[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43821-43823]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0622]

Safety Zone; DEEPWATER HORIZON Response Staging Area in the
Vicinity of Shell Beach, Hopedale, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The New Orleans Captain of the Port (COTP), under the
authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, has established a
safety zone requiring no wake on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
(MRGO) at Mile 42 extending the entire width of the MRGO 500 yards
above and 500 yards below the response staging area. This safety zone
is necessary to protect personnel and vessels at the response staging
area at Shell Beach in Hopedale, LA in response to the DEEPWATER
HORIZON oil spill. Vessels must travel at a safe speed and distance to
maintain a no wake zone in this area.

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR from July 27, 2010 until 11:59
p.m. on September 24, 2010. This rule is effective with actual notice
for purposes of enforcement beginning June 24, 2010 upon signature.
This rule will remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. on September 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0622 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0622 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Marty
Daniels, Sector New Orleans, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. It
would be impracticable to issue an NPRM for this rule, because a safety
zone is needed immediately to protect personnel and vessels associate
with response operations at the staging area at Shell Beach.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Potential safety hazards
associated with response activities at this location prohibits
regularly issued safety zones.

Basis and Purpose

    This response staging area is in support of the DEEPWATER HORIZON
oil spill clean-up effort. This safety zone requires that vessels
maintain the slowest safe speed to maintain steerage. This rule is
needed to protect members of the response effort by creating a no wake
zone in the vicinity of the staging area. In addition, the rule is
needed to protect mariners transiting in or through the area from the
dangers associated with navigating around equipment deployed in support
of the clean-up efforts.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone encompassing the
coastal areas affected by the DEEPWATER HORIZON oil spill on the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) at Mile 42 at Shell Beach. The
safety zone will encompass the entire width of the MRGO, 500 yards
above and 500 yards below the response staging area. In accordance with
the general regulation in Sec.  165.23 of this part, vessels must
transit at the slowest safe speed to allow for steerage to comply with
the no wake zone located in (a)(1). Vessels must exercise caution when
transiting this area to observe the no wake zone. The Coast Guard will
enforce this safety zone from June 24 through September 24, 2010.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is an emergency regulatory action under section
6(a)(3)(D) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and requires compliance with the ordinary review procedure to the
extent practicable. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This rule has been deemed an emergency regulatory action after
consultation with the Eighth Coast Guard District Legal Office, CG-0941
and CG-0943. Although this regulation will restrict access to the area,
the effect of the rule will not be significant because the safety zone
will only be in place for a limited specified time period and is for a
limited size and notice will be provided to the maritime community
through Safety Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Marine Safety
Information Bulletins. Additionally, persons or vessels requiring
deviations from this rule may request permission from the Captain of
the Port New Orleans.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels, intending to
transit the MRGO at Mile 42 in the vicinity of the DEEPWATER HORIZON
oil spill response staging area at Shell Beach and where oil spill
response activities are taking place. This safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons: the safety zone will only be in place for a
limited specified time period and is for a limited size; notice will be
provided to the maritime community through Safety Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Marine Safety Information Bulletins; and persons or
vessels requiring deviations from this rule may request permission from
the Captain of the Port New Orleans. Finally, we note that vessels can
transit the area, but merely must do so at reduced speeds.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
safety zone.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are required for this rule because it concerns a
situation of more than 1 week in duration. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be made
available in the docket upon publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record-
keeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.06-1, 6.05-6 and
160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0622 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0622  Safety Zone, DEEPWATER HORIZON Response Staging
Area in the vicinity of Shell Beach, Hopedale, LA.

    (a) Location: On the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) at Mile
42 in the vicinity of Shell Beach to extend the entire width of the
MRGO 500 yards above and 500 yards below the response staging area.
    (b) Enforcement Period: This rule will be enforced from June 24,
2010, until 11:59 p.m. on September 24, 2010.
    (c) Regulations:
    (1) In accordance with the general regulation in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, vessels must transit at the slowest safe speed to allow for
steerage to comply with no wake zone located in (a).
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring deviations from this rule must
request permission from the Captain of the Port New Orleans. The COTP
may be contacted at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port New Orleans and designated personnel.
Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant and petty officers
of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: June 24, 2010.
E. M. Stanton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Sector New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2010-18306 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50809-50810]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20785]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 751

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080; FRL-10000-22]
RIN 2070-AK34

Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals
Under TSCA Section 6(h); Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of July 29, 2019, EPA proposed a rule
concerning certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals
identified pursuant to section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). These five chemicals are: decabromodiphenyl ether; phenol,
isopropylated phosphate (3:1), also known as tris(4-isopropylphenyl)
phosphate; 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol; hexachlorobutadiene; and
pentachlorothiophenol. The proposed rule, if finalized, would restrict
or prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and
distribution in commerce for many uses of four of these five chemical
substances. EPA evaluated the uses of hexachlorobutadiene and proposed
no regulatory action. For the other four, the proposal included
recordkeeping requirements. Additional downstream notification
requirements were proposed for phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1).
This document extends the comment period for 31 days, from September
27, 2019, to October 28, 2019.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2019-0080 must be received on or before October 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the Federal Register document of July 29, 2019 (84 FR 36728) (FRL-9995-
76).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Cindy Wheeler, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-
566-0484; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Peter Gimlin,
National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment
period established in the Federal Register document of July 29, 2019
(84 FR 36728) (FRL-9995-76). In that document, EPA proposed a rule
concerning certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals
identified pursuant to section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). These five chemicals are: decabromodiphenyl ether; phenol,
isopropylated phosphate (3:1), also known as tris(4-isopropylphenyl)
phosphate; 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol; hexachlorobutadiene; and
pentachlorothiophenol. The proposed rule, if finalized, would restrict
or prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and
distribution in commerce for many uses of four of these five chemical
substances. EPA evaluated the uses of hexachlorobutadiene and proposed
no regulatory action. For the other four, the proposal included
recordkeeping requirements. Additional downstream notification
requirements were proposed for phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1).
More information on EPA's proposal can be found in the July 29, 2019
Federal Register document (84 FR 36728) (FRL-9995-76).
    This document extends the comment period for 31 days, from
September 27, 2019, to October 28, 2019. A lengthier extension of the
comment period was requested. EPA agrees that an extension of the
comment period is warranted, given the fact that the proposal and the
extensive supporting materials address five separate chemical
substances. However, in view of the statutory deadline requiring final
action 18 months after issuance of the proposal and the considerable
outreach EPA

conducted prior to issuing the proposal, the Agency has concluded that
a 31-day extension is sufficient.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the
detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of July 29, 2019 (84 FR 36728) (FRL-9995-76). If you have
questions, consult the technical persons listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export notification, Hazardous
substances, Import certification, Reporting and recordkeeping.

    Dated: September 19, 2019.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2019-20785 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 18916]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0332]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Airport
Master Record

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves aeronautical information that the
FAA uses to carry out agency missions related to aviation flying
safety, flight planning, airport engineering and federal grants
analysis, aeronautical chart and flight information publications, and
the promotion of air commerce as required by statute. The information
to be collected will be used for airspace studies conducted under 49
U.S.C. 329(b) and will be published in flight information handbooks and
charts for pilot use.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By Mail: Andrew Goldsmith, Airport Engineering Division (AAS-100),
Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    By Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Goldsmith by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0015.
    Title: FAA Airport Master Record.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 5010-1, 5010-2, 5010-3, 5010-5.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 49 U.S.C. 329(b) empowers and directs the Secretary of
Transportation to collect and disseminate information on civil
aeronautics. Aeronautical information is required by the FAA to carry
out agency missions related to aviation flying safety, flight planning,
airport engineering and federal grants analysis, aeronautical chart and
flight information publications, and the promotion of air commerce as
required by statute. The safety information collected includes, but is
not limited to, the following: Airport name, associated city, airport
owner and airport manager, airport latitude, longitude, elevation,
runway description, services available, runway approach light systems,
communications frequency, airport use, number of operations and based
aircraft, obstruction data, and pertinent general remarks. Airport
owners/managers and state inspectors submit this information to the
FAA.
    Respondents: Approximately 9,037 Airport owners/managers and state
inspectors.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 9,037.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2019.
Andrew Goldsmith,
Aeronautical Information Specialist, Airport Engineering Division,
Office of Airport Safety and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2019-08944 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 38741]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Tenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 221: Aircraft Secondary
Barriers and Alternative Flight Deck Security Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 221 meeting: Aircraft
Secondary Barriers and Alternative Flight Deck Security Procedures.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 221: Aircraft Secondary Barriers and
Alternative Flight Deck Security Procedures.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 19-20, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., unless stated otherwise in agenda.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street,
Suite 910, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street,
Suite 910, NW., Washington, DC 20036, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(202) 833-9434, Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., and Appendix 2),
notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 221, Aircraft Secondary
Barriers and Alternative Flight Deck Security Procedures.

Agenda

Tuesday July 19 (12 p.m.-5 p.m.)

