[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40393-40394]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0530]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Piscataqua River, Portsmouth,
NH and Kittery, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a temporary deviation from the
regulations governing the operation of the new US-1 Memorial Bridge
across the Piscataqua River, mile 1.9, between Portsmouth, New
Hampshire and Kittery, Maine. Under this temporary deviation the bridge
may operate on a special opening schedule to facilitate mechanical and
structural alignment of the lift span. This deviation is necessary to
allow New Hampshire Department of Transportation's contractor
sufficient time make final adjustments at the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective with actual notice from June 26,
2013, until July 5, 2013. This rule is effective in the Code of Federal
Regulations on from July 5, 2013, until July 31, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0530] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast
Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The new US-1 Memorial Bridge, across the
Piscataqua River, mile 1.9, between Portsmouth, New Hampshire and
Kittery, Maine has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 21
feet at MHW and 29 feet at MLW. The existing drawbridge operation
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.531(b).
    The waterway supports both commercial and recreational navigation
of various vessel sizes.
    The owner of the bridge, New Hampshire Department of
Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate necessary
alignment and adjustments to the recently installed main lift span.
    Under this temporary deviation, in effect June 26, 2013 through
July 31, 2013, the new US-1 (formerly Memorial Bridge) shall operate as
follows:
    Monday through Friday the draw shall open for the passage of vessel
traffic at 6:30 a.m., 9 a.m., 12 p.m., 2 p.m., 4:30 p.m. and 7 p.m.,
daily.
    Saturday and Sunday between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. the draw shall
open on signal once an hour, on the half hour, for the passage of
vessel traffic.
    The draw may remain in the closed position from 9:30 p.m. on
Sunday, June 30 until 2 p.m. Tuesday July 2, 2013.
    Except for the closure period above, the draw shall open on signal
at all times for commercial deep draft vessels provided at least a 24
hour advance is given by calling the bridge via VHF FM Ch 13 or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The draw shall remain in the full open position from 6:30 a.m. on
July 4, 2013 through 6:30 a.m. on July 5, 2013.
    The bridge shall open as soon as possible in an emergency.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 25, 2013.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-16072 Filed 7-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61649-61655]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1221]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed
rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed
regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream
and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs
are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is
required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in
order to qualify or remain qualified for

participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In
addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance
agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before January 3, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1221, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500
C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                * Elevation in feet
                                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                                feet  (NAVD)
                                                                                Depth in feet above
                State                      City/town/county                  Source of flooding                                     Location **                         ground [caret] Elevation
                                                                                in meters (MSL)
                                                                                -------------------------
                                                                                Existing     Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Unincorporated Areas of Carbon County, Montana
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana..............................  Unincorporated Areas of   Clarks Fork Yellowstone River............  Approximately 1.89 miles downstream of Twany Trail........         None        +3304
                                        Carbon County.
                                                                                Approximately 770 feet downstream of the Rock Creek                None        +3405
                                                                                (Lower) confluence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood
 Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
 20472.

                                                                                ADDRESSES

                                                                              Unincorporated Areas of Carbon County
Maps are available for inspection at 17 West 11th Street, Red Lodge, MT 59068.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                         Unincorporated Areas of Mineral County, Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada...............................  Unincorporated Areas of   Cottonwood Creek.........................  Approximately 1,400 feet north of the intersection of              None   1
                                        Mineral County.                                                      Marian Drive and U.S. Route 95.
Nevada...............................  Unincorporated Areas of   Mina Fan.................................  Approximately 1,584 feet southwest of the intersection of          None   1
                                        Mineral County.                                                      Cross Street and U.S. Route 95.
                                                                                Approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the intersection of           None   1
                                                                                1st Street and U.S. Route 95.
                                                                                Approximately 2.0 miles southwest of the intersection of           None   1
                                                                                Cross Street and U.S. Route 95.
                                                                                Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the intersection of 1st         None   1
                                                                                Street and U.S. Route 95.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood
 Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
 20472.

                                                                                ADDRESSES

                                                                             Unincorporated Areas of Mineral County
Maps are available for inspection at 105 South A Street, Suite 1, Hawthorne, NV 89415.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                City of Lubbock, Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas................................  City of Lubbock.........  Playa System E1..........................  At the intersection of Avenue T and 40th Street...........        +3208        +3206
                                                                                At the intersection of Slide Road and 58th Street.........        +3255        +3256
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood
 Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
 20472.

                                                                                ADDRESSES
City of Lubbock
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1625 13th Street, Lubbock, TX 79401.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                City of McCleary, Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington...........................  City of McCleary........  East Fork Wildcat Creek                    Approximately 360 feet upstream of State Route 108........         None         +245
                                                                                Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the railroad.........         None         +268
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood
 Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
 20472.

