[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71914-71918]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30002]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0177]
RIN No. 2105-AD96

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel:
Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Extension of comment period and clarification of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on the accessibility of Web sites
and automated kiosks that was published in the Federal Register on
September 26, 2011. The Department of Transportation is extending the
closing date for interested persons to submit comments on this
rulemaking by 45 days from November 25, 2011, to January 9, 2012. This
extension is a result of requests from a number of parties for
additional time to respond to the SNPRM. The Air Transport Association,
the International Air Transport Association, the Air Carrier
Association of America, the Regional Airline Association, and the
Association of Asia Pacific Airlines all asked to extend the comment
period on the proposal by 120 days in order to allow interested parties
to fully evaluate the proposed rule, answer the numerous questions in
the preamble, and develop constructive comments for the Department's
consideration. The Interactive Travel Services Association requested an
extension of at least 60 days to gather the information necessary to
provide an in-depth, comprehensive response to the SNPRM. An individual
with a disability has also asked for an extension, citing difficulties
in using the online comment form on the www.regulations.gov Web site.
The Department acknowledges that more time to provide comments may be
warranted given the complex nature of the issues and the need to
resolve problems encountered by some individuals to date in submitting
comments. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that an additional 120 or
even 60 days are needed to respond. In addition to extending the
comment period, this action responds to questions posed by the
Associations about certain aspects of the SNPRM.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 9, 2012. Comments received
after this date will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Please include the agency name and the docket number DOT-
OST-2011-0177 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) (2105-AD96)
for this rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. You may file
comments using any of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: Complete and submit the comment
form for this rulemaking at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOT-OST-2011-0177-0006. If you are a person with a
disability and cannot access or use the online comment form, please use
the alternate comment form to submit your comments, which you can
access by clicking the icon for the attachment labeled ``Optional
Submission Form'' available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2011-0177-0019. The form includes complete
instructions and may be completed, saved, and sent as an email
attachment to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You can also use it to
submit comments by any of the methods listed below.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
    (3) Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) Privacy Act: For comments submitted on www.regulations.gov,
please see the Privacy and Use Notice at http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice. All comments received on this SNPRM are posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including personal information
provided with the comments. Personal information is viewable on
www.regulations.gov and individual or organizational submitters can be
identified by performing an electronic search in the docket folder. You
may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    (6) Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents
or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov (or to the
street address listed above). Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Blank Riether, Senior
Attorney, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),
(202) 366-7152 (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also
contact Blane A. Workie, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of
the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC
20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>TTY users may reach the individual via the
Federal Relay Service toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may obtain
copies of this notice in an accessible format by contacting the above
named individuals.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 26, 2011, the Department of
Transportation (``Department,'' also ``DOT,'' ``we,'' or ``us'')
published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register. The SNPRM proposed to amend the Department's disability
regulation implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rule, 14 CFR
part 382 (Part 382), by requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to
ensure that their Web sites and those of their agents are accessible to
people with disabilities. The SNPRM further proposed to amend Part 382,
as well as the Department's regulation implementing Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 49 CFR part 27 (Part 27), by requiring U.S.
airports and U.S. and foreign air carriers to ensure that all new
orders for automated kiosks they own, lease, or control at U.S.
airports that provide flight-related services and

information to passengers are accessible to people with disabilities.
76 FR 59307 (September 26, 2011). Comments on the matters proposed were
to be received by November 25, 2011. On October 7, 2011, the Air
Transport Association, the International Air Transport Association, the
Air Carrier Association of America, and the Regional Airline
Association (hereinafter ``Associations'') jointly submitted a request
to clarify the proposal and to extend the comment period by an
additional 120 days. On October 20, 2011, the Association of Asia
Pacific Airlines (AAPA) filed a request in support of the Associations'
request to extend the comment deadline by 120 days. Eight days later we
received another request from the Interactive Travel Services
Association (ITSA) for an extension of at least 60 days. Finally, on
November 3, 2011, we received a request from member of the disability
community to delay the closing of the comment period until issues
concerning access to the online comment form could be resolved. In the
sections that follow, we respond to the requests and questions of the
submitters.

Request for Comment Period Extension

    Citing the complexity of the proposed rule and the many questions
on which the Department seeks comment, the Associations request a 120-
day extension of the SNPRM comment period. They contend that their
members will need to develop a significant amount of information to
evaluate the feasibility of the proposals and determine the accuracy of
the Department's cost assumptions. They assert that additional time is
also needed to evaluate the potential impact of all the proposals on
their operations and determine the availability of products that would
meet the proposed ``hybrid'' accessibility standard for automated
kiosks. By ``hybrid'' standard, the Associations are referring to the
Department's proposal to combine the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ)
2010 American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible
Design applicable to automated teller machines (Section 707) and
selected provisions from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(36 CFR 1194.25) applicable to self-contained closed products. The
Associations also expressed concern about the difficulty of gathering
information from entities during the holiday season. They note that the
current comment deadline is the day after Thanksgiving and that with an
extension of 30 days, it would be the day after Christmas. In light of
these challenges, the Associations believe that an additional 120 days
is in the public interest to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to provide the most meaningful responses to the questions
raised by the Department. The AAPA cited their agreement with the
Associations' 120-day extension request in the interest of a more
thorough analysis and constructive comments on the SNPRM.
    ITSA also indicated the need for additional time to determine
whether WCAG 2.0 is the appropriate standard for achieving the
accessibility goals of the rulemaking, the cost of implementing the
standard across the many sites, platforms, and Web pages of ITSA
members, and the need to clarify technical matters such as sequencing
implementation, measuring and verifying compliance.
    The Department concurs that an extension of the comment period is
in the public interest but believes that an extension of 120 additional
days is not warranted. We have decided to grant a 45-day extension, or
until January 9, 2012, for the public to comment on the SNPRM. By
granting 45 rather than 120 additional days, we are balancing the
stated need for additional time to gather information and consider the
proposals with the need to proceed expeditiously with this important
rulemaking. We note that with an additional 45 days, interested parties
will have a total of 106 days to comment. We believe this is sufficient
time for analysis and coordination regarding the proposals.
Accordingly, the Department finds that good cause exists to extend the
time for comments on the proposed rule from November 25, 2011, to
January 9, 2012. We do not anticipate any further extension of the
comment period for this rulemaking.

Concerns Regarding Access to Web Site (www.regulations.gov)

    Since publication of the SNPRM on September 26, we have been
contacted by a disability rights advocate who indicated that
individuals with visual impairments have had difficulty submitting
comments from the www.regulations.gov Web site. For a variety of
reasons, the Web page containing the public comment form is not easily
accessed by individuals using screen reader software. We therefore urge
those who cannot use the online comment form to submit their comments
using one of the alternative submission methods described in the
ADDRESSES section above.

Request for Clarification

    In addition to requesting the comment period extension, the
Associations posed a number of questions to the Department concerning
the applicability and scope of certain provisions of the proposed
accessibility requirements for Web sites and automated kiosks. They
also sought further information about various documents referenced in
the SNPRM preamble. We respond to their questions and requests below.

