiplied by the applicable emissions factors, the facility
is in compliance with Rule 1157. In this case, no further surplus
adjustment is required unless the rule is amended to further reduce the
allowable emissions before the offsets are used. While Rule 1157 has
not been amended, the District has adopted revised emission factors for
the various operations subject to this rule,\4\ and therefore, further
adjustments were made to the offsets from these six aggregate
facilities. These further adjustments are discussed in more detail in
the TSD and shown in Attachment A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See letter from Barry R. Wallerstein to Malcolm C. Weiss,
Subject: Rule 1157--PM10 Emission Reductions from
Aggregate and Related Operations, dated December 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The District Properly Transferred Offsetting Emission Reductions
From Sources that Shutdown in 1999-2002
    The final issue for comment in this Supplemental proposal concerns
the appropriate SIP AQMP for the District and EPA to use to evaluate
whether the emissions reductions from shutdown units have been included
in the SIP's base year.

    40 CFR part 51, Appendix S,\5\ at IV.3, provides: Emissions
reductions achieved by shutting down an existing source or
curtailing production or operating hours may be generally credited
for offsets if they meet the requirements in paragraphs IV.C.3.i.1
through 2 of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Appendix S has the same language that is used in 40 CFR
51.165.

Section IV.C.3.i.1 requires the emissions reductions to be surplus,
permanent, quantifiable and federally enforceable. Section IV.C.3.i.2
allows emission reductions from shutdown equipment or curtailed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
operations to be used provided:

    The shutdown or curtailment occurred after the last day of the
base year for the SIP planning process. For purposes of this
paragraph, a reviewing authority may choose to consider a prior
shutdown or curtailment to have occurred after the last day of the
base year if the projected emissions inventory used to develop the
attainment demonstration explicitly includes the emissions from such
previously shutdown or curtailed emissions units.

    In our final rulemaking, EPA responded to comments on this issue by
indicating our understanding that the District properly added pre-base
year credits into its 2007 PM2.5 AQMP which we concluded met
the requirements of the second sentence of the IV.3.C.i.2.
    EPA has now determined that it would be more appropriate to rely on
the District's 2003 PM10 AQMPs, rather than their 2007
PM2.5 AQMP for two reasons. The reason for relying on the
2003 AQMPs is that the offsets the District transferred to the AB 1318
Tracking System are for PM10, not PM2.5. The
District has approved PM10 AQMPs for both the South Coast
Air Basin and the Coachella Valley that were adopted in 2003.
Therefore, the appropriate AQMP for EPA to reference when evaluating
PM10 offsets (and precursors including SOX) for
the AB 1318 Tracking System is the approved 2003 PM10 AQMPs.
The inventories in the 2003 PM10 AQMPs have a base year of
1997 for both the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley.\6\
None of the offsets transferred by the District were derived from
shutdowns occurring before the last day of 1997. Therefore all of the
offsets in the AB 1318 Tracking System resulting from shutdown
equipment were included in the base year for the 2003 PM10
AQMPs, including SOX as a precursor.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA also notes that we had not approved the 2007
PM2.5 AQMPs at the time the District transferred the
offsets to the AB 1318 Tracking System. EPA proposed approval of the
2007 PM2.5 AQMP in July 2011 and finalized approval on
November 9, 2011.
    \7\ Although we are now relying on the 2003 PM10
AQMPs, EPA has not changed our determination that the District
explicitly added offsets into the inventories for the 2007 AQMP as
discussed in EPA's and the District's briefing to the Ninth Circuit.

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

    EPA is now proposing to approve the AB 1318 Tracking System because
all of the offsets for PM10 and the precursor SOX
occurred after the base year of 1997 in the PM10 AQMPs.

