Honda Comments   SORE Workshop October 5, 2005 Exhaust Emissions Regulations ° CARB Tier 3 Regulation adopted September, 2003 ° Honda publicly supported these standards ° Based on the knowledge of our products, no significant increase in risk occurs as a result of these standards ° Honda supports 50 state emission standards for Small Engines ° We will support EPA's adoption of CARB Tier 3 exhaust levels Technical Risk Management ° The CARB Tier 3 exhaust levels force consideration of catalysts ° Honda believes the temperatures and other risk factors in the exhaust system are manageable at Tier 3 exhaust levels Honda Comments   SORE Workshop October 5, 2005 General Comments ° Safety risks are carefully considered in the design and manufacturing process at Honda. Internal guidelines based on recognized standards and engineering practices are followed. These were all considered in our endorsement of the CARB Tier 3 exhaust emission standards.

° Honda strongly supports and participates in industry efforts to continually evaluate and improve domestic and international standards for performance and design of products, human factors research, and safety risk factors.

° We look forward to working with the US EPA and the US Fire Marshals in a cooperative effort with other engine and equipment manufacturers to verify that Phase 3 products are comparable to current products ° With the expertise in our small engine and equipment industry and in the context of the ANSI standards development process, we should be continuously working to improve our products.

° Development work begun now by the industry on a future exhaust system performance standard will be valuable in providing a better baseline for all industry members and as a guideline to evaluate any other future exhaust standard proposals.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10325-10327]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03987]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0430; FRL-7522-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary
Copper Smelting Residual Risk and Technology Review and Primary Copper
Smelting Area Source Technology Review; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On January 11, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed a rule titled ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Copper Smelting Residual Risk and
Technology Review and Primary Copper Smelting Area Source Technology
Review.'' The EPA is extending the comment period on this proposed rule
that currently closes on February 25, 2022, by 60 days. The comment
period will now remain open until April 26, 2022, to allow additional
time for Tribal Nations and stakeholders to review and comment on the
proposal.

DATES: The public comment period for the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on January 11, 2022 (87 FR 1616), originally ending
February 25, 2022, is being extended by 60 days. Written comments must
be received on or before April 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0430, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0430 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0430.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0430, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operation
are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions. All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also continues
to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand
deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only.
For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Tonisha Dawson, Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-1454 fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rationale. Based on consideration of
requests received from industry (Freeport-McMoRan Miami, Inc. and
Asarco LLC) and an environmental organization (Earthjustice), the EPA
is extending the public comment period for an additional 60 days.
Therefore, the public comment period will end on April 26, 2022.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0430. All documents in the docket are
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) 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. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0430. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be
submitted as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the Docket
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures
outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage
media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID.
Information not

marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0430. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer
envelope.

Penny Lassiter,
Director, Sector Policy and Programs Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-03987 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36544-36548]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0547]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk
Factors in Selected Retail and Foodservice Facility Types (2013-2022)

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 survey entitled ``Occurrence of Foodborne
Illness Risk Factors in Selected Retail and Foodservice Facility Types
(2013-2022).''

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by August 20, 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: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><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.

Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected
Retail and Foodservice Facility Types (2013-2022)--(OMB Control Number
0910-NEW)

I. Background

    In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's National Retail
Food Team initiated a 10-year voluntary survey to measure trends in the
occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors--preparation practices and
employee behaviors most commonly reported to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) as contributing factors to foodborne
illness outbreaks at the retail level. Specifically, the survey
included data collection inspections of various types

