[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4055-4056]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02332]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-3-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-546);
Consolidated Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-546 (Certificated
Rate Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission previously published a Notice in the Federal Register on
11/2/2018, requesting public comments. The Commission received no
comments on the FERC-546 and will make this notation in its submittal
to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by March 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.

1902-0155 (FERC-546), should be sent via email to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may
also be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC19-3-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-546, Certificated Rate Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0155.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-546 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The requirements of the FERC-546 information collection
are contained within the Commission's regulations in 18 CFR parts
154.7, 154.202, 154.204-154.208, 154.602-154.603, 284.501-284.505, and
154.4. The Commission reviews the FERC-546 materials to decide whether
to approve rates and tariff changes associated with an application for
a certificate under Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 7(c). Additionally,
FERC reviews FERC-546 materials in NGA section 4(f), storage
applications, to evaluate an applicant's market power and determine
whether to grant market-based rate authority to the applicant. The
Commission uses the information in FERC-546 to monitor jurisdictional
transportation, natural gas storage, and unbundled sales activities of
interstate natural gas pipelines and Hinshaw \1\ pipelines. In addition
to fulfilling the Commission's obligations under the NGA, the FERC-546
enables the Commission to monitor the activities and evaluate
transactions of the natural gas industry, ensure competitiveness, and
improve efficiency of the industry's operations. In summary, the
Commission uses the information to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hinshaw pipelines are those that receive all out-of-state
gas from entities within or at the boundary of a state if all the
natural gas so received is ultimately consumed within the state in
which it is received, 15 U.S.C. 717(c). Congress concluded that
Hinshaw pipelines are ``matters primarily of local concern,'' and so
are more appropriately regulated by pertinent state agencies rather
than by FERC. The Natural Gas Act section 1(c) exempts Hinshaw
pipelines from FERC jurisdiction. A Hinshaw pipeline, however, may
apply for a FERC certificate to transport gas outside of state
lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ensure adequate customer protections under NGA section
4(f);
     review rate and tariff changes filed under NGA section
7(c) for certification of natural gas pipeline transportation and
storage services;
     provide general industry oversight; and
     supplement documentation during the pipeline audits
process.
    Failure to collect this information would prevent the Commission
from monitoring and evaluating transactions and operations of
jurisdictional pipelines and performing its regulatory functions.
    Type of Respondents: Jurisdictional pipeline companies and storage
operators.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Burden'' is defined as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                                                FERC-546 (Certificated Rate Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number
                                        Annual number        of         Total number    Average burden and cost    Total annual burden       Cost per
                                       of respondents   responsesper    of responses       per response \3\       hours and total annual  respondent ($)
                                                         respondent       (rounded)            (rounded)              cost (rounded)         (rounded)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Certificate Filings and                   51       \4\ 1.471              75  500 hrs.; $40,000.......  37,500 hrs.; $3,000,000     \5\ $58,824
 Storage Applications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2017, for positions
involved in the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. These
figures include salary (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are:
    Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071; $66.90/hour)
    Management Analyst (Occupation Code: 13-1111; $63.32/hour)
    Accounting (Occupation Code: 13-2011; $56.59/hours)
    Computer and Mathematical (Occupation Code: 15-0000; $63.25/
hour)
    Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000; $143.68/hour)
    The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is calculated
weighting each of the previously mentioned wage categories as
follows: $66.90/hour (0.4) + $63.32/hour (0.2) + $56.59/hour (0.1) +
$63.25/hour (0.1) + $143.68/hour (0.2) = $80.14/hour. The Commission
rounds this figure to $80/hour.
    \4\ This figure was calculated by dividing the total number of
responses (75) by the total number of respondents (51). The
resulting figure was then rounded to the nearest thousandth place.
    \5\ Rounded from $58,823.53.

    Dated: February 8, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02332 Filed 2-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62079-62080]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0601; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-7]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Manchester, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Manchester,
NH, as a new approach procedure has been developed, requiring airspace
redesign at Manchester Airport. This action would enhance the safety
and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates
of airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2014-0601; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-7, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2014-0601; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-7) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2014-0601; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-7.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace as an extension
to Class C surface area at Manchester Airport, Manchester, NH. Airspace
reconfiguration extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 8.3-
miles

northwest of the airport is necessary due to the developement of the
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17 approach, and for continued safety and management
of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of
Manchester Airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6003 of
FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, part, A, subpart I, section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Manchester
Airport, Manchester, NH.
    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6003 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension.

* * * * *

ANE NH E3 Manchester, NH [Amended]

Manchester Airport, NH
    (Lat. 42[deg]55'58'' N., long. 71[deg]26'09'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.3-miles
each side of the 337[deg] bearing of the airport extending from the
5-mile radius to 8.5-miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 7, 2014.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2014-24617 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39177-39180]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16033]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0329; FRL-9683-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval of revisions to the Ohio
State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted on March 11, 2011,
addressing regional haze for the first implementation period that ends
2018. This action is being taken in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules for states to prevent and
remedy future and existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I areas through a regional haze program.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0329. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule
II. Public Comments and EPA's Responses
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule

    Ohio submitted a plan to address regional haze on March 11, 2011.
This plan was intended to address the requirements in CAA section 169A,
and interpreted in EPA's Regional Haze Rule as codified at 40 CFR
51.308. This rule was promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713).
Further significant provisions were promulgated on July 6, 2005,
providing further guidance on provisions related to best available
retrofit technology (BART).
    EPA proposed a limited approval of Ohio's submittal on January 25,
2012 (77 FR 3712). The proposal notice described the nature of the
regional haze problem and the statutory and regulatory background for
EPA's review of Ohio's regional haze plan. The proposal provided a
lengthy delineation of the requirements that Ohio intended to meet and
that EPA proposed to approve, including requirements for mandating
BART, consultation with other states in establishing goals representing
reasonable further progress in mitigating anthropogenic visibility
impairment, and adoption of limitations as necessary to implement a
long term strategy (LTS) for reducing visibility impairment.
    Of particular interest were EPA's proposed findings regarding BART.
Using modeling performed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO), Ohio identified one non-electric generating unit (non-EGU)
source, P.H. Glatfelter facility in Ross County, as having sufficient
visibility impact to warrant being subject to a requirement
representing BART.
    Ohio determined that BART was the use of flue gas desulfurization
on the two BART-subject boilers. P.H. Glatfelter then requested limits
that would allow an alternative strategy. In response to P.H.
Glatfelter's request, Ohio adopted sulfur dioxide (SO2)
limits governing the combined emissions from P.H. Glatfelter's boilers
7 and 8, with limits requiring flue gas
desulfurization more stringent than BART on individual boilers. In the
notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve Ohio's
alternative-to-BART limits for SO2, and continued operation
of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) controls
for P.H. Glatfelter. These limits are enforceable at P.H. Glatfelter in
a permit issued by Ohio. EPA proposed that Ohio's new, tighter emission
limits for the Glatfelter facility in Ross County satisfies the BART
requirements for non-EGUs.

II. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    The publication of EPA's proposed rule on January 25, 2012 (77 FR
3712) initiated a 30-day public comment period that ended on February
24, 2012. During that public comment period we received comments from
the United States Forest Service (FS), the United States National Park
Service (NPS), the Ohio Utility Group, and Earth Justice (on behalf of
conservation organizations representing the National Parks Conservation
Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club) on
the proposed rulemaking on the Ohio regional haze

plan. For convenience, comments from Earthjustice will be labeled
hereafter as comments by the ``conservation organizations.'' These
comments and EPA's responses are addressed in detail below.
    Comment #1: FS and NPS recommended additional review of the BART
determination for P.H. Glatfelter. The commenters assert that the
alternative BART determination for P.H. Glatfelter, boilers 7
and 8, may not result in equivalent reduction in
SO2 emissions compared to application of BART. NPS commented
that the SO2 emission limit of 24,930 pounds per day (4,550
tons per year), represents only a 77 percent reduction from 2002
emission rates. NPS agrees with Ohio's determination that P.H.
Glatfelter's alternative BART approach to include a process capable of
90 percent SO2 removal was appropriate. However, NPS
believes that because P.H. Glatfelter could also choose to operate its
boilers at reduced capacity or shut down one boiler, and still meet the
emission limit with no additional control of SO2, this does
not meet the intent of the BART regulation. Thus, NPS recommends that
in addition to the daily maximum SO2 emission rate, Ohio
also set a 30-day rolling average SO2 limit that would be
equivalent to a continuous 90 percent emissions reduction to reflect
the performance capability of the control equipment. The conservation
organizations raise similar concerns.
    Response #1: EPA believes that Ohio has used an adequate
representation of emissions for the baseline period. EPA believes
further that Ohio's alternative BART limit for SO2 is
slightly more stringent than what BART would achieve. Therefore, EPA
believes that Ohio's limit is sufficiently stringent to satisfy
requirements for BART for this source. EPA believes that the
alternative BART limit, expressed as a daily emission limit, mandates
control that is slightly more stringent than BART. Consequently, EPA
does not believe that the daily limit needs to be supplemented with a
30-day limit.
    Comment #2: The Ohio Utility Group recommends that EPA should fully
approve the State of Ohio's Regional Haze SIP revision submitted on
March 11, 2011, for the following reasons: (1) The SIP revision is
consistent with the regional haze rule, (2) the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) is in place, and (3) Ohio will continue to reduce emissions
under CAIR. Additionally, EPA should approve Ohio's Regional Haze SIP
as a result of the U.S. District Court's decision on December 30, 2011,
to `stay' the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Since the court's
decision states that EPA should continue administering CAIR pending
resolution of the appeal, EPA should approve Ohio's regional haze SIP
as submitted and rescind its partial disapproval, or let Ohio revise
its SIP later when EPA finalizes action on other (rules) such as CSAPR.
    Conversely, the conservation organizations comment that EPA must
disapprove Ohio's Haze SIP because the state plan improperly relies on
CAIR instead of requiring BART limits for coal-fired power plants.
Specifically, the conservation organizations comment, ``Because of the
deficiencies identified in CAIR by the court and the impact of the
Transport Rule on CAIR, it is inappropriate to fully approve states
with LTS's that rely upon the emissions reductions predicted to result
from CAIR to meet BART requirement for EGU's or to meet the reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) in the states' regional haze SIPs.'' The
conservation organizations comment that this shortcoming cannot be
corrected through reliance on CSAPR.
    Response #2: On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the
trading programs of CSAPR can substitute for source-specific BART for
EGUs in the states covered by CSAPR requirements (including Ohio) (76
FR 82219). The preamble to that action details EPA's position on the
relationship between state SIPs that have relied on CAIR, CSAPR, and
the CSAPR stay. EPA is responding to similar comments in the context of
that rulemaking.
    Comment #3: The conservation organizations assert that Ohio's
regional haze plan does not ensure that Ohio will do its part to reduce
visibility impacts to Class I areas in other states. The conservation
organizations find that Ohio's plan does not provide reasonable
progress and note that Ohio's plan fails to satisfy the ``Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Ask.\1\'' The conservation
organizations list a number of controls sought by MANE-VU (``the MANE-
VU ask''), including 90 percent control of SO2 from each of
167 stacks in 19 states, 28 percent control of non-EGU SO2
emissions, and consideration of other measures. The conservation
organizations acknowledge Ohio's response to these requests but find
Ohio's response inadequate, for example finding that the power plant
controls cited by Ohio do not necessarily reduce emissions by 90
percent, and finding that the plant shutdowns cited by Ohio are not
legally binding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MANE-VU's document entitled ``Assessment of Reasonable
Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas--Methodology for
Source Selection, Evaluation of Control Options, and Four Factor
Analysis, July 2007'' requests states outside of the MANE-VU area to
examine controls for specific types of sources (i.e., ``MANE-VU
Ask'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response #3: As noted in the proposed rulemaking for this action,
specifically in section IV. C--Reasonable Progress Goals, Class I
states must set RPGs that achieve reasonable progress toward achieving
natural visibility conditions. However, Ohio does not have any Class I
areas, so it does not need to set RPGs. In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(i), Ohio did consult with affected Class I states through the
Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) to ensure that it
achieves its fair share of the overall emission reductions necessary to
achieve the RPGs of Class I areas that it affects. Minutes from these
calls can be found on MRPO's Web site at http://www.ladco.org/report/rpo/consultation/index.php. [See section 11 of Ohio's plan.] EPA
believes that Ohio has conducted a suitable analysis of the measures
that might be considered reasonable and has included an appropriate set
of measures in its long term strategy for addressing reasonable
progress requirements.
    Regarding MANE-VU's ``ask,'' the letters sent in 2007 from MANE-VU
invited Ohio to participate in future consultation meetings where
emissions from the state are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas outside the state. The states'
letters cite to the report entitled, Contributions to Regional Haze in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, NESCAUM, August 2006,
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/contributions-to-regional-haze-in-the-
northeast-and-mid-atlantic--united-states/.
    A consultation summary was provided by MANE-VU on August 6, 2007.
In October 2007, Ohio responded noting that a number of the stacks from
the 14 sources located in Ohio and listed by the MANE-VU in the ``ask''
had already installed or were planning to install scrubbers, which Ohio
EPA deemed to be sufficient progress towards MANE-VU`s request. Section
10.2 of Ohio's plan discusses MANE-VU's request in greater detail and
describes control measures implemented that provide for further
reduction in emission from Ohio sources identified compared to the 2002
emissions used by MANE-VU. Based on more recent modeling for MANE-VU
(http://www.nescaum.org/topics/regional-haze/regional-haze-documents),
for projecting visibility in 2018 (``2018 Visibility Projections,'' May

