[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 63042]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4628-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4628-DR), dated October
26, 2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued October 26, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 26, 2021, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Virginia resulting from flooding, landslides, and
mudslides during the period of August 30 to August 31, 2021, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated area and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy S. Pheil, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Buchanan County for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the Commonwealth of Virginia are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-24750 Filed 11-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42674-42675]
[DOCID:fr24au09-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0360]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; FDA Public Health Notification Readership Survey
(formerly known as ``Safety Alert/Public Health Advisory Readership
Survey'')

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on FDA Public Health Notification
Readership Survey.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by October 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

FDA Public Health Notification Readership Survey (formerly known as
Safety Alert/Public Health Advisory Readership Survey) (PHS Act,
Section 1701 (a)(4)); OMB Control Number 0910-0341-Extension

    Section 705(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) (21

U.S.C. 375(b)) authorizes FDA to disseminate information concerning
imminent danger to public health by any regulated product. The Center
for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), communicates these risks to
user communities through two publications: (1) The Public Health
Notification (PHN) and (2) the Preliminary Public Health Notification
(PPHN). The PHN is published when CDRH has information or a message to
convey to health care practitioners that they would want to know in
order to make informed clinical decisions about the use of a device or
device type, and that information may not be readily available to the
affected target audience in the health care community. CDRH can make
recommendations that will help the health care practitioner mitigate or
avoid the risk.
    The PPHN is also published when CDRH has information to convey to
health care practitioners that they would want to know in order to make
informed clinical decisions about the use of a device or device type.
However, two additional conditions exist that make the use of this type
of notification preferable: (1) CDRH's understanding of the problem,
its cause(s), and the scope of the risk that is still evolving, so that
in order to minimize the risk, the center believes that health care
practitioners needs the information they can provide, however
incomplete, as soon as possible and (2) the problem is actively being
investigated by the center, private industry, another agency or some
other reliable entity, so that the center expects to be able to update
the PPHN when definitive new information becomes available.
Notifications are sent to organizations affected by risks discussed in
the notification, such as hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, home
health care agencies, retail pharmacies, and other health care
providers. Through a process for identifying and addressing postmarket
safety issues related to regulated products, CDRH determines when to
publish notifications.
    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u(a)(4)), authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health
information. FDA seeks to evaluate the clarity, timeliness and impact
of safety alerts and public health advisories by surveying a sample of
recipients. Subjects will receive a questionnaire to be completed and
returned to FDA. The information to be collected will address how
clearly notifications for reducing risks are explained, the timeliness
of the information and whether the reader has taken any action to
eliminate or reduce risk as a result of the information in the alert.
Subjects will also be asked whether they wish to receive future
notifications electronically, as well as how the PHN program might be
improved.
    The information collected will be used to shape FDA's editorial
policy for the PHN and PPHN. Understanding how target audiences view
these publications will aid in deciding what changes should be
considered in their content and format, and method of dissemination.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
    PHS Act        Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section                       308                     3                924                .17                157
 1701(a)(4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Based on the history of the PHN program, it is estimated that an
average of three collections will be conducted a year. The total burden
of response time is estimated at 10 minutes per survey. This was
derived by CDRH staff completing the survey and through discussions
with the contacts in trade organizations.

    Dated: August 17, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-20247 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: March 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 56)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14665-14673]
[DOCID:fr23mr06-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022; FRL-8047-6]
RIN 2050-AG29

NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 12, 2005, EPA promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing
hazardous waste combustors. Subsequently, the Administrator received
four petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. In this proposed
rule, EPA is granting reconsideration of one issue in the petitions
submitted by Ash Grove Cement Company and the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition: The new source standard for particulate matter (PM) for
cement kilns that burn hazardous waste. We are requesting comment on a
revised new source particulate matter standard for cement kilns. We are
also requesting comment on corresponding changes to the new source
particulate matter standards for incinerators and liquid fuel boilers.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received by April 24, 2006,
unless a public hearing is requested by April 3, 2006. If a hearing is
requested, written comments must be received by May 8, 2006.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by April 3, 2006, we will hold a public hearing on April
7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0022, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: HQ EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies. We request that you also send a separate copy of each
comment to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: HQ EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0022, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC
20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to the
contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0022. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
 We also request that interested parties who would

like information they previously submitted to EPA to be considered as
part of this reconsideration action identify the relevant information
by docket entry numbers and page numbers.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ EPA

Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, EPA West Building,
Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The HQ EPA Docket Center telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held
at 10 a.m. at EPA's Crystal Station office building, 2800 Crystal
Drive, Arlington, Virginia, or at an alternate site in the Washington
DC metropolitan area. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony
or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr.
Frank Behan, EPA, at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or at e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least two days in advance of the
potential date of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending
the public hearing also must call Mr. Behan to verify the time, date,
and location of the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Frank Behan at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of Solid Waste (MC: 5302W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being
available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposed rule
will also be available on the WWW at http://www.epa.gov/hwcmact.

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. What Is the Source of Authority for the Reconsideration
Action?
    B. What Entities Are Potentially Affected by the Reconsideration
Action?
II. Background
III. Today's Action
IV. Reconsideration of Particulate Matter Standards
    A. Background on the Particulate Matter Floor
    B. What Changes Are Being Proposed to the Particulate Matter
Standard?
    C. What Changes to the Compliance Date Provisions Are Being
Proposed for the Revised Standards?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. General Information

A. What Is the Source of Authority for the Reconsideration Action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412
and 7607(d)(7)(B)). This action also is subject to section 307(d) of
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)).

B. What Entities Are Potentially Affected by the Reconsideration
Action?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Examples of potentially
                Category                      NAICS code          SIC code             regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry that combusts hazardous                 562211               4953  Incinerator, hazardous waste.
 waste as defined in the final rule.
                                                     327310               3241  Cement manufacturing, clinker
                                                                                production.
                                                     327992               3295  Ground or treated mineral and
                                                                                earth manufacturing.
                                                        325                 28  Chemical Manufacturers.
                                                        324                 29  Petroleum Refiners.
                                                        331                 33  Primary Aluminum.
                                                        333                 38  Photographic equipment and
                                                                                supplies.
                                              488, 561, 562                 49  Sanitary Services, N.E.C.
                                                        421                 50  Scrap and waste materials.
                                                        422                 51  Chemical and Allied Products,
                                                                                N.E.C.
                                             512, 541, 561,                 73  Business Services, N.E.C.
                                                        812                 89  Services, N.E.C.
                                             512, 514, 541,                 95  Air, Water and Solid Waste
                                                                                Management.
                                                        711
                                                        924
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be impacted by this
action. This table lists examples of the types of entities EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your
facility, company, business, organization, etc., is affected by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.1200. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from both new and existing
major sources. Major sources of HAP are those stationary sources or
groups of stationary that are located within a contiguous area under
common control that emit or have the potential to emit considering
controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any one
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. The CAA requires the
NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP
that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as
MACT (for Maximum Achievable Control Technology).
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standards are set at a level that assures that
all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory for which the
Administrator has emissions information (where there are 30 or more
sources in a category or subcategory).
    In developing MACT standards, we also must consider control options
that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. We call these standards beyond-the-
floor standards.
    We proposed NESHAP for hazardous waste combustors on April 20, 2004
(69 FR 21198), and we published the final rule on October 12, 2005 (70
FR 59402). The preamble for the proposed rule described the rationale
for the proposed rule and solicited public comments. We received over
75 public comment letters on the proposed hazardous waste combustor
rule. Comments were submitted by industry trade associations, owners
and operators of hazardous waste combustors, environmental groups, and
State regulatory agencies and their representatives. We summarized the
major public comments on the proposed rule and our responses to public
comments in the preamble to the final rule and in a separate,
supporting ``response to comments'' document. See 70 FR at 59426 and
docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0437 through 0445.
    Following promulgation of the hazardous waste combustor final rule,
the Administrator received four petitions for reconsideration pursuant
to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from Ash Grove Cement Company, the
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC), the Coalition for Responsible
Waste Incineration (CRWI), and the Sierra Club.\1\ Under this section
of the

