[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23195]
[FR Doc No: E9-11509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1833-DR]

Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1833-DR), dated April 23, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective April 13, 2009.

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

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator,
    Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-11509 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emissions Standards for Coke Oven Batteries were proposed on December 4, 1992, and promulgated on October 27, 1993. These standards apply to all coke oven batteries, whether existing, new, reconstructed, rebuilt or restarted. It also applies to all batteries using the conventional by product recovery, the nonrecovery process, or any new recovery process. Under this rule, all existing batteries must choose a compliance track. Two compliance approaches are available under the rule: the " MACT ( Maximum Achievable Control Technology) track," and the " LAER ( Lowest Achievable Emission Rate) extension track." Applicability dates vary depending on the emission limitation the affected facility is subject to. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart L.

In general, all National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/ operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.

Any owner/ operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office.

In the development of this Information Collection Request ( ICR), we reviewed the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) " Terms of Clearance" ( TOC) section on the active ICR. There were no comments in the TOC section.

Approximately, 19 respondents are currently owners or operators of new or existing byproduct or nonrecovery coke oven batteries, and subject to the regulation. The respondents consist of two sectors within the coke industry, iron and steel integrated plants which produce coke for their operations ( 9 plants) and merchant plants which produce furnace and foundry coke 2 for sale on the open market ( 10 plants). As of April 2003, these 19 coke plants were operating 56 coke oven batteries ( affected facilities); 46 are by product batteries operated at 17 plants, and ten are nonrecovery batteries operated at 2 plants. It is estimated that no additional respondents will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. The number of respondents has decreased from 25 respondents when the rule was promulgated to 19 respondents in this renewal of the ICR.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/ operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from coke batteries at coke plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NESHAP standards were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart L.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure 3 compliance with the standard at all times. During the performance test a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, leaks are being detected and repaired, and the standard is being met. The performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual compliance certifications are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation and maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart L.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2004 ( 69 FR 55430). No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations After reviewing our internal data sources, consulting the Agency's industry experts including Edward Wojciechowski in EPA Region 5 and Lula Melton of the Office of Air Planning and Standards ( OAQPS), and recent industry data gathered by OAQPS for the recent residual risk analysis on this rule, we have determined that additional consultations with industry are inappropriate for this ICR renewal.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection 4 Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards. EPA believes that the five year records retention requirement is consistent the Part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. Also, the retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action. Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years. EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records were retained for less than five years.

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of new or existing byproduct or nonrecovery coke oven batteries. The Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code for this industry is SIC 3312, Steel Works, Blast Furnaces ( including coke ovens) and Rolling Mills which under the new North American Industrial Classification 5 System ( NAICS) codes would be NAIC codes 331111, " Iron and Steel Mills", and 324199, " All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing" ( i. e., coke ovens not integrated with steel mills).

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that are recorded and/ or reported are required by NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Intention to construct a new, brownfield, or padup rebuild coke oven battery. 63.311( c)( 1), 63.5, 63.9( b)

Notification of compliance status when a source becomes subject to the standard. 63.9( h), 63.311( c)( 2)

Notification that source is subject to special compliance requirements: obtaining an exemption from control requirements for bypass\ bleeder stacks by committing to permanent closure of a battery or using an equivalent alternative control system for the stacks; and obtaining an alternative standard for coke oven doors on a battery equipped with a shed. 63.9( d)

Initial performance test. 63.7( b), 63.9( e)

Rescheduled initial performance test. 63.7( b)( 2)

Notification requirements for coke ovens with a shed using a continuous monitoring system for opacity of emissions discharged from the emission control equipment; and meeting the alternative standard. 63.9( g), 63.305( f)( 4)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system. 63.9( g)

Change in information already provided. 63.9( j)

Request for an extension of compliance with relevant standard. 63.9( c) 6 Reports Application for approval of the construction or reconstruction of a new major affected source, or reconstruction of a major affected source. 63.5( 6)( d), 63.9( b)( 1)( iiii)

Performance test results. 60.8 ( a), 61.13( f), 63.10( d)( 2), 63.309 Report of opacity and visible emission observations. 63.9( f)

Emission control work practices plan for each coke oven battery. 63.306( a)