13, 2018), MANE-VU found the ``uniform rate is achieved and exceeded at
all MANE-VU Class I sites.''
    EPA's primary criterion for judging the adequacy of Ohio's long-
term strategy for addressing reasonable progress requirements is based
more on the collective set of measures rather than on individual
mandates at individual facilities. Ohio's plan includes substantial
reductions at a broader set of facilities than the 14 facilities noted
by the commenters. The shutdown of facilities may be considered to be a
compliance strategy for meeting the CSAPR requirement for emission
reductions, and EPA finds these reductions may plausibly be considered
an outcome of CAIR requirements notwithstanding the absence of a legal
mandate for the plants not to operate. Irrespective of whether any
individual plant achieves 90 percent reduction, and irrespective of
whether plants listed by MANE-VU remain uncontrolled and other plants
are controlled instead, EPA believes that the set of reductions in
Ohio's plan suffice to provide its share of reductions toward
satisfying reasonable progress goals.
    Comment #4: The conservation organizations objected to Ohio's
exclusion of EGUs from being subject to source-specific BART
requirements.
    Response #4: The commenters are referring to action taken in a
separate rulemaking, proposed on December 30, 2011, at 76 FR 82219.
[See description of action in Response 2] EPA directs the
commenters to that action for EPA's determination regarding state SIPs
that have relied on CAIR.
    Comment #5: The conservation organizations found minimal detail in
the permit for the P.H. Glatfelter facility. In their opinion, ``EPA
should reserve final approval of the permit * * * until the Agency has
had the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the compliance
plan submitted by the company.''
    Response #5: EPA is under a consent decree obligation to act on the
permit for the P.H. Glatfelter facility by May 30, 2012. EPA believes
that it has sufficient information to warrant approving the permit now.
EPA believes that Ohio has made an appropriate determination of the
control measures that represent BART at this facility. Ohio has
established a limit on SO2 emissions from P.H. Glatfelter
facility that allows the company flexibility in how it complies with
the limit but still mandates slightly greater emission reduction than
would be achieved with direct application of BART. EPA believes further
that this permit satisfies the BART requirement without need for EPA
review of the details of the approach by which P.H. Glatfelter meets
this limit.
    Comment #6: The conservation organizations believe that Glatfelter
``significantly overestimated the per ton cost of SO2
controls by amortizing the capital cost of the controls over only 10
years at a rate of 15 percent.''
    Response #6: EPA agrees that amortizing the capital cost of
controls over 10 years and using a 15 percent interest rate yields a
substantially overstated estimate of the annualized capital costs.
However, the conservation organizations do not assert that correction
of the cost estimate would change the appropriate BART determination
for this facility. In fact, Ohio selected the most stringent control
option as BART. The overstatement of costs did not result in
elimination of any control options or selection of a less stringent
control option. Therefore, EPA believes that Ohio has mandated an
appropriate BART requirement for this facility notwithstanding the
company's overestimate of the cost of control.
    Comment #7: The conservation organizations question the methodology
upon which Ohio relied to exempt sources from BART and request that EPA
review this methodology.
    Response #7: EPA reexamined Ohio's methodology, as requested, and
reaffirms its conclusion that Ohio's analysis reflects an acceptable
methodology that does not wrongly exclude any sources that should have
been subject to BART.
    Comment #8: The conservation organizations assert that the proposed
actions are illegal and invalid, as the CAA does not provide EPA with
authority to issue ``limited approvals'' or ``limited disapprovals.''
The conservation organizations contend that section 110(k) of CAA only
allows EPA to fully approve, partially approve and partially
disapprove, conditionally approve, or fully disapprove a SIP.
    Response #8: EPA disagrees with the conservation organizations
assertions. Although section 110(k) of the CAA may not expressly
provide authority for limited approvals, the plain language of section
301(a) does provide ``gap-filling'' authority authorizing the Agency to
``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out'' EPA's CAA
functions. EPA may rely on section 301(a) in conjunction with the
Agency's SIP approval authority in section 110(k)(3) to issue limited
approvals where it has determined that a submittal strengthens a given
state SIP and that the provisions meeting the applicable requirements
of CAA are not separable from the provisions that do not meet CAA's
requirements. EPA's limited approval of Ohio's SIP revision addressing
regional haze is appropriate because it addresses regional haze rule
requirements and approvable provisions are not separable from the
provisions that do not meet CAA's requirements.
    As explained in the September 7, 1992, EPA Memorandum from John
Calcagni, ``through a limited approval, EPA [will] concurrently, or
within a reasonable period of time thereafter, disapprove the rule * *
* for not meeting all of the applicable requirements of the Act. * * *
[T]he limited disapproval is a rulemaking action, and it is subject to
notice and comment.'' In a separate action, published December 30, 2011
(76 FR 82219), EPA did in fact propose a limited disapproval of the
Ohio regional haze SIP for the SIPs reliance on CAIR.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Ohio's regional haze plan.
EPA is approving Ohio's plan for BART for non-EGUs, mostly notably
approving limits satisfying BART requirements for P.H. Glatfelter. EPA
also concludes that Ohio's submission provides an approvable analysis
of the emission reductions needed to satisfy reasonable progress and
other regional haze planning requirements, and Ohio's submission meets
other regional haze planning requirements such as identification of
affected Class I areas and provision of a monitoring plan. Therefore,
EPA is finalizing limited approval of Ohio's regional haze plan as
strengthening the SIP and helping address regional haze for the first
implementation period by helping remedy any existing anthropogenic and
prevent future impairment of visibility at Class I areas.