CAA, the Administrator is to initiate reconsideration proceedings if
the petitioner can show that it was impracticable to raise an objection
to a rule within the public comment period or that the grounds for the
objection arose after the public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These petitions are included in the docket supporting this
proposal. See items EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0516 thru 0519. EPA also
received petitions from Ash Grove Cement Company and the CKRC,
Continental Cement Company, and Giant Cement Holding, Inc.
requesting that we stay the effective date of the particulate matter
standard for new cement kilns. See items EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0521
and 0523. As published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is
issuing an administrative stay of this standard for three months
while we reconsider the issue. In addition, five petitions for
judicial review of the final rule were filed with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia by the following entities: Ash
Grove Cement Company, CKRC, CRWI, the Environmental Technology
Council, and the Sierra Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ash Grove Cement Company and CKRC both are requesting that EPA
reconsider the same three issues: The particulate matter standard for
new cement kilns, references to Performance Specification 11 and
Procedure 2 of Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 in the particulate matter
detector system provisions, and preamble statements concerning burning
for energy recovery. The CRWI is requesting that EPA reconsider the
procedure used to identify the MACT floor for mercury and low volatile
metals for new source incinerators where there was a tie in ranking
sources to determine the best performing source.
    Sierra Club is requesting that EPA reconsider several aspects of
the final rule. They include our decisions to subcategorize
incinerators with and without dry air pollution control devices,
subcategorize the liquid fuel boiler source category, base the mercury
standard for cement kilns on industry-submitted data, correct total
chlorine data to address potential bias in the stack measurement
method, use particulate matter as a surrogate for the nonenumerated HAP
metals (i.e., antimony, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and selenium), use
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons as surrogates both for dioxin/furans
and for non-dioxin/furan organic HAPs, and use variability factors in
identifying MACT floors. Sierra Club also requests that EPA reconsider
the dioxin/furan MACT floor for cement kilns and incinerators, several
beyond-the-floor analyses, and the health-based compliance alternatives
for total chlorine.

III. Today's Action

    Today, we are granting reconsideration of one issue--the
particulate matter standard for new cement kilns--raised in the
petitions both of Ash Grove Cement Company and CKRC. We agree that it
was impracticable for interested parties to raise concerns about one
aspect of the particulate matter standard for new cement kilns until
after the public comment period when the particulate matter standard
was promulgated. Although we believe we provided adequate notice and
opportunity to comment on the methodology used to determine the
particulate matter analysis and the approach used to quantify test-to-
test variability for fabric filters (baghouses) using a universal
variability factor (see 69 FR at 21225; 70 FR at 59437, 59447-59450),
it appears that there was legitimate confusion regarding whether we
would base the new source standard on data from Ash Grove Cement's
Chanute, Kansas facility.
    Moreover, we also agree that it appears that the promulgated new
source standard for particulate matter for cement kilns is overly
stringent in that it does not fully reflect the variability of the best
performing source over time (the ``emission control that is achieved in
practice,'' using the language of section 112(d)(3)). Additional
performance data submitted by the petitioners for Ash Grove Cement's
Chanute, Kansas facility \2\ support this conclusion. The specific
point of contention is our use of particulate matter emissions data
from this source as the basis of the new source standard for cement
kilns (i.e., the single best performing source). The petitioners state
that EPA used emissions data from this source that were not
representative of the source's performance over time (as evidenced by
their additional data submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All references in this notice to emissions data from Ash
Grove Cement Company pertain to the cement plant located in Chanute,
Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set out in the following section of this preamble,
we believe it is appropriate to grant reconsideration to provide the
public with the opportunity to comment on a revised particulate matter
standard for new cement kilns, and on corresponding revisions to the
particulate matter standards for new incinerators and liquid fuel
boilers.
    We are not addressing at this time the two remaining issues in the
petitions of Ash Grove Cement Company and CKRC or any of the issues in
the petitions for reconsideration of CRWI and Sierra Club. We will
notify petitioners by letter or in a future Federal Register notice of
our decision whether to grant or deny the remaining issues raised by
these petitions. We are consequently not accepting comments at this
time on the remaining petition for reconsideration issues.