of retail and foodservice establishments at 5-year intervals (1998,
2003, and 2008) in order to observe and document trends in the
occurrence of the following foodborne illness risk factors:
     Food from Unsafe Sources.
     Poor Personal Hygiene.
     Inadequate Cooking.
     Improper Holding/Time and Temperature.
     Contaminated Equipment/Protection from Contamination.
    FDA developed reports summarizing the findings for each of the
three data collection periods (1998, 2003, and 2008) (Refs. 1-3). Data
from all three data collection periods were analyzed to detect trends
in improvement or regression over time and to determine whether
progress had been made toward the goal of reducing the occurrence of
foodborne illness risk factors in selected retail and foodservice
facility types (Ref. 4).
    The research obtained from these studies provides FDA a solid
foundation for developing a national retail food program model that can
be used by Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies to:
     Identify essential food safety program performance
measurements;
     Assess strengths and gaps in the design, structure, and
delivery of program services;
     Establish program priorities and intervention strategies
focused on reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors;
and
     Create a mechanism that justifies program resources and
allocates them to program areas that will provide the most significant
public health benefits.
    Using this 10-year survey as a foundation, FDA is proposing to
conduct a new voluntary survey encompassing annual data collections
over a 10-year period. The survey will determine the following for each
facility type included in the study:
     The foodborne illness risk factors that are in most need
of priority attention during each data collection period;
     Trends of improvement or regression in foodborne illness
risk factor occurrence over time; and
     The impact of industry food safety management systems in
controlling the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors.
    The results of the proposed study will be used to:
     Formulate Agency retail food safety policies and
initiatives;
     Identify retail food work plan priorities and allocate
resources to enhance retail food safety nationwide;
     Generate nationally representative estimates of the
prevalence of foodborne illness risk factors and trends of improvement
and regression over time; and
     Recommend best practices and targeted intervention
strategies to assist the retail and foodservice industry and state,
local, and tribal regulators with reducing foodborne illness risk
factors.
    The statutory basis for FDA conducting this survey is the Public
Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 243, section 311(a)) (Also
21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)), which requires that FDA provide assistance
to state and local governments relative to the prevention and
suppression of communicable diseases. In addition, the PHS Act requires
that FDA cooperate with and aid state and local authorities in the
enforcement of their health regulations and provide advice on matters
relating to the preservation and improvement of public health.
Additionally, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301)
and Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) require that FDA provide assistance to
other Federal, state, and local governmental bodies.
    In 2012, FDA will conduct a pilot data collection to practice the
use of the data collection form and methods and test exportation of the
pilot data into a central repository. Following the pilot, the Agency
plans to conduct annual data collections beginning in 2013 with the
initial data collection for select restaurant facility types, followed
by the initial data collection for select institutional foodservice
facility types in 2014 and select retail food store facility types in
2015. The results of the initial data collection for each of the
facility types will serve as the baseline measurement from which trends
will be analyzed. Two additional data collection periods for each of
the facility types are planned at 3-year intervals after the initial
data collection for purposes of analyzing trends.

                               Table 1--Summary of Data Collection Time Frames \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Year for initial
                                      Facility types      data collection      Second data      Third and final
         Industry segment            included in the         (baseline      collection period   data collection
                                          survey           measurement)                              period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurants......................  Full Service                       2013               2016               2019
                                    Restaurants
                                   Fast Food
                                    Restaurants.
Institutional Foodservice........  Hospitals                          2014               2017               2020
                                   Nursing Homes......
                                   Elementary Schools
                                    (K-6).
Retail Food Stores...............  Deli Departments/                  2015               2018               2021
                                    Stores
                                   Meat and Poultry
                                    Departments/
                                    Markets.
                                   Seafood Departments/
                                    Markets.
                                   Produce Departments/
                                    Markets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data collections for each of the facility types within an industry segment will be conducted using a 3-year
  interval period. Initial data collection will serve as the baseline. Subsequent collections will provide the
  data needed to analyze trends.

    A description of the facility types included in the proposed survey
is included in table 2:

                        Table 2--Description of the Facility Types Included in the Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Industry segment                 Facility type                          Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurants..........................  Full Service             Establishments where customers place their order
                                        Restaurants.             at their table, are served their meal at the
                                                                 table, receive the service of the wait staff,
                                                                 and pay at the end of the meal.