                                                                                ADDRESSES
City of McCleary
* Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 100 South 3rd Street, McCleary, WA 98557.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  *Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) +Elevation in
                                                                  feet (NAVD) Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced   ground [caret]Elevation    Communities affected
                                            elevation**             in meters (MSL)

                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Volusia County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-19 Canal..........................  At the Spruce Creek               +4           +5  City of Daytona Beach,
                                       confluence.                                        City of Port Orange,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Volusia County.
                                      Approximately 375 feet          None          +29
                                       upstream of Beville
                                       Road.
B-27 Canal North....................  At the LPGA Canal               None           +5  City of Holly Hill,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Volusia County.
                                      Approximately 75 feet           None           +5
                                       upstream of Calle
                                       Grande Street.
B-27 Canal South....................  At the LPGA Canal               None           +5  City of Daytona Beach,
                                       confluence.                                        City of Holly Hill.
                                      Approximately 70 feet           None           +6
                                       upstream of Kingston
                                       Avenue.
Halifax Canal.......................  Approximately 700 feet          None           +6  City of Port Orange.
                                       upstream of Powers
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 100 feet          None           +7
                                       upstream of Jackson
                                       Street.
LPGA Canal..........................  At the upstream side of         None           +4  City of Holly Hill.
                                       Ridgewood Avenue.
                                      Approximately 1,940             None           +7
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Center Avenue.
Laurel Creek........................  At the upstream side of         None           +6  City of Ormond Beach.
                                       the railroad.
                                      Approximately 330 feet          None           +7
                                       upstream of Laurel
                                       Oaks Circle.
Nova Canal North Reach 1............  Approximately 775 feet          None           +7  City of Holly Hill,
                                       downstream of LPGA                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       Boulevard.                                         of Volusia County.
                                      At the upstream side of         None           +7
                                       Alabama Avenue.
Nova Canal North Reach 2............  Approximately 1,660             None           +7  City of Daytona Beach,
                                       feet downstream of                                 City of Holly Hill.
                                       10th Street.
                                      Approximately 925 feet          None           +8
                                       upstream of Orange
                                       Avenue.
Nova Canal South Reach 1............  Approximately 125 feet          None           +7  City of Daytona Beach,
                                       downstream of Reed                                 City of South Daytona.
                                       Canal Road.
                                      At the Nova Canal North         None           +8
                                       Reach 2 confluence.
Nova Canal South Reach 2............  Approximately 1,775             None           +7  City of Port Orange,
                                       feet upstream of Nova                              City of South Daytona.
                                       Road.
                                      At the Nova Canal South         None           +7
                                       Reach 1 confluence.
Thompson Creek......................  At the upstream side of           +6           +7  City of Ormond Beach.
                                       Industrial Drive.
                                      Approximately 575 feet          None           +8
                                       upstream of Division
                                       Avenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Daytona Beach
Maps are available for inspection at 950 Bellevue Avenue, Room 600, Daytona Beach, FL 32115.

City of Holly Hill
Maps are available for inspection at 1065 Ridgewood Avenue, Holly Hill, FL 32117.

City of Ormond Beach
Maps are available for inspection at 22 South Beach Street, Ormond Beach, FL 32174.

City of Port Orange
Maps are available for inspection at 1000 City Center Circle, Port Orange, FL 32129.

City of South Daytona
Maps are available for inspection at 1672 South Ridgewood Avenue, South Daytona, FL 32119.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Volusia County
Maps are available for inspection at 123 West Indiana Avenue, DeLand, FL 32720.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Webster County, Iowa, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Des Moines River....................  Approximately 1.6 miles         None         +987  City of Fort Dodge,
                                       downstream of U.S.                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       Route 20.                                          of Webster County.
                                      Approximately 2.1 miles         None        +1008
                                       upstream of East
                                       Hawkeye Avenue.
Lizard Creek........................  At the Des Moines River         +992         +995  City of Fort Dodge,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Webster County.
                                      Approximately 0.9 mile         +1000         +999
                                       upstream of Phinney
                                       Park Drive.
Soldier Creek.......................  At the Des Moines River         None         +993  City of Fort Dodge,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Webster County.
                                      Approximately 1.2 miles         None        +1098
                                       upstream of Soldier
                                       Creek Drive.
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Fort Dodge
Maps are available for inspection at 819 1st Avenue South, Fort Dodge, IA 50501.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Webster County
Maps are available for inspection at the Webster County Courthouse, 701 Central Avenue, 4th Floor, Fort Dodge,
 IA 50501.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              St. Helena Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Branch.......................  Approximately 0.70 mile         None         +189  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of Kendrick                               St. Helena Parish.
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 0.90 mile         None         +189
                                       upstream of Kendrick
                                       Road.
Ward Line Canal.....................  Approximately 790 feet          None         +185  Town of Greensburg.
                                       upstream of Sitman
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 1,480             None         +187
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Sitman Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
 North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Greensburg
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 14560 Louisiana Highway 37, Greensburg, LA 70441

                                    Unincorporated Areas of St. Helena Parish
Maps are available for inspection at the St. Helena Parish Police Jury Administration Building, 17911 Louisiana
 Highway 43, Greensburg, LA 70441.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Oceana County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Michigan.......................  Entire shoreline within         None         +585  Township of Benona,
                                       community.                                         Township of Claybanks.
Lake Michigan.......................  Entire shoreline within         None         +584  Township of Golden.
                                       community.
Pentwater Lake......................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +584  Township of Weare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Township of Benona
Maps are available for inspection at the Benona Township Hall, 7169 West Baker Road, Shelby, MI 49455.