IV. 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, 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 31, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 29, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(155) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (155) On March 11, 2011, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
submitted Ohio's regional haze plan addressing the first implementation
period of the regional haze rule requirements. This plan includes a
long-term strategy with emission limits for mandating emission
reductions equivalent to the reductions from implement best available
retrofit technology and with emission reductions to provide Ohio's
contribution toward achievement of reasonable progress goals at Class I
areas affected by Ohio. The plan specifically satisfies BART
requirements for non-EGUs, most notably by providing new, tighter
emission limits for the P.H. Glatfelter facility in Ross County, Ohio.
The plan establishes a combined daily sulfur dioxide emission limit of
24,930 pounds per day for boiler 7 and 8. The plan
also includes permit number P0103673 that will impose these emission
limitations on P.H. Glatfelter Company.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Permit-to-Install Number P0103673, issued to P.H. Glatfelter
Company--Chillicothe Facility by the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, signed by Scott J. Nally and effective on March 7, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2012-16033 Filed 6-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41840-41843]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 175

[Docket No. FDA-2012-F-0728]

Indirect Food Additives: Adhesives and Components of Coatings

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the
food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of Bisphenol
A (BPA)-based epoxy resins as coatings in packaging for infant formula
because these uses have been abandoned. We are taking this action in
response to a petition dated March 16, 2012.

DATES: This rule is effective July 12, 2013. See section VIII of this
document for further information on the filing of objections. Submit
either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by
August 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written objections and
requests for a hearing, identified by Docket No. FDA-2012-F-0728, by
any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting objections.

Written Submissions

    Submit written objections in the following ways:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. FDA-2012-F-0728 for this rulemaking. All objections
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions
on submitting objections, see the ``Objections'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
objections received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanee Komolprasert, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In a document published in the Federal Register of July 17, 2012
(77 FR 41953), we announced that food additive petition (FAP 2B4791)
had been filed by then U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey, House of
Representatives, 2108 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC
20515-2107. The petition proposed to amend the food additive
regulations in Sec.  175.300 (21 CFR 175.300) to no longer provide for
the use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in packaging for infant
formula because these uses have been abandoned. BPA-based epoxy resins
are formed by the reaction of 4,4'-isopropylidenediphenol (i.e., BPA),
and epichlorohydrin. BPA-based epoxy resins may be safely used as the
food-contact surfaces of articles intended for use in producing,
manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging,
transporting, or holding food, in accordance with the prescribed
conditions of Sec.  175.300.