E. Section 110(l) Evaluation

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA may not approve any SIP
revision that would interfere with attainment, reasonable further
progress (RFP) or any other CAA requirement.
    We have determined that this SIP revision will not interfere with
attainment or RFP because the offsets in the AB 1318 Tracking System
are not relied on for attainment or RFP in the District's attainment
demonstrations. We are also not aware of this revision interfering with
any other CAA requirement. For example, this source-specific SIP
revision provides a new but equivalent mechanism to provisions in
Regulation XIII for satisfying the offset requirements of CAA Section
173 because the offsets the District is transferring from its internal
bank to the AB 1318 Tracking System meet all federal requirements. In
addition, the District supplied a copy of its air quality analysis for
the Sentinel Energy Project that shows that operation of the facility
will not interfere with the ability of the District to reach
attainment.

F. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submittal fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action, addressing all public comments, which will incorporate
this submittal into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 9, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-20777 Filed 8-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32120-32122]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0495]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Nutrition
Facts Labels With Various Footnote Formats and Declaration of Amount of
Added Sugars

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on a study entitled ``Experimental Study on
Consumer Responses to Nutrition Facts Labels With Various Footnote
Formats and Declaration of Amount of Added Sugars.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by July 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400T,
Rockville, MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Nutrition Facts Labels With
Various Footnote Formats and Declaration of Amount of Added Sugars--
(OMB Control Number 0910-New)

I. Background

    Under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (Pub. L.
101-535), the Nutrition Facts label is required on most packaged foods
and this information must be provided in a specific format in
accordance with the provisions of Sec.  101.9 (21 CFR 101.9). When FDA
was determining which Nutrition Facts label format to require, the
Agency undertook consumer research to evaluate alternatives (Refs. 1 to
3). More recently, FDA conducted qualitative consumer research on the
format of the Nutrition Facts label on behalf of the Agency's Obesity
Working Group (Ref. 4), which was formed in 2003 and tasked with
outlining a plan to help confront the problem of obesity in the United
States (Ref. 5). In addition to conducting consumer research, in the
Federal Register of November 2, 2007 (72 FR 62149) FDA issued an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled, ``Food
Labeling: Revision of Reference Values and Mandatory Nutrients'' (the
2007 ANPRM), which requested comments on a variety of topics related to
a future proposed rule to update the presentation of nutrients and
content of nutrient values on food labels. In the 2007 ANPRM, the
Agency included a request for comments on how consumers use the percent
Daily Value in the Nutrition Facts label when evaluating the
nutritional content of food items and making purchases.
    Research has suggested that consumers use the Nutrition Facts label
in various ways, including, but not limited to, using the Nutrition
Facts label to determine if products are high or low in a specific
nutrient and to compare products (Ref. 6). One component of the
Nutrition Facts label that serves as an aid in these uses is the
percent Daily Value. Early consumer research indicated that the percent
Daily Value format improved consumers' abilities to make correct
dietary judgments about a food in the context of a total daily diet
(Ref. 3), which led FDA to require both quantitative and percentage
declarations of nutrient Daily Values in the Nutrition Facts label in
the 1993 Nutrition Labeling final rule (58 FR 2079, January 6, 1993).
    Research in subsequent years, however, suggested that consumers'
understanding and use of percent Daily Value may be somewhat
inconsistent

