[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6927-6928]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0238]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; TowMate, LLC
Application for an Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant TowMate, LLC's (TowMate) application
for a limited two-year exemption to allow motor carriers to operate
rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems
during temporary towing operations. Under the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), all required lamps, with the exception of
battery-powered lamps used on projecting loads, must be powered by the
electrical system of the motor vehicle. The Agency has determined that
use of rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting
systems during temporary towing operations would not have an adverse
impact on safety, and use of these systems under the terms and
conditions of the exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent
to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation. This
decision is consistent with an August 2005 amendment to the FMCSRs to
allow battery powered lamps on the rear of projecting loads.

DATES: This exemption is effective February 9, 2016 and ending February
9, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

TowMate's Application for Exemption

    TowMate applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.23 to allow motor
carriers to operate rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and
tail lighting systems during temporary towing operations. A copy of the
application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of
this notice.
    Section 393.23, ``Power Supply for Lamps,'' provides that ``All
required lamps must be powered by the electrical system of the motor
vehicle with the exception of battery powered lamps used on projecting
loads.''
    The application stated:

    TowMate is making this request because the use of conventional
hard wired temporary stop, turn, and tail lights has many drawbacks
that wireless tow lights solve. These include broken connections,
frayed wires, burnt out incandescent bulbs, and the potential to be
snagged or pulled from the tow light receptacle due to improper
running of wires, and road hazards, along with the safety hazard of
increasing the amount of time spent on the roadside or the scene of
an accident by stringing wired lighting systems between vehicles and
securing the wires. With the advent of LED technology coupled with
advancements in battery technologies, wireless tow lights are more
reliable and better equipped for the rigors of daily temporary use.
    Temporary wireless stop, turn, tail lighting systems can operate
for 10+ hours of continuous use on a full charge, and in-cab wire-
less monitoring systems give the driver constant information on the
functioning of the system, displaying state of charge of the battery
inside the unit, displaying the functioning of the system during
operation, and warning the driver if the unit is no longer
functioning. In this sense, wireless tow lights provide a level of
safety and redundancy that is not currently required on wired
temporary lighting systems. In an emergency situation with a drained
battery, power can be directly connected to the temporary wireless
stop, turn, and tail lighting system from a standard 4 pin or 7 pin
electrical connection.
    Without the proposed temporary exemption, tow and haul away
operators will be forced to continue to use cumbersome wired
temporary towing light systems, placing an unnecessary burden on
their daily operations. The current temporary lighting requirements
for stop, tail, and turn lamps require that the lamps receive their
power from a direct wired connection to the towing vehicle with no
ascertainable benefit from doing such. Wireless tow lights afford
benefits that wired systems are unable to, such as redundancies like
monitoring the status of the unit in real time, thus assuring their
proper operation at all times.

Comments

    On August 6, 2015, FMCSA published notice of the TowMate
application and requested public comment (80 FR 47031). The Agency
received thirteen comments, all in support of TowMate's application.
    The Towing and Recovery Association of America, Inc., and the
Wisconsin Towing Association commented that hard-wired temporary stop,
tail and turn signal lighting systems take additional time to install
on the side of the road or highway as compared to wireless systems,
leaving tow operators vulnerable and at greater risk of being struck
and injured by passing motorists These commenters stated that use of
rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting

systems would help eliminate this hazard, and provide a safer working
environment.
    Seven commenters identified themselves as owners of small towing
companies that use rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail
lighting systems when conducting temporary emergency tows. These
commenters echoed the comments above, noting that use of the wireless
systems allows operators to clear accident scenes from roadways faster
and thereby increases tow operator safety.
    Four additional commenters supported TowMate's application, noting
the same benefits as the other commenters.

Discussion

    Prior to August 2005, section 393.23 of the FMCSRs was titled
``Lighting devices to be electric,'' and stated ``Lighting devices
shall be electric, except that red liquid-burning lanterns may be used
on the end of loads in the nature of poles, pipes, and ladders
projecting to the rear of the motor vehicle.'' In a final rule
published on August 15, 2005, FMCSA amended section 393.23 of the
FMCSRs to incorporate terminology which is more consistent with current
industry standards and practices (70 FR 48008). Specifically, the title
of section 393.23 was revised to read ``Power supply for lamps,'' the
reference to red liquid-burning lanterns was removed as obsolete, and--
as it relates to the subject exemption application--the rule was
amended to permit the use of battery powered lamps on projecting loads.
With respect to the use of battery powered lamps, the August 2005 rule
states ``With the exception of temporary lamps used on projecting
loads, lamps are required to be powered through the electrical system
of the commercial motor vehicle.'' [Emphasis added].
    Motor vehicles transporting loads which extend more than 4 feet
beyond the rear of the motor vehicle, or which have tailboards or
tailgates extending more than 4 feet beyond the body, are required to
mark those projections when the vehicle is operated during the hours
when headlamps are required. Specifically, each side of the projecting
load is required to be marked with one red side marker lamp, visible
from the side, located to indicate the maximum overhang, and the rear
of the projecting load is required to be marked with two red lamps,
visible from the rear, one at each side, and two red reflectors visible
from the rear, one at each side, located so as to indicate the maximum
width of the projection. By expressly permitting battery powered lamps
on projecting loads via the August 2005 final rule, the Agency has
directly acknowledged the viability of lighting systems powered by
sources other than the vehicle's electrical system in limited
applications where the lamps required by the regulations are temporary
in nature due to the specific vehicle operation.
    Section 393.17 of the FMCSRs prescribes the lighting requirements
for vehicles engaged in driveaway-towaway operations. A vehicle
combination consisting of a tow vehicle pulling a wrecked or disabled
vehicle is considered a driveaway-towaway operation, and the
combination needs to be equipped with the lighting devices specified in
section 393.17. Specifically with respect to the rear of the rearmost
towed vehicle in such a combination, section 393.17(b)(2) requires at
least two tail lamps, two stop lamps, two turn signals, two clearance
lamps, and two reflectors, one of each type at each side. In addition,
if any vehicle in the combination is 80 inches or more in overall
width, there must be three identification lamps on the rear. Similar to
the temporary lamps required on the rear of projecting loads, the
required lamps on the rear of a wrecked or disabled vehicle being
transported to a motor carrier's terminal or facility for repairs are
temporary in nature.

FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated the comments received in support of TowMate's
application. The Agency agrees that permitting the use of rechargeable
wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems during
temporary towing operations will reduce the time tow operators spend at
the side of the road connecting wired lighting systems between
vehicles, thereby reducing their risk of injury and increasing safety.
The Agency believes that use of the rechargeable wireless lighting
systems will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption. This
decision is consistent with the amendment made in the August 2005 final
rule to allow battery powered lamps on the rear of projecting loads.

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a two-year period,
beginning February 9, 2016 and ending February 9, 2018. During the
temporary exemption period, motor carriers will be allowed to use
rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting systems
that do not meet the lighting power supply requirements of 49 CFR
393.23 during temporary towing operations, provided the requirements of
49 CFR 393.17(b)(2) are met. The exemption will be valid for two years
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if:
(1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
    Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate
that motor carriers using rechargeable wireless temporary stop, turn,
and tail lighting systems during temporary towing operations are not
achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if
safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is
not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take
immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.

    Issued on: January 29, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-02511 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 110)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31778-31781]
[DOCID:fr08jn07-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0571; FRL-8324-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Arizona;
Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for
Attainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 25, 2002, EPA approved under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
the serious area particulate matter (PM-10) plan for the Maricopa
County portion of the metropolitan Phoenix (Arizona) nonattainment area
(Maricopa County area). Among other things, EPA approved the best
available control measure (BACM) and most stringent measure (MSM)
demonstrations in the plan and granted the State's request for an
attainment date extension for the area. EPA's approval was challenged
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In response to the
Court's remand, EPA reassessed the BACM and MSM demonstrations for the
significant source categories of on-road motor vehicles and nonroad
engines and equipment exhaust, specifically regarding whether
California Air Resources Board (CARB) diesel is a BACM and/or MSM. As a
result of this reassessment, EPA again approved the BACM and MSM
demonstrations in the plan and granted the State's request to extend
the attainment deadline from 2001 to 2006. In light of its recent
finding that the Maricopa County area failed to attain the 24-hour PM-
10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by December 31, 2006,
EPA is again reassessing the BACM and MSM demonstrations in the plan
and is again proposing to approve these demonstrations.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0571, by one of the folling methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the
eRulemaking portal or e-mail. The eRulemaking portal is an anonymous
access system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
apointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Weisner, U.S. EPA Region 9,
(415) 947-4107<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/actions
.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Background

A. EPA's 2002 Approval

    On July 25, 2002, EPA approved multiple documents submitted to EPA
by Arizona for the Maricopa County area as meeting the CAA requirements