Issues Concerning the Proposed Web Site Accessibility Requirements

1. Scope of Applicability of Web Site Accessibility Requirements to
U.S. Carrier Web Sites
    The initial issue raised by the Associations is the scope of the
proposed requirements for Web site accessibility as they apply to U.S.
carrier Web sites. In their request, they ask DOT to confirm that the
proposed Web site accessibility requirements in section 382.43 do not
apply to the non-U.S. Web sites of U.S. carriers (e.g., country-
specific Web sites maintained by U.S. carriers for the purpose of
selling to consumers in countries other than the U.S.). Their concern
is that if the proposed requirements do apply to all U.S. carrier Web
sites maintained world-wide, it will add tremendously to their
compliance burden, have a significant impact on their compliance cost
estimates, and offer no benefit to U.S. customers. They note that the
proposed rule exempts foreign air carriers from the requirements for
their non-U.S. Web sites and assert their belief that the Department
intended the same exemption to apply to the non-U.S. Web sites of U.S.
carriers.
    We do, in fact, intend to apply the same exemption to the non-U.S.
Web sites of U.S. carriers. Section 382.43(c) of the SNPRM states: ``As
a U.S. or foreign carrier that owns or controls a primary Web site that
markets air transportation, you must ensure the public-facing Web pages
on your Web site are accessible to individuals with disabilities in
accordance with this section. As a foreign carrier, only Web pages on
your Web site involved in marketing covered air transportation to the
general public in the U.S. must be accessible to individuals with
disabilities.'' We inadvertently included the word ``foreign'' before
``carrier'' in the second sentence of proposed section 382.43(c). The
preliminary regulatory evaluation does not include costs to U.S.
carriers associated with making Web sites accessible that are not
marketing to U.S. consumers. Our intention in the proposal is and
continues to be to exempt both U.S. and foreign carriers' Web sites
that market

air transportation to consumers outside the U.S.
    We appreciate the Associations' request for clarification on this
point and encourage comments from the public on whether the Web site
accessibility requirements should apply to U.S. and foreign carriers,
as proposed, only with respect to their primary Web sites marketing air
transportation to the general public in the U.S., or be expanded to
cover all their Web sites regardless of whether they are marketing air
transportation mainly to non-U.S. consumers.
2. Clarification of the Terms ``Primary,'' ``Main,'' and ``Public-
Facing'' as They Apply to Web Sites and Web Pages Subject to the
Proposed Web Site Accessibility Requirement
    The Associations noted that the terms ``public-facing Web pages,''
``primary Web site,'' and ``main Web site,'' were not defined in the
SNPRM and asked for clarification of the terms as used in proposed
section 382.43(c) and in the preamble to describe the applicability of
the proposed requirements to carrier Web sites. The term ``public-
facing Web page'' as used in the SNPRM means a Web page intended to be
accessed and used by the general public, as opposed to Web pages
intended for limited access (e.g., by carrier employees, private
companies, or entities other than the general public). Any Web page on
a carrier's primary commercial Web site that is intended to provide air
transportation information or services to consumers is a ``public-
facing'' Web page covered by the proposed accessibility requirements.
For carriers that own, lease, or control multiple Web sites that market
air transportation and offer related services and information, the Web
site that is accessed when the ``www.carriername.com'' uniform resource
locator (URL) is entered to an Internet browser from a standard desktop
or laptop computer would be the ``primary'' or ``main'' Web site. The
terms ``main Web site'' and ``primary Web site'' as used in the SNPRM
are synonymous.
3. Conforming Alternate Versions and ``Text-Only'' Features on a
Primary Web Site
    The Associations also asked for clarification of the term
``conforming alternate version,'' which they believe is undefined in
the SNPRM, and asked whether a text-only feature offered by some
carriers on their primary Web sites would be considered an alternate
conforming version. They describe the text-only feature as one that is
compatible with screen-reader technology and is activated by a single
click on the homepage of the primary Web site, linking the user to a
text-only page that conforms to WCAG 2.0 at Level A and AA. They note
that the SNPRM asks for public comment on whether the Department
``should explicitly prohibit the use of conforming alternate versions
except when necessary to provide the information, services, and
benefits on a specific Web page or Web site as effectively to
individuals with disabilities as to those without disabilities.''
Anticipating that the Department might adopt such a restriction, they
ask whether the Department has the cost-benefit data that would support
a requirement to completely redesign a primary Web site when the text-
only feature provides Web content at the required level of
accessibility.
    The term ``conforming alternate version,'' while not defined in the
proposed rule text, is described in the SNPRM preamble as a Web page or
Web site ``that meets the [WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA] success criteria,
is up to date, and contains the same information and functionality in
the same language [as the non-conforming page on the primary Web site].
A conforming alternate version of a Web page is intended to provide
people with disabilities equivalent access to the same content and
functionality as a directly accessible Web page under WCAG 2.0.'' See
76 FR 59307, 59313 (September 26, 2011). While the WCAG 2.0
implementation guidance is clear that conforming alternate versions are
not the preferred method of conformance,\1\ the Department did not
propose to explicitly restrict their use in the proposed rule. We are
aware of serious concerns about the emergence of parallel carrier Web
sites that may be screen-reader accessible but may not provide all the
information and content available on the non-conforming Web site. A
review of some text-only versions of carrier Web sites indicates that
these versions meet some, but not all, of the four requirements below
for a conforming alternate version:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Understanding Conformance'' at http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head, October 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. conforms at the designated level (e.g., meets Level A and Level
AA success criteria), and
    b. provides all of the same information and functionality in the
same human language, and
    c. provides content that is as up-to-date as the non-conforming
content, and
    d. can be reached from the non-conforming page via an
accessibility-supported mechanism, or the non-conforming version can
only be reached from the conforming version, or the non-conforming
version can only be reached from a conforming page that also provides a
mechanism to reach the conforming version.
    The sites we reviewed met three of the four requirements for
conforming alternate versions: the first (text-only content met all the
WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria), the third (the text-only
content that was dynamically generated from the non-conforming site
content was up-to-date), and the fourth (was available from the non-
conforming site via an accessibility-supported mechanism). The main
problem we found with these sites was that the text-only site did not
always contain the same information and functionality available on the
non-conforming site. For example, while it was possible to book a
flight on both the non-conforming and text-only Web sites, certain
other functions available on the non-conforming site were not available
on the text-only site (e.g., ability to prioritize flights listed by
price over schedule, ability to indicate that your travel dates are
flexible, ability to enter cities as well as airport codes, ``live
chat'' assistance, etc.). At the same time, we found that some pages on
the text-only site did provide close to the same information and
functionality as their counterpart pages on the non-conforming site.
While none of the carrier text-only sites we reviewed qualified as
conforming alternate versions, we were nonetheless encouraged by the
extent to which the text-only sites mirrored the content of the non-
conforming sites.
    Unless a carrier's text-only Web content can be reached from the
carrier's primary Web site via an accessible link, conforms with WCAG
2.0 success criteria at Level A and AA, provides the same content and
functionality, and is promptly updated to reflect changes to content
available to its non-disabled customers, it will not meet the required
level of accessibility and will not be considered a conforming
alternate version. Given the concerns about carriers consistently
maintaining the quality of text-only content to meet this stringent
standard, we asked for comment on whether existing text-only Web sites
meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria at Level A and AA. In particular, we
solicit comments from consumers with disabilities on their experiences
in using text-only carrier Web sites and any gaps they are aware of in
the available information and functionality on such sites as compared
with that on the corresponding non-conforming site.