(Refs. 7 and 8). Additionally, FDA has received several public comments
suggesting that further research on percent Daily Values may be
warranted, along with research on other modifications to the Nutrition
Facts label. Suggested research on potential modifications includes
research on: (1) The removal of the statements, ``Percent Daily Values
are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your Daily Values may be higher or
lower depending on your calorie needs''; (2) the removal of the table
in the footnote that lists the Daily Values for total fat, saturated
fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrate, and dietary fiber based
on 2,000 and 2,500 calorie diets as described in Sec.  101.9(d)(9); and
(3) changes to the presentation of and amount of information provided
in the Nutrition Facts label. Therefore, the FDA, as part of its effort
to promote public health, proposes to use this study to explore
consumer responses to various food label formats for the footnote area
of the Nutrition Facts label, including those that exhibit information
such as various definitions for percent Daily Value, a succinct
statement about daily caloric intake, and general guidelines for high
and low nutrient levels.
    This study will also explore how declaring the added sugars content
of foods might affect consumers' attention to and understanding of the
sugars and calorie contents and other information on the Nutrition
Facts label. FDA received numerous comments regarding the declaration
of added sugars in response to the 2007 ANPRM even though the Agency
did not ask any questions regarding the declaration of added sugars.
The Agency is not aware of any existing consumer research that has
examined this topic and is therefore interested in using this study to
enhance understanding of how consumers would comprehend and use this
new information.
    In the Federal Register of May 23, 2011 (76 FR 29758), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. In that notice, the Agency announced its
intention to examine consumer reactions to the declaration of vitamins
and minerals by weight on the Nutrition Facts label. This intention was
prompted by the 2003 Institute of Medicine report that recommended
declaration of weight amounts of all nutrients, including vitamins and
minerals, on the food label (Ref. 9). As the report noted, public
health advice on nutrient intake is often given in absolute amounts,
but in the case of a nutrient such as calcium, consumers may not be
able to determine the amount of calcium in a food when it is listed
only as Percent Daily Values on the Nutrition Facts label. Block and
Peracchio (Ref. 10) demonstrated this difficulty and the potential
merits of providing consumers with easy-to-use information in helping
them increase their calcium intakes. The findings by Block and
Peracchio provide data on the issue we were planning to study. On the
other hand, consumer evidence on the effects of declaring added sugars
is lacking. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the utility of
the study would be enhanced by replacing the examination of declaring
amounts of vitamins and minerals by weight with an examination of
declaring the amount of added sugars. This change would have minimal
effects on the planned length and respondent burden of the study and
would not change the study's primary focus, which remains on examining
footnote options.
    In the Federal Register of December 29, 2011 (76 FR 81949), FDA
published a notice informing interested parties that the proposed
collection of information had been submitted to OMB for review and
clearance under the PRA and inviting the public to submit comments on
the proposed study to OMB. The notice also announced FDA's plans to
change the study by examining consumer reactions to the declaration of
added sugars instead of the declaration of vitamins and minerals by
weight. OMB received requests for an extension of time to comment on
this change to the study. In response to these requests, FDA is
providing an opportunity for comment on the current design of the
study, including the added sugars component, by publishing a new 60-day
notice describing the study as currently envisioned and inviting the
public to submit comments to the Agency's docket. After considering any
comments received, the Agency will resubmit the proposed collection of
information to OMB. In the meantime, the Agency is withdrawing the
proposed collection of information from OMB review, as announced
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    The proposed collection of information is a controlled, randomized,
experimental study. The study will use a Web-based survey, which will
take about 15 minutes to complete, to collect information from 10,000
English-speaking adult members of an online consumer panel maintained
by a contractor. The study will aim to recruit a sample that reflects
the U.S. Census on gender, education, age, and ethnicity/race.
    The study will randomly assign each of its participants to view a
series of label images from a set of food labels that will be created
for the study and systematically varied in the presence or absence of:
(1) A definition for percent Daily Value, (2) a general guideline for
``high'' and ``low'' nutrient levels, and (3) a declaration for added
sugars. A sample definition for percent Daily Value may include, for
example, ``The percent Daily Value is the amount of a nutrient listed
in this document that one serving of this product contributes to the
daily diet.'' A sample guideline for high and low nutrient levels may
include, for example, ``5 percent or less is low, and 20 percent or
more is high.'' Finally, the study will also examine effects of
including reference to FDA within the Nutrition Facts footnote and a
succinct statement about daily caloric intake. All label images will be
mock-ups resembling food labels that may be found in the marketplace.
Images will show product identity (e.g., yogurt or frozen meal), but
not any real or fictitious brand name.
    The survey will ask its participants to view label images and
answer questions about their understanding, perceptions, and reactions
related to the viewed label. The study will focus on the following
types of consumer reactions: (1) Judgments about a food product in
terms of its nutritional attributes and overall healthfulness; (2)
ability to use the Nutrition Facts label in tasks, such as identifying
a product's nutrient contents and evaluating the percent Daily Values
for specific nutrients; and (3) label perceptions (e.g., helpfulness
and credibility). To help understand consumer reactions, the study will
also collect information on participants' background, including but not
limited to, use of the Nutrition Facts label and health status.
    The study is part of the Agency's continuing effort to enable
consumers to make informed dietary choices and construct healthful
diets. Results of the study will be used primarily to enhance the
Agency's understanding of how various potential modifications to the
Nutrition Facts label may affect how consumers perceive a product or a
label, which may in turn affect their dietary choices. Results of the
study will not be used to develop population estimates.
    To help design and refine the questionnaire, FDA plans to conduct
cognitive interviews by screening 72 panelists in order to obtain 9
participants in the interviews. Each screening is expected to take 5
minutes (0.083 hour) and each cognitive interview is expected to take
one hour. The total for cognitive interview activities is 15 hours (6
hours + 9 hours). Subsequently, we plan to