Township of Claybanks
Maps are available for inspection at the Claybanks Township Hall, 7577 West Cleveland Road, New Era, MI 49446.

Township of Golden
Maps are available for inspection at the Golden Township Hall, 5527 West Fox Road, Mears, MI 49436.

Township of Weare
Maps are available for inspection at the Weare Township Hall, 5846 North Oceana Drive, Hart, MI 49420.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Fort Bend County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazos River........................  Approximately 2.16               +62          +61  Town of Thompsons.
                                       miles downstream of FM
                                       2759.
                                      Approximately 2.75              None          +71
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Alcorn Bayou
                                       confluence.
Oyster Creek........................  Approximately 1.1 miles         None          +81  Fort Bend County
                                       downstream of FM 1464.                             Municipal Utility
                                                                                District No. 25.
                                      Approximately 150 feet          None          +81
                                       downstream of FM 1464.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Fort Bend County Municipal Utility District No. 25
Maps are available for inspection at 8522 Katy Freeway, Suite 300, Houston, TX 77024.

Town of Thompsons
Maps are available for inspection at 520 Thompson Oil Field Road, Thompsons, TX 77481.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Montgomery County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Branch.......................  Approximately 1.4 miles         None         +219  Town of Magnolia.
                                       downstream of FM 1488.
                                      Approximately 1,475             None         +246
                                       feet upstream of FM
                                       1488.
Peach Creek.........................  Approximately 1,375             None          +85  Town of Roman Forest.
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Roman Forest Boulevard.
                                      Approximately 425 feet          None          +86
                                       upstream of Roman
                                       Forest Boulevard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Magnolia
Maps are available for inspection at 510 Magnolia Boulevard, Magnolia, TX 77356.

Town of Roman Forest
Maps are available for inspection at 2430 Roman Forest Boulevard, New Caney, TX 77357.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: September 13, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation,Department of Homeland
Security,Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-25611 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Bryan Manning EPA OAR, OTAQ, ASD Received Date: 09/ 18/ 2003 03: 41: 39 PM Transmission Date: 09/ 18/ 2003 03: 41: 39 PM To: cc: Subject: Aircraft Emissions Propos Rulemaking All Interested Parties:

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is pleased to announce that the Acting Administrator, Marianne Lamont rinko, signed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Aircraft Engine Emission Standards on September 12, 2003. This action propose amend the existing emission standards for oxides of nitrogen ( NOx) for new commercial aircraft engines. These new standards are uivalent to the latest NOx emission standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization ( ICAO), and thereby would bring the Un ates aircraft standards into alignment with the international standards, which become effective in 2004.

The proposed rule will likely be published in the Federal Register by the end of October 2003. Meanwhile, we wanted you to kn at the proposal is available electronically. The attached fact sheet explains how to access the proposed rule from our website and ovides information on the public hearing for this proposal. If you need assistance obtaining a copy of the proposed rule, please conta n Petche at ( 734) 214 4872 or petche. ken@ epa. gov.

ncerely yours,

yan Manning fice of Transportation and Air Quality t sheet. pdf


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73756-73758]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30633]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65804; File No. SR-NSX-2011-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend NSX Rules To Conform with Section 957 of the Dodd-
Frank Act Prohibiting Members Voting Uninstructed Shares on Certain
Matters

November 22, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 8, 2011, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NSX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX[supreg] '' or the
``Exchange''), proposes to amend NSX Rule 13.3 to conform with the
provisions of Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'').