                                       Fast Food Restaurants..  Also referred to as quick service restaurants
                                                                 and defined as any restaurant that is not a
                                                                 full service restaurant.
Institutional Foodservice............  Hospitals..............  Foodservice operations that serve patients,
                                                                 staff, and hospital visitors in a traditional
                                                                 hospital setting. Individuals who are acutely
                                                                 ill to those who are immunocompromised are a
                                                                 target population for data collection.
                                       Nursing Homes..........  Foodservice operations that serve highly
                                                                 susceptible populations living in a group care
                                                                 setting. The elderly (55+ years) is the target
                                                                 population for the data collection. Also
                                                                 includes assisted living facilities.
                                       Elementary Schools (K-   Foodservice operations that serve students from
                                        6).                      one or more grade levels from preschool through
                                                                 Grade 5. Young children are a target population
                                                                 for the data collection.
Retail Food Stores...................  Deli Departments/Stores  Departments in retail food stores where
                                                                 potentially hazardous foods (time/temperature
                                                                 control for safety foods) such as luncheon
                                                                 meats and cheeses are sliced for the customer
                                                                 and where sandwiches and salads are prepared
                                                                 onsite or received from a commissary in bulk
                                                                 containers, portioned, and displayed.
                                                                 Freestanding cheese shops are categorized as
                                                                 delis. Parts of the deli may also include:
                                                                   Salad bars and other food bars
                                                                maintained by the deli department manager;
                                                                   Areas where meat or poultry are
                                                                cooked and offered for sale as ready-to-eat;
                                                                   Pizza stands; and
                                                                   Limited bakery operations attached to
                                                                or adjacent the deli.
                                       Meat and Poultry         Meat and poultry departments in a retail food
                                        Departments/Markets.     store, as well as any freestanding meat market
                                                                 or butcher shop that sells raw meat or poultry
                                                                 directly to the consumer.
                                       Seafood Departments/     Seafood departments in retail food stores and
                                        Markets.                 freestanding seafood markets that sell seafood
                                                                 directly to the consumer including the
                                                                 preparation and sale of raw and/or ready-to-eat
                                                                 seafood. In-store sushi bars are considered
                                                                 part of the seafood department for the purposes
                                                                 of the data collection.
                                       Produce Departments/     Areas or departments where produce is cut,
                                        Markets.                 prepared, stored, or displayed. A produce
                                                                 department may include salad bars that are
                                                                 managed by the produce manager, as well as
                                                                 juicers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A geographical information system database containing a listing of
businesses throughout the United States will be used as the
establishment inventory for the data collections. FDA's Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) Biostatistical Branch, in
collaboration with the FDA National Retail Food Team, will perform a
series of filtering processes of the various database food
establishment categories to ensure establishments are correctly
classified and considered eligible to participate in the survey based
on the descriptions in table 2.
    To further determine the pool of establishments eligible for
selection, an effort will be made to exclude operations that handle
only prepackaged food items or conduct low-risk food preparation
activities. The FDA Food Code contains a grouping of establishments by
risk, based on the type of food preparation that is normally conducted
within the operation (Ref. 5). The vast majority of selected
establishments are to be chosen from risk categories 2 through 4.
    FDA has approximately 25 Regional Retail Food Specialists
(Specialists) who will serve as the data collectors for the 10-year
study. The Specialists are geographically dispersed throughout the
United States and possess technical expertise in retail food safety and
a solid understanding of the operations within each of the facility
types to be surveyed. The Specialists are also standardized by FDA's
CFSAN personnel in the application and interpretation of the FDA Model
Food Code (Ref. 5). The geographical distribution of Specialists
throughout the United States allows for a broad sampling of facility
types in all regions of the United States; therefore, establishments
will be randomly selected to participate in the study from among all
eligible establishments located within a 150-mile radius of each of the
Specialists' home locations.
    The pilot will include approximately 4 data collection inspections
for each of the approximately 25 Specialists, or a total of 100
inspections. In order to obtain a sufficient number of observations to
conduct statistically significant analysis, the FDA CFSAN
Biostatistical Branch has determined, based on the previous 10-year
foodborne illness risk factor study that was performed, that
approximately 400 data collection inspections of each facility type are
needed during the initial and subsequent data collection periods. The
sample for each data collection period will be evenly distributed among
Specialists. Given that participation in the study by industry is
voluntary and the status of any given randomly selected establishment
is subject to change, substitute establishments will be selected for
each Specialist for cases where the restaurant facility is
misclassified, closed, or otherwise unavailable, unable, or unwilling
to participate.
    Prior to conducting the data collection, Specialists will contact
the state or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for
conducting retail food inspections for the selected establishment. The
Specialist will verify with the jurisdiction that the facility has been
properly classified for the purposes of the study and is still in
operation. The Specialist will also ascertain whether the selected
facility is under legal notice from the state or local regulatory
authority. If the selected facility is under legal notice, the
Specialist will not conduct a data collection, and a substitute
establishment will be used. An invitation will be extended to the state
or local regulatory authority to accompany the Specialist on the data
collection visit.
    A standard data collection form will be used by the Specialists
during each inspection. The form is divided into three sections:
Section 1--Establishment Information; Section 2--Regulatory Authority
Information; and Section 3--Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food
Safety Management System Assessment. Section 3 includes three parts
(parts A-C) for tabulating the Specialists' observations of the food
employees' behaviors and practices in limiting contamination,
proliferation, and survival of food safety hazards (part A);