conduct pretests of the questionnaire before it is administered in the
study. We expect that 1,000 invitations, each taking 2 minutes (0.033
hours), will need to be sent to adult members of an online consumer
panel to have 150 of them complete a 15-minute (0.25 hours) pretest.
The total for the pretest activities is 71 hours (33 hours + 38 hours).
For the survey, we estimate that 40,000 invitations, each taking 2
minutes (0.033 hours), will need to be sent to adult members of an
online consumer panel to have 10,000 of them complete a 15-minute (0.25
hours) questionnaire. The total for the survey activities is 3,820
hours (1,320 hours + 2,500 hours). Thus, the total estimated burden is
3,906 hours.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                  Activity                       Number of     responses per   Total annual          Average  burden per  response          Total hours
                                                respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interview screener................              72               1              72  0.083 (5 min.)............................               6
Cognitive interview.........................               9               1               9  1.........................................               9
Pretest invitation..........................           1,000               1           1,000  0.033 (2 min.)............................              33
Pretest.....................................             150               1             150  0.25 (15 min.)............................              38
Survey invitation...........................          40,000               1          40,000  0.033 (2 min.)............................           1,320
Survey......................................          10,000               1          10,000  0.25 (15 min.)............................           2,500
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..........................................           3,906
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

II. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
(FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but we are not responsible
for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.)

1. Levy, A.S., S.B. Fein, and R.E. Schucker, ``Nutrition Labeling
Formats: Performance and Preference,'' Food Technology, vol. 45, pp.
116-121, 1991.
2. Levy, A.S., S.B. Fein, and R.E. Schucker, ``More Effective
Nutrition Label Formats Are Not Necessarily Preferred,'' Journal of
the American Dietetic Association, vol. 92, pp. 1230-1234, 1992.
3. Levy, A.S., S.B. Fein, and R.E. Schucker, ``Performance
Characteristics of Seven Nutrition Label Formats,'' Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, vol. 15, pp. 1-15, 1996.
4. Lando, A.M. and J. Labiner-Wolfe, ``Helping Consumers to Make
More Healthful Food Choices: Consumer Views on Modifying Food Labels
and Providing Point-of-Purchase Nutrition Information at Quick-
Service Restaurants,'' Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,
vol. 39, pp. 157-163, 2007.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Calories Count: Report of the
Working Group on Obesity, 2004, available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/ReportsResearch/ucm081696.htm.
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ``2008 Health and Diet
Survey--Preliminary Topline Frequencies (Weighted),'' 2010,
available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/ConsumerResearch/ucm193895.htm.
7. Li, F., P.W. Miniard, and M.J. Barone, ``The Facilitating
Influence of Consumer Knowledge on the Effectiveness of Daily Value
Reference Information,'' Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, vol. 28, pp. 425-436, 2000.
8. Levy, L., R.E. Patterson, A.R. Kristal, and S.S. Li, ``How Well
Do Consumers Understand Percentage Daily Value on Food Labels?''
American Journal of Health Promotion, vol. 14, pp. 157-160, 2000.
9. Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes: Guiding
Principles for Nutrition Labeling and Fortification, 2003, available
at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10872.
10. Block, L.G. and L.A. Peracchio, ``The Calcium Quandary: How
Consumers Use Nutrition Labels,'' Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, vol. 25, pp. 188-196, 2006.