We also invite public comment on whether the cost of making a carrier's
entire Web site directly conformant would be substantially greater (or
less) than providing a text-only version of the carrier's Web site that
is conformant with WCAG 2.0 standards at Level A and AA and meets the
definition of conforming alternate version. What other advantages or
disadvantages are there to allowing the use of conforming alternate
versions without restriction, or to restricting their use to
circumstances in which it is ``the only way to provide the content on
specific Web pages or Web sites as effectively to individuals with
disabilities as to those without disabilities?''
4. Whether the Scope of Carrier Responsibility Under the Proposed
Requirement To Ensure That Ticket Agent Web Sites Comply With the Web
Site Accessibility Standards Extends to Large Tour Operators and
Carrier Alliances
    Noting that the term ``ticket agent'' was used in the preliminary
regulatory analysis to collectively refer to travel agents and tour
operators,\2\ the Associations also asked the Department to confirm
whether the requirement in proposed section 382.43(d) to require
carriers to ensure the accessibility of ticket agents' Web sites would
include Web sites operated by tour operators. See 76 FR 59307, 59325
(September 26, 2011). The Department defines ``ticket agent'' in the
SNPRM preamble by citing the definition found at 49 U.S.C.
40102(a)(45), as a person other than a carrier that ``as a principal or
agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out as
selling, providing, or arranging for air transportation.'' See 76 FR
59307, 59309 (September 26, 2011). Both travel agents and tour
operators engaging in these activities, therefore, are ``ticket
agents'' for purposes of the SNPRM's provisions. Under proposed section
382.43(d), carriers would be responsible to ensure that the Web sites
of ticket agents comply with the Web site accessibility requirements
when marketing travel packages to the general public in the U.S. that
include covered air transportation operated by the carriers. We invite
comments from the public on the feasibility of requiring carriers to
monitor the Web sites of large tour operators to ensure their
compliance with the accessibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, ACAA SNPRM Accessible
Kiosks and Web Sites, 1, September 7, 2011 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-
0177-0002].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Web sites of carrier alliances, the Department
views such alliances as enterprises jointly owned by the member
carriers. A review of several carrier alliance Web sites shows that all
provide extensive flight-related information, as well as online tools
to assist customers in creating flight itineraries. By providing
services to assist consumers in building itineraries and linking them
to member Web sites to book specific flights, the alliance Web sites
are clearly marketing to consumers. However, since a carrier alliance
Web site is not a primary carrier Web site as discussed above, the
Department did not include such sites in its proposal or accompanying
preliminary cost benefit analysis. We therefore ask for public comment
on whether carriers should be required to ensure that the Web sites of
any alliances with which they are affiliated comply with the proposed
accessibility requirements.
5. The Department's Authority To Regulate Ticket Agent Web Sites
Directly Under 49 U.S.C. 41712
    Concerning ticket agent Web sites, the Associations sought
clarification of the Department's assertion in the SNPRM preamble of
its authority to require accessibility of Web sites marketing covered
air transportation to the general public in the U.S. under 49 U.S.C.
41712, the statute prohibiting carriers and ticket agents from engaging
in unfair and deceptive trade practices. They questioned why, in light
of its assertion, the Department proposed to regulate ticket agents
indirectly through carriers and asked for clarification of the
Department's authority under the statute.
    The Department considers marketing air transportation on a Web site
that effectively excludes a class of consumers solely due to their
disabilities to be unlawful discrimination that is also an unfair trade
practice. In the SNPRM, we ask for comment on whether the Department
should apply the proposed Web site accessibility requirements to ticket
agents directly. We note that the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced
in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that it is considering
whether to revise its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations
in the future to include Web site accessibility standards. See 75 FR
43460 (July 26, 2010). Anticipating that ticket agent Web sites may
also be covered under DOJ's future amended ADA regulation, we ask
whether DOT should wait for DOJ to move forward with its rulemaking
before issuing our own rules to require accessibility of ticket agent
Web sites. We solicit feedback on these questions to assist us in
determining a course of action that would best serve the public
interest. Today a great many Web sites selling air transportation,
particularly ticket agent Web sites, are not accessible or are only
partially accessible to people with disabilities. The Department
believes that all stakeholders would greatly benefit as the number of
accessible Web sites marketing and selling air transportation to the
general public in the U.S. increases across the air travel industry. We
are aware that there are pros and cons to our proposal to require
carriers to work with their ticket agents to create incentives to
achieve this objective. We again invite all stakeholders to share the
pros and cons from their perspectives of this approach.
6. Ongoing Costs To Maintain an Accessible Web Site
    The final issue the Associations raise regarding the proposed Web
site accessibility requirements concerns the ongoing cost of
maintaining Web site accessibility. They observe that the Department
asserts that the estimated cost of ensuring full compliance of a
primary Web site is $2.0 million annually for U.S. and foreign carriers
and $2.6 million annually for ticket agents, but also states on the
same page that there is a lack of quantitative data on the cost of
maintaining Web site accessibility. See 76 FR 59315. They asked that
the Department clarify whether it was able to quantify ongoing
recurring costs to maintain an accessible Web site, and if so, identify
the source of the estimated costs, and place any supporting
documentation in the docket.
    The statement above indicating an absence of quantitative data on
the ongoing costs of maintaining Web site accessibility appeared in the
SNPRM and in the preliminary regulatory analysis \3\ due to editing
oversights and should have been omitted from both documents. Table 24
of the preliminary regulatory analysis shows how the ongoing annual
cost of maintaining Web site accessibility was estimated. The
maintenance costs per carrier or agent are assumed to be the sum of the
costs associated with the following fixed and variable cost elements:
site evaluation and conformance checking costs (fixed), site layout and
style sheet revision costs (fixed), and per-page maintenance costs
(variable). This formula was used to compute costs for the ``Largest''
Web site category in Table 24. Per-page maintenance costs were
inadvertently omitted from the formula used to

compute costs for the other three size categories (Large, Small, and
Smallest). Because per page maintenance costs are so small, the impact
on the overall estimates shown at the bottom of Table 24 is minimal.
For a general discussion of the impact of accessibility on Web site
development and maintenance over the long term, see the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C) Web site Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Web site.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at 58.
    \4\ W3C Web site Accessibility Initiative, ``Reduce Site
Development and Maintenance Time,'' available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/tech.html#maint, October 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues Concerning the Proposed Accessibility Requirements for Automated
Kiosks at U.S. Airports