the industry food safety management being implemented by the facility
(part B); and the frequency of food employee hand washing (part C).
    The information in Section 1--Establishment Information of the form
will be obtained during an interview with the establishment owner or
person in charge by the Specialist and will include a standard set of
questions. The information in Section 2--Regulatory Authority
Information will be obtained during an interview with the program
director of the state or local jurisdiction that has regulatory
responsibility for conducting inspections for the selected
establishment. Section 3, part A will be collected from the
Specialists' direct observations of food employee behaviors and
practices. Infrequent, nonstandard questions may be asked by the
Specialists if clarification is needed on the food safety procedure or
practice being observed. For Section 3, part B of the form, Specialists
will make direct observations and ask follow up questions of industry
management to obtain information on the extent to which the food
establishments have developed and implemented food safety management
systems. Section 3, part C of the form will involve direct observations
of hand washing frequency by the Specialists. No questions will be
asked in the completion of this part of the form.
    Due to the infrequent and nonstandard nature of the questions that
may or may not be asked to clarify direct observations made by the
Specialists in completing Section 3, parts A and C of the data
collection form, only the burden associated with the information
collection related to the completion of Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3,
part B of the form is included in burden estimates. For each data
collection, the respondents will include the person in charge of the
selected facility and the program director of the respective regulatory
authority. For the pilot, 25 Specialists will conduct 4 data collection
inspections; thus, FDA estimates the number of respondents to be 200
(25 Specialists x 4 data collection inspections x 2 respondents per
data collection). The estimate of the hours per response is based on
its previous experience with collecting similar information in previous
data collection efforts. We estimate that it will take each of the
respondents 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to answer the questions related to
Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B of the form, for a total of 50
hours. FDA bases its estimate of the number of respondents during the
subsequent activities (data collections) on 400 inspections being
conducted in each facility type. FDA CFSAN's Biostatistical Branch has
determined that 400 inspections are necessary to provide the sufficient
number of observations needed to conduct a statistically significant
analysis of the data. The data collections in the Restaurant Segment
will occur in 2013, 2016, and 2019, and will each consist of 1,600
respondents. We estimate that it will take each respondent 15 minutes
(0.25 hours) to answer the questions related to Sections 1 and 2 and
Section 3, part B of the form, for a total of 400 hours. The data
collections in the Institutional Foodservice Segment will occur in
2014, 2017, and 2020, and will each consist of 2,400 respondents. We
estimate that it will take each respondent 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to
answer the questions related to Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B
of the form, for a total of 600 hours. The data collections in the
Retail Food Store Segment will occur in 2015, 2018, and 2021, and will
each consist of 3,200 respondents. We estimate that it will take a
respondent 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to answer the questions related to
Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B of the form, for a total of 800
hours. Thus, the total estimated burden is 5,450 hours.

                                 Table 3--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No. of
            Activity                  No. of       responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Pilot Data Collection to                200               1             200            0.25              50
 Practice Use of Form and                                                           (15 minutes)
 Methods and Exportation of Data
 Into Central Repository........
2013 Baseline Data Collection--            1,600               1           1,600            0.25             400
 Restaurant Segment (includes                                                       (15 minutes)
 two facility types)............
2014 Baseline Data Collection--            2,400               1           2,400            0.25             600
 Institutional Foodservice                                                          (15 minutes)
 Segment (includes three
 facility types)................
2015 Baseline Data Collection--            3,200               1           3,200            0.25             800
 Retail Food Store Segment                                                          (15 minutes)
 (includes four facility types).
2016 Second Data Collection--              1,600               1           1,600            0.25             400
 Restaurant Segment (includes                                                       (15 minutes)
 two facility types)............
2017 Second Data Collection--              2,400               1           2,400            0.25             600
 Institutional Foodservice                                                          (15 minutes)
 Segment (includes three
 facility types)................
2018 Second Data Collection--              3,200               1           3,200            0.25             800
 Retail Food Store Segment                                                          (15 minutes)
 (includes four facility types).
2019 Third and Final Data                  1,600               1           1,600            0.25             400
 Collection--Restaurant Segment                                                     (15 minutes)
 (includes two facility types)..
2020 Third and Final Data                  2,400               1           2,400            0.25             600
 Collection--Institutional                                                          (15 minutes)
 Foodservice Segment (includes
 three facility types)..........
2021 Third and Final Data                  3,200               1           3,200            0.25             800
 Collection--Retail Food Store                                                      (15 minutes)
 Segment (includes four facility
 types).........................

    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           5,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. Report of the FDA Retail Food Program Steering Committee.
Database of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors (2000). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm123546.pdf.
    2. FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors
in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food
Store Facility Types (2004). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm089696.htm.
    3. FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors
in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food
Store Facility Types (2009). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/UCM224682.pdf.
    4. FDA National Retail Food Team. FDA Trend Analysis Report on the
Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Institutional
Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food Store Facility Types (1998-
2008). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/UCM224152.pdf.
    5. FDA Model Food Code. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/default.htm.