Opacity or visible emissions. 63.10( d)( 3)

Periodic startup, shutdown and malfunction reports. 63.10( d)( 5)( I)

Initial compliance certification. 63.9( h), 63.111( b)

Submit semiannual compliance certifications. 63.9( h), 63.311( d)

Report for the venting of coke oven gas other than through a flare system. 63.311( e)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Startup, shutdown and malfunction plan. 63.6( e)( 3), 63.1( b)( 2), 63.310, 63.311( f)( 6)

All reports and notifications. 63.10( b)( 1)

Any applicability determination that demonstrates why owner or operator believes source( s) is/ are unaffected. 63.10( b)( 3)

Copy of the coke oven emission control work practice plan and revisions, and records related to implementation of plan requirements. 63.306, 63.311( f)( 3 4)

For an approved alternative emission limitation: monitoring records of parameters that indicate the exhaust flow rate is maintained, records for the continuous opacity monitoring system, and quarterly visual inspection of the shed. 63.10( c), 63.311( f)( 2)

For the bypass/ bleeder stack flare system or an approved alternative control device: design of drawings and of engineering specifications. 63.311( f)( 5) 7 Recordkeeping For nonrecovery coke oven batteries: records of daily operating parameters and design characteristics. 63.111( f)( 1)

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Daily performance tests by a certified observer, commencing on the applicable date, using Method 303 or 303A for each new and existing coke oven battery are needed to determine compliance with the visible emission limitations for coke oven doors, topside port lids, offtake systems, and charging operations.

Develop and implement an emission control work practice plan for each coke oven battery.

For coke ovens equipped with sheds choosing to comply with an alternative to the emission limitation standards, submit an initial test plan, and once approved, conduct an initial performance test using Methods 5 ( determine the efficiency of control equipment ), Method 9 ( measure opacity of emissions from control device), and Method 22 ( measure visible emissions that escape the shed) to get approval to use alternative standard.

For coke ovens equipped with sheds complying with the alternative standard, conduct weekly performance tests using Method 303 to determine compliance; and if the visible emission limitation is achieved for 12 consecutive observations, then switch to monthly tests until an exceedance occurs, at which time the weekly tests shall be resumed.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring system for opacity emissions discharged from the control system at coke oven doors equipped with sheds and complying with the alternative standard.

For nonrecovery coke oven batteries, daily monitoring of pressure in oven or common tunnel to ensure a negative pressure; implement work practices requirement for charging operations at existing batteries; and install, operate and maintain control system for the capture and collection of emissions at new batteries.

For a by product recovery, a brownfield or padup rebuild coke oven battery, install, operate and maintain a bypass/ bleeder stack flare system capable of controlling 120 percent of the normal gas flow generated by the battery; unless the owner or operator has been approved for an alternative control device or system that achieves at least 98 percent destruction or control of coke oven emissions.

For by product coke oven, daily inspection of the collecting main for leaks according to Method 303. 8 Respondent Activities Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Regulatory agencies, to the extent possible, are relying more on automated techniques such as electronic submissions of reports, and are improving their tracking systems and database systems to enhance the use of these techniques. In 1997, the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards initiated efforts to allow companies to provide an electronic copy of their spreadsheets that contained the Method 303 inspection results so that EPA could develop a national database of the results of the visible emission inspections for coke oven batteries. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used. At this time, it is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry. 9 Agency Activities Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS).

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual compliance reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/ operator for five years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility There are no small businesses affected by this regulation.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal) .

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. 10 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 78,938 hours. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial $ 96.41 ($ 45.91 + 110%) Technical $ 82.74 ($ 39.40 + 110%) Clerical $ 42.25 ($ 20.12 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2004, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard( s) are labor costs. The capital startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the standard. There are no capital/ startup costs for this regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor( s) and other costs such as photocopying and postage. There are no annual operations and maintenance costs associated with continuos emissions monitors ( CEMs) since there are no sources using CEMs for opacity emissions discharged from the control device. Therefore, the average annual burden for capital and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is zero.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are labor costs. There are no capital/ startup or operation and maintenance costs. There are no coke oven batteries with sheds that have applied for an alternative standard which would require them to use a CEM for opacity emissions monitoring.