IV. Reconsideration of Particulate Matter Standards

A. Background on the Particulate Matter Floor

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking, we described methodologies
used to determine MACT floors for HAP, including the air pollution
control technology approach used specifically for particulate matter
(which is a surrogate for HAP metal). 69 FR at 21223-233. We discussed
how we selected representative data for each source so that we could
identify the best performing sources for existing sources (and the
single best performing source for new sources) and how we calculated
the MACT floor levels for each HAP for each source category. We also
described how emissions variability was accounted for by the proposed
floor methodology. This included a universal variability factor (UVF)
that was used only for the particulate matter standard to address long-
term variability in particulate matter emissions of sources using
fabric filters.\3\ After identifying floor levels, we considered
beyond-the-floor standards for each HAP. The results of considering
control options that are more stringent than the floor level are
discussed in Part Four, Sections VII-XII of the proposed rule. For
example, the beyond-the-floor discussion for particulate matter for
cement kilns can be found at 69 FR at 21254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It is important to note that the UVF relationship is not
developed for each source category, but is based on relevant data
from all hazardous waste combustor source categories. 70 FR at
59459-450 and ``Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards,
Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,'' September 2005, Sections
5.3 and 7.4. Therefore, changes in the data underlying the UVF
relationship can result in changes to the particulate matter
standards for all source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also briefly discussed available particulate matter data from
Ash Grove Cement's Chanute, Kansas kiln in the proposed rule. In the
context of our discussion on whether it is appropriate to use emissions
data from sources that tested after retrofitting their emission control
systems to meet the emission standards promulgated in September 1999
(and since vacated and replaced by the February 2002 Interim
Standards), we stated that ``we did not consider emissions data from
Ash Grove Cement Company'' and that ``[w]e judged these data are
inappropriate for consideration for the floor analysis for existing
sources.'' 69 FR at 21217 n. 35. While the proposal was thus clear that
available data from Ash Grove Cement would not be used in the floor
analysis for existing sources, we did not state whether or not these
data would be

evaluated in the new source floor analysis. We in fact did not use the
emissions data from Ash Grove Cement in the proposal for either the
existing source or new source floor analyses.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,'' March 2004,
Appendix F (APCD Approach Results Tables), Table APCD-CK-PM, docket
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule, we adopted the same floor methodology to
determine floor levels for particulate matter. The preamble to the
final rule also presented a summary of our response to significant
comments regarding the methodology we used to ascertain floor levels
for the particulate matter standards (termed the `air pollution control
technology methodology'). 70 FR at 59447. The emissions data from Ash
Grove Cement were considered when calculating the particulate matter
MACT floors for new cement kilns, but were not used in calculating the
existing source particulate matter MACT floor. 70 FR at 59419. As
explained in the response to comments document, this is because we
concluded that the cement kiln operated by Ash Grove Cement meets the
definition of a new source under CAA section 112(a)(10).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See USEPA, ``Response to Comments on April 20, 2004 HWC MACT
Proposed Rule, Volume I: MACT Issues,'' September 2005, Section
1.3.3, docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-0022-0440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners explain that the data EPA used (i.e., Ash Grove
Cement's Chanute, Kansas data) in the analysis were obtained when the
baghouse and filter bags were new and not representative of the
source's performance over time. Petitioners present more recent data
documenting that, in fact, the source's performance has degraded as
expected from initial operations. As a result, the petitioners claim
that the promulgated particulate matter standard for new sources--
0.0023 gr/dscf--is unachievable once a kiln with a new baghouse system
operates for any appreciable time, even for kilns equipped with the
best controls and employing the best maintenance procedures in the
cement industry. This unique situation--the use of data from a facility
when both the fabric filter bags and baghouse structure were new--
produced performance data that cannot be achieved when the filter bags
and baghouse are not new (e.g., after the first year or so). The
petitioners submitted additional particulate matter performance data
from Ash Grove Cement taken after the initial ``break-in period'' that
they claim supports their position. These data are shown in Table 1
below.