for serious PM-10 nonattainment areas for the 24-hour and annual PM-10
national ambient air quality standards.\1\ Among these documents is the
``Revised MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the
Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,'' February 2000 (MAG plan) that
includes the BACM demonstrations for all significant source categories
(except agriculture) for both the 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards
and the State's request and supporting documentation, including the
most stringent measure analysis (except for agriculture) for an
attainment date extension for both standards. EPA's July 25, 2002 final
action included approval of these elements of the MAG plan.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Effective December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM-10
standard. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). References to the annual
standard in this proposed rule for historical purposes only. EPA is
not taking any regulatory action with regard to this former
standard.
    \2\ For a detailed discussion of the MAG plan and the serious
area PM-10 requirements, please see EPA's proposed and final
approval actions at 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000), 66 FR 50252
(October 2, 2001) and 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 189(b)(2), serious area PM-10 plans must provide
assurances that BACM will be implemented no later than four years after
a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area is reclassified as serious. For the
Maricopa County area, the BACM implementation deadline was June 10,
2000. In short, a BACM demonstration starts with the identification of
all source categories contributing significantly to nonattainment of
the PM-10 NAAQS. Once the significant categories are identified, all
potential BACM for these categories must be identified and a reasoned
justification must be provided for any BACM that are not implemented.
All BACM that are economically and technologically feasible must be
implemented.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a detailed discussion of EPA's preliminary
interpretation of the CAA's BACM requirements, see ``State
Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and
Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998, 42008-42014
(August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of the Maricopa County area, the MAG plan identified
eight significant PM-10 source categories, including on-road motor
vehicle and nonroad engines and equipment exhaust.4 5 In our
2002 approval of the MAG plan, we stated that Arizona had one of the
most comprehensive programs for addressing on-road motor vehicle
emissions and that the additional measures in the MAG plan would
strengthen and go beyond that program. For nonroad engines, EPA stated
that Arizona had committed to adopt measures that would strengthen the
overall nonroad engine program making it go beyond the existing federal
program. 65 FR at 19972-19974; 66 FR at 50258-50260. Strengthening and
expanding existing programs are key criteria for demonstrating the
implementation of BACM. 59 FR at 42013. EPA noted that CARB diesel was
rejected in the MAG plan as a BACM due to high costs, but believed the
cost analysis was too uncertain to judge. 65 FR at 19973; 67 FR at
48725. EPA concluded that, overall, the on-road and nonroad measures in
the MAG plan constituted BACM for the Maricopa County area without the
implementation of CARB diesel. 67 FR at 48725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Nonroad vehicles'' and ``nonroad engines'' are used
interchangeably in EPA's proposed and final approval actions on the
MAG plan. In addition, CARB and other state air agencies typically
refer to these sources as ``off-road.'' ``Nonroad engines and
equipment,'' ``nonroad vehicles,'' ``nonroad engines,'' ``nonroad''
and ``off-road'' are used interchangeably in today's proposed rule.
    \5\ A list of all potential BACM was compiled for each of the
significant source categories and a detailed analysis of whether the
potential BACM were technically and economically feasible was
provided by the MAG plan and evaluated by EPA. 65 FR at 19964, 66 FR
at 50252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, the Maricopa County area was
required to attain the annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards by no later
than December 31, 2001. CAA section 188(c)(2). However, CAA section
188(e) allows us to extend the attainment date for a serious PM-10
nonattainment area for up to five years if attainment by 2001 is
impracticable and certain specified additional conditions are met.
Among these conditions is that the State must demonstrate to our
satisfaction that its serious area plan includes the most stringent
measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state and/
or are achieved in practice in any state and are feasible for the area.
EPA determined that CARB diesel was not required as a MSM because it
did not advance the attainment date. Therefore EPA granted an
attainment date extension for the Maricopa County area without it. Id.
at 48739.

B. Vigil v. Leavitt

    The Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI), on
behalf of Phoenix area residents, subsequently filed in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a petition for review of EPA's
approval of several elements in the MAG plan. As relevant to this
proposed rule, ACLPI asserted that EPA's approval was arbitrary and
capricious because the plan did not mandate the use of CARB diesel and
thus did not satisfy the CAA requirements for BACM and MSM for mobile
sources. ACLPI further asserted that we granted an extension of the
statutory deadline for attainment to December 31, 2006 based on an
inadequate MSM demonstration.
    On May 10, 2004, the Court issued its opinion which upheld EPA's
final approval in part but remanded to EPA the question of whether CARB
diesel must be included in the serious area plan as a BACM and a MSM.
Specifically, with respect to whether CARB diesel was appropriately
rejected as BACM, the Court stated that ``* * * Arizona has offered one
explanation, which EPA has declined to ratify, and EPA has not
proffered an adequate explanation of its own.'' The Court further
stated that ``[i]n light of our disposition with respect to CARB diesel
as a BACM, we remand to EPA for further consideration of whether CARB
diesel satisfies MSM as well.'' Finally, the Court remanded the
question of Maricopa County area's eligibility for an extension of the
attainment date to 2006, but only insofar as that question depends on
EPA's determination regarding CARB diesel as a MSM. Vigil v. Leavitt,
366 F.3d 1025, amended at 381 F. 3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004).

C. EPA's 2006 Approval

    In response to the Vigil Court's remand, on August 3, 2006, EPA
again approved the BACM and MSM demonstrations in the MAG plan for the
significant source categories of on-road motor vehicles and nonroad
engines and equipment exhaust without CARB diesel and granted the
State's request to extend the attainment deadline from 2001 to 2006. 71
FR 43979. In this final action, EPA concluded that CARB diesel is not
feasible for on-road motor vehicles because Arizona would not be able
to obtain a CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver for purposes of PM-10
attainment. In reaching this conclusion, EPA reasoned that Arizona
would not be able to provide a demonstration that CARB diesel is
``necessary'' to achieve the PM-10 NAAQS, as required by that section,
because EPA had already approved the State's demonstration of
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS without relying on CARB diesel. Id. at
43983. Also in this final action, EPA noted that in August 2005, CAA
section 211(c)(4)(C) was amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct), 42 U.S.C. 15801 et seq., which placed additional restrictions
on EPA's authority under that provision. We did not, however, address
the effect of the new restrictions on our action

because of our conclusion that CARB diesel was not necessary to achieve
the NAAQS. Id. at 43980, footnotes 2 and 3.
    With respect to nonroad engines and equipment, EPA concluded that
CARB diesel is not feasible because of the uncertainties with fuel
availability, storage and segregation and concerns about program
effectiveness due to owners and operators fueling outside the Maricopa
County area. Id.