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 Exchange 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 is proposing to amend NSX Rule 13.3 to prohibit ETP
Holders from voting uninstructed shares in accordance with the
provisions of Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was signed by
the President on July 21, 2010. Because Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank
Act does not provide for a transition phase, the Exchange is proposing
to adopt the proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act
to comply with Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act and is requesting that
the Commission approve the proposal on an accelerated basis.
2. Enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act
    Generally, under the text of the current NSX Rule 13.3, an ETP
Holder may not give a proxy to vote stock without instructions from the
beneficial owner unless pursuant to the rules of another national
securities exchange to which the ETP Holder is responsible. The Dodd-
Frank Act requires the elimination of broker discretionary voting on
matters related to executive compensation, the election of a member of
the board of directors of an issuer (other than a vote with respect to
the uncontested election of a member of the board of directors of any
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(the ``Investment Company Act'')) or any other significant matter, as
determined by the Commission, by rule. Accordingly, the instant rule
change proposes to modify the text of Rule 13.3 to conform with the
requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act.
    Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends Section 6(b) \3\ of the
Exchange Act to require the rules of each national securities exchange
to prohibit any member organization that is not the beneficial owner of
a security registered under Section 12 \4\ of the Exchange Act from
granting a proxy to vote the security in connection with certain
stockholder votes, unless the beneficial owner of the security has
instructed the member organization to vote the proxy in accordance with
the voting instructions of the beneficial owner. The stockholder votes
covered by Section 957 include any vote (i) with respect to the
election of a member of the board of directors of an issuer (other than
an uncontested election of a director of an investment company
registered under the Investment Company Act), (ii) executive
compensation or (iii) any other significant matter, as determined by
the Commission, by rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). Section 957 amends Section 6(b) of the Act
by adding Section 6(b)(10).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, in order to carry out the requirements of Section 957
of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Exchange proposes to amend NSX Rule 13.3 to
prohibit member organizations (referred on the Exchange as ``ETP
Holders'') from voting uninstructed shares if the matter voted on
relates to the election of certain directors, executive compensation,
or any other significant matter, as determined by the Commission, by
rule. The Dodd-Frank provisions regarding the election of a member of
the board of directors, executive compensation and any other
significant matters determined by the Commission, by rule, are proposed
to be codified in new paragraph (e) of Rule 13.3. This new paragraph
(e) would make explicit that notwithstanding the rules of another
exchange or association to which the ETP Holder is responsible or any
other exception, an ETP Holder may not give a proxy to vote without
instructions from the beneficial owners on a matter related to the
election of directors, executive compensation, or other significant
matter determined by the Commission, by rule. The Exchange believes
that the Commission has not at this time identified other significant
matters with respect to which the Exchange must prohibit member
organizations from voting uninstructed shares.
    The Exchange also proposes adding a clarifying sentence to existing
paragraph (d) of Rule 13.3 to make explicit that, notwithstanding any
other exception from the Rule, including changes to equity compensation
plans, an ETP Holder may not give or authorize a proxy to vote without
instructions from the beneficial owner on a matter relating to
executive compensation.
    Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to add ``or association''
to the text of Rule 13.3(b)(2) to include the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). Thus, as proposed, Rule 13.3(b)(2)
would therefore prohibit an ETP Holder from giving a proxy to vote,
unless pursuant to the rules of any national securities exchange or
association of which it is a member. Finally, as an administrative
edit, the Exchange also proposes deleting the last sentence in Rule
13.3(d) as it is now obsolete.

3. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \5\ in general, which requires the
rules of an exchange to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. More specifically, the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(10) \6\ of the Act which requires that a
national securities exchange's rules must prohibit any member that is
not the beneficial owner of a security registered under Section 12 from
granting a proxy to vote the security in connection with a shareholder
vote on the election of a member of the board of directors of an issuer
(except for a vote with respect to the uncontested election of a member
of a board of directors of any investment company registered under the
Investment Company of 1940), executive compensation, or any other
significant matter, as determined by the Commission, by rule. The
proposed rule change will adopt the prohibition required by Section
6(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
\7\ requirements that an exchange have rules that are designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is
designed to comply with the requirements of Section 957 of the Dodd-
Frank Act, and the Exchange therefore believes the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the Act, particularly with respect to the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended by
the Dodd-Frank Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-NSX-2011-012 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2011-012. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. 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-NSX-2011-012 and should be
submitted on or before December 20, 2011.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing, NSX requested that the Commission approve the
proposal on an accelerated basis so that the Exchange could immediately
comply with the requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act. After
careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(10) \9\ of the Act, which requires that national
securities exchanges adopt rules prohibiting members that are not
beneficial holders of a security from voting uninstructed proxies with
respect to the election of a member of the board of directors of an
issuer (except for uncontested elections of directors for companies
registered under the Investment Company Act), executive compensation,
or any other significant matter, as determined by the Commission by
rule. The Commission also believes that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ of the Act, which provides, among other things,
that the rules of the Exchange must be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(10) of the Act because it adopts revisions that comply
with that section. As noted in the accompanying Senate Report, Section
957, which adopts Section 6(b)(10), reflects the principle that ``final
vote tallies should reflect the wishes of the beneficial owners of the
stock and not be affected by the wishes of the broker that holds the
shares.'' \11\ The proposed rule change will make NSX compliant with
the new requirements of Section 6(b)(10) by specifically prohibiting,
in NSX's rule language, ETP Holders, who are not a