II. Evaluation of Abandonment

    Under section 409(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(i)), FDA ``shall by regulation prescribe
the procedure by which regulations under the foregoing provisions of
this section may be amended or repealed, and such procedure shall
conform to the procedure provided in this section for the promulgation
of such regulations.'' Our regulations specific to administrative
actions for food additives provide as follows: ``The Commissioner, on
his own initiative or on the petition of any interested person,
pursuant to part 10 of this chapter, may propose the issuance of a
regulation amending or repealing a regulation pertaining to a food
additive or granting or repealing an exception for such additive.''
(Sec.  171.130(a) (21 CFR 171.130(a))). These regulations further
provide: ``Any such petition shall include an assertion of facts,
supported by data, showing that new information exists with respect to
the food additive or that new uses have been developed or old uses
abandoned, that new data are available as to toxicity of the chemical,
or that experience with the existing regulation or exemption may
justify its amendment or repeal. New data shall be furnished in the
form specified in Sec. Sec.  171.1 and 171.100 for submitting
petitions.'' (Sec.  171.130(b)). Under these regulations, a petitioner
may propose that FDA amend a food additive regulation if the petitioner
can demonstrate that there are ''old uses abandoned'' for the relevant
food additive. Such abandonment must be complete for any intended uses
in the U.S. market. While section 409 of the FD&C Act and Sec.  171.130
also provide for amending or revoking a food additive regulation based
on safety, an amendment or revocation based on abandonment is not based
on safety, but is based on the fact that the regulatory authorization
is no longer necessary for the specific use of the food additive
because that use has been permanently and completely abandoned.
    Abandonment may be based on the abandonment of certain authorized
food additive uses for a substance (e.g., if a substance is no longer
used in certain product categories), or on the abandonment of all
authorized food additive uses of a substance (e.g., if a substance is
no longer being manufactured). If a petition seeks an

amendment to food additive regulations based on the abandonment of
certain uses of the food additive, such uses must be adequately defined
so that both the scope of the abandonment and any amendment to the food
additive regulation are clear.
    The petition contained public information and information collected
from a survey of all of the U.S. registered manufacturers of infant
formula to support the petitioner's claim that all U.S. infant formula
manufacturers have abandoned the use of BPA-based epoxy resins as
coatings in all food contact packaging for infant formula and that
infant formula products with packaging containing BPA-based epoxy
resins are not being introduced into the U.S. market. According to the
petition, the manufacturers identified in the survey accounted for 100
percent of the current infant formula market in the United States.

III. Comments on the Filing Notice

    We provided 60 days for comments on the filing notice. We received
21 comments from individuals, consumer groups, and trade associations.
Eighteen comments supported the rulemaking based on concerns regarding
the safety of BPA in food, six comments addressed both safety and
abandonment, while one comment addressed only abandonment. Three
comments opposed the rulemaking, asserting that the use of BPA-based
epoxy resins as coatings in packaging for infant formula has not been
permanently and completely abandoned. These supporting and opposing
comments have raised seven main issues, which are discussed in the
paragraphs that follow. For ease of reading, we preface each comment
discussion with a numbered ``Comment,'' and each response by a
corresponding numbered ``Response.'' We have numbered each comment
discussion to help distinguish among different topics. The number
assigned is for organizational purposes only and does not signify any
individual comment's value, importance, or the order in which it was
received.

A. The Safety of BPA

    (Comment 1) Eighteen distinct comments (representing more than
7,200 individuals who submitted form letters) supported the rulemaking
because they asserted that BPA exposure has been reported to be
associated with a wide range of adverse health issues. One comment
supported our commitment to study the significant emerging science
around BPA, and encouraged us to expand the scope of its review beyond
just infants, small children, and other vulnerable populations. Nine
comments urged us to immediately release our safety assessment of BPA.
    (Response) As indicated in the filing notice (77 FR 41953), because
the petition was based on an assertion of abandonment, we did not
request comments on the safety of the use of BPA-based epoxy resins as
coatings in packaging for infant formula. Such safety information is
not relevant to abandonment and, therefore, any comments addressing the
safety of BPA-based epoxy resins were not considered in our evaluation
of this petition. Separate from our consideration of this petition, we
are actively assessing the safety of BPA (see 75 FR 17145; April 5,
2010; see also http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm064437.htm) Any comments regarding the safety of BPA should be sent
in writing to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and
include Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0100.