II. Proposed Action

    On March 23, 2007, EPA proposed to find that the Maricopa County
area \6\ failed to attain the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the December 31,
2006 deadline mandated by the CAA. 72 FR 13723. On May 24, 2007, the
Regional Administrator signed a final rule finding that the Maricopa
County area failed to attain.\7\ As a result, the Agency can no longer
rely on its August 3, 2006 conclusion that the State would not be able
to obtain a section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver for CARB diesel because it
is not necessary for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS. Thus EPA has
reassessed the BACM demonstration for the onroad motor vehicle exhaust
source category in light of the new EPAct provisions that it did not
previously consider. As discussed further in section III.A. below, EPA
has concluded it could not approve a CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver
for Arizona for CARB diesel because the effect of such an approval
would unlawfully increase the total number of fuels approved into SIPs
under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004. Therefore, EPA is
again proposing to approve the BACM demonstration in the MAG plan
without CARB diesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In its proposed and final nonattainment finding actions, EPA
refers to the Maricopa County area as the Phoenix nonattainment
area. These terms are interchangeable.
    \7\ The final rule will be published shortly in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because our August 2006 approval of the BACM demonstration for
nonroad engines and equipment exhaust relied to some extent on our
conclusion with respect to onroad motor vehicle exhaust, we are also
proposing again to find that CARB diesel is not required as a BACM for
the nonroad category because of the uncertainties with fuel
availability, storage and segregation and program effectiveness due to
owners and operators fueling outside the Maricopa County area.
    Finally, since EPA granted the State's request for an attainment
date extension in August 2006, the December 31, 2006 attainment
deadline has passed. Therefore the extension request is now moot.
However, if CARB diesel had been required as a MSM in order for EPA to
grant the extension request, the State would now be required to
continue to implement it absent the requisite showing under CAA section
110(1). Therefore EPA is again proposing to approve the MSM
demonstration in the MAG plan without CARB diesel. We are also
confirming that we appropriately granted Arizona's request for an
attainment date extension in our 2002 and 2006 actions.

III. Reassessment of the BACM Demonstration for the Maricopa County
Area

A. On-Road Motor Vehicle Exhaust

    Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA generally preempts states from
prescribing or attempting to enforce controls respecting motor vehicle
fuel characteristics or components that EPA has controlled under
section 211(c)(1),\8\ unless the state control is identical to the
Federal control. EPA currently has nationwide regulations prescribing
limits on various characteristics and components of motor vehicle
diesel fuel (e.g., sulfur content limits, minimum cetane index and
limits on aromatic content). 55 FR 34120 (August 21, 1990). Thus
Arizona would need to obtain a CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) waiver in order
to implement a different requirement governing these characteristics
and components of on-road diesel fuel, i.e., CARB diesel, in the
Maricopa County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This prohibition applies to all states except California, as
explained in section 211(c)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), EPA may waive preemption by
approving a non-identical state fuel control as a SIP provision, if the
state demonstrates that the measure is necessary to achieve the NAAQS.
We may approve a state fuel requirement as ``necessary'' if no other
measures would bring about timely attainment, or if other measures
exist and are technically possible to implement but are unreasonable or
impracticable.
    Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(I), added by the EPAct, further restricts
EPA's authority to waive preemption by providing that the Agency cannot
approve, under section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), any state fuel if the effect of
such approval increases the total number of fuels approved into SIPs
under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004. The EPAct required
EPA to determine the total number of fuels approved into SIPs under
section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, and to publish the list
for public review and comment.
    On June 6, 2006, EPA's notice of its draft list was published in
the Federal Register. 71 FR 32532. On December 28, 2006, EPA's notice
of its final list, known as the Boutique Fuels List, was published in
the Federal Register. 71 FR 78192. The final list includes eight types
of fuels approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September
1, 2004. CARB fuels are approved into California's SIP, but because the
approval is not under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), we did not place
CARB fuels on the list of fuel types. 71 FR 78196. Thus, CARB diesel is
not one of these eight fuel types. As a result, EPA has no authority to
approve, under section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), CARB diesel for on-road motor
vehicles in the Maricopa County area because the effect of such
approval would be to increase the total number of fuels approved into
SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004.\9\ Thus, the
State would not be able to obtain a section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) waiver
necessary to implement CARB diesel for on-road motor vehicles.
Consequently EPA is again proposing to approve the BACM demonstration
for the on-road category in the MAG plan without CARB diesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Note that under the EPAct, in cases where our approval would
not increase the total number of fuels on the list because the total
number of fuels in SIPs at that point is below the number of fuels
as of September 1, 2004, then our approval requires a finding that
the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution problems or have
significant adverse impacts on fuel producibility in the affected or
contiguous areas. CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV). In addition, we
may not approve a state fuel unless that fuel is already approved in
at least one SIP in the applicable Petroleum Administration for
Defense District (PADD). CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). Because we
believe that approval of CARB diesel is not allowed as it would
increase the total number of fuels on the Boutique Fuels list above
the number of fuels as of September 1, 2004, we do not address these
additional restrictions on our approval authority under CAA section
211(c)(4)(c)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Nonroad Engines and Equipment Exhaust