Wednesday July 20 (9 a.m.-5 p.m.)

     Welcome/Introductions and Administrative Remarks
     Approval of Summary of the Ninth Meeting held May 2011,
RTCA Paper No. 125-11//SC221-026
     Leadership Comments
     Review of WG Actions--Status Reports
     Incorporate Comments and Finalize New Document--Aircraft
Secondary Barriers and Alternative Flight Deck Security Procedures
     SC-221 Follow on Tasks--Discussion
     Other Business
     Adjourn at 5 p.m.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2011.
Kathy Hitt,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-16607 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Response to Comments on Changes to the DfE Program and Label, Notably the New Fragrance-free Safer Choice Label
                               October 19, 2015

On March 6, 2015, the U.S. EPA Design for the Environment (DfE) Program issued program enhancements, changing its name and label and making corresponding changes to its Standard for Safer Products.  The new name for the program and label became Safer Choice and the qualifications for the label are contained in the renamed Safer Choice Standard. The program requested comments on a new Fragrance-free label and associated changes to the Standard.  (Comments were not requested on the new name and other labels since those program elements had already been the subject of extensive public comment, a summary of which is available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0426. While our responses in this document will be confined to comments on the Fragrance-free label and fragrances-related matters, we will respond separately to other comments not previously addressed by the program.  These responses will be posted to a Question and Answer page on our web site.)

The Safer Choice program received 14 sets of comments, representing 28 organizations or individuals (and not including discrete trade association members), two sets of which arrived after the comment period, which ran from March 6 to May 5, 2015.  The program thanks everyone who took time to submit comments, as well as those who shared their support and ideas less formally.

Of the 14 comment sets Safer Choice received, opinion on the Fragrance-free label was split between those who favor the label and those who don't.  What follows is a brief description of the Safer Choice program, our reasoning for introducing the Fragrance-free label, and a summary of the comments that expressed concerns about the label or related matters, with our responses to those comments.

The Safer Choice program offers a unique science-based approach to labeling products that are safer for human and environmental health. The Safer Choice label indicates that a product contains only the safest possible functional ingredients and will maintain that status as innovations in chemistry occur.  Safer Choice is especially qualified to advance safer chemistry and safer products through its label.  In its product reviews, the program uses its scientific expertise in assessing chemicals, acquired over decades.  The program evaluates the physical-chemical properties and hazard characteristics of each intentionally added ingredient which often lack experimental data, within its distinct functional class and compares toxicity and fate profiles to identify the safest ingredients.  Importantly, the program fills data gaps using analytic methods and models the Agency has developed and refined over time. This capability helps enhance our confidence in the profile of safer chemicals and also ensure that problematic chemicals that are data poor -- and not yet on prohibited lists -- are not present in labeled products.

The Safer Choice program introduced the Fragrance-free label as a companion to the other new Safer Choice labels.  The Agency believes that the label offers an important public health service for those individuals, especially children, who can or might be sensitized or allergic to fragrances.  Many public and children's health advocates and members of the medical community, especially lung and respiratory specialists, recommend use of non-fragranced products, in part, so that sensitized individuals are less likely to be exposed to fragrances and potentially suffer negative reactions.  Some members of the product manufacturing industry have also indicated that some consumers prefer fragrance-free products and that these products should be available to consumers, especially those with allergies. Safer Choice believes that the availability of a Fragrance-free label, along with our standard labels for fragranced products, serves a broad spectrum of consumer, public health, and business interests.

The purpose of the Safer Choice Fragrance-free label is to help consumers identify products that do not contain fragrances, either to impart a scent or to mask other scents.  Since there are a number of terms used in this space, e.g., "fragrance-free," and "unscented," and the meaning of these terms varies and is not formally defined by law or regulation (as one industry commenter stated), EPA saw an opportunity and responsibility to add clarity to the terminology and provide certainty for consumers seeking a product without any added fragrance ingredients.

The program has engaged in extensive dialogue with the fragrances industry and their product-manufacturer customers over many years. Since the Fragrance-free label simply denotes the absence of fragrance materials, the Agency did not seek additional dialogue with the fragrances industry or others before the Federal Register notice requesting comment on the Fragrance-free label issued. We address the comments received on the label and fragrances-related issues in the following section.

Comments on the Fragrance-free Label

Comment 1.  Several commenters were concerned that the Fragrance-free label is duplicative because manufacturers already make claims about fragrances.