1. Retrofitting of Automated Kiosks To Meet Accessibility Requirements
    The Associations also asked the Department to clarify whether it is
proposing a retrofit requirement for automated kiosks at U.S. airports,
and if so, what would be the compliance time period. They note that the
proposed rule text explicitly states that carriers would not be
required to retrofit existing kiosks, while the preamble states that
the Department is considering some form of retrofitting. They state
that clarification of this point is important because retrofitting
would have a significant impact on estimating the technical feasibility
and cost impact of compliance for both carriers and airports (for
shared-use automated kiosks).
    The Department has not proposed to require retrofitting of
automated kiosks but is considering this option because of concern that
only requiring accessibility of new kiosks ordered after the rule's
effective date could substantially delay the availability of accessible
kiosks at many airport locations. The Department wants to ensure the
availability of at least some accessible kiosks at every airport
location within a reasonable time after the rule goes into effect. We
therefore are asking for information about the technical feasibility
and cost impact of retrofitting some number of kiosks before the end of
their life cycle (e.g., one kiosk at each airport location). We invite
comment on whether retrofitting any number of existing kiosks is
feasible and if so, whether there should be a requirement for limited
retrofitting, in addition to requiring that all new kiosks ordered be
accessible.
2. Automated Ticket Scanners for Rebooking Flights
    The Associations also wanted clarification about the types of self-
service kiosks at U.S. airports that would be covered by the proposed
accessibility requirements. Acknowledging that the Department did
intend to cover check-in kiosks, they asked for confirmation that the
Department did not intend to include automated ticket scanners
available behind the security checkpoint to enable customers to
independently rebook their flights during irregular operations.
    Automated ticket scanners appear to fall within the scope of
automated kiosks the Department intended to cover. In the SNPRM, we
proposed to define ``automated airport kiosk'' as ``a self-service
transaction machine that a carrier owns, leases, or controls and makes
available at a U.S. airport to enable customers to independently obtain
flight-related services'' [emphasis added].\5\ We also proposed to
define ``flight-related services'' as ``functions related to air travel
including, but not limited to, ticket purchase, rebooking cancelled
flights, seat selection, and obtaining boarding passes or bag
tags''[emphasis added]. The proposed accessibility requirements would
extend to any carrier-owned or shared-use airport self-service
transaction machine that enables customers to rebook their flights. We
invite public comment on whether there are compelling reasons not to
require such machines to be accessible, whether accessible models
currently exist or are under development, and any available cost
information on such models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 76 FR 59325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests for Supporting Documentation

    The Associations asked that a number of documents cited in the
SNPRM and preliminary regulatory analysis be placed in the docket. Some
of these documents are publicly available as indicated below. Other
information was obtained in oral interviews and no documentation is
available.
    1. Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology
Advisory Committee Report to the Access Board: Refreshed Accessibility
Standards and Guidelines in Telecommunications and Electronic and
Information Technology (April 2008).
    This document is available at http://access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/report/ report/.
    2. The source of the estimate that ``building accessibility into
new Web pages today is estimated to add only about 3-6 percent to the
cost.''
    This information was obtained from comments posted by Marco
Maerten, an independent Web technologies consultant, on behalf of
Accessibility Associates, LLC, in response to the Department of
Justice's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web
Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities and
Public Accommodations. [RIN 1190-AA61, Docket 110, available at DOJ-
CRT-2010-0005-0311 on www.regulations.gov. ``In my experience,
incorporating Web accessibility from the outset with qualified
personnel can add 3-6% or less to technical development costs for
smaller projects of 50-300 pages. There are significant economies of
scale such that larger sites could benefit from even significantly
lower costs.''
    3. Any documentation that supports the following statement
appearing in the SNPRM: ``Information obtained from kiosks vendors
indicates that the bulk of the incremental costs associated with making
kiosk hardware, middleware, and software applications accessible are
fixed, therefore they do not vary appreciably with the number of units
sold.'' 76 FR 59321.
    This statement was obtained in oral interviews with two major kiosk
manufacturers on 6/29/11 (IBM) and on 7/12/11 and 8/10/11 (NCR). No
documentation was provided.
    4. The document ``Countering the economic threat to sustainable
accessibility'' by Lewis, D., Suen, S.L., Federing, D. (2010).
    This document is available at http://www.sortclearinghouse.info/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1612&context=research.
    5. The preliminary regulatory analysis cites a TRACE analysis of
the modifications that would be required to produce an accessible
kiosk.
    The analysis is available at http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/kiosk_req/minimum.htm.

    Issued this sixteenth day of November 2011, in Washington, DC
under authority assigned to me by 14 CFR 385.17(c).
Neil R. Eisner,
Assistant General Counsel, Office of Regulation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2011-30002 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:30 PM
To:
BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert Brager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Kakade, Seema<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Seidman, Emily<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: SunCoke CAA 114 Request - Meeting Follow Up

Attached is the final meeting summary. We look forward for your input on or before October 28th.

Thank you again for your review.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< EPASunCoke_9 19 16_Meeting-Summary-Final-10-12-16.pdf >>

________________________________________
From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:21 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee; Robert Brager; Seidman, Emily
Cc: Kakade, Seema
Subject: RE: SunCoke CAA 114 Request - Meeting Follow Up

Hi Donna Lee,

The Gateway facility FGD outage, during which we could test a bypass vent stack, is currently scheduled for May of 2017.

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Corporate Environmental Manager

off:<PHONE_NUMBER>
cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:05 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M; Robert Brager; Seidman, Emily
Cc: Kakade, Seema
Subject: RE: SunCoke CAA 114 Request - Meeting Follow Up

Katie  -  Thank you for your comments on the draft minutes. I will make your suggest changes, finalize the minutes, and send you a copy of the final minutes.

I had one question: You corrected the by-pass vent stack discussion on page 4 of 6 as follows: "SunCoke....could test one at the Gateway facility in 2017". Can you provide a month for that testing?
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 4:14 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee <Jones.Donnalee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert Brager <RBrager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Seidman, Emily <seidman.emily<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Kakade, Seema <Kakade.Seema<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: SunCoke CAA 114 Request - Meeting Follow Up

Donna Lee,

Attached are our edits in Word redline/strikeout.  Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Corporate Environmental Manager

off:<PHONE_NUMBER>
cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 12:10 PM
To: Robert Brager; Seidman, Emily
Cc: BATTEN, KATIE M; Kakade, Seema
Subject: RE: SunCoke CAA 114 Request - Meeting Follow Up

Katie, et al  -  Attached is our draft summary of the meeting on September 19, 2016. Please add your comments or corrections. If you can use Word redline/strikeout that would be helpful. If we don't hear back from you in 30 days, we will consider these draft minutes final. Thank you.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Robert Brager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 11:57 AM
To: Seidman, Emily <seidman.emily<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: KMBATTEN<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee <Jones.Donnalee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kakade, Seema <Kakade.Seema<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: SunCoke CAA 114 Request - Meeting Follow Up

Thanks, Emily.  I'll check with SunCoke to see if we can meet your deadline and will get back to you as soon as I know something.

Rob

Rob Brager
Principal

[Beveridge & Diamond P.C.]<http://www.bdlaw.com/>BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
201 North Charles Street Suite 2210, Baltimore, MD 21201
Office<PHONE_NUMBER>   Cell<PHONE_NUMBER>   RBrager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

From: Seidman, Emily<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Robert Brager
Cc: KMBATTEN<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee; Kakade, Seema
Subject: SunCoke CAA 114 Request - Meeting Follow Up

Rob,

At our meeting on September 19, 2016, SunCoke identified data and information relevant to EPA's CAA 114 request that is already in SunCoke's possession that the company said it would provide to EPA.  Additionally, we discussed a few concepts that SunCoke said would be developed further in writing.

Please provide the following, identified on September 19, 2016, to Donna Lee Jones by October 18, 2016.  EPA will consider this information as part of its evaluation of whether to revise the testing required in the CAA 114 request.

::         Previous data from main stack and other locations

::         Write up of the mass balance calculations that could be used to determine air emissions of HAP from quench towers using quench water concentration test data

::         Evaluation of measureable detection levels for emissions of pollutants from ICR emission sources using previous test data and provide a write-up and basis for achieving detection with lower sample volumes

::         Data regarding contaminants in coal

We appreciate and acknowledge your interest in resolving this matter, and will work with you to do so. However, we will continue to keep our OECA office informed along the way in case this matter cannot be quickly resolved.

Donna Lee will circulate a summary of the September 19 meeting for your records.