    EPA is not changing its assessment in its August 3, 2006 final rule
that requiring CARB diesel for the control of nonroad engines and
equipment exhaust is not currently feasible and is therefore not
required as BACM in the Maricopa County area. Therefore, except as
specifically modified below, EPA is relying for this proposed rule on
its discussion of Nonroad Engines and Equipment Exhaust in Section
II.B(2) of the Agency's July 1, 2005 proposed rule. 70 FR at 38066-
38067. We are also relying on our responses to public comments on this
issue in Section II.B. of our August 3, 2006 final rule. 71 FR at
43981-43983.
    We note one update to the information in footnote 7 of the August
2006 final rule. There are currently six, rather than four, approval
letters on the

Texas Low Emission Diesel fuel program web site providing for the use
of alternative diesel fuel formulations. The second sentence in
footnote 7 should now read as follows: ``Although Section 114.312(f)
provides that alternative diesel fuel formulations must provide
comparable or better reductions of NOX and PM, three of the
six alternative diesel fuel formulation approval letters to date have
cited NOX reductions alone, or (in one case) reductions of
NOX and hydrocarbons, but not PM, as the basis for
approval.''

IV. MSM Demonstration and Extension of Attainment Date

    In our August 3, 2006 final action, we determined that CARB diesel
was not required as a MSM because it did not advance the attainment
date. Today's proposed approval of the BACM demonstration in the MAG
plan for the on-road and nonroad vehicle exhaust source categories for
the Maricopa County area without CARB diesel does not affect that
determination. Therefore, we are again proposing to approve the MSM
demonstration in the MAG plan. If we again take final action to approve
the MSM demonstration, the attainment date extension granted to the
Maricopa County area in our August 3, 2006 final action would not be
affected.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submission, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context,in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 31, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 07-2848 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 31623]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1958-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Connecticut; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Connecticut (FEMA-1958-DR), dated March 3, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 18, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Craig A.
Gilbert, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Albert Lewis as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-13518 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9019-9020]
[DOCID:fr26fe10-150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0014; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2009 AL Spaw EMA Mobile Stage Trailers Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2009 AL Spaw EMA Mobile Stage trailers are eligible for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2009 AL Spaw EMA Mobile Stage trailers that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States
because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of
being altered to comply with, all such standards.

DATES:  The closing date for comments on the petition is March 29,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and has no
substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, shall be refused
admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of
being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive
test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Red Top Auto Sales (Red Top) of Fort Myers, Florida (Registered
Importer 08-354) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2009 AL Spaw
EMA Mobile Stage trailers that were not originally manufactured to
conform to all applicable FMVSS are eligible for importation into the
United States. Red Top contends that these vehicles are eligible for
importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) because they have safety
features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply
with, all applicable FMVSS. Red Top submitted information with its
petition intended to demonstrate that 2009 AL Spaw EMA Mobile Stage
trailers are capable of being modified to comply with all applicable
standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that 2009 AL Spaw EMA Mobile
Stage trailers are capable of being altered to meet the following
standards, in the manner indicated:
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: installation of conforming rear reflex reflectors, license
plate lamps, rear side marker lamps, front side marker lamps,
intermediate side markers lamps, rear side reflex reflectors, front
side reflex reflectors, intermediate side reflex reflectors, rear
identification lamps and rear clearance lamps, to achieve compliance
with the standard.
    Standard No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than
Passenger Cars: Inspection of all vehicles and replacement of any non
conforming tires with ones that meet the standard.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other
than

Passenger Cars: installation of conforming rims and a tire information
placard to achieve compliance with the standard.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: February 22, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-3967 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0199; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland;
Determination of Clean Data for the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter
Standard

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to determine that the Baltimore, Maryland and
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, Maryland (MD)-West Virginia (WV) nonattainment
areas for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  This
proposed determination is based upon quality assured, quality
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that these
areas have monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the
2006 - 2008 data.  In addition, quality controlled and quality assured
monitoring data for 2009 that are available in the EPA Air Quality
System (AQS) database, but not yet certified, show that these areas
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. If this proposed determination is
made final, the requirements for these areas to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available measures, a reasonable
further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the standard shall
be suspended for so long as each of these areas continue to meet the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0199 by one of the following methods:

A.  www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B.  E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

C.  Mail:  EPA- R03-OAR-2009-0199, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D.  Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0199.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and

may be made available online at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
 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 or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov website 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
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.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jacqueline Lewis,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever “we,”
“us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Organization of this document.  The following outline is provided to aid
in locating information in this preamble.

I.    What Action is EPA Taking?

II.   What is the Effect of This Action?

III.  What is the Background for This Action?

IV.  What is EPA’s Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?

V.   Proposed Action

VI.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I.  What Action is EPA Taking?

EPA is proposing to determine that the Baltimore and the Maryland
portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV PM2.5 nonattainment areas
have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  This determination is based
upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing that these areas have monitored attainment of
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006 - 2008 data.  In addition,
quality controlled and quality assured monitoring data for 2009 that are
available in the EPA AQS database, but not yet certified, show that
these areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II.  What is the Effect of This Action?