The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are zero. This is the total of column D in the 11 above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are zero. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be zero. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are labor costs associated with analysis of the reported information and an annual certification training. Respondents will bear the cost through permit fees, for daily performance tests conducted at the plant by a certified observer provided by the State enforcement agency. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 5,762. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $ 54.66 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6) Technical $ 40.56 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) Clerical $ 21.95 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Burden and Cost to the Federal/ State Government: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal).

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 19 existing sources are currently subject to the regulation. It is estimated that no new sources per year will become subject to the standard in the next three years.

The Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR. 12 Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports Year ( A) Number of New Respondents 1 ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 0.66 19 0 0.66 19 2 0.66 19 0 0.66 19 3 0.66 19 0 0.66 19 Average 0.66 19 0 0.66 19 1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities.

. To avoid double counting respondents, column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 19. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 44.69, as described below. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

Total Annual Responses ( A)

Information Collection Activity ( B)

Number of Respondents ( C)

Number of Responses ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( BxC)+ D Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 0.66 1 N/ A 0.66 Notification of Malfunction and Report 2 2 N/ A 4 Notification of Battery Closure 0.33 1 N/ A 0.33 Report of Venting Coke Oven Gas Episode at a Stack Flare 1.7 1 N/ A 1.7 Semiannual Compliance Report 19 2 N/ A 38 Total 44.69 13 The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 6,302,094. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal) .

There are no annualized capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entities subject to the regulation. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 147 labor hours at a cost of $ 5,742. See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal) .

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

( i) Respondent Tally The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 6,302,094. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal), attached. Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,754 ( rounded) hours per response.

There are no annualized Capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entities. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

( ii) The Agency Tally The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 114 labor hours at a cost of $ 5,742. See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal).

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in labor burden to industry from the most recently approved ICR is due to 14 adjustments. The adjustment decrease in hours burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of plants with coke oven batteries. However, the cost increase is due to an increase in labor rates. There were no capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring for the renewal of the ICR, therefore, there is no change in the costs burden category.

In addition, the Federal/ state burden significantly decreases since this renewal of the ICR does not included litigation costs. This cost category relates to the regulatory agencies being sued on the rule and not on the burden associated with enforcement cases based on the rule, as was defined in the active ICR.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,754 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2004 0042, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA 15 Docket ID Number OECA 2004 0042 and OMB Control Number 2060 0253 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. TABLE 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal)

Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent ( C)

Personhours per respondent ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ b 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems N/ A 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 8 1 8 19 152.00 7.60 15.20 $ 13,951.40 B. Required activities ALL PLANTS:

Daily performance tests/ visible observations c 8.25 365 3,011.3 19 57,214.70 2,860.74 5,721.50 $ 5,251,481.60 Certification Program d 24 1 24 19 456.00 22.80 4.56 $ 40,120.25 Implement work practice plan 40 1 40 19 760.00 38.00 76.00 $ 69,756.98 Implement startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 40 1 40 19 760.00 38.00 76.00 $ 69,756.98 NON RECOVERY PLANTS:

Coke oven doors: daily pressure monitoring e 0.5 365 182.5 2 365.00 18.25 36.50 $ 33,501.71 Coke oven doors: leak detection procedures e 0.5 365 182.5 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00 Charging operations: work practices on the control equipment f 0.5 365 182.5 2 365.00 18.25 36.50 $ 33,501.71 BY PRODUCT PLANTS: Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent ( C)

Personhours per respondent ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ b 17 Daily inspection of the collecting main for leaks 0.5 365 182.5 17 3,102.50 155.13 310.25 $ 284,765.00 Charging operations: work practices on the control equipment g 24 1 24 1.7 40.80 2.04 4.08 $ 3,744.85 Operate and maintain a bypass/ bleeder stack/ flare system h 0.5 365 182.5 17 3,102.50 155.13 310.25 $ 284,765.00 Coke oven doors with sheds complying with the alternative standard: initial and regular performance test and monitoring of opacity with a CMS i N/ A C. Create information See 4B D. Gather existing information See 4B E. Write report Notification requirements include:

 Election of compliance track j 2 1 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00  Construct/ reconstruct with new recovery technology k 80 1 80 0.33 26.40 1.32 2.64 $ 2,423.14  Construct/ reconstruct a new battery, a brownfield battery or a padup battery k 2 1 2 0.33 0.66 0.03 0.07 $ 60.58  Request for alternative door standard l 428 1 428 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00  Malfunction notification and report m 26 1 26 2 52.00 2.60 5.20 $ 4,772.85  Plant closure of one or more batteries n 2 1 2 0.33 0.66 0.03 0.07 $ 60.58 Report of vemting of coke oven gas through a bypass/ bleeder stack flare o 25 1 25 1.7 42.50 2.13 4.25 $ 3,901.37 Initial compliance certification p 3 1 3 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00 Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent ( C)

Personhours per respondent ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ b 18 Semiannual compliance certifications 2 2 4 19 76.00 3.80 7.60 $ 6,975.70 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions See 4A B. Plan activities See 4A C. Implement activities See 4A D. Record information: all data required by rule 1.5 52 78 19 1,482.00 74.10 148.20 $ 136,026.11 E. Time to transmit or disclose information 1 2 2 19 38.00 1.90 3.80 $ 3,487.85 F. Time to train personnel q 32 1 32 19 608.00 30.40 60.80 $ 55,805.58 G. Time for audits N/ A Subtotal 68,642.76 3,432.14 6,862.70 $ 6,302,094.28 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( ROUNDED) 78,938 $ 6,302,094 19 Assumptions:

a We have determined that 19 respondents are currently owners or operators of new or existing byproduct or non recovery coke oven batteries subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart L. As of April 2003, these 19 coke plants were operating 56 coke oven batteries ( affected facilities); 46 are by product batteries operated at 17 plants,

and ten are non recovery batteries operated at 2 plants. It is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

b This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 96.41 for Managerial labor, $ 82.74 for Technical labor, and $ 42.25 for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September, 2004, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c Daily performance tests will be conducted by a certified observer provided by the State enforcement agency. The tests will be performed for each emission point on each battery. Respondents will reimburse states through permit fees. Assuming an average of 3 coke ovens batteries per plant will be inspected, the total person hours per inspection is estimated at 8.25 based on the cost formula for calculating reimbursement costs included in the rule.

d This burden includes the indirect costs to respondents to provide certification to the observer provided by the state enforcement agency or its contractor, including the cost for a 3 day EPA certification course ($ 200 per person). The cost of implementing the certification course is included in the Agency burden estimates given on Table 2.

e The owner or operator of the existing nonrecovery plant would be required to either conduct leak detection procedures or monitor oven pressure each day. We have assumed that all plants have elected to monitor pressure.

f The owner or operator of an existing nonrecovery battery would be required to implement specified work practices for the control of emissions from charging operations and document the performance of each procedure.

g Assume that of the 17 by product plants, a total of 10 percent ( 1.7) would be required to implement the work practice procedures. The owner or operator of a coke oven battery with two independent exceedances of an applicable visible emission limitation for an emission point within a specified time period would be required to implement work practice procedures in the work practice plan for that emission point.

h All plants are expected to have installed flares and no requests for alternatives control systems are expected.

i According to a recent data gathered by OAQPS, none of the by product recovery plants with sheds have applied for the alternative standard.

j All sources have submitted this notification. Based on this submittal, we have determined that 5 of the 17 non recovery plants elected to comply with the MACT compliance track and not the LAER compliance track. However, eventually, all plants must comply with either the 1995 MACT limits and residual risk standards or with the LAER limits of the extension track by the required date.

k Assume that two plants would become subject to the notification requirements for construction/ reconstruction of a battery each with different burden depending on whether or not the source is installing a new recovery technology.

l Burden estimate for an alternative door standard includes hours for preparing a test plan ( 40 hours), performing required tests using Method 5 or 18 ( 330 hours) and Method 9 ( 18 hours), and preparing report ( 40 hours) which totals 428 hours. However, we anticipate no requests for an alternative door standard.

m Assume that one plant per year may experience a malfunction requiring notification to inform the Agency and a written report.

n Assume that one plant over a three year period is expected to permanently close one or more batteries and submit the required notification.