EPA Response.  The Safer Choice Fragrance-free label is intended to help consumers identify products that do not contain fragrances, either to impart a scent or to mask other scents.  The label is a factual indicator that the product does not contain fragrance materials.  Since there are a number of terms used in this space, e.g., "fragrance-free" and "unscented," and the meaning of these terms varies and is not formally defined, EPA saw a need to add clarity to the terminology.  Further, a Safer Choice certification that a product is fragrance-free indicates that a 3[rd]-party has determined the product's ingredients contain no fragrance materials as defined in the Safer Choice Standard. This provides certainty for consumers seeking a product without added fragrance.

Comment 2.  Several commenters assert that consumers might view products without the Fragrance-free label as not as safe.

EPA Response. Focus group participants found all versions of the Safer Choice label to effectively communicate that products have met EPA standards for safer ingredients.  We did not test whether consumers view products without the Fragrance-free label as less safe, nor did any participants assert that products without the Fragrance-free label would be perceived as less safe.

Comment 3. Some commenters also felt that chemicals that serve a dual function -- as a fragrance and something else -- should be allowed in products that are candidates for the Fragrance-free label.

EPA Response.  Since the goal of a Fragrance-free label is to inform purchasers that the product does not contain any fragrance chemicals, the Safer Choice program defined its fragrance-free certification to cover any ingredient that can be used as a fragrance based on technical information on its physical-chemical properties, historical use, and input from fragrance industry stakeholders.  It is a chemical's fragrance properties or lack thereof -- not its designation as a fragrance or something else -- that is critical to fragrance-sensitive individuals or those seeking a product without fragrance.  Importantly, the program will not simply rely on a list of "fragrance materials" (e.g., the IFRA Transparency List at http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/ingredients#.VZr6RovhF7Y, which includes non-fragrance chemicals like carriers and other functional components) to verify a product's fragrance-free status. The program will use available technical resources, including fragrance industry stakeholders, as needed, to help make the fragrance-free determination.  Of note, many consumers, public health advocates, and others want assurances from a reliable, independent source that a product does not contain any fragrance materials and value the Fragrance-free label. The program will take steps to communicate the meaning of the new Fragrance-free label and monitor its use in the marketplace.

Comment 4.  Several commenters questioned whether the Safer Choice labels complied with the Federal Trade Commission Green Guides.

EPA Response.  The Agency worked closely with the Federal Trade Commission in developing its Safer Choice labels.  Safer Choice shared information with the FTC from its public outreach efforts.  The FTC offered insights on interpreting the public comments and reactions to draft labels and guidance in selecting final designs and wording that communicated effectively, would not be misleading, and would meet the intentions of the Green Guides. Further, the Agency is engaged in public education to ensure that the label is not misleading to consumers and other purchasers.

Comment 5. Several commenters said that fragrance chemicals do not lack toxicological data and there is no scientific basis for the conflation of sensitizers and fragrances.

EPA Response.  Product manufacturers have indicated that some consumers prefer fragrance-free products and that these products should be available to consumers, especially to those with allergies.  There is evidence of a relationship between certain fragrances and sensitization potential in the data available to the Agency (see, for example, the European Chemicals Agency list of sensitizers in the CLP Annex VI, which contains fragrance chemicals).  The Safer Choice fragrance-free label responds to demand from consumers, health advocates, and others for a clear, reliable, objectively determined designation that a product does not contain fragrances.  The label does not connote an Agency position on the relationship between fragrances and health effects, which derive from diverse chemical classes, and sensitization.

Comment 6.  Several commenters felt that they should have received advanced notice and an opportunity to comment on the Fragrance-free label prior to the current request for comments.

EPA Response.  The Agency received input from a diverse group of stakeholders in its label redesign process. While we did not specifically discuss the Fragrance-free label with the fragrance industry, we did provide the industry advance notice of the fragrance-free label.The program has engaged in extensive dialogue with the industry and their product-manufacturer customers over many years to better understand fragrance materials and the industry.

Given that the Fragrance-free label simply denotes the absence of fragrance materials in a product, the Agency believes that the Federal Register notice of availability provided a sufficient opportunity to comment and does not believe that other advance notice was needed.

Comment 7.  Two commenters stated that the Agency's explanation for inclusion of the Fragrance-free label does not meet data quality standards.

EPA Response. The Agency has followed data quality standards in developing the Fragrance-free label and the criteria for its implementation, helping to ensure that the label has integrity and objectivity and offers value to certified entities and consumers alike.  In introducing the Fragrance-free label, the Agency's statement that "...many fragrance materials may be [emphasis added] associated with sensitization and allergenic response and lack toxicological data" (that is readily available) reflects our sense of the fragrance chemical profiles after the review of hundreds of fragrance chemicals and the data available in the public literature.  We continue to encourage those with data on fragrances to share it with the Agency to enhance our understanding of fragrance materials.