    Dated: May 23, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-13141 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14724-14725]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05706]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0042; FRL-9958-85]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Request for Nominations to
the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is inviting nominations
from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for
appointment to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). The
PPDC is chartered to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA
Administrator on a broad range of issues concerning pesticide
regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy
and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with
evaluating and reducing risks from pesticide use. To maintain the
representation outlined by the charter, nominees will be selected to
represent: Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm
worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations;
pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; federal/state/local and
tribal governments; academia; and public health organizations.
Vacancies are expected to be filled by July 2017. Sources in addition
to this Federal Register Notice may be utilized in the solicitation of
nominees.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted no later than April 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit nominations electronically with the subject line
``PPDC Membership 2017'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also submit
nominations by mail to: Dea Zimmerman (LC-8J), PPDC Designated Federal
Officer, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. Non-electronic
submissions must follow the same format and contain the same
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dea Zimmerman, Designated Federal
Officer for the PPDC, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or
persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these
major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996;
and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and
farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental,
consumer, and farmworker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal
rights groups; pest consultants; State, local and Tribal governments;
academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0042, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    The PPDC is a federal advisory committee chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA
established the PPDC in September 1995 to provide advice and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with
pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving
public policy and program implementation

issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing
risks from use of pesticides. The following sectors are represented on
the current PPDC: Environmental/public interest and animal rights
groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade
associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; federal and
state/local/tribal governments; the general public; academia; and
public health organizations.
    The PPDC usually meets face-to-face twice a year, generally in the
spring and the fall. Additionally, members may be asked serve on work
groups to develop recommendations to address specific policy issues.
The average workload for members is approximately 4 to 6 hours per
month. PPDC members may receive travel and per diem allowances where
appropriate and according to applicable federal travel regulations.