 Table 1.--Particulate Matter Performance Data of Ash Grove Cement After
                       First Year of Operation \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           PM emissions
                        Test date                            (gr/dscf)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 4, 2003........................................          0.0051
December 5, 2003........................................          0.0072
September 8, 2004.......................................          0.0022
September 9, 2004.......................................          0.0007
November 15, 2005.......................................          0.0074
November 15, 2005.......................................          0.0080
November 15, 2005.......................................          0.0026
November 16, 2005.......................................          0.0042
November 16, 2005.......................................          0.0031
November 16, 2005.......................................          0.0032
November 17, 2005.......................................          0.0025
November 17, 2005.......................................          0.0010
November 17, 2005.......................................          0.0016
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners claim that these data show that the promulgated
particulate matter standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf is unachievable when the
fabric filter bags and baghouse structure are not new.\7\ Table 1 shows
that Ash Grove Cement--the single best performing source and basis of
the new source particulate matter standard in the final rule--would
only achieve the emissions standard in four of the 13 runs measured
after the initial break-in period. The petition documents that the
source was properly operating the emission control equipment when these
subsequent tests were conducted. We also regard the operating
conditions of the new data to be comparable to those under which the
initial tests were done because fabric filter particulate matter
reduction is relatively independent of inlet loadings to the fabric
filter.\8\ Thus, the levels of ash in the hazardous waste and the
feedrate of raw materials do not significantly affect particulate
matter emissions from cement kilns equipped with baghouses because
these control devices are not sensitive to particulate matter inlet
loadings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For an evaluation of the additional data submitted by the
petitioners, see USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC
MACT Standards--Reconsideration of the New Source Particulate Matter
Standard for Cement Kilns,'' March 2006.
    \7\ Note that the 0.0023 gr/dscf standard is based on average
emissions of 0.0010 gr/dscf obtained during the first year of
operation.
    \8\ USEPA, ``Technical Support Document for the HWC MACT
Standards, Volume I: Description of Source Categories,'' September
2005, Section 3.2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Changes Are Being Proposed to the Particulate Matter Standard?

    We agree with the petitioners that it appears that the promulgated
standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf is overly stringent for cement kilns in that
it does not fully reflect the variability of the best performing source
over time once fabric filters and baghouse structures are no longer in
a new condition.\9\ The data submitted by the petitioner appear to
better represent ``the emission control achieved in practice'' (section
112(d)(3) of the CAA). See Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA,
370 F. 3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004). As a result, we are proposing to
substitute the data submitted by the petitioner for Ash Grove Cement
for the particulate matter data used in the final rule. This would lead
to this source's performance for particulate matter (i.e., the upper
99th percentile prediction limit) being 0.0075 gr/dscf, derived using
the air pollution control device approach and a revised universal
variability factor relationship (i.e., to account for the new Ash Grove
Cement data) to model particulate matter performance and fabric filter
variability.\10\ This performance is actually slightly worse than that
achieved by two other cement kilns, Giant Cement Holding, Inc. (Giant
Cement) in Harleyville, South Carolina, and Lafarge North America in
Paulding, Ohio. As a result, the Ash Grove Chanute kiln is no longer
the single best performing source, and we would instead base the
particulate matter floor standard for new cement kilns on the
performance of Giant Cement, which achieved an upper 99th percentile
prediction limit of 0.0069 gr/dscf.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Based on available information, we believe that the data
from Ash Grove Cement are the only instance in our emissions data
base where we had a source in a completely new condition. Thus, we
do not believe this precise issue arises for other standards.
    \10\ USEPA, ``Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards,
Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,'' September 2005, Sections
5.3 and 7.4, docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0453.
    \11\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards--Reconsideration of the Particulate Matter Standard,''
January 2006, Section 4.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As just noted, our methodology for calculating floors for
particulate matter involves use of a universal variability factor
(UVF), obtained by relating the test-to-test variability (i.e.,
standard deviation) of the best performing fabric filters to emission
concentration.\12\ In the final rule, data from the Ash Grove Cement
kiln, as one of the best performing kilns, were used as part of this
pool of data from best performing sources. Because Ash Grove's fabric
filter remains one of the best performing fabric filters after its
performance is