If this determination is made final, under the provisions of EPA’s
PM2.5 implementation rule (see 40 CFR section 51.1004(c)), the
requirements for the Baltimore and the Maryland portion of the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV PM2.5 nonattainment areas to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
would be suspended for so long as each area continues to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.

As further discussed below, the proposed determination for the
Baltimore, MD and for the Maryland portion of the
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV nonattainment areas would:  (1) suspend
the requirements to submit for each area an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including
reasonably available control technologies (RACT)), a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of  the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS;  (2) continue until such
time, if any, that EPA subsequently determines that each area have
violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS;  (3) be separate from, and not influence
or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or
requirements for the Baltimore and Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV PM2.5
nonattainment areas based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS;  and (4) remain in
effect regardless of whether EPA designates these areas as nonattainment
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.   Furthermore, as described below,
any such final determinations would not be equivalent to the
redesignation of these areas to attainment based on the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.

If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after
notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the areas
have violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the
specific requirements, set forth at 40 CFR section 51.1004(c), would no
longer exist, and these areas would thereafter have to address the
pertinent requirements.

The determination that EPA proposes with this Federal Register notice,
that the air quality data shows attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, is
not equivalent to the redesignation of these areas to attainment.  This
proposed action, if finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to
attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), because
we would not yet have an approved maintenance plan for these areas as
required under section 175A of the CAA, nor a determination that these
areas have met the other requirements for redesignation.  The
designation status of these areas would remain nonattainment for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that these areas meet
the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment.

This proposed action, if finalized, is limited to a determination that
the Baltimore and the Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg
MD-WV PM2.5 nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.  The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on July 18, 1997 (62 FR
36852) and are set forth at 40 CFR section 50.7.  The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
which became effective on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144) are set forth
at 40 CFR section 50.13.  EPA is currently in the process of making
designation determinations, as required by CAA section 107(d)(2), for
the 2006 PM2.5  NAAQS.  At this point, EPA has not made any designation
determination for the Baltimore and Hagerstown-Martinsburg MD-WV PM2.5
nonattainment areas based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  This proposed
determination, and any final determination, will have no effect on, and
is not related to, any future designation determination that EPA may
make based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Baltimore and
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV PM2.5 nonattainment areas.  Conversely,
any future designation determination of the Baltimore and
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV nonattainment areas, based on the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, will not have any effect on the determination proposed by
this notice.

If this proposed determination is made final and the Baltimore and the
Maryland portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV nonattainment
areas continue to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
requirements for the nonattainment areas to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a
reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and any other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS would remain
suspended, regardless of whether EPA designates these areas as
nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  Once these
areas are designated for the 2006 NAAQS, they will have to meet all
applicable requirements for that designation.

III.  What is the Background for This Action?

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a health-based PM2.5
NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a twenty-four hour
standard of 65 µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile
of 24-hour concentrations.  EPA established the standards based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate
matter.  The process for designating areas following promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA.  EPA
and State air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999, and developed all air quality monitors by
January 2001.  On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air
quality designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon

air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years
2001-2003.  These designations became effective on April 5, 2005.  The
Baltimore and Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV nonattainment areas were
designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 81).

IV.  What is EPA’s Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?

EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent
with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in the
EPA AQS database for the Baltimore and Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV
PM2.5 nonattainment areas from 2006 through the present time.  On the
basis of that review, EPA has concluded that these areas meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006 – 2008 data.  In addition, quality
controlled and quality assured monitoring data for 2009 that are
available in the EPA AQS database, but not yet certified, show these
areas continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 50, section 50.7:

(1) The annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the
annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with
40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3.

(2) The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the
98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in accordance with
40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 65 µg/m3.

Table 1.a shows the design values for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for
the Baltimore nonattainment area monitors for the years 2006 – 2008.
Table 1.b shows the design values for the

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV
nonattainment area monitors for the years 2006 – 2008.

Table 1.a - Design Values for Counties in the Baltimore, MD

Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS – Annual Standard

Location	AQS site ID	1997 Annual Attainment Standard	2006 – 2008

Design Values

Anne Arundel County	24-003-1003	15	13.3

Baltimore County	24-005-1007	15	12.6

Baltimore County	24-005-3001	15	13.6

Harford County	24-025-1001	15	11.7

Baltimore City	24-510-0006	15	12.8

Baltimore City	24-510-0007	15	12.9

Baltimore City	24-510-0008	15	14

Baltimore City	24-510-0035	15	14.5

Baltimore City	24-510-0040	15	14

Table 1.b - Design Values for the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV

Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS – Annual Standard

Location	AQS site ID	1997 Annual Attainment Standard	2006 – 2008

Design Values

Washington County, MD	24-043-0009	15	12.2

Berkeley County, WV	54-003-0003	15	14.9

Table 2.a shows the design values for the 1997 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS for
these same monitors and the same 3-year period Table 2.b shows the
design values for the 1997 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS for these same monitors
and the same 3-year period.