Comment 8.  One commenter said that the program's definition of fragrance-free could lead to confusion because products with `fragrance-free,' `scent-free,' or similar phrases on their label can earn the Safer Choice label and maintain their fragrance claims.

EPA Response.  Only products that qualify for the Safer Choice and Fragrance-free label will be allowed to make `fragrance-free' or similar claims in association with use of the label.  Under the terms of EPA/Safer Choice partnership, which govern label use, companies must submit all labels to the program for review and approval before they can be displayed on products.

To qualify for the Fragrance-free label, a company must first have their product certified to the Safer Choice Standard and then request the supplemental fragrance-free certification.  Since the program reviews all product labels, manufacturers who only seek the Safer Choice label and do not request the supplemental fragrance-free certification will not be permitted to make fragrance-free or similar claims on Safer Choice-labeled products.  On the other hand, manufacturers whose products qualify for the fragrance-free label have the following options: they may use the fragrance-free label or the standard Safer Choice label, with or without a fragrance-free claim; or, they may simply make a fragrance-free claim and not use the fragrance-free or standard Safer Choice label.

Comment 9.  Two commenters suggest that because of the inherent toxicity of fragrances, they should not be allowed in any Safer Choice-labeled products.

EPA Response. Given our review and understanding of hundreds of fragrance materials, the Agency is not able to broadly characterize their hazard profiles. Product manufacturers have informed us that while a small but significant minority of the population needs or wants fragrance-free products, a substantial percentage of consumers want safer products that also contain fragrances.  The Safer Choice program gives consumers options to select fragranced or fragrance-free products, while protecting human and environmental health.

Comment 10.  One commenter questions whether the term "fragrance" is adequately defined in the Safer Choice Standard and suggests that it be replaced with "fragrance material."

EPA Response.  The term "fragrance material" is defined in the Safer Choice Standard in sec. 2.1.37 as follows:

   Fragrance materials: Discrete substances obtained by chemical synthesis or derived from a natural source and present in a fragrance at any level. Fragrance materials are materials whose function is to impart or mask a scent and may include chemicals with dual functionality -- scent and another function. (This definition does not include auxiliary materials such as solvents and preservatives that do not function as a fragrance or to mask a scent.)

The term fragrance materials encompasses the term fragrance and the terms are interchangeable when reading and interpreting the Safer Choice Standard.  The program will add a notation to the Standard to clarify this point.

Comment 11.  One commenter asks why fragrances are "called out" in section 5.6.1 of the Safer Choice Standard, which addresses sensitizers, and continues saying "the criterion infers that little data on sensitization exists for fragrance materials."

EPA Response.  Sensitizers are included as a subsection of Fragrances in the Standard since a number of fragrance materials have been identified and listed as sensitizers (see the European Chemicals Agency list of sensitizers in the CLP Annex VI) and the program has developed criteria under which they may be used in labeled products.  It was not the Agency intention to imply that little data on sensitization exists for fragrances, but many fragrance materials lack publicly available hazard data.

Comment 12.  Regarding section 5.6.1, which covers sensitizers, one commenter requests clarification on the meaning and implementation of the following criterion: `the subject of good faith exploration of alternatives.'

EPA Response.  Given the diverse fragrance chemical palette, Safer Choice expects fragrance formulators to carefully consider their ingredient selections; when a potential sensitizer is part of a formulation, fragrance formulators should explore whether the scent might be formulated without that ingredient.  The fragrance formulator must report to the program on its chemical selection process.  In evaluating products for the label, Safer Choice reviews any fragrance formulation and potential sensitizers receive heightened scrutiny and evaluation against the section 5.6.1 criteria, which must be addressed in the chemical's hazard dossier.

Comment 13.  One commenter asks whether, at a future time when the program issues new Fragrances criteria (i.e., for qualifying fragrances for use in labeled scented products), it will allow manufacturers additional time -- to show that its fragrances meet the criteria or to reformulate -- based on `adequate justification' and what that justification might be.

EPA Response. The program cannot speculate as to what new fragrances criteria might require and how they might be implemented. If new fragrance criteria are proposed, the program will seek public comment before finalizing them, and will allow appropriate time for implementation, as it has done with other revisions to the Standard and criteria.