recalculated, we have used the data submitted by the petitioner in the
UVF data pool even though it technically is no longer a MACT pool
fabric filter.\13\ Nonetheless, the recalculated level of performance
(and the variability in the new data used to calculate that level)
would result in a slight change to the UVF which in turn would result
in slight changes to two other particulate matter floors since the UVF
was used for all particulate matter standards. The revised floor
analysis results for particulate matter are presented in Table 2
below.\14\ As shown in the table, only three floor levels would change
from levels presented in the final rule. The replacement of the
unrepresentative Ash Grove Cement data with the petitioner-submitted
data not only changes the particulate matter standard for new cement
kilns, but also would result in minor changes to the new source
incinerator and new source liquid fuel boiler particulate matter floor
levels. We request comment on the revised floor results for particulate
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The floor methodology used for particulate matter is
explained in ``Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards,
Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,'' September 2005, Sections
5.3 and 7.4, docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0453.
    \13\ We note that two other MACT pool sources with fabric
filters achieve emission levels comparable to Ash Grove Chanute but
have a higher standard deviation. Thus, Ash Grove's fabric filter
performs like a MACT pool fabric filter and should be retained in
the UVF analysis. Ash Grove Chanute has an emission average of
0.0038 gr/dscf and a standard deviation of 0.0025, while another
cement kiln has an emission average of 0.0034 gr/dscf and a standard
deviation of 0.0028, and a liquid fuel boiler has an emission
average of 0.0037 gr/dscf and a standard deviation of 0.0043. If we
were to delete Ash Grove Chanute from the UVF pool nonetheless, the
UVF would change slightly and would result in one additional change
to the particulate matter floors--the existing source standard for
liquid fuel boilers would change from 0.035 gr/dscf to 0.034 gr/
dscf. See USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards--Reconsideration of the Particulate Matter Standard,''
January 2006, Section 4.3.
    \14\ For a discussion of how the UVF relationship would be
altered and for a presentation of the floor results, see USEPA,
``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards--
Reconsideration of the New Source Particulate Matter Standard for
Cement Kilns,'' March 2006, Section 4.0.

Table 2.--Revised Particulate Matter Floor Levels (gr/dscf at 7% Oxygen)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              October 2005
               Source category                 final rule     Proposed
                                               floor level   floor level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators:
    Existing sources........................       0.013         0.013
    New sources.............................       0.0015        0.0016
Cement kilns:
    Existing source.........................       0.028         0.028
    New sources.............................       0.0023        0.0069
Lightweight aggregate kilns:
    Existing sources \1\....................       0.025         0.025
    New sources.............................       0.0098        0.0098
Solid fuel boilers: \2\
    Existing sources........................       0.073         0.073
    New sources.............................       0.061         0.061
Liquid fuel boilers:
    Existing sources........................       0.035         0.035
    New sources.............................       0.0087        0.0088
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The calculated floor levels in both cases are 0.029 gr/dscf. For
  reasons discussed in the final rule, we capped calculated floor levels
  exceeding the Interim Standard at the Interim Standard, which in this
  case is 0.025 gr/dscf. 70 FR at 59457. Given that the calculated floor
  level with the revised UVF (i.e., 0.029 gr/dscf) again slightly
  exceeds the Interim Standard, we likewise propose to cap the
  calculated floor level at 0.025 gr/dscf.
\2\ Note that we adopted more stringent beyond-the-floor standards for
  existing and new sources in the final rule. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-
  2004-0022-0457, Section 14.

    For the three calculated new source floor levels that would change
from the level promulgated in the final rule, we considered
establishing beyond-the-floor standards based on the cost of achieving
the emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements. A complete presentation of the results can be
found in the background document supporting this proposal.\15\ After
considering costs and nonair quality health and environmental impacts
and energy effects, we are proposing not to adopt a beyond-the-floor
standard based on improved particulate matter control for new source
cement kilns, new source incinerators, and new source liquid fuel
boilers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards--Reconsideration of the New Source Particulate Matter
Standard for Cement Kilns,'' March 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we are proposing to revise three of the particulate
matter standards as reflected in Table 3 below. We are also proposing
accompanying regulatory text changes to 40 CFR 63.1217(b)(7),
63.1219(b)(7), and 63.1220(b)(7)(i).