Best,
Emily

Emily Seidman | US EPA | Office of General Counsel | Air and Radiation Law Office | Mail Code 2344A | WJCN 7502A | phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 149 (Monday, August 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46688-46689]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16837]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2020-0024; OMB No. 1660-0149]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Requests for Special Priorities Assistance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
FEMA's Request for Special Priorities Assistance, FEMA Form 009-0-142.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-
2020-0024. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Policy and Program Analysis,
Marc Geier, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472, (telephone)<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may contact the Information Management Division
for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information is necessary to support the
President's priorities and allocations authority under Title I of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA), as amended (50 U.S.C. 4501, et
seq.) as

implemented by the Emergency Management Priorities and Allocations
System (EMPAS) regulation (44 CFR part 333) which was added by FEMA's
May 13, 2020 Emergency Management Priorities and Allocations System
Interim Final Rule (RIN 1660-AB04). The purpose of this authority is to
ensure the timely delivery of products, materials, and services to meet
current national defense requirements. The definition of ``national
defense'' in Section 702(14) of the DPA provides that this term
includes ``homeland security,'' ``emergency preparedness activities''
conducted pursuant to Section 602 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) (42 U.S.C. 5195a),
and ``critical infrastructure protection and restoration.''

Collection of Information

    Title: Requests for Special Priorities Assistance.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0149.
    FEMA Form: FEMA Form 009-0-142, Requests for Special Priorities
Assistance.
    Abstract: Contractors may request Special Priorities Assistance
(SPA) when placing rated orders with suppliers, to obtain timely
delivery of products, materials or services from suppliers, or for any
other reason under the EMPAS, in support of approved national programs.
Additionally, when responding to COVID-19, State and local governments,
owners, operators, and the private sector may request SPA. FEMA Form
009-0-142 is used to apply for such assistance.
    Affected Public: For-Profit Business; Private Non-Profit; State,
local or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 20.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $288.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: None.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: None.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $52,857.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 2020-16837 Filed 7-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 237)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70229-70234]
[DOCID:fr11de07-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2007-0999; FRL-8504-4]

Rhode Island: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Rhode Island has applied to EPA for final
authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined
that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this
immediate final action.

DATES: This final authorization will become effective on February 11,
2008 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by January 10, 2008.
If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
this immediate final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that this authorization will not take immediate effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
RCRA-2007-0999, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the attention of Robin Biscaia.
     Mail: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, EPA New
England--Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA
02114-2023.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Robin
Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA New
England--Region 1, One Congress Street, 11th Floor, (CHW), Boston, MA
02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Office's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Identify your comments as relating to Docket ID No.
EPA-R01-RCRA-2007-0999. 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 claimed to be 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2007-0999. All documents in the docket are listed
on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although it may be listed

in the index, some information might not be publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following two

locations: (i) EPA Region 1 Library, One Congress Street--11th Floor,
Boston, MA 02114-2023; by appointment only; tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and
(ii) Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 235 Promenade
St., Providence, RI 02908-5767, by appointment only through the Office
of Technical and Customer Assistance, tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit,
EPA New England--Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW),
Boston, MA 02114-2023; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(617) 918-0642, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must
change their

programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State
programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory
authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most
commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's
regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260
through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    We have concluded that Rhode Island's application to revise its
authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Rhode Island
final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the
changes described in the authorization application. Rhode Island's
Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) has responsibility for
permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within
its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program
covered by its revised program application, subject to the limitations
of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal
requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA
promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized
States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will
implement any such requirements and prohibitions in Rhode Island,
including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to
do so.

C. What Is the Effect of This Authorization Decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Rhode Island
subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State
requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to
comply with RCRA. Rhode Island has enforcement responsibilities under
its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but
EPA also retains its full authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008,
3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, authority to:
     Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses or reports.
     Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits.
     Take enforcement actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Rhode Island is
being authorized by today's action are already effective under State
law, and are not changed by today's action.

D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before This Rule?

    EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view
this as a routine program change and do not expect adverse comments
that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public
comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of
today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that
proposes to authorize the State program changes.

E. What Happens if EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action?

    If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will
withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register
before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision
on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal
mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public
comments in a later final rule based upon this proposed rule that also
appears in today's Federal Register. You may not have another
opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization,
you should do so at this time.
    If we receive adverse comments that oppose only the authorization
of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will
withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program
changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the
date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document will
specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and
which part is being withdrawn.

F. What Has Rhode Island Previously Been Authorized for?

    Rhode Island initially received final Authorization on January 30,
1986, effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3780) to implement its base
hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for
changes to their program on March 12, 1990, effective March 26, 1990
(55 FR 9128), March 6, 1992, effective May 5, 1992 (57 FR 8089),
October 2, 1992, effective December 1, 1992 (57 FR 45574) and August 9,
2002, effective October 8, 2002 (67 FR 51765).

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing With This Action?

    On April 25, 2007 EPA received Rhode Island's complete program
revision application seeking authorization for their changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. The RCRA program revisions for which
Rhode Island is seeking authorization address Corrective Action, Used
Oil and Mixed Waste requirements. The State is also seeking
authorization for various changes it recently has made to its base
program requirements. The State's authorization application includes
such documents as a Corrective Action Program Description, a Corrective
Action Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the RIDEM, a
Radioactive Mixed Waste Program Description which also includes a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Rhode Island Department of
Health and RIDEM concerning Mixed Waste, a copy of RIDEM's Rules and
Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management dated February 14, 2007 and
a Supplement to the Attorney General's Statement.
    We are now making an immediate final decision, subject to
reconsideration only if we receive written comments that oppose this
action, that Rhode Island's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy
all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization.
Therefore, we grant Rhode Island final authorization for the program
changes identified below. Note, the Federal requirements are identified
by their checklist (CL) number and/or letter and rule descriptions
followed by the corresponding state regulatory analog (``Rule'') from
Rhode Island's Rules and Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management as
in effect on March 4, 2007 or state statutory analog (``R.I.G.L.'')
from the Rhode Island General Laws (2001 Reenactment).
    First, we are authorizing revised state rules that are analogous to
the following Federal rules which relate to EPA's Corrective Action
program. CL 17L--HSWA Codification Rule, Corrective Action, 50 FR
28702-28755, July 15, 1985: Rule 2.02(B), 7.01(F), 7.01(G), 8.04(G),
9.03, 16.01(A), 16.01(B); CL 17 O--HSWA Codification Rule, Omnibus
Provision, 50 FR 28702-28755, July 15, 1985: Rule 2.02(B), 2.03; CL
44A--HSWA Codification Rule 2, Permit Application Requirements
Regarding Corrective Action, 52 FR 45788-45799, December 1, 1987: Rule
2.02(B), 8.01(G), 8.01(K); CL 44B--HSWA Codification Rule 2, Corrective
Action Beyond the Facility Boundary, 52 FR 45788-45799, December 1,
1987: Rule 2.02(B), 16.01(A), 16.01(B); CL 44C--HSWA Codification Rule
2, Corrective Action for Injection Wells, 52 FR 45788-45799, December
1, 1987: Rule 7.01(F); CL 121--Corrective Action Management Units and
Temporary Units; Corrective