o Ten percent of the 17 by product plants ( 1.7) are expected to experience a venting episode where emissions are released through bypass/ bleeder stacks without flaring requiring notification and a written report.

p Assumes that all of the existing plants have already submitted initial compliance certifications.

q The initial and refresher training is expected to be conducted according to the work practice implementation plan. 20 21 TABLE 2. Annual Burden and Cost to the Federal/ State Government:

NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L) ( Renewal)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours/ occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

plant/ year ( C)

Plants per year a ( D) Technical hours/ year ( E= AxBxC) ( E) Management hours/ year ( F= 0.05xD) ( F)

Clericalhours year ( G= 0.1xD) ( G)

Cost, $ b Report Review:

 Site specific test plan N/ A  NESHAP waiver application NA  Compliance extension request NA  Work practice plan  Startup, shutdown and malfunction plan  Construct/ reconstruct a new battery, a brownfield battery or a padup battery c 2 1 0.33 0.66 0.03 0.07 $ 30.02  Construct/ reconstruct with new recovery technology 80 1 0.33 26.40 1.32 2.64 $ 1,200.88  Request for startup of cold idle battery 8 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00  Election of compliance track d 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00  Request for alternative door standard e 40 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00  Notification of closure of batteries f 2 1 0.33 0.66 0.03 0.07 $ 30.02  Malfunction notification g 2 1 2 2.00 0.10 0.20 $ 90.93  Malfunction report g 8 1 2 16.00 0.80 1.60 $ 727.81  Report of venting of coke oven gas through a bypass/ bleeder stack flare h 2 1 1.7 3.40 0.17 0.34 $ 154.66  Initial compliance certification i 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00  Notification of election of compliance track j 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00  Semiannual compliance certifications k 2 2 19 76.00 3.80 7.60 $ 3,457.09 Subtotal Burden and Cost ( salary) 125.12 6.26 12.51 $ 5,741.88 Burden Item ( A)

Person hours/ occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

plant/ year ( C)

Plants per year a ( D) Technical hours/ year ( E= AxBxC) ( E) Management hours/ year ( F= 0.05xD) ( F)

Clericalhours year ( G= 0.1xD) ( G)

Cost, $ b 22 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( Rounded) 147 $ 5,742 Assumptions:

. a We have determined that there are 19 respondents are currently owners or operators of new or existing byproduct or non recovery coke oven batteries subject to 40 CFR Part 63, subpart L. As of April 2003, these 19 coke plants were operating 56 coke oven batteries ( affected facilities); 46 are by product batteries operated at 17 plants, and ten are non recovery batteries operated at 2 plants. It is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

b This ICR uses the following average hourly labor rates: 54.66 for Managerial ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6), $ 40.56 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) for Technical and $ 21.95 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6) for Clerical. These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay.

c Assume that two plants over the 3 year period would construct/ reconstruct a battery, one of them with a new recovery technology.

d Assumes all sources have submitted this initial notification.

e We have determined that none of the by product recovery plants with sheds have applied for the alternative standard. The alternative standard does not apply to the 2 nonrecovery plants with sheds.

f Assume that one plant over a three year period is expected to permanently close batteries and submit the required notification.

g Assume that one plant per year may experience a malfunction requiring notification to inform the Agency and a written report.

h Ten percent of the 17 by product plants are expected to experience a venting episode where emissions are released through bypass/ bleeder stacks without flaring requiring notification and a written report.

i Assumes all existing plants have already submitted initial compliance certifications.

j All sources have already submitted this initial notification.

k All plants are required to submit semiannual compliance certifications.