 Table 3.--Proposed Revised Particulate Matter Standards (gr/dscf at 7%
                                 Oxygen)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Proposed
        Source category              Source type            standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cement kilns..................  New sources..........             0.0069
Incinerators..................  New sources..........             0.0016
Liquid fuel boilers...........  New sources..........             0.0088
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Changes to the Compliance Date Provisions Are Being Proposed
for the Revised Standards?

    We are proposing to revise the compliance date requirements under
40 CFR 63.1206 to require that new cement kilns (i.e., sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after April 20, 2004, the date
of the rule proposing the full set of MACT standards for hazardous
waste burning cement kilns) comply with the proposed particulate matter
standard by the later of the date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register or the date the source starts operations. We note,
however, that if we promulgate a particulate matter standard that is
more stringent than the proposed standard, the final rule will allow
you three years from the date of publication of the final rule to
comply with the standard, if you comply with the proposed standard by
the later of the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register or the date the source starts operations. These timelines are
consistent with the current compliance date requirements under 40 CFR
63.1206.
    Although we are proposing to slightly revise the particulate matter
standards for incinerators and liquid fuel boilers that are new sources
(i.e., sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
April 20, 2004), we are not proposing to revise the compliance date
requirements for those sources. The revised particulate matter
standards would be less stringent by only 0.22 mg/dscm (0.0001 gr/
dscf), and new sources would be allowed to begin complying with them on
the date of publication of the final rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that today's proposed rule constitutes a ``significant
regulatory action'' because this action raises novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. As such, this action
was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
because there is no additional burden on the industry as a result of
the proposed rule, and the ICR has not been revised.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in the field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has
determined that none of the small entities will experience a
significant impact because the notice imposes no additional regulatory
requirements on owners or operators of affected sources. We continue to
be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that today's notice of reconsideration does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year. Although our best
estimate of total social costs of the final rule was $22.6 million per
year, today's notice does not add new requirements that would increase
this cost. See 70 FR at 59532. Thus, today's notice of reconsideration
is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also
determined that the notice of reconsideration contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no regulatory requirements that apply
to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, today's
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Today's notice of reconsideration does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
This rule, as proposed, is not projected to result in economic impacts
to privately owned hazardous waste combustion facilities. Marginal
administrative burden impacts may occur at selected States and/or EPA
regional offices if these entities experience increased administrative
needs or information requests. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This notice of
reconsideration does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No affected facilities are owned or operated by
Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this notice of reconsideration.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined under point one
of the Order, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As described in the October 2005 final rule, Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''),
Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. During the development of the
final rule, EPA searched for voluntary consensus standards that might
be applicable. The search identified the following consensus standards
that were considered practical alternatives to the specified EPA test
methods: (1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6735-
01, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and
Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method,''
and (2) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standard QHO-1-
2004, ``Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Hazardous
Waste Incineration Operators.'' Today's notice of reconsideration does
not propose the use of any additional technical standards beyond those
cited in the final rule. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of
any additional voluntary consensus standards for this notice.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 15, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Section 63.1206 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1206  When and how must you comply with the standards and
operating requirements?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * * (1) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of
your hazardous waste combustor after April 20, 2004, you must comply
with the new source emission standards under Sec. Sec.  63.1219,
63.1220, and 63.1221 and the other requirements of this subpart by the
later of October 12, 2005 or the date the source starts operations,
except as provided by paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(B)(2) through (3) of this
section. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of a cement
kiln after April 20, 2004, you must comply with the new source emission
standard for particulate matter under Sec.  63.1220(b)(7)(i) by the
later of [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register] or the date the source starts operations.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.1217 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1217  What are the standards for liquid fuel boilers that burn
hazardous waste?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) For particulate matter, except for an area source as defined
under Sec.  63.2 or as provided by paragraph (e) of this section,
emissions in excess of 20 mg/dscm (0.0088 gr/dscf) corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.1219 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1219  What are the replacement standards for hazardous waste
incinerators?

    (b) * * *
    (7) Except as provided by paragraph (e) of this section,
particulate emissions in excess of 3.7 mg/dscm (0.0016 gr/dscf)
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.1220 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7)(i) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1220  What are the replacement standards for hazardous waste
burning cement kilns?