Action Provisions Under Subtitle C, 58 FR 8658-8685, February 16, 1993:
Rule 2.02(B), 3.00 Definitions, ``Disposal,'' ``Hazardous waste
disposal facility,'' ``Facility,'' ``Landfill,'' ``remediation waste''
incorporated by reference in introductory paragraph; 7.06(B), 12.00,
16.01(A), 16.03(B); CL 175--Hazardous Remediation Waste Management
Requirements (HWIR Media), 63 FR 65874-65947, November 30, 1998: Rule
2.02(B), 3.00 Definitions, ``Facility,'' ``remediation waste''
incorporated by reference in introductory paragraph, ``Remediation
waste management site,'' ``staging pile'' incorporated by reference in
introductory paragraph; 8.01(C), 9.12, 12.00, 16.01(A), 16.02,
16.03(B); CL 196--Amendments to the Corrective Action Management Unit
(CAMU) Rule, 67 FR 2962-3029, January 22, 2002: Rule 2.02(B), 3.00
Definitions, ``remediation waste'' incorporated by reference in
introductory paragraph, 16.03(B), 16.03(C).
    Second, we are authorizing revised state rules that are analogous
to the following Federal rules which relate to EPA's Mixed Waste
program. MW--Radioactive Mixed Waste, 51 FR 24504, July 3, 1986: Rule
1.01, 1.02, 3.00 Definitions, ``hazardous waste,'' ``mixed waste;'' CL
191--Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal of Mixed Waste,
66 FR 27218-27266, May 16, 2001: Rule 3.00 Definitions, ``hazardous
waste,'' ``Low-Level Mixed Waste,'' Low-Level Radioactive Waste,''
``Mixed Waste,'' ``Naturally Occurring and/or Accelerator-produced
Radioactive Material (NARM),'' 14.00 introductory paragraph, 14.02;
    Third, we are authorizing revised state rules that are analogous to
Federal rules which relate to EPA's Recycled Used Oil program. This
includes CL 203--Recycled Used Oil Standards; Clarification, 68 FR
44659-44665, July 30, 2003 and EPA's Special Consolidated Checklist for
Recycled Used Oil as of June 30, 2001 which addresses requirements in
the following rule checklists: CP--Hazardous and Used Oil Fuel Criminal
Penalties, HSWA Sec. Sec.  3006(h), 3008(d), and 3014, November 8,
1984; CL 112--Recycled Used Oil Management Standards, 57 FR 41566-
41626, September 10, 1992; CL 122--Recycled Used Oil Management
Standards; Technical Amendments and Corrections, 58 FR 26420-26426, May
3, 1993 as amended on June 17, 1993 at 58 FR 33341-33342; CL 130--
Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Technical Amendments and
Corrections II, 59 FR 10550-10560, March 4, 1994; CL 166--Recycled Used
Oil Management Standards; Technical Correction and Clarification, 63 FR
24963-24969, May 6, 1998, as amended July 14, 1998, at 63 FR 37780-
37782. Note, the corresponding state regulatory or statutory analogs
(``Rule'' or ``R.I.G.L.'') are as follows: R.I.G.L. 23-19.1-18(a) and
(h); Rule 2.02(A) and (B), 3.00 Definitions, ``Above-ground tank,''
``Container,'' ``Used Oil Collection Center,'' ``Tank,'' ``Household
used oil,'' ``Household used oil generator,'' ``Processing Used Oil,''
``Re-Refining Distillation Bottoms,'' ``Specification Used Oil,''
``Tolling Agreement,'' ``Used Oil,'' ``Used Oil Aggregation Point,''
``Used Oil Burner,'' ``Used Oil Burning Equipment,'' ``Used Oil
Collection Center,'' ``Used Oil Fuel,'' ``Used Oil Generator,'' ``Used
Oil Marketer,'' ``Used oil generator,'' ``Used oil Processor or Re-
refiner,'' ``Used Oil Temporary Storage Facility,'' ``Used Oil
Transporter;'' 5.00; 15.01(A), 15.01(B)(1)-(3), 15.01(C)-(H), 15.01(I)
[partially broader in scope], 15.01(J)-(L); 15.02, 15.02(A)-(H); 15.03,
15.03(A)(1)-(2), 15.03(B)(1)-(3), 15.03(C)(1)-(4), 15.03(D)(1)-(4),
15.03(E), 15.03(F) [partially broader in scope relating to on-spec
oil], 15.03(F)(1)-(8) [(F)(5) is partially broader in scope], 15.03(G)
[partially broader in scope relating to on-spec oil], 15.04, 15.04(A)-
(I); 15.05(A)-(C); 15.06(A)-(D); 15.07(A)-(C), 15.07(D)(1), 15.07(F)-
(G), 15.07(H)(1), 15.07(H)(12)-(19) [(H)(16) is partially broader in
scope], 15.07(I); 15.08(A), 15.08(K)-(U) [(T)(4) is partially broader
in scope], 15.08(W)-(Z); 15.09(A)-(G).
    In addition to the regulations listed above, EPA is also
authorizing the State for miscellaneous changes it has made to its
previously authorized base program rules as follows (note, the
analogous state provisions follow the general area of 40 CFR to which
the changes relate): 40 CFR 260.10 definitions and related cross
references in 40 CFR parts 260 through 273--State has revised and
removed numbering of terms in section 3.00 Definitions and has revised
related cross references accordingly in Rules 1.00 through 17.00; 40
CFR 262.34 Accumulation time--State has revised provisions at Rule
5.02(A) to require documentation of inspections; No direct Federal
analog--State has revised the edition references for 49 CFR and 40 CFR
in section 3.00 Definitions; 40 CFR 263.10(b), Scope of Standards
Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste--State has added and
clarified exemption at Rule 6.00(A) [partially broader in scope]; 40
CFR 263.12, transporter transfer facility requirements and used oil
storage at transfer facilities at 40 CFR 279.45--State has revised,
added and clarified provisions at Rule 6.14; 6.14(A), (B)(1)-(2), and
6.14(E) [partially broader in scope]; 40 CFR 270.10(b), general RCRA
permit requirements--State has revised and clarified Rule 7.01(A); 40
CFR part 270, Standards for Universal Waste Management related to
lamps--State has revised and clarified its incorporation by reference
in the introductory paragraph of Rule 13.6 and has also revised and
clarified Rule 13.04, 13.06(A)(3), 13.06(C)(1)-(2), 13.06(C)(3) removal
of ``lamps,'' 13.06(C)(5) and 13.06(J)(2) changes related to lamps; 40
CFR 273.8 Applicability, household and CESQG waste--State has revised
and clarified provisions at Rule 13.06(B)(1)(a)-(c) and (B)(2); 40 CFR
273.9 Definitions--State has revised and clarified provisions at Rule
13.06(C)(1)-(5); 40 CFR 273.32, Notification--State has revised and
clarified provisions of Rule 13.06(J)(1)-(3).
    The final authorization of new State regulations and regulation
changes is in addition to the previous authorization of State
regulations, which remain part of the authorized program.

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules?

    The most significant differences between the State rules being
authorized and the Federal rules are summarized below. It should be
noted that this summary does not describe every difference, or every
detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of the
regulated community are advised to read the complete regulations to
ensure that they understand all of the requirements with which they
will need to comply.