In Conclusion

The Agency has carefully considered the comments received on the Fragrance-free label and other aspects of the Safer Choice program. The Safer Choice program will continue to offer eligible product manufacturers use of the Fragrance-free and other program labels on qualifying products.  Also, the program is seeking ways to enhance the transparency of fragrances, so that consumers can make more informed purchasing decisions. In that regard, we are encouraged to see some product manufacturers taking a leadership role by disclosing the ingredients in fragrances.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55352-55355]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23056]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0628; FRL-9933-77-OECA]

Public Comment on EPA's National Enforcement Initiatives for
Fiscal Years 2017-2019

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting public
comment and recommendations on national enforcement initiatives (NEI)
for fiscal years 2017-2019. EPA selects these initiatives every three
years in order to focus federal resources on the most important
environmental problems where noncompliance is a significant
contributing factor and where federal enforcement attention can make a
difference. The current initiatives as well as potential new
initiatives under consideration are described in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section, with additional descriptions and data on current
initiatives available on our Web site: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiatives.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments via www.regulations.gov, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0628; FRL-9933-77-OECA. Follow the on-
line instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2015-0628. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 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 EPA without
going through 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, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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.
    Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any
form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Palmer, Deputy Director,
Planning Measures and Oversight Division, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Mail Code: M2221A, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What are EPA enforcement and compliance national initiatives?

    EPA is soliciting public comment and recommendations on national
enforcement initiatives to be undertaken in fiscal years 2017-2019. EPA
selects these initiatives every three years in order to focus federal
resources on the most important environmental problems

where noncompliance is a significant contributing factor and where
federal enforcement attention can make a difference. This notice is an
Agency planning document and does not impose any legally binding
requirements on EPA or any outside parties.

II. On what is EPA requesting comment?

    EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is collecting
comment on which of the current national enforcement initiatives should
continue, be expanded or returned to the standard enforcement program.
Current initiatives may be carried forward, refined or concluded for
the FY 2017-2019 cycle. EPA is also seeking comment on the list of
potential NEIs described above which are currently being considered for
the FY 2017-2019 national enforcement cycle. The public is invited to
propose any other areas for consideration, keeping in mind resource
constraints.