beneficial owner of a security, from granting a proxy to vote the
security in connection with a shareholder vote on the election of a
member of the board of directors of an issuer (except for a vote with
respect to the uncontested election of a member of the board of
directors of any investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940), executive compensation, or any other significant
matter, as determined by the Commission by rule, unless the beneficial
owner of the security has instructed the member to vote the proxy in
accordance with the voting instructions of the beneficial owner.\12\
The proposed rule language also specifically states that an ETP Holder
vote on any executive compensation matter would not be permitted even
if such matter would otherwise qualify for an exception from the
requirements of the Rule. The Commission believes this provision will
make clear that any past practice or interpretation that may have
permitted an ETP Holder vote on an executive compensation matter, under
NSX's existing rule, will no longer be applicable and is superseded by
the newly adopted provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See S. Rep. No. 111-176, at 136 (2010).
    \12\ The Commission has not, to date, adopted rules concerning
other significant matters where uninstructed broker votes should be
prohibited, although it may do so in the future. Should the
Commission adopt such rules, we would expect NSX to adopt
coordinating rules promptly to comply with the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the proposal will further investor
protection and the public interest by assuring that shareholder votes
on the election of the board of directors of an issuer (except for a
vote with respect to the uncontested election of a member of the board
of directors of any investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940) and on executive compensation matters are made by
those with an economic interest in the company, rather than by an ETP
Holder that has no such economic interest, which should enhance
corporate governance and accountability to shareholders.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As the Commission stated in approving NYSE rules
prohibiting broker voting in the election of directors, having those
with an economic interest in the company vote the shares, rather
than the broker who has no such economic interest, furthers the goal
of enfranchising shareholders. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 60215 (July 1, 2009), 74 FR 33293 (July 10, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2006-
92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission notes that the Exchange deleted obsolete
language regarding the effectiveness of Rule 13.3(d), which should
provide greater clarity in Exchange's rules. The Commission further
notes that the Exchange added ``or association'' to Rule 13.3(b)(2) so
that an ETP Holder would be prohibited from giving a proxy to vote,
unless pursuant to the rules of any national securities exchange or
association of which it is a member. The Commission believes that this
is consistent with ISE Rule 421 and BATS-Y Exchange, Inc. Rule 13.3(b).
    Based on the above, the Commission finds that the NSX proposal will
further the purposes of Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(10) of the Act
because it should enhance corporate accountability to shareholders
while also serving to fulfill the Congressional intent in adopting
Section 6(b)(10) of the Act.
    The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\14\ for approving the proposed rule change prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of notice in the Federal
Register. Section 6(b)(10) of the Act, enacted under Section 957 of the
Dodd-Frank Act, does not provide for a transition phase, and requires
rules of national securities exchanges to prohibit broker voting on the
election of a member of the board of directors of an issuer (except for
a vote with respect to the uncontested election of a member of the
board of directors of any investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940), executive compensation, or any other
significant matter, as determined by the Commission by rule. The
Commission believes that good cause exists to grant accelerated
approval to the Exchange's proposal, because it will conform NSX Rule
13.3 to the requirements of Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. Moreover, the
Commission notes that NSX's proposed change in 13.3(d) and proposed
13.3(e) are identical to NYSE Supplementary Material .11(12) and Nasdaq
Rule 2251(d), respectively, which were previously approved by the
Commission.\15\ Finally, as noted above, NSX's proposed change to Rule
13.3(b)(2) is consistent with ISE Rule 421 and BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.
Rule 13.3(b), and the proposed change to Rule 13(d) to eliminate
obsolete language provides clarity and helps avoid confusion. Based on
the above, the Commission believes the Exchange's proposed rule change
raises no new regulatory issues, and therefore finds good cause to
accelerate approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62874 (September
9, 2010), 75 FR 56152 (September 15, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-59) and
62992 (September 24, 2010), 75 FR 60844 (October 1, 2010) (SR-
Nasdaq-2010-114).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NSX-2011-012) be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30633 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE NSPS SUBPART OOO STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING PLANTS 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR for NSPS Subpart OOO  Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants.

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants were proposed on August 31, 1983 and promulgated on August 1, 1985. These standards apply to the following affected facilities in fixed or portable nonmetallic mineral processing plants:

each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin, enclosed truck or railcar loading station, which commenced construction,

modification or reconstruction after August 31, 1983. Also, crushers and grinding mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that reduce the size of nonmetallic minerals embedded in recycled asphalt pavement and subsequent affected facilities up to, but not including, the first storage silo or bin 1 We are assuming that the number of facilities currently using wet scrubbers is negligible; thus for the purpose of this ICR no facilities will be subject to the burden associated with reporting requirements specific to wet scrubbers.

2 are subject to the provisions of the subpart. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to the following operations: all facilities located in underground mines; and stand alone screening operations at plants without crushers or grinding mills. An affected facility that is subject to the provisions of subparts F or I or that follows in the process any facility subject to the provisions of subparts F or I of this part is not subject to the provisions of this part. In addition the following plants are not subject to this subpart: fixed sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with capacities of 23 megagrams per hour ( 25 tons per hour) or less; portable sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with capacities of 136 megagrams per hour ( 150 tons per hour) or less;

common clay plants and pumice plants with capacities of 9 megagrams per hour ( 10 tons per hour) or less. The purpose of this NSPS is to control the emissions of particulate matter from nonmetallic mineral processing plants. The standards limit particulate emissions to 0.05 g/ dscm,

and limit opacity to 7% when exiting from a dry emission control device. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO.