1. More Stringent Provisions

    There are aspects of the Rhode Island program which are more
stringent than the Federal program. All of these more stringent
requirements are, or will become, part of the Federally enforceable
RCRA program when authorized by the EPA and must be complied with in
addition to the State requirements which track the minimum Federal
requirements. These more stringent requirements include the following:
    (a) Relating to requirements concerning Corrective Action for
injection wells at 40 CFR 144.1(h), 40 CFR 144.31(g) and 40 CFR
270.60(b)(3), Rhode Island's hazardous waste program is more stringent
in that its rules prohibit hazardous waste disposal by underground
injection at Rule 7.01(F);
    (b) Rhode Island's administrative requirement relating to Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs) at Rule 16.02(I) is more

stringent than the analogous Federal requirement at 40 CFR 270.190(c)
as it provides a 30-day timeframe by which an informal appeal must be
submitted; and
    (c) Relating to the Recycled Used Oil Management Standards, a
number of Rhode Island's regulatory provisions at Rule 15.00 are more
stringent, some of which are as follows: (1) Certain definitions of the
terms that apply to the State's used oil program are more stringent
than the Federal definitions found at 40 CFR 279.1, e.g., ``Used Oil
Aggregation Point'' does not apply to household used oil and ``Used Oil
Collection Center'' only accepts used oil from households (not from
other generators); (2) pertaining to mixtures of used oil and
characteristic hazardous waste at 40 CFR 279.10(b)(2), Rhode Island's
used oil program at 15.01(C) is more stringent than the Federal program
as it only allows mixtures of used oil and hazardous waste that solely
exhibit the characteristic of flammability. Mixtures of used oil and
listed wastes that were listed solely for the characteristic of
ignitability are not allowed under the State regulations. Also, the
State criterion for flammability captures more wastes than the Federal
characteristic of ignitability and, thus, also excludes more waste; (3)
the Federal requirement at 40 CFR 279.10(b)(3) allows mixtures of used
oil and conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous
wastes regulated under 40 CFR 261.5 to be subject to regulation as used
oil under 40 CFR part 279; however, as Rhode Island's program does not
recognize this CESQG exemption, such mixtures may be regulated as
hazardous waste; (4) Rule 15.00 does not provide exemptions of
applicability to generators who mix used oil and diesel fuel for use in
the generator's own vehicle, as provided in the Federal program at 40
CFR 279.20(a); (5) under the State's used oil program prohibitions,
Rule 15.02(C) restricts the burning of off-spec used oil to the site of
generation. There is no such restriction under the Federal used oil
program. Thus, this requirement is considered more stringent in that it
prohibits the offsite shipment of off-spec oil for the purpose of
burning for energy recovery that otherwise would be allowed under the
Federal program. (Note, shipments of off-spec used oil directed to
processors and refiners is allowed at Rule 15.09(B)); (6) also, Rhode
Island's provisions are more stringent than the Federal requirements at
40 CFR 279.23 in that they exclude used oil collected from households
from being burned by generators in space heaters of less than 500,000
BTUs, and subject burners of household used oil to additional
regulation under Rule 15.03(B); (7) Rule 15.08 requires processors and
re-refiners to comply with additional requirements related to
responding to facility emergencies than those contained in the
analogous Federal regulations at 40 CFR 279.52(a); (8) Rule 15.02(B)
does not provide the exception to the prohibition of using used oil as
a dust suppressant which allows State petition for such use.

2. Partially Broader in Scope Provisions

    There are also aspects of the Rhode Island program which are
partially broader in scope than the Federal program. The portions of
the State requirements which are broader in scope are not considered to
be part of the federally enforceable RCRA program. However, they are
fully enforceable under State law and must be complied with by sources
in Rhode Island. The various changes Rhode Island has made to its used
oil regulations and previously authorized base program regulations that
are broader-in-scope are discussed below.
    (a) Rule 15.07, Used Oil Transporter and Temporary Storage Facility
Standards includes broader-in-scope provisions at (1) Rule 15.07(D)(2)
which requires transporters to obtain a permit which is not required
under Federal requirements for used oil transporters under 40 CFR part
279, subpart E; (2) Rule 15.07(E) requires used oil transporters to
maintain liability insurance as required by Department of
Transportation regulations at 49 CFR 387.7(d); and (3) Rule 15.07(H)(2)
requires a used oil transporter who acts as a used oil temporary
storage facility to apply for a Letter of Authorization from the RIDEM,
a permit-like document for which a facility must provide details
relating to the applicable operation which also includes a fee
(15.07(H)(6)).
    (b) Rule 15.08, Used oil Processor and Re-Refiner Standards,
requires used oil processors and re-refiners to obtain a permit from
RIDEM, which is not required under analogous Federal requirements at 40
CFR part 279, subpart F and, therefore, broader in scope. Other
requirements include liability insurance, financial requirements, and
fees, all of which are broader in scope when compared to the applicable
Federal requirements.
    (c) The State includes both off-spec and on-spec used oil in its
definition of ``used oil burner'' at section 3.00 whereas the analogous
Federal definition at 40 CFR 279.1 references the burning of only off-
spec used oil. This difference is significant as it subjects burners of
on-spec used oil in Rhode Island to additional requirements as
reflected in section 15.03 of the State's regulations, Burning Used Oil
for Energy Recovery. Under the Federal program, on-spec used oil
destined to be burned for energy recovery is not subject to the
restrictions on burning in 40 CFR part 279, subpart G (40 CFR
279.60(c)), and once conditions for on-spec used oil at 40 CFR 279.11
and 40 CFR part 279, subpart H have been met, the on-spec used oil can
be handled like any other virgin fuel oil, as long as it has not been
contaminated with hazardous waste. Rhode Island, however, continues to
regulate the burning and other aspects of on-spec oil under Rule 15.03
beyond that which is subject to regulation under the Federal program as
follows. The State regulates burners of on-spec used oil according to
category of BTU capacity as well as by unit type, i.e., onsite and
offsite, in Rule 15.03(A)-(D). The State's requirements for used oil
burners are partially broader in scope in that they set notification
requirements upon burners of on-spec used oil in Rule 15.03(B)(4) and
(C)(5) and notification and approval requirements under Rule
15.03(D)(5). Various requirements, such as storage, handling, tracking,
etc., are also imposed upon these on-spec burners at Rule 15.03(F)-(G)
which are generally required for off-spec used oil burners but are
broader in scope when applied to on-spec burners (see 40 CFR part 279,
subpart G). (Please note, additional requirements which relate to the
burning of used oil are also discussed in the following section,
Equivalent but Different Provisions.)

3. Equivalent But Different Provisions

    While many State regulations track Federal requirements
identically, some differ from the Federal regulation in particular
details but have been determined by the EPA to be equivalent to the
Federal regulations in providing the same (or greater) overall level of
environmental protection with respect to each Federal requirement.
There are various Rhode Island regulations which differ from but have
been determined to be equivalent to the Federal regulations. These
regulations are part of the Federally enforceable RCRA program. These
different but equivalent requirements include the following:
    (a) Rhode Island's used oil definition is broader than the Federal
definition in that it includes used oils which have become unsuitable
for their original purpose other than through use (e.g., the State
includes used oils that have