B. Whether the Subject Uses Have Been Abandoned

    (Comment 2) Three distinct comments, submitted by trade
associations, opposed the rulemaking. These comments asserted that the
use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in packaging for infant
formula has not been intentionally, permanently, and completely
abandoned.
    Specifically, two comments asserted that the petition does not
adequately establish that the use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings
in infant formula packaging has been intentionally, permanently, and
completely abandoned because, the comments asserted, there remains a
desire on the part of can manufacturers to maintain BPA-based epoxy
resins as an option for future use as coatings in infant formula
packaging.
    The third comment asserted that the petition's proposed amendment
is premature and unnecessary at this time, and mere non-use does not
establish abandonment. This comment asserted that not all infant
formula manufacturers believe they have permanently ``abandoned'' the
use of packaging made using BPA.
    (Response) We concluded that the three opposing comments raised
significant questions regarding whether this use has been completely
abandoned because these trade associations likely represent the
opinions of their respective members that include the packaging
suppliers and the infant formula manufacturers. We therefore asked the
petitioner to provide additional data in support of the assertion that
the use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in infant formula
packaging has been completely abandoned. We needed this new information
to evaluate the comments asserting that, while infant formula
manufacturers currently do not use BPA as a component of infant formula
packaging, they have not abandoned this use. In response to our
request, the petitioner subsequently amended the petition to include a
new survey issued to the four infant formula manufacturers in the
United States. These four infant formula manufacturers account for 100
percent of the current infant formula market. The survey specifically
addressed whether these manufacturers have stopped the use of BPA-based
epoxy coatings in infant formula packaging, and whether they have
specific plans to reintroduce the use of BPA-based epoxy resins in
their infant formula packaging in the future.
    The amendment to the petition included a letter from one infant
formula manufacturer that indicated that while it has no specific plans
to use packaging materials with BPA in the future, it reserves the
right to do so in the future should the circumstances warrant it. We
considered whether this comment demonstrated that the use of BPA-based
epoxy coatings in infant formula packaging has not been permanently and
completely abandoned. We concluded that, because the comment did not
indicate that the manufacturer had specific plans to use BPA-based
epoxy coatings in the future, it did not demonstrate that this use has
not been permanently and completely abandoned. We conclude that a mere
assertion of a right to unspecified, hypothetical future use of an
additive does not demonstrate that, at the present time, there is
evidence that this use has not been permanently and completely
abandoned. We emphasize that our determination that this use of BPA-
based epoxy resins has been abandoned is made without prejudice to a
future filing based on the safety of this use. A manufacturer could
seek approval, establishing safe conditions of use for BPA-based epoxy
coatings in infant formula packaging, via the food contact notification
process.

C. Impact of the Rulemaking

    (Comment 3) One comment opposed the rulemaking, expressing a
concern that the rulemaking could impact consumer confidence
negatively, restrict the wide range of canned food and beverages
available to consumers, and

potentially put workers out of jobs in the United States.
    (Response) We disagree with the comment for the following reasons.
First, this rulemaking is premised on FDA's conclusion that the infant
formula manufacturers have completely and permanently abandoned the use
of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in packaging for infant formula.
Because this use has been abandoned, the rulemaking will not impact the
range of canned food and beverages currently available to consumers and
will not affect jobs currently held in the United States. Further, the
amendment to Sec.  175.300 does not restrict the use of BPA-based epoxy
resins as coatings in packaging for food other than infant formula.

D. Alternatives to BPA-Based Epoxy Resins

    (Comment 4) Two comments supported the rule because alternatives to
BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in packaging for infant formula are
available. However, another comment opposed the rule because the
industry does not want to foreclose access to a safe material whose use
may be necessary in the future, reasoning that if a current alternative
to BPA-based packaging proves to have inadequate performance or becomes
unavailable, the infant formula producers will need access to other
safe and proven effective packaging options to ensure the continued
supply of safe infant formula.
    (Response) We are aware that alternatives to the use of BPA-based
epoxy resins as coatings are listed in Sec.  175.300, and some are
being used to replace the BPA-based coatings in infant formula
packaging. However, this information is not relevant to whether the use
of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in infant formula packaging has
been abandoned. As discussed in more detail previously, we have
concluded that, because we did not receive any information from infant
formula manufacturers that communicated specific plans to use BPA-based
epoxy resins in their products in the future, we have no information to
indicate that this use has not been completely and permanently
abandoned.
    (Comment 5) One comment stated that many consumers have opted to
use glass baby bottles, given that glass is the only widely used
packaging designated by FDA as generally recognized as safe.
    (Response) This comment pertains to baby bottles and is not
relevant to whether the use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in
infant formula packaging has been abandoned. Therefore, FDA did not
consider this comment.

E. The Scope of the Use of BPA-Based Epoxy Resin Addressed by the
Petition

    (Comment 6) One comment stated that more BPA-containing products
should be banned. Ten comments asserted that the rulemaking does not go
far enough in protecting the health of infants. This comment stated
that, because babies are also being exposed to BPA through baby food
contained in glass jars with BPA-based liners for lids, as well as from
cans and reusable food containers, FDA should remove BPA from all food
packaging.
    (Response) We have concluded that it is not appropriate, in this
amendment to the food additive regulations, to address any uses of BPA-
based food packaging materials beyond that specified in the petition,
for the following reasons:
     A consideration of other BPA-based food packaging
materials is beyond the scope of the petition and the evidence
submitted with the petition, about which FDA requested and received
comment.
     We did not receive comments providing specific information
to demonstrate that any additional uses of other BPA-based food
packaging materials have been completely and permanently abandoned.

F. Labeling of BPA-Containing Packaging Materials

    (Comment 7) One comment asserted that consumers have a need to see
what is in food, and proper, precise, and truthful labeling is a must.
Therefore, the comment asserted that all products should be labeled so
as to give the consumer a choice. Another comment recommended that
labeling be required for food packaging materials that contain BPA.
    (Response) The petition did not request that FDA establish
requirements for the labeling of products manufactured with BPA.
Therefore, these comments are outside the scope of the action requested
by the petition, and FDA did not consider these comments.