III. What are the current FY 2014-2016 national enforcement initiatives
(which can be extended)?

    For the six current initiatives, EPA invites the public to comment
on whether each NEI should continue into the FY 17-19 cycle or return
to the standard enforcement program for completion of remaining work.
EPA also invites comment on whether EPA should add new areas of focus
within those NEIs that are recommended for extension.
    (1) Reducing air pollution from the largest sources. This national
enforcement initiative has focused on ensuring that large industrial
facilities comply with the Clean Air Act when building new facilities
or making modifications to existing facilities. In keeping with the
purpose of NEIs to address the largest, highest impact sources of
pollution, this NEI has been centered on industrial sectors with the
largest amounts of air pollution that can significantly impact human
health: Coal fired power plants, as well as acid, glass and cement
manufacturing facilities. Large percentages of facilities in these
sectors are now under enforceable commitments to reduce pollution,
although there are still violating facilities with substantial
pollution. For coal-fired power plants alone, the injunctive relief in
these cases, when fully implemented, will mean reductions in serious
air pollution of nearly 3 million tons each year. Although significant
progress has been made to address noncompliance in several sub-
categories of this initiative, more work may be needed on new cases and
EPA has an on-going commitment to monitor progress under existing
consent agreements to assure that the required actions are implemented
and air pollution reductions from completed enforcement actions
actually occur.
    (2) Cutting toxic air pollution. Toxic air pollution from
industrial facilities is a national problem, which is nowhere more
urgent than in the fence line communities that bear the brunt of
unlawful pollution. This national enforcement initiative has focused on
the substantial illegal emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
from leaks, flares, and excess emissions at industrial facilities that
are putting neighbors' health at risk. Through active investigations
and use of innovative monitoring technologies, EPA has identified many
violating facilities where toxic air pollution was much greater than
what had previously been estimated. EPA has conducted hundreds of
evaluations and brought numerous enforcement actions to require these
facilities to reduce pollution and to comply with the law. Based on
what we have learned about the sources of the largest toxic emissions
and the causes of the releases, EPA is considering expanding this
initiative into new focus areas and sources where noncompliance is a
growing threat, as described further below.
    (3) Assuring energy extraction and production activities comply
with environmental laws. EPA has been working with states to assure
that domestic land-based natural gas extraction and production is done
in an environmentally protective manner and in compliance with
environmental laws. Natural gas development activities in energy rich
areas of the country have led to concerns about increases in air
pollution levels, pollution of surface and ground waters, the safety of
community drinking water supplies, and damage to ecosystems. EPA has
brought a number of high impact enforcement actions to address serious
violations in this industry. This sector continues to develop and
change rapidly, and EPA is continuing to evaluate the best way to
address pollution problems in this sector, including opportunities for
greater use of advanced monitoring.
    (4) Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations: Mining
and mineral processing facilities generate more toxic and hazardous
waste than any other industrial sector. Improper handling of those
wastes can lead to expensive cleanups that can cost taxpayers billions
of dollars. This NEI has been focused on the largest and highest risk
mineral processing operations, to ensure that they properly manage
their wastes and have sufficient financial assurance to properly close
facilities. This NEI has resulted in a number of large, high impact
cases to ensure proper handling of these hazardous wastes. By the end
of FY16 many of the highest risk mineral processing facilities are
expected to be under enforceable agreements or orders that will require
them to properly address hazardous waste.
    (5) Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of our
Nation's waters: Discharges of raw sewage and contaminated stormwater
are a serious pollution problem in waters across the country. Under
this initiative, EPA has tackled significant water pollution problems
within communities that result from Clean Water Act noncompliance. Many
communities with raw sewage discharges are now under enforceable
commitments to reduce pollution, including numerous communities that
have embraced green infrastructure as a solution. Green infrastructure
can provide benefits beyond compliance with the Clean Water Act and can
be more cost effective. EPA will need to continue to monitor
implementation of these long-term agreements, and to adapt them to
changing circumstances and new information, such as the increasing
commitment of cities to implement green infrastructure, changes in
financial capability, or technological advances. Municipal stormwater
pollution also remains an important clean water challenge in
communities around the country.
    (6) Preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and ground
water: Animal waste is a significant contributor to serious water
quality issues and can result in environmental and human health risks
such as water quality impairment, fish kills, algal blooms,
contamination of drinking water sources, and transmission of disease-
causing bacteria and parasites associated with food and waterborne
diseases. The focus of this national enforcement initiative has been
reduction of animal waste pollution that impairs our nation's waters,
threatens drinking water sources, and adversely impacts communities.
These impacts are often acutely felt in rural communities of
environmental justice concern. EPA's enforcement strategy for this NEI
has focused on animal agriculture operations that have a big impact or
where action is necessary to ensure that all operations in the sector
play by the same rules. For the future, EPA is considering an updated
strategy

to explore the use of nutrient recovery technologies that show promise
to reduce water pollution, implementation of instream monitoring to
demonstrate impacts to water quality and identify violations, as well
as new tools to identify the most significant violators.