become contaminated during storage). This generally results in more
stringent regulation of oils that mostly would be considered only non-
hazardous solid wastes in the Federal program. In a few cases the State
regulations might allow such used oils which are characteristic to be
handled in the used program rather than as fully regulated hazardous
wastes (as they technically would be in the Federal program). The used
oils would not be different in composition from those regulated under
the Federal used oil program. The State's approach makes environmental
sense and is part of a regulation which is overall at least as
stringent as the corresponding Federal requirement.
    (b) As stated previously, Rhode Island's requirements for burning
used oil at Rule 15.03 are broader in scope as they regulate burners of
on-spec oil in Rule 15.03(A)-(D), and Rhode Island's provisions are
also more stringent in that they only allow on-spec oil to be shipped
off-site to be burned for energy recovery. However, the State's used
oil requirements are also equivalent but different in transferring the
analytical and recordkeeping requirements imposed on used oil marketers
of on-spec oil in 40 CFR 279.72 onto on-spec used oil burners at
15.03(B)(1) and (2), (C)(2) and (3) and (D)(2) and (3). Rhode Island
regulations are also different but equivalent in allowing on-spec
burners to aggregate off-spec used oil with virgin oil or on-spec used
oil for burning blended mixtures at Rule 15.03(B)(3), (C)(4) and (D)(4)
provided analysis shows it meets specification requirements
(aggregation by off-spec used oil burners is allowed at 40 CFR
279.61(b)(2)).
    (c) Rhode Island's program is also different in that it has adopted
a regulatory approach to address small amounts of used oil that are
generated by companies that service oil-fired furnaces that heat
buildings. While there is no direct counterpart in the Federal used oil
program for this specific scenario, the State's provisions closely
track the agency's requirements for off-site shipments of used oil to
aggregation points owned by the generator at 40 CFR 279.24(b), a
provision for which Rhode Island is also being authorized. Under the
Federal provision, EPA allows generators to self-transport up to 55
gallons at a time of used oil (without an EPA I.D. Number) to
aggregation points owned by the generator. Rhode Island's used oil
program at Rule 15.04(H) allows service companies, upon generation of
used oil during service of oil-fired furnaces used to heat buildings,
to assume the role of generator and to self-transport up to 5 gallons
of used oil to the company's place of business, as long as basic
requirements, such as handling, labeling and spill control measures are
met. Upon arrival, the used oil must be transferred to appropriate
storage containers or tanks on the premises of the service company who
is considered the generator of the used oil and subject to all
applicable requirements of section 15.00 of Rhode Island's Used Oil
Management Standards. Rhode Island has adopted state requirements which
tailor a Federal requirement to address a specific activity in which
small amounts of used oil are generated at many sites, including
households, which can immediately be removed from the site of
generation and consolidated at the generator's site of business. By
applying this provision in this way, it is likely to be more protective
of human health and the environment in assuring small quantities of
used oil are managed properly. Thus, we believe the State regulation is
legally consistent and equivalent to and perhaps even more stringent
than the Federal used oil program.
    (d) Rhode Island has adopted a conditional exemption for oil
filters in its Rule 15.01(E) which differs from the Federal exemption
of 40 CFR 261.4(b)(13) by allowing cold draining and crushing of the
filters whereas the Federal regulation allows only hot draining. The
State regulation specifies that any cold draining must include crushing
using a mechanical, pneumatic or hydraulic device designed for the
purpose of crushing oil filters and effectively removing the oil. This
State provision will encourage recycling of used oil by enabling
filters from junked vehicles to be managed in accordance with the
exemption. Junked vehicles often cannot be started and consequently
filters removed from those vehicles cannot meet the hot draining
criteria of the Federal regulation. This approach of combining cold
draining and crushing used oil filters was adopted by the State of
Vermont and authorized by EPA [70 FR 36350, June 23, 2005]. Vermont
provided documentation showing that as much or more used oil is removed
from used oil filters through cold draining plus crushing than is
removed by some of the hot draining methods allowed in the Federal
regulation. Thus, while the Rhode Island exemption, like the Vermont
exemption, differs from the Federal exemption, the State regulation is
at least as stringent as the Federal regulation in requiring the
removal of the oil. Note, copies of Vermont's documentation relative to
the cold crushing/draining of oil filters has been included in the
Administrative Docket to this notice.
    Relative to terne-plated filters, the State has also combined the
Federal scrap metal exemption at 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(ii) as referenced
in its definition of hazardous waste at 3.00, with its oil filter
exemption at 15.01(E). Rhode Island allows terne-plated filters to be
exempt from hazardous waste requirements once they have both been
processed to remove excess oil and when the metals are sent offsite for
reclamation which is documented. This is equivalent to the combination
of the two Federal exemptions.

I. How Does This Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115) in Rhode
Island?

    Rhode Island is not authorized to carryout its hazardous waste
program in Indian country within the State which includes the land of
the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Therefore, this action has no effect on
Indian country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA
program in these lands.

J. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?

    Rhode Island will issue permits for all the provisions for which it
is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will
continue to administer and enforce any RCRA and HSWA (Hazardous and
Solid Waste Act) permits or portions of permits which it has issued in
Rhode Island prior to the effective date of this authorization until
the State incorporates the terms and conditions of the Federal permits
into the State RCRA permits. EPA will not issue any more new permits,
or new portions of permits, for the provisions listed in this notice
above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue
to implement and issue permits for any HSWA requirements for which
Rhode Island is not yet authorized.

K. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Rhode Island's Hazardous
Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing
the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment
of 40 CFR part 272, subpart UU for this authorization of Rhode Island's
program until a later date.

L. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action (RCRA
State Authorization) from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993); therefore, this action is not subject to
review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the
purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action
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 action authorizes 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 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same
reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect
Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This action will 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), because it merely authorizes State
requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without
altering the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on
environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001) ) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action nevertheless will be effective February 11, 2008, because it is
an immediate final rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: November 2, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. E7-23946 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37378-37380]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15325]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72466; File No. SR-ISE Gemini-2014-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Price
Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program

June 25, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 20, 2014, ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE
Gemini'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    ISE Gemini proposes to extend two pilot programs related to its
Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''). The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site www.ise.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently has two pilot programs related to its
PIM.\3\ The current pilot period provided in paragraphs .03 and .05 of
the Supplementary Material to Rule 723 is set to expire on July 18,
2014.\4\ Paragraph .03 provides that there is no minimum size
requirement for orders to be eligible for the PIM. Paragraph .05
concerns the termination of the exposure period by unrelated orders.
The Exchange has continually submitted certain data in support of the
current pilot programs. The Exchange proposes to extend these pilot
programs in their present form, through July 17, 2015, to give the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to evaluate

the effects of these pilot programs before the Exchange requests
permanent approval of the rules. To aid the Commission in its
evaluation of the PIM Functionality, ISE Gemini will also continue to
provide additional PIM-related data as requested by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70050 (July 26,
2013), 78 FR 46622 (August 1, 2013) (Order Granting the Application
of Topaz Exchange, LLC for Registration as a National Securities
Exchange).
    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 70636 (October 9, 2013), 78 FR
62838 (October 22, 2013) (SR-TOPAZ-2013-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in
that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the
Exchange believes the pilot programs are consistent with the Exchange
Act because they provide opportunity for price improvement for all
orders executed in the Exchange's PIM. Since the PIM has only been
operating on ISE Gemini for less than one year, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to extend the pilot periods for an additional twelve
months to provide the Exchange and the Commission more data upon which
to evaluate the rules.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the pilot
programs, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of
the PIM. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \5\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \7\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \8\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
noted that such waiver will permit the pilot programs to continue
without interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the pilot programs to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the Commission
notes that, because the filing was submitted for immediate
effectiveness on June 20, 2014, the fact that the current rule
provisions do not expire until July 18, 2014 will afford interested
parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange
requires it to become operative. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 17,
2014.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE Gemini-2014-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE Gemini-2014-17. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE Gemini-2014-17 and
should be submitted by July 22, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15325 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P