There are three types of reporting requirements for owners or operators of facilities under this NSPS; 1) notifications ( e. g., notice for actual startup, initial performance test, and equipment replacement); 2) a report on the results of the performance test; and 3) for wet scrubber operations, daily measurements of both change in pressure of the gas stream across the scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate, and semiannual reports for deviations (+/ 30%) from the performance test1. The purpose of the notifications are to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to this standard. Performance tests are conducted to 2 As mentioned in 1( b), a facility is defined as each individual piece of operating equipment, not an entire plant; thus it is estimated that 580 pieces of equipment will either be constructed or modified such that 580 plants will be required to meet the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this subpart.

3 ensure that the new plants operate within the boundaries outlined in the standard. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. Under this standard the data collected by the affected industry is retained at the facility for a minimum of two years and made available for inspection by the Administrator.

All notifications and 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 EPA Regional Office.

The Agency or delegated State or local authority will use this information to ensure that compliance with the NSPS is achieved and maintained by new, modified, or reconstructed sources subject to the regulations. In the absence of this information, compliance with the standards could be ensured only through continuous on site inspections by regulatory agency personnel.

Consequently, not collecting the information would result in either greatly increased expenditures of resources, or the inability to ensure compliance with the standards.

It is estimated that there are approximately 3,725 nonmetallic mineral processing plants in the United States that are subject to this NSPS. In addition, it is estimated that 580 additional plants will become subject to the standard each year over the next three years2. Based on this information, the cost burden of this ICR on the nonmetallic mineral processing industry will be $ 1,744,097.77 ( See Table 2, Column F). 4 2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated [ Section 111( a)( l)].

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate,

revise such standards every four years. In addition, Section 114( a) states that:

. . . the Administrator may require any owner or 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 or methods ( in accordance with such methods at such locations, at such intervals, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( D)

sample such emissions; ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications; and ( G) provide such other information as he may reasonably require. 5 In the Administrator's judgment, particulate emissions from nonmetallic mineral processing plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 60  Subpart OOO.

2( b) PRACTICAL UTILITY/ USERS OF THE DATA The control of emissions of particulates from nonmetallic mineral processing plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulates from nonmetallic mineral processing plants are the result of the operation of each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin, enclosed truck or railcar loading station at nonmetallic minerals processing plants. Monitoring requirements specific to nonmetallic mineral processing plants provide information on opacity. Owners or operators are also required to conduct a one time performance test on each affected piece of equipment using EPA Methods 5 and 9 to test particulates and opacity. Owners or operators of affected facilities using a wet scrubber emission control device shall instead install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous monitoring device which monitors the pressure loss of the gas stream through the scrubber, and a continuous monitoring device which monitors the scrubbing liquid supply pressure to the control device.

The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the standard is 6 being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO. If the standard has not been delegated the information is sent 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 their own similar regulation to implement the Federal Regulation, 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 Standard. 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 October 29, 1999.

3( c) Consultations No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that 7 facilities are continuing to meet the required 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 the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO or otherwise pertinent to this request violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, 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 contained in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO or otherwise pertinent to this request contain sensitive questions. 8 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are nonmetallic mineral processing plants that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 31,

1983. The three digit SIC codes for respondents affected by this NSPS are 141, 142, 144, 145,

147, 148, and 149.

4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO. A source subject to this NSPS must comply with the notification, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements listed in the following four exhibits.

Exhibit 1: Notification Reports Construction/ reconstruction 60.7( a)( 1)

Actual startup 60.7( a)( 3)

Initial performance test 60.8( d)

Physical or operational change 60.7( a)( 4)

Exhibit 2: Monitoring Reports Initial performance test results 60.8 ( a) 9 Exhibit 3: Recordkeeping Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative 60.7( b)

Exhibit 4: Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 9 for opacity and Method 5 for particulates, and repeat performance tests, if necessary 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.

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 information required under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO: 10 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.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) database.

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. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.

Information contained in the reports is entered into AIRS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AIRS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AIRS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by Local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional Offices and 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 or operator for two years. 11 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected within the context of this specific subpart and the specific process equipment and pollutants. The impact on small businesses was accounted for in the regulation development. The requirements reflect the burden on small businesses. Even though, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and larger businesses. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown on Table 2.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for each of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry. 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 ( 40 CFR § 60.670). 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. 3 The wage rate has been loaded by adding 110% overhead.

4 This standard requires the installation and maintenance of continuous monitoring equipment for facilities using wet scrubbers to control particulate emissions. As mentioned earlier, the number of facilities using wet scrubbers is negligible. Thus capital and operations and maintenance costs are estimated to be zero.

12 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 31,746 hours ( See Table 2, Column E). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( I) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a technical labor rate of $ 54.94 per hour from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1999, Table 10: Employment Costs for Private Industry by Occupational and Industry Group. The rate is from column 1: Total Compensation. 3 This NSPS is older and more simplistic such that only technical labor is needed to satisfy the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are reporting and recordkeeping costs. There are no capital or operations and maintenance costs. 4 13 ( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are reporting and recordkeeping costs. There are no capital or operations and maintenance costs.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information.

Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AIRS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program. The average annual Federal Government cost during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 1,439,448.16 per year ( See Table 1, Column A). This cost is based on a federal government employee salary at the GS 10 Step 1 grade plus 110% overhead which is equal to $ 34.69 per hour.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The number of existing sources subject to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO is 3,725. The number of new sources subject to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOO is 580 per year. The total annual labor cost associated with this NSPS is $ 1,744,097.77 ( See Table 2, Column F). There is no annual capital or O& M costs associated with facilities subject to this subpart. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, New Source Performance Standard ( NSPS) Subpart OOO  Nonmetallic Mineral Processing. 5 Members of the National Stone Association represent approximately 90% of the total annual production of crushed stone and approximately 70% of the annual production of sand and gravel.

6 NSA estimates that there are approximately 10,000 aggregate sites in the U. S.; 3,500 quarries and 6,500 sand and gravel sites. NSA estimates that approximately 60% or 2,100 quarries will be subject to this subpart. NSA also estimates that approximately 25% or 1,625 sand and gravel sites will be subject to this subpart. Therefore, it is estimated that approximately 3,725 nonmetallic mineral processing sites will be subject to this subpart.

7 The previous ICR focused primarily on crushed stone facilities and did not take into account the estimated 6,500 existing sand and gravel facilities.

14 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables See Tables 1 and 2 attached.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The primary sources used to estimate the number of facilities subject to this NSPS and the associated growth rate for the next three years were the National Stone Association and expert staff from Luck Stone, Inc. 5 Using an estimate of 3,725 facilities currently subject to this NSPS and a growth rate of 580 facility per year for the next three years, the cost of this NSPS on the nonmetallic mineral processing industry will be approximately $ 1,744,097.77.6 The estimated number of existing nonmetallic mineral processing facilities subject to this subpart has increased from the previous ICR because of better data regarding the number of sources subject to this NSPS. In particular, more accurate information has become available regarding the number of existing sand and gravel operations. 7 The growth rate of 580 facilities per year is also much higher than what was estimated in the previous ICR. We attribute this increase in growth to a strong economy including significant 8 On June 9, 1998, the President signed into law PL 105 178, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( TEA 21) authorizing highway, highway safety, transit and other surface transportation programs for the next 6 years. The full authorizations for the highway ( including highway safety) and transit programs in TEA 21 total almost $ 218 billion. The nonmetallic mineral processing industry is anticipating an increase in demand once funds from TEA 21 are made available for roadway projects; thus we are predicting an increase in the number of facilities upgrading or modifying in an effort to increase capacity.

9 We estimated the growth of new facilities as 0.5% of the number of existing facilities. This is due to the fact that permitting new nonmetallic mineral processing facilities, including sand and gravel facilities, is uncommon.

10 We estimated that approximately 1% of the sand and gravel facilities not previously subject ( 50) and approximately 10% of the stone quarries not previously subject ( 140) will undergo a modification making them subject to this subpart. Note that a smaller percentage of sand and gravel facilities was estimated since these plants are less likely to utilize crushers on site in comparison to stone quarry operations.

11 We estimated that approximately 10% of the 3,725 plants currently subject to the rule will undergo a facility modification that will subject the facility to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this subpart.

15 residential, commercial, and public infrastructure growth as well as the anticipation of the Department of Transportation's Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. 8 Our growth rate estimates are also the result of a more comprehensive analysis of the affected facilities. Our analysis of the nonmetallic minerals processing industry for this ICR considered three categories of facilities potentially subject to this rule. These categories are listed below along with a breakdown of the number of facilities that would become subject each year over the next three years.

Category Category Description Estimated # of Facilities 1 New Facilities ( also known as " Greenfields") 209 2 Exisiting facilities not previously subject that undergo a modification 19010 3 Exisiting facilities previously subject that undergo a modification 37011 TOTAL 580 12 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1998, Table 2: Employment Costs for Civilian Workers by Occupational and Industry Group.

16 The formula used to calculate labor rates on the previous ICR for Subpart OOO has been replaced by the rates identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics12. Using a technical labor rate of $ 54.94, the estimated total cost of this NSPS on the nonmetallic mineral processing industry is $ 1,744,097.77, approximately $ 1,526,994 more than the total cost burden on the nonmetallic mineral processing industry estimated by the previous ICR.

The primary reason for the increased Agency burden is also due to the change in the number of existing facilities subject to this subpart as well as the increased number of new facilities that are expected to become subject to this subpart over the next three years. The overall burden as a result of the increase in the number of new facilities subject to the rule is approximately $ 1,510,649.