IV. What are the FY 2017-2019 potential NEIs currently under
consideration?

    In addition to evaluating the current NEIs to determine which
should continue and potentially be expanded and which can return to the
standard enforcement program, EPA is also considering new initiatives
for FY 2017-2019. We are very mindful that our resources have been
declining over the past five years, so we need to keep resource
constraints very much in mind as we consider taking on new work. A
brief description and pertinent background information for each
potential new FY 2017-2019 initiative is provided below.
    (1) Protecting Communities from Exposure to Toxic Air Emissions.
EPA is currently implementing an air toxics NEI and is considering
expanding the initiative to include emissions from additional sources
and industries. Emissions of toxic air pollutants continue to be a
concern that threatens the health of communities. EPA seeks public
comment on whether to significantly increase our commitment to
addressing this national problem by expanding into one or both of the
following two areas:
    Organic Liquid Storage Tanks: In addition to the current areas of
focus--flares and leaks--large storage tanks can be significant sources
of excess air emissions at many sites, including terminals, refineries,
and chemical plants. Using advanced monitoring, including optical
remote sensing techniques, such as differential absorption light
detection and ranging technology and optical gas imaging cameras, EPA
has observed that volatile organic compound (VOC) and hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions from storage tanks can greatly exceed the
permitted and/or estimated emissions. In many instances, EPA has
observed that emissions are the result of violations, including
inadequate maintenance of the tanks and associated emissions controls,
design flaws, and expansion of production volumes without corresponding
increases in emissions control. There are thousands of tanks operating
in the United States at refineries, chemical plants, and other bulk
storage facilities that are located in ozone nonattainment areas,
communities of environmental justice concern, or other areas with
sensitive populations.
    Hazardous Waste Air Emissions: The handling of hazardous waste can
also result in toxic air emissions, which present many of the same
public health risks that led to the selection of air toxics as an NEI.
In addition, these hazardous wastes, if improperly handled, can also
present a potential for increased fire or explosion risk due to their
high corrosivity and ignitability. Such catastrophic events not only
create a safety risk for workers and the surrounding community, they
also create the potential for significant associated releases of toxic
air pollutants that have both acute and chronic health effects. Based
on EPA's observations during field work, as well as the publicly
available compliance information on Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO), it appears that widespread violations of the air
emission requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) are a significant contributing cause of these problems.
Violations observed include the improper use of monitoring and control
devices by facilities, resulting in releases of emissions from RCRA
regulated units. Of particular concern are the toxic air emissions that
result from the handling of hazardous waste at treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) and large quantity generators (LQGs) that
are not properly controlling hazardous waste releases to the air as
required by regulation.
    One of the reasons to consider these areas for an expanded NEI is
to support a level playing field, so that all industries with toxic air
releases, which usually operate in multiple states across the country,
are held to a common, consistent standard. EPA invites comment on
whether to expand our work to reduce toxic air emissions to these two
new focus areas.
    (2) Keeping Industrial Pollutants out of the nation's Waters Many
waters (including sediments) around the country are polluted by
nutrients and metals. Certain industrial sectors contribute a
disproportionate amount of the pollution over discharge limits. This
potential NEI would focus on the top sectors that have many violations
and are responsible for contributing to surface water pollution and
putting our drinking water at risk: Mining, chemical manufacturing,
food processing and primary metals manufacturing. A number of
facilities in the top sectors discharge pollution in excess of their
permit limits. In addition to being a focused attempt to significantly
reduce serious water pollution across the nation, selecting this as an
NEI would allow for a national approach for those companies that
operate in more than one state and would support a consistent national
strategy to achieve compliance across industry sectors.
    (3) Reducing the Risks and Impacts of Industrial Accidents and
Releases. It is an all too common occurrence for industrial facilities
to have serious accidents and explosions that kill or injure employees
and emergency responders, and release chemicals that threaten
neighboring communities. Thousands of facilities across the country
produce, process, store, and use extremely hazardous substances that
are acutely toxic or can cause serious accidents. These facilities vary
widely in nature, from municipal water treatment plants to the largest
refineries in the United States and are often extremely large and
complex. Across the country, approximately 150 catastrophic accidents
occur per year among the universe of regulated facilities. These
accidents pose a risk to neighboring communities and workers because
they result in fatalities, injuries, significant property damage,
evacuations, sheltering in place, or environmental damage.
Approximately 2,000 facilities are currently considered ``high-risk''
because of their proximity to densely populated areas, the quantity and
number of extremely hazardous substances they use, or their history of
significant accidents.
    Most of these serious accidents are preventable if the necessary
precautions and actions are taken. Failure to adequately train
personnel, maintain equipment, conduct routine inspections, or take
other common sense precautions contribute to the dangers these
facilities pose to their workers and to surrounding communities. This
potential NEI would be a targeted focus on the facilities and the
chemicals that pose the greatest risks, with a goal of increasing
industry attention to preventing accidents, instead of addressing
problems after accidents happen, thereby reducing the risk of harm to
communities and workers.
    For all of the NEIs that EPA ultimately selects for FY17-19, we
intend to incorporate Next Generation Compliance approaches into our
work. Our goal will be to use the most current monitoring technologies,
data analytics and transparency, as well as the latest thinking on what
drives better compliance, to get better results even in a time of
serious resource constraints. We invite comment on what some of these
Next Gen opportunities might be for the continuing and potential new
NEIs.

    EPA will consider all public comments in determining whether and to
what extent to continue or expand an initiative or to select a new one,
but will not respond to the comments received. Final selection will be
incorporated into the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance FY 2017 National Program Manager Guidance Addendum that
provides national program direction for all EPA regional offices.
    Information in support of this Notice of Public Comment is
available via the Internet at: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiatives.

V. Can the deadline for comments be extended?

    No. EPA will include the final selection of the national
enforcement initiatives in the National Program Manager Guidance (NPM
Guidance) to enable EPA, states, and federally-recognized Indian tribes
(tribes) to effectively align their joint implementation of
environmental laws to achieve mutual goals. The NPM guidance must be
timely released for public comment in order to allow the EPA regions,
as well as states and tribes with approved programs, to consider the
NPM Guidance fully in their annual planning processes which direct the
use of resources according to the fiscal calendar. As a result, EPA
must receive public comments by October 14, 2015 in order to make
selections in keeping with this schedule.

    Dated: September 3, 2015.
Betsy Smidinger,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-23056 Filed 9-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P