[Federal Register: November 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 61722]
[DOCID:fr25no09-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Rule 17Ad-16; SEC File No. 270-363; OMB Control No. 3235-0413]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ad-13 (17 CFR
240.17Ad-13) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ad-16 requires a registered transfer agent to provide
written notice to the appropriate qualified registered securities
depository when assuming or terminating transfer agent services on
behalf of an issuer or when changing its name or address. In addition,
transfer agents that provide such notice shall maintain such notice for
a period of at least two years in an easily accessible place. This rule
addresses the problem of certificate transfer delays caused by transfer
requests that are directed to the wrong transfer agent or the wrong
address.
    We estimate that the transfer agent industry submits 3,000 Rule
17Ad-16 notices to appropriate qualified registered securities
depositories. The staff estimates that the average amount of time
necessary to create and submit each notice is approximately 15 minutes
per notice. Accordingly, the estimated total industry burden is 750
hours per year (15 minutes multiplied by 3,000 notices filed annually).
    Because the information needed by transfer agents to properly
notify the appropriate registered securities depository is readily
available to them and the report is simple and straightforward, the
cost is relatively minimal. The average cost to prepare and send a
notice is approximately $7.50 (15 minutes at $30 per hour). This yields
an industry-wide cost estimate of $22,500 (3,000 notices multiplied by
$7.50 per notice).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 18, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28227 Filed 11-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22743-22744]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0052]

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP17-002

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a January 11, 2017, petition, as
submitted under Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) ID number
10944318, from Ms. Laura Nagel of Springfield, VA, requesting that the
agency open an investigation into an alleged defect resulting in engine
stall without warning after refueling in a model year (MY) 2007 Jeep
Patriot. The petitioner's vehicle is a 2007 Jeep Patriot. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluated the petition by
analyzing consumer complaints submitted to the Agency, by reviewing two
prior evaluations of the same apparent defect issue, and by reviewing
technical and field information provided by FCA US, LLC (FCA) in
response to an information request letter from the Agency. After
completing this evaluation, NHTSA has concluded that further
investigation of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles is unlikely
to result in a determination that a safety related defect exists. The
agency accordingly denies the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Abhijit Sengupta, Office of
Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Alleged Defect

    The petitioner alleges that her MY 2007 Jeep Patriot vehicle
experienced multiple incidents of engine stall without warning shortly
after refueling. The petitioner discovered that the defective part is a
valve that is integral to the fuel tank, requiring tank replacement to
repair the problem. The petitioner alleged that stalling without
warning is an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and requests
the agency take action by opening a Preliminary Evaluation to fully
evaluate the defect.

Engine Stall Defects

    The Safety Act, (Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et. seq.)) defines motor vehicle

safety as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk
of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or
performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death
or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.'' In this instance, the risk involved is a low speed engine
stall happening immediately after the fuel tank is overfilled. NHTSA
considers several factors when assessing the safety risk posed by
conditions that may result in engine stall while driving. These include
the speeds at which stalling may occur, the ability of the driver to
restart the vehicle, the warning available to the driver prior to
stalling, the effects of engine stall on vehicle controllability, when
and where the stalling may occur and the effects of the condition on
other safety systems of the vehicle. In general, conditions that result
in engine stall during low-speed operation at idle, such as when
slowing to a stop, and where the engine may be restarted right away,
are considered by NHTSA to be among the least hazardous types of
stalling problems and, absent other risk factors, are not considered to
be unreasonable risks to safety.

Prior ODI Investigation PE13-016

    On February 10, 2014, ODI closed an investigation of an alleged
defect in approximately 153,817 MY 2006 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and
Dodge Magnum vehicles (LX cars) that may result in engine stall shortly
after refueling (PE13-016). In response to ODI's information request
for PE13-016, FCA identified a problem with the multifunction control
valve (MFCV) fuel shutoff float integrated into 19-gallon fuel tanks in
certain LX vehicles. According to FCA, the float may swell after
exposure to fuels with high ethanol content, which may cause the valve
to stick. A float valve that is stuck open during refueling could
result in fuel tank overfill and allow raw fuel to enter the purge line
and vapor canister. This could result in problems with engine
drivability (e.g., stumble or hesitation) or stall due to a rich fuel
mixture while driving, in the brief period immediately after filling
the fuel tank.
    ODI's complaint review showed most of the engine stall incidents
occurred when vehicles were stopped or travelling at low speeds. This
review also revealed that no significant difficulty restarting the
vehicle was reported and no crashes or injuries were identified in the
subject vehicles, which had been in service for 7 to 8 years. The
investigation (PE13-016) was closed without a finding of a defect due
to the low safety risk associated with the alleged defect condition.
Further details of the investigation are available at https://www.NHTSA.gov.