Table 2.a - Design Values for Counties in the Baltimore, MD

Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS – 24 Hour Standard

Location	AQS site ID	1997 Annual Attainment Standard	2006 – 2008

Design Values

Anne Arundel County	24-003-1003	65	34

Baltimore County	24-005-1007	65	32

Baltimore County	24-005-3001	65	33

Harford County	24-025-1001	65	29

Baltimore City	24-510-0006	65	33

Baltimore City	24-510-0007	65	33

Baltimore City	24-510-0008	65	35

Baltimore City	24-510-0035	65	34

Baltimore City	24-510-0040	65	34

Table 2.b - Design Values for the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV

Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS – 24 Hour Standard

Location	AQS site ID	1997 24-Hour Attainment Standard	2005 – 2007

Design Values

Washington County, MD	24-043-0009	65	30

Berkeley County, WV	54-003-0003	65	31

EPA’s reviews of these data indicate that the Baltimore, MD and
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV PM2.5 nonattainment areas have met and
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document.  These comments will
be considered before taking final action.  Please note that if EPA
received adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

V.   What’s EPA’s Proposed Action?

EPA is proposing to determine that the Baltimore and the Maryland
portion of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV nonattainment areas for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  As provided
in 40 CFR section 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this determination, it
would suspend the requirements for these areas to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a
reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and any other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS so long as
these areas continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. What are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k);  40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.  For that reason, this proposed action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed determination that the Maryland portion of
the Hagerstown-Martinsburg and the Baltimore nonattainment areas have
clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 standard does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                             Judith M.
Katz, Acting for

           William C. Early

  July 23, 2009
 	__________________________

Dated:
  	William C. Early,

Acting Regional Administrator                                  Region
III

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  13


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4343-4345]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-1524]

Repackaging of Certain Human Drug Products by Pharmacies and
Outsourcing Facilities; Final Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled
``Repackaging of Certain Human Drug Products by Pharmacies and
Outsourcing Facilities.'' This guidance describes the conditions under
which FDA does not intend to take action for violations of certain
provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act),
when a State-licensed pharmacy, a Federal facility, or an outsourcing
facility repackages certain human drug products.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-D-1524 for ``Repackaging of Certain Human Drug Products by
Pharmacies and Outsourcing Facilities.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments 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.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Rothman, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5197, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
3110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry
entitled ``Repackaging of Certain Human Drug Products by Pharmacies and
Outsourcing Facilities.'' FDA regards repackaging as the act of taking
a finished drug product from the container in which it was distributed
by the original manufacturer and placing it into a different container
without further manipulation of the drug. If a drug is manipulated in
any other way, including if the drug is reconstituted, diluted, mixed,
or combined with another ingredient, that act is not considered
repackaging.
    Repackaged drugs are generally not exempt from any of the
provisions of the FD&C Act related to the production of drugs. For
example, repackaged drugs are generally subject to the premarket
approval, misbranding, adulteration, and drug supply chain security
provisions of the FD&C Act, including section 505 (concerning new drug
applications), section 502(f)(1) (concerning labeling with adequate
directions for use), section 501(a)(2)(B) (concerning current good
manufacturing practice (CGMP)), and section 582 (drug supply chain
security requirements) (21 U.S.C. 355, 352(f)(1), 351(a)(2)(B), and
360eee-1).
    Further, drugs that are repackaged are not subject to sections 503A
and 503B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353a and 353b). Therefore, drugs
repackaged by state-licensed pharmacies, Federal facilities, or
outsourcing facilities are not eligible for the exemptions provided
under those sections.
    This guidance describes the conditions under which FDA does not
intend to take action for violations of sections 505, 502(f)(1), 582,
and, where specified in the guidance, section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C
Act, when a state-licensed pharmacy, Federal facility, or outsourcing
facility repackages certain drug products.
    In the Federal Register of February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8884), FDA
issued a notice announcing the availability of the draft version of
this guidance. The comment period on the draft guidance ended on May
20, 2015. FDA received approximately 625 comments on the draft
guidance. In response to received comments or on its own initiative,
FDA made several changes. For example, FDA removed from the guidance
the condition concerning ``anticipatory repackaging'' (repackaging
before the receipt of a patient-specific prescription) of no more than
a 14-day supply. FDA made this change partly in response to comments
indicating that pharmacies sometimes need to repackage more than a 14-
day supply of repackaged drug products in advance of a prescription.
FDA also revised the conditions concerning beyond-use-dates (BUDs) for
repackaged drugs to reflect BUDs for compounded drugs in, as
applicable, United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Chapter <795>, the USP's
proposed revision to Chapter <797>, and FDA's guidance concerning
current good manufacturing practice requirements for outsourcing
facilities.
    FDA received comments on the draft guidance from hospital
organizations regarding the potential implications of the proposed
policies in the draft guidance concerning patient-specific
prescriptions for drugs repackaged for in-patient settings. The final
guidance notes that FDA is considering the applicability of the
policies described in this guidance to in-patient settings, including
long-term care facilities and hospitals, and intends to address these
issues in separate guidance.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on repackaging human drug products by
pharmacies, Federal facilities, and outsourcing facilities. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains collections of information that are subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Under the
PRA, Federal Agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection
of information they conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information''
is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes Agency
requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports,
keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal
Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning
each proposed collection of information before submitting the
collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, in the
Federal Register of February 19, 2015, we gave interested persons 60
days to comment on the information collection provisions in the draft
guidance (80 FR 8884 at 8885).
    After publishing the 60-day notice requesting public comment,
section 3507 of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507) requires Federal Agencies to
submit the proposed collection to OMB for review and clearance. In
compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, we will be submitting a proposed
collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. FDA is
issuing this guidance as final with portions of it subject to OMB
approval of the collection of information and shaded gray. Those
provisions that are shaded gray and subject to OMB approval will be
final if the collection of information is approved. If the collection
is approved, FDA will publish a notice in the Federal Register
concerning OMB approval and providing an OMB control number for these
provisions.
    The guidance also references registration and adverse event
reporting for outsourcing facilities. The collections of information
for outsourcing facility registration have been approved by OMB under
OMB control number 0910-0777. The collections of information for
adverse event reporting by outsourcing facilities have been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 0910-0800.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet can obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 10, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-00723 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 4285-4286]
[DOCID:fr23ja09-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permit.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Request of modifications of special permits
(e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging design
changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described in
footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' demote a modification request. There applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2009.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://
dms.dot.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 2009.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