6( g) Burden Statement 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 17 sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,

Washington, D. C. 20460; and 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. Include the EPA ICR number 1084.06 and OMB control number 2060 0050 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75625-75627]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26786]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ORD-2022-0831; FRL-10465-01-ORD]

Call for Information on the Integrated Science Assessment for
Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; call for information.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing an
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) as part of the review of the
primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for oxides of nitrogen. For gaseous oxides of nitrogen (i.e., oxidized
nitrogen compounds), which also include nitric oxide (NO) and gases
produced from reactions involving NO and NO2, the primary
NAAQS are specified in terms of nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The
ISA will be developed by EPA's Center for Public Health and
Environmental Assessment (CPHEA) within the Office of Research and
Development. When final, this ISA is intended to update the previous
Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria
(EPA/600/R-15/068, 2016), published on January 28, 2016 (2016 ISA).
Interested parties are invited to assist EPA in developing and refining
the scientific information base for the review of the primary
NO2 NAAQS by submitting research studies and data that have
been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, accepted for
publication, or presented at a public scientific meeting since May 15,
2015.

DATES: All communications and information should be received by EPA
February 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Information may be submitted electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed
instructions as provided in the section of this notice entitled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the period of
submission, contact the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Docket; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email
[email protected]. For technical information, contact Christine
Alvarez; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
[email protected], or Stephanie DeFlorio-Barker; phone 919-541-
4621; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to
identify certain air pollutants which, among other things, ``cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or

welfare''; \1\ and to issue air quality criteria for them. These air
quality criteria are to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the
presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air. . . .''. Under section
109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish NAAQS for each pollutant for
which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d)(1) of the Act
subsequently requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of
existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific
knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare.
EPA is also required to review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS,
based on the revised air quality criteria (for more information on the
NAAQS review process, see https://www.epa.gov/naaqs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under Clean Air Act section 302(h), welfare effects include,
but are not limited to, ``effects on soils, water, crops,
vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather,
visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property,
and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values
and on personal comfort and well-being.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants including
oxides of nitrogen. Periodically, EPA reviews the scientific basis for
these standards by preparing an ISA. In conjunction with additional
technical and policy assessments conducted by EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), the ISA provides the scientific
and technical basis for EPA decisions on the adequacy of the current
NAAQS and the appropriateness of possible alternative standards.
    Early steps in this process include announcing the beginning of
this periodic NAAQS review and the development of the ISA, and EPA
requesting that the public submit scientific literature that they want
to bring to the attention of the Agency for consideration as it begins
this review process. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC), whose review and advisory functions are mandated by section
109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act, is charged (among other things) with
independent scientific review of the Agency's air quality criteria. In
conjunction with the CASAC review, the public will have an opportunity
to review and comment on the draft ISA. These opportunities will be
announced in the Federal Register.
    The next ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria will build on
the 2016 ISA used in the previous review,\2\ focusing on assessing
newly available information. The public is encouraged to assist in
identifying relevant scientific information for the review by
submitting research studies that were not part of the prior review and
have been published or accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed
journal May 15, 2015. The Agency is interested in obtaining information
from new and emerging toxicological studies examining the effects of
controlled exposures to oxides of nitrogen in laboratory animals,
humans and in-vitro systems, as well as epidemiologic (observational)
studies examining associations between health effects and exposures to
ambient oxides of nitrogen in human populations. In addition to studies
that provide information on health outcomes, EPA also seeks recent
information in other areas of research relevant to oxides of nitrogen
such as sources and emissions, analytical methods, transport and
transformation in the environment, and ambient concentrations. This and
other literature relevant to a review of the primary (health-based)
NO2 NAAQS will be considered for inclusion in the assessment
in the forthcoming ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The scientific assessment for the last review is documented
in the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health
Criteria (Final Report EPA/600/R-15/068, 81 FR 4910, January 28,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency seeks information regarding the design and scope of the
review of the air quality criteria to ensure that the ISA addresses key
policy-relevant issues and considers the new science that is relevant
to informing our understanding of these issues. The Agency also seeks
new scientific information that may address key uncertainties
identified in the last review of the primary NO2 NAAQS,
which are provided in the Policy Assessment (EPA-452/R-17-003, April
2017).\3\ Additional opportunities for submission of new peer-reviewed,
published (or in-press) papers will be possible as part of public
comment on the draft ISA that will be reviewed by the CASAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2014 Policy Assessment is available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/NO2/data/140501_pa_NO2_fin.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We encourage the public to submit comments to Docket ID No. ORD-
2022-0831 by one of the following methods:
     The web at https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, ORD Docket (Mail Code: 28221T),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Due to COVID-
19, there may be a delay in processing comments submitted by mail.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ORD-2022-0831.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period, so that EPA has adequate time to consider them.
Comments received after the closing date will be marked ``late,'' and
may not be considered if time does not permit. It is EPA's policy to
include all materials it receives in the public docket without change
and to make the materials available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless materials include
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the materials that are placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit
electronic materials, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your materials and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. CD-ROM and disks can only be accepted via
UPS/FedEx/hand delivery and not through regular mail. If EPA cannot
read your materials due to technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider the materials
you submit. 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
EPA's Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or at EPA's Docket Center.

Wayne Cascio,
Director, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office
of Research and Development.
[FR Doc. 2022-26786 Filed 12-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P