Prior ODI Petition DP14-002

    In response to ODI's information request letter for DP14-002, FCA
indicated that the RS Minivan may experience MFCV float sticking
similar to that investigated in PE13-016 and described above. Further
details of the investigation are available at https://www.NHTSA.gov.
    As part of its evaluation of DP14-002, NHTSA's Vehicle Research and
Test Center (VRTC) tested a 2005 Chrysler Town & Country LMT (3.6L SFI,
20 gal. fuel tank) that was the subject of an ODI complaint (VOQ
10641603) and proved the vehicle was affected by the sticking in-tank
fuel valve. VRTC's examination assessed engine performance after
refueling, including the driving conditions and ease of engine restart
associated with any observed engine stalls. When refueling the vehicle
up to the initial shut-off of the filling station pump nozzle, the VRTC
testing was able to reproduce stalling incidents when the vehicle was
stopped or coasting to a stop at low speed. The vehicle did not stall 4
out of 5 times when travelling at 5 mph, but minor hesitation was
noted. No stalls and only minor hesitation occurred when travelling at
10 mph or above in tanks filled to the initial nozzle shut-off.
Stalling was more likely to occur if the tank was overfilled (i.e.,
adding fuel past the initial fill nozzle shutoff). Testing after
overfilling resulted in stalls in 4 of 5 tests at speeds up to 10 mph.
Regardless of fill condition, the vehicle could always be immediately
restarted after each engine stall.

2008 Jeep Patriot Analysis

    In response to ODI's information request letter for DP17-002, FCA
indicated that the 2007 Jeep Patriot may experience a condition with
MFCV float sticking similar to the one investigated in the LX Cars in
PE13-016 and 2007 Chrysler Minivans in DP14-002. As described above in
PE13-016, the failure mechanism is a result of a swollen refueling
float within the multifunction control valve. The FCA response also
indicated no reported accidents or property damage in a fleet of 29,573
vehicles with more than 4 billion vehicle miles driven over 10 years of
service. FCA believes that, predicated upon these findings, there is no
unreasonable risk to motor safety. Further details of the investigation
will be available in the near future at https://www.NHTSA.gov.
    ODI's complaint analysis of the alleged defect, completed in March
2017, identified 39 post-refueling engine stall incidents in
approximately 29,573 vehicles. Similar to the LX Car analysis in PE13-
016, and 2007 Chrysler Minivans analysis in DP14-002, the engine stalls
occurred immediately after refueling when the vehicle was stopped or
coasting to a stop at low speed. There were no allegations of
significant difficulty restarting the engines immediately after the
stalls occurred. None of the complaints alleged any crash or injury.
Based upon the above facts and the conditions in which any stall
occurs, ODI concludes that further investigation is unlikely to result
in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists.

Conclusion

    In the Agency's view, additional investigation is unlikely to
result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety
exists given the limited conditions under which the subject condition
may result in engine stall. Although NHTSA can and will take action
before a defect results in a crash, injury or death, the absence of any
reported crashes or injuries in a fleet of nearly 30,000 vehicles
estimated to have driven 4 billion vehicle miles indicates that further
investigation is not warranted under the facts known to the Agency at
this time. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize
NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety
mission, the petition is denied. The Agency will take further action if
warranted by future circumstances.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-10404 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37161]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15910]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0079; FRL-9929-69-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revision To Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Storage
Tanks and Transport Vessels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing a
direct final rule published on May 13, 2015 because relevant adverse
comments were received. The rule pertained to EPA approval of a Texas
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for control of volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from degassing of storage tanks,
transport vessels and marine vessels. In a separate subsequent final
rulemaking EPA will address the comments received.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 80 FR 27251 on May 13, 2015,
is withdrawn effective June 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert M. Todd,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. On May 13, 2015 we
published a direct final rule approving a Texas State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision for control of volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from degassing of storage tanks, transport vessels and marine
vessels (80 FR 27251). The direct final rule was published without
prior proposal because we anticipated no adverse comments. We stated in
the direct final rule that if we received relevant adverse comments by
June 12, 2015 we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register. We received relevant adverse comments and accordingly are
withdrawing the direct final rule. In a separate subsequent final
rulemaking we will address the comments received.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 18, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-15910 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P