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-14850 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33892-33894]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15251]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0509; FRL-9980-89--Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Idaho; Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
December 23, 2015, the State of Idaho made a submission to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements.
The EPA is proposing to approve the submission as meeting the
requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in any
other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0509 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206)
553-0256; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary
information section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this
SIP submission?
III. The EPA's Review
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) assessing interstate transport
requirements for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises
from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must submit within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof), a plan
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make
these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is
not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating
a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. The EPA
commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.''
Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the requirements under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor''
provision, which requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.

II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP
submission?

    The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published on
March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good
Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (memorandum). The memorandum describes the EPA's
past approach to addressing interstate transport, and provides the
EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality
projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The memorandum provides information relevant to the EPA regional office
review of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor''
provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided
in that memorandum.
    The memorandum also provides states and the EPA regional offices
with future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in
the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient
monitoring data and air quality modeling. The memorandum describes how
these projected potential design values can be used to help determine
which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially address
whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The memorandum explains that the
pertinent year for evaluating air quality for purposes of addressing
interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the
attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate.

    Based on this approach, the potential receptors are outlined in the
memorandum. Most of the potential receptors are in California, located
in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. However,
there is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one
potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The memorandum
also indicates that for certain states with incomplete ambient
monitoring data, additional information including the latest available
data should be analyzed to determine whether there are potential
downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported
emissions.
    This rulemaking considers analysis in Idaho's submission, as well
as additional analysis conducted by the EPA during review of its
submission. For more information on how we conducted our analysis,
please see the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket
for this action.

III. The EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on Idaho's December 23, 2015, SIP
submission addressing the good neighbor provision requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). State plans must address specific
requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as
``prongs''), including:

--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (prong one); and
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(prong two).

    The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the
prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining
the relevant NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to
these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further
review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to
downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions
necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS
downwind; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the relevant NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind
emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This
framework was applied with respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to address both the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Idaho was not part of the CSAPR rulemaking. The EPA approved
the Idaho SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on
November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72705) and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
on April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21181).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submission, IDEQ reviewed 2010 to 2014 air quality
monitoring data to identify potential downwind receptors that may have
problems attaining or maintaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. IDEQ
then reviewed geographical distance, topography, meteorology (local air
stagnation and prevailing wind patterns), Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) monitoring data and regional
modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), 2011
national emission inventory (NEI) data, and the EPA's technical support
document for California areas designated as nonattainment for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ From this analysis IDEQ concluded
that Idaho does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for the
2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the TSD for this action, we came to the same
conclusion as the state. In our evaluation, potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors were identified in other
states. The EPA evaluated these potential receptors to determine first
if, based on review of relevant data and other information, there would
be downwind nonattainment or maintenance problems, and if so, whether
Idaho contributes to such problems in these areas. After reviewing air
quality reports, modeling results, designation letters, designation
technical support documents, attainment plans and other information for
these areas, we find there is no contribution sufficient to warrant
additional SIP measures. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
Idaho SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve IDEQ's December 23, 2015,
submission certifying that the Idaho SIP is sufficient to meet the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
specifically prongs one and two, as set forth above. The EPA is
requesting comments on the proposed approval.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 CAA;
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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-15251 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 41623]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16605]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below regarding motorcycle helmet
labels has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information
collections and their expected burden. The Federal Register Notice with
a 60-day comment period was published on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16420).
The docket number is NHTSA-2014-0031. No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Check Kam at U.S. Department of
Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Room
W43-451, NVS-113, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Check Kam's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: 49 CFR 571.1218, Motorcycle Helmets (Labeling).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0518.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: The National Traffic Vehicle Safety statute at 49 U.S.C.
Subchapter II Standards and Compliance, Sections 30111 and 30117,
authorizes the issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSS). The Secretary is authorized to issue, amend, and revoke such
rules and regulations as he/she deems necessary. The Secretary is also
authorized to require manufacturers to provide information to first
purchasers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment when the
vehicle equipment is purchased, in the form of printed matter placed in
the vehicle or attached to the motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment.
    Using this authority, the agency issued the initial FMVSS No. 218,
``Motorcycle helmets,'' in 1974. Motorcycle helmets are devices used to
protect motorcyclists from head injury in motor vehicle crashes. FMVSS
No. 218 S5.6 requires that each helmet shall be labeled permanently and
legibly in a manner such that the label(s) can be read easily without
removing padding or any other permanent part.
    Affected Public: Motorcycle helmet manufacturers.
    Estimated Burden Hours: 9,100 hours.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Comments to OMB are most effective if received
by OMB within 30 days of publication.

    Dated: July 8, 2014.
David M. Hines,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-16605 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P