G. Future Presence of BPA in Infant Formula Packaging

    (Comment 8) One comment asserted that if the petition is granted
and food additive regulations are amended to no longer provide for the
use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in infant formula packaging,
it would raise concerns about the possible implications of current or
future presence of BPA in infant formula packaging as a result of
environmental contamination. Because no specific level was included in
the petition, the comment asserted that the detection of any BPA level
in infant formula packaging could result in an adulterated product. The
comment asked that we explain how we will handle reports of detectable
levels of BPA in infant formula packaging that may be due to
environmental contamination.
    (Response) This comment is not relevant to whether the use of BPA-
based epoxy resins as coatings in infant formula packaging has been
abandoned. The focus of this amendment is to no longer provide for the
intentional use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in infant formula
packaging. However, we note that it is highly unlikely that BPA-based
epoxy resins will be present in infant formula packaging as a result of
environmental contamination when BPA-based epoxy resins are not being
used as components in the manufacture of infant formula packaging. If
FDA identifies the presence of BPA-based epoxy resins in infant formula
packaging in the future, FDA will determine whether such presence
causes an infant formula product to be adulterated under the FD&C Act.

IV. Conclusion

    FDA reviewed the data and information in the petition and other
available relevant material to determine whether the use of BPA-based
epoxy resins as coatings in packaging for infant formula has been
permanently and completely abandoned. Based on the available
information, we conclude that this use has been permanently and
completely abandoned. Therefore, we are amending Sec.  175.300 to no
longer provide for the use of BPA-based epoxy resins as coatings in
packaging for infant formula.

V. Public Disclosure

    In accordance with Sec.  171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition will be made available for inspection
at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with
the information contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
As provided in Sec.  171.1(h), the Agency will delete from the
documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure
before making the documents available for inspection.

VI. Environmental Impact

    We previously considered the environmental effects of this rule, as
stated in the notice of petition for FAP 2B4791 (77 FR 41953 at 41954).
We

stated that we had determined, under 21 CFR 25.32(m), that this action
``is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment'' such that neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required. We have not received any new information or comments that
would affect our previous determination.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

VIII. Objections

    If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this
regulation, you may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately
number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must
specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and
the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you
must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the
particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If
you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive
the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing,
your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the
specific factual information you intend to present in support of the
objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include
such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive
the right to a hearing on the objection.
    It is only necessary to send one set of documents. Identify
documents with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 175

    Adhesives, Food additives, Food packaging.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
175 is amended as follows:

PART 175--INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: ADHESIVES AND COMPONENTS OF
COATINGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 175 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.

0
2. Section 175.300 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  175.300  Resinous and polymeric coatings.

* * * * *
    (i) Epoxy resins derived by the reaction of 4,4'-
isopropylidenediphenol and epichlorohydrin, as described in paragraph
(b)(3)(viii)(a) of this section, may be used in accordance with this
section except as coatings in packaging for powdered and liquid infant
formula.

    Dated: July 8, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-16684 Filed 7-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 26, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-17477

________________________________________________________________________
______________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    US Airways, Inc.          filed   4/2/04  for:

XX Exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between any point or points in the United States, via intermediate
points, and any point or points in Switzerland, and points beyond
Switzerland.  US Airways also requests to integrate this authority with
its existing certificate and exemption authority.   US Airways initially
intends to operate service between Washington, D.C., and Zurich pursuant
to a code-share arrangement with United Air Lines but seeks broad
authority to operate its own flights as well as offering code-share
services with other partners.

Applicant rep:   Howard Kass<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:
Gerald Caolo<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted  (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  April 26, 2004, through
April 26, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Switzerland.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificate of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
____________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon US Airways rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless US Airways notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included

in US Airways’ authority by virtue of the route integration exemption
granted here, but that are not then being used by US Airways, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for US Airways in a competitive carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

The authority granted to serve intermediate and beyond points is limited
to countries with which the United States has signed open-skies
agreements and/or countries for which the carrier holds authority to
serve under certificates or exemptions issued by the Department, and for
which it holds route integration authority by virtue of this action or
other action of the Department, and all conditions attached to that
authority.

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions: (a) The code-sharing operations conducted
under this authority must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment
to the Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements
that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract
between the carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon
the requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in
the name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected; and  (b) the authority
granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither U.S. Airways
nor United Air Lines (or other code-share partners) shall give any force
or effect to any contractual provisions between themselves that are
contrary to these conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(n) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										08/2003

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:58 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: checking on status of facilities - new map

Hi, Donna Lee.  Hope all is well with you!

Insofar as the coke plants currently operating, my latest list is attached (see "US Coke Plant Listing 1119.pdf").  It shows 15 operating US plants, which agrees with what's shown on your map.  FYI, I believe that ERP Coke, with its new ownership as of August 2019, is now called "Bluestone Coke LLC."