                                           Modification Special Permit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Regulation(s)       Nature of special
    Application No.           Docket No.             Applicant              affected           permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10869-M...............   Norris Cylinder       49 CFR 173.301(b);     To modify the
                         Company, Longview,     173.302(a)(5);         special permit to
                         TX.                    173.304(a); 175.3.     authorize an
                                                                       increase of 2
                                                                       inches to the
                                                                       length of the
                                                                       cylinder.
11646-M...............   Bioclean System &     49 CFR 173.28(b)(2);   To modify the
                         Supply, Inc.,          173.150(f)(3)(vii).    special permit to
                         Moundsview, MN.                               authorize an
                                                                       additional Class 8
                                                                       hazardous material
                                                                       and an alternative
                                                                       method of product
                                                                       transfer.

11666-M...............   Alcoa, Inc.,          49 CFR 173.240(b)....  To modify the
                         Pittsburgh, PA.                               special permit to
                                                                       authorize the
                                                                       addition of
                                                                       intermodal
                                                                       containers and
                                                                       unitizing the
                                                                       electrodes with
                                                                       steel banding to
                                                                       wooden runners or
                                                                       to wooden pallets.
11818-M...............   Space Systems/Loral,  49 CFR 180.205.......  To modify the
                         Palo Alto, CA.                                special permit to
                                                                       authorize the
                                                                       transportation in
                                                                       commerce of a Class
                                                                       9 material.
14467-M...............   Brenner Tank, LLC     49 CFR 178.345-2.....  To modify the
                         Fond Du Lac, WI.                              special permit to
                                                                       authorize relief
                                                                       from minimum
                                                                       thickness tables
                                                                       for duplex
                                                                       stainless steels
                                                                       used in the
                                                                       construction of DOT-
                                                                       400 series
                                                                       specification cargo
                                                                       tanks.
14649-M...............   Olin Corporation,     49 CFR 173.62(b),      To modify the
                         Winchester Division,   172.10 1 column        special permit to
                         East Alton, IL.        (8C), 173.60(b)(8),    authorize an
                                                172.300 and 172.400.   additional Division
                                                                       1.4C hazardous
                                                                       material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E9-1175 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 33755-33756]
[DOCID:fr19jn07-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0242; FRL-8328-3]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Drinking Water Mid-Cycle
Subcommittee Meeting--July 2007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) Drinking Water Mid-Cycle Subcommittee.

DATES: The meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on Friday, July
13, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. All times noted are eastern time. The
meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the
draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meeting will be
accepted up to 1 business day before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference call will be by
teleconference only--meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the
public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the call from
Edie Coates, whose contact information is listed under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0242, by one of the
following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0242.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0242.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Drinking Water Mid-Cycle Subcommittee Meeting--Spring 2007
Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0242.

     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0242. Note: This is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-0242. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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: All 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 material, such
as copyrighted material, will be 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 Board of

Scientific Counselors, Drinking Water Mid-Cycle Subcommittee Meeting--
Spring 2007 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Edie Coates, Mail Drop B103-05, Neurotoxicology Division,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office
of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; via phone/voice mail at: (919)
541-3508; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Edie Coates,
the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each
individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of
three minutes.
    Proposed agenda item for the meeting (teleconference) includes, but
is not limited to: Discussion of the draft report concerning the ORD
drinking water research program's progress in response to
recommendations from its 2005 BOSC review and other activities. The
meeting is open to the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Edie Coates at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To
request accommodation of a disability, please contact Edie Coates,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 12, 2007.
Mary Ellen Radzikowski,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-11775 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Appendix II.C.8.

Analysis of Chemicals and Foods in the Upper Portion of

OP Cumulative Exposure Distribution for Children 3-5 Years Old

This appendix is available on EPA’s website at

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#op"  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#op

A CD containing the data in this appendix may also be obtained by

contacting the Office of Pesticide Programs Public Docket

Docket #  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0618

One Potomac Yard

12777 S. Crystal Drive Room S-4400

Arlington, Virginia, 22202

703-305-5805

Monday through Friday, 8:30 am – 4:00 pm