III. Nominations

    The EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain
nominations of diverse candidates, the agency encourages nominations of
women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. All nominations will be
fully considered, but applicants need to be aware of the specific
representation sought as outlined in the Summary above. Any interested
person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered
for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals may self-
nominate. Nominations may be submitted in electronic format (preferred)
or mailed to Dea Zimmerman at the address listed under ADDRESSES.
    To be considered, all nominations should include:
     Current contact information for the nominee, including the
nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization),
current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number;
     Brief Statement describing the nominee's interest and
availability in serving on the PPDC;
     R[eacute]sum[eacute] and a short biography (no more than 2
paragraphs) describing the professional and educational qualifications
of the nominee, including a list of relevant activities, or any current
or previous experience on advisory committees; and
     Letter(s) of recommendation from a third party supporting
the nomination. The letter should describe how the nominee's experience
and knowledge will bring value to the work of the PPDC.
    Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may
also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: February 1, 2017.
Jack Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-05706 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 15575-15577]
[DOCID:fr06ap09-148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2003-25290]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
Isuzu Motors America, Inc. (Isuzu)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that Isuzu North America Corporation (Isuzu)
has applied for an exemption from the Federal requirement that drivers
of commercial motor vehicles (CMV) hold a commercial driver's license
(CDL) issued by one of the States. Isuzu requests exemption so that 20
of its Japanese employees can test-drive Isuzu CMVs in the United
States. Each of these 20 Isuzu employees holds a valid Japanese CDL but
lacks the U.S. residency necessary to obtain a CDL from one of the
States. Isuzu believes the knowledge and skills tests and training
program that drivers undergo to obtain a Japanese CDL would provide for
a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be achieved without the exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to Federal Docket Management System
Number FMCSA-2003-25290 by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
the ground floor, room W12-140, DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of the our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Public Participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can
obtain electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under
the ``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and
also at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov. If you want us to notify you that
we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears
after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Schultz, Jr., FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998) amended 49 U.S.C. 31315
and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from motor
carrier safety regulations. Under its regulations, FMCSA must publish a
notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to
inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the application.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely provide for a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level
achieved without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the
Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b))
with the reason for denying the request for exemption or, in the
alternative, the specific person or class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision or provisions from which
exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the effective period
of the exemption (up to 2 years), and explain the terms and conditions
of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    Isuzu has applied for an exemption from the commercial driver's
license (CDL) rule, specifically 49 CFR 383.23, that prescribes
licensing requirements for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or
intrastate commerce. Isuzu requests the exemption because its driver-
employees, as citizens and residents of Japan, cannot apply for a CDL
in any of the United States. A copy of the application is in Docket No.
FMCSA-2003-25290. The exemption would allow 20 drivers to operate CMVs
in interstate commerce as a team, testing and evaluating production and
prototype CMVs in the United States in order to assist in the design of
safe vehicles for sale in the United States.
    The drivers are: Tadashi Shoda, Ryouji Matsuzawa, Hisashi
Hashiguchi, Nobuhisa Okuda, Minoru Endo, Fumiaki Takei, Akira Yoshino,
Tadao Shibuya, Akira Iizuka, Yoshinori Ugai, Kazuyoshi Tateishi, Naomi
Uchida, Kiyoshi Toshima, Khoki Natsumi, Minuro Tsuchida, Mitsuo Konno,
Hiroaki Kurata, Naoki Morimoto, Takayuki Kaneda, and Chito Agatsuma.
    Each driver holds a valid Japanese CDL, and as explained by Isuzu
in previous exemption requests, drivers applying for a Japanese-issued
CDL must undergo a driver training program and pass knowledge and
skills tests. Isuzu also stated in prior exemption requests that the
knowledge and skills tests and training program that Japanese drivers
undergo to obtain a Japanese CDL provide for a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption. FMCSA has previously determined that the process for
obtaining a Japanese CDL is comparable to, or as effective as, the
Federal CDL knowledge and skills requirements of 49 CFR part 383 as
enforced by the States, and adequately assesses the driver's ability to
operate CMVs in the U.S. The initial notice of a similar nature was
published by FMCSA on October 16, 2003, granting a similar exemption to
Isuzu for 31 Japanese CDL drivers (68 FR 59677).

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA
requests public comment on Isuzu's application for an exemption from
the CDL requirements of 49 CFR 383.23. The Agency will consider all
comments received by close of business on May 6, 2009. Comments will be
available for

examination in the docket at the location listed under the Addresses
section of this notice. The Agency will consider to the extent
practicable comments received in the public docket after the closing
date of the comment period.

    Issued on: March 27, 2009.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-7564 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA/ Office of Water/ Office of Wastewater Management 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2040  0241 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c.

Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Cooling Water Intake Structures  New Facility ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): EPA ICR # 1973.03 9. Keywords: Clean Water Act Section 316( b), cooling water intake structures new facility final rule, permit application 10. Abstract: The section 316( b) New Facility Rule requires the collection of information from new facilities that use a cooling water intake structure ( CWIS). Entities affected by this rule are new power producing facilities ( both utility and nonutility) and new manufacturing facilities that have large cooling water requirements. The information requested will be included in permit application and will be used by a permitting authority to assess the facility level compliance with the requirements of the final rule. The information requested regarding location, design and structure of CWISs, velocity, flow, technologies to minimize impingement mortality and entrainment would help the permitting authorities to determine whether a facility has minimized the adverse environmental impacts from the operation of CWIS.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. x Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. x State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c.

Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 69 b. Total annual responses 373 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 76,268 d. Current OMB inventory 40,376 e. Difference 35,892 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 35,892 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 1152 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 790 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 1942 d. Current OMB inventory $ 1766 e. Difference $ 176 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment $ 176 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6.

Annually 7. Q Biannually 8.

Other ( describe) one time 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jack Faulk Phone: 202 564 0768 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official James A. Hanlon, Director Office of Wastewater Management Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/