Contact me if you have further questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< US Coke Plant Listing 1119.pdf >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:08 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: checking on status of facilities - new map

David - Hope you are doing well. I wanted to check with you that this is an up to date account of operating coke facilities. We used previous map and just took off Tonawanda.
Let me know as soon as you can to confirm. Thanks
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80442-80443]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Lake Murray State
Park Airport at Ardmore, Oklahoma

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of Lake Murray State Park Airport at Lake Murray State Park in
Ardmore, Oklahoma.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Glenn A. Boles, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Manager--Arkansas/
Oklahoma Airports Development Office, ASW-630, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathy Franklin, Federal Aviation
Administration, Arkansas/Oklahoma

Airports Development Office, ASW-630J, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort
Worth, Texas 76177.
    The request to release this airport may be reviewed in person at
this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release Lake Murray State Park Airport at Lake Murray State
Park in Ardmore, Oklahoma, from all federal obligations for the
purposes of closing this airport under the provisions of Section 125 of
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (AIR 21).
    The following is a brief overview of the request:

    The Oklahoma Department of Tourism and the Oklahoma Aeronautics
Commission (co-sponsors) requested the release of the airport which
consists of 61.53 acres, paved runway (2,500 feet x 48 feet),
connecting taxiway (160 feet x 35 feet) and apron (300 feet x 115
feet). The land was acquired by the State of Oklahoma for use as the
Lake Murray State Park through an appropriation of state funds to the
Planning and Resources Board in the 1930's. The airport was constructed
in 1963 with an FAA Grant in the amount of $45,823.76. The airport has
very low demand with only 50 operations for the 12 months ending Sept
20, 2013, has no based aircraft, and has been designated as
`unclassified' by the FAA ASSET report. There are four other NPIAS
airports within a 25 mile radius which better meet aviation needs of
this area. Lake Murray State Park Airport's pavements are in fair
condition; however, within the next five years, the runway will need to
be reconstructed with an estimated cost to rehabilitate and improve to
FAA standards of $1,083,000. The State has concluded this is not a
prudent expenditure and that these limited funds would be better
invested in other public use airports in Oklahoma. As the airport
owners, the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and the Oklahoma Aeronautics
Commission (OAC) have requested a full release of their airport
obligations. If released, the airport property will return to being
part of Lake Murray State Park, and the property will be allowed to
become part of the natural grassland. The OAC plans to invest state
funds equal to or in excess of the sum of the amount of the four AIP
grants received ($183,999.00) and the appraised value for the land
($136,896) in NPIAS Airports in the Oklahoma Airport System during the
federal fiscal year 2016.

    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on October 27, 2015.
Ignacio Flores,
Manager, Airports Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-32459 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 38185-38187]
[DOCID:fr31jy09-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8934-8; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517]

Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
the availability of the second external review draft of a document
titled, ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment
for Particulate Matter'' (EPA/600/R-08/139B and EPA/600/R-08/139BA).
The document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development as
part of the review of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter.

    EPA is releasing this draft document to seek review by the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public (meeting date
and location to be specified in a separate Federal Register notice).
The draft document does not represent and should not be construed to
represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination. EPA will
consider any public comments submitted in response to this notice when
revising the document.

DATES: The public comment period begins on or about July 31, 2009.
Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter'' will be available primarily via the
Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's home
page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of CD-ROM or paper copies will be
available. Contact Ms. Debbie Wales by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>), fax (919-
541-5078), or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request either of
these, and please provide your name, your mailing address, and the
document title, ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter'' (EPA/600/R-08/139B and EPA/600/R-
08/139C) to facilitate processing of your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Dr.
Lindsay Wichers Stanek, NCEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 919-
541-2985; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to
identify certain pollutants which, among other things, ``cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare'' and to issue air quality criteria
for them. These air quality criteria are to ``accurately reflect the
latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of
all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be
expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air. * * *
'' Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant for which EPA
has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act subsequently requires
periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality
criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of
the pollutant on public health or welfare. EPA is also to revise the
NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised air quality criteria.
    Particulate matter (PM) is one of six principal (or ``criteria'')
pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS. Periodically, EPA
reviews the scientific basis for these standards by preparing an
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) (formerly called an Air Quality
Criteria Document). The ISA and supplementary annexes, in conjunction
with additional technical and policy assessments, provide the
scientific basis for EPA decisions on the adequacy of the current NAAQS
and the appropriateness of possible alternative standards. The Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent science
advisory committee whose existence and whose review and advisory
functions are mandated by Section 109(d)(2) of the Act, is charged
(among other things) with independent scientific review of EPA's air
quality criteria.
    On June 28, 2007 (72 FR 35462), EPA formally initiated its current
review of the air quality criteria for PM, requesting the submission of
recent scientific information on specified topics. A draft of EPA's
``Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Particulate Matter'' (EPA/452/P-08-006) was made available in
October 2007 for public comment and was discussed by the CASAC PM
Review Panel via a publicly accessible teleconference consultation on
November 30, 2007 (72 FR 63177). EPA finalized the plan and made it
available in March 2008 (EPA/452/R-08-004; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pd.html). In June 2008 (73 FR 30391),
EPA held a workshop to discuss, with invited scientific experts,
initial draft materials prepared in the development of the PM ISA and
its supplementary annexes.
    The First External Review Draft ISA for PM (EPA/600/R-08/139 and
EPA/600/R-08/139A; http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=201805) was released on December 22, 2008 (73 FR
77686). This document was reviewed by the CASAC and discussed at a
public meeting on April 1 and 2, 2009 (74 FR 7688). The CASAC held a
follow-up public teleconference on May 7, 2009 (74 FR 18230) to review
and approve the CASAC PM Review Panel's draft letter providing comments
to the Agency on the First External Review Draft ISA for PM (http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/
$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-unsigned.pdf).
    The second external review draft ISA for PM will be reviewed and
discussed by CASAC at a public meeting. Public comments received will
be provided to the CASAC PM Review Panel. A future Federal Register
notice will inform the public of the exact date and time of that CASAC
meeting.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0517, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334 EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit
three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number
pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original
and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-0517. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://
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 e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your
e-mail 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 additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: July 21, 2009.
Rebecca M. Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E9-18387 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P