    (b) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) Emissions in excess of 15.8 mg/dscm (0.0069 gr/dscf) corrected
to 7 percent oxygen; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-2703 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 38625-38626]
[DOCID:fr13jy07-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health;
notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and
Health (``MACOSH'' or ``Committee'') was established to advise the
Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA on issues relating to
occupational safety and health in the maritime industries. The purpose
of this Federal Register notice is to announce the MACOSH and workgroup
meetings scheduled for July 31 through August 1, 2007.

DATES: The workgroups will meet on July 31, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
MACOSH will meet on August 1, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until approximately
5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Committee and workgroups will meet at the Elihu Harris
State Office Building, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Building
security requires that attendees have photographic identification
(e.g., a valid driver's license) and pass through a screening device.
Mail comments, views, or statements in response to this notice to David
Wallis, Acting Director, Office of Maritime, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information about MACOSH
and this meeting contact: David Wallis, Acting Director, Office of
Maritime, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Individuals
with disabilities wishing to attend the meeting should contact Vanessa
L. Welch at<PHONE_NUMBER> no later than July 20, 2007, to obtain
appropriate accommodations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All MACOSH meetings, including workgroup
meetings, are open to the public. All interested persons are invited to
attend the MACOSH meetings at the times and place listed above. The
Committee has five workgroups that have identified various topics for
discussion. Each workgroup may discuss one or more of the topics listed
for that workgroup as time permits.
    The Health workgroup discussions will include: Radiation exposure
at maritime terminals from cargo screening devices, an update of the
NIOSH maritime hearing-protection study, and a briefing on the NIOSH
National Occupational Research Agenda (``NORA'') process.
    The Longshoring workgroup discussions will include: Crane-operator
radio communications, traffic safety, roll-on roll-off cargo guidance,
and the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) initiative on
cargo-lashing safety.
    The Cranes and Falls workgroup discussions will include working on
or under suspended loads.
    The Shipyards workgroup discussions may include: Spray paint
standards, hot work on coatings, aerial work platforms, ship module
placement, review of shipbreaking guidance product, and review of
Safety and Health Injury Prevention Sheets.
    The Outreach and Safety Culture workgroup discussions may include:
Leading indicators, root cause analysis (SCA data effort), substance
abuse, OSHA/Coast Guard coordination, e-tools, Hispanic worker issues,
new technology and safety, updating the OSHA Training Institute
shipyard and longshoring courses, training requirements guidance
products, and industry pocket guides.
    MACOSH agenda: The agenda will include: an OSHA update, reports
from each workgroup, a discussion of working on or under suspended
loads, pandemic planning in the maritime industry, crane-operator radio
communications, traffic safety, roll-on roll-off container safety, IMO
initiative on cargo-lashing safety, an update on the nine
recommendations from the previous committee meeting, and presentation
on the Athena 106 accident.
    Public Participation: Written data, views, or comments for
consideration by MACOSH on the various agenda items listed above should
be submitted to Vanessa L. Welch at the address listed above.
Submissions received by July 20, 2007 will be provided to Committee
members and will be included in the record of the meeting. Requests to
make oral presentations to the Committee may be granted as time
permits. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Committee
on any of the agenda items listed above should notify Vanessa L. Welch
by July 20, 2007. The request should state the amount of time desired,
the capacity in which the person will appear, and a brief outline of
the content of the presentation.

    Authority: Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice under the authority granted by Sections 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656),
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), Secretary of
Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1912.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 10, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-13617 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 date stamped FEB 23 2004 OFFICE OF POLICY, ECONOMICS, AND INNOVATION Mr. Thomas M. Sullivan, Chief Counsel Office of Advocacy US Small Business Administration 409 Third Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20416 Dear Mr. Sullivan:

On behalf of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and in accordance with section 609( b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, I hereby announce the convening of the Small Business Advocacy Review ( SBAR) Panel for the forthcoming regulatory proposal entitled 316( b) Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase 3.

I enclose with this letter a convening document containing sections of a draft report and other background information, which will provide a starting point for our Panel discussions. A summary of comments received by small entities that may be subject to this rulemaking is included.

We have scheduled the official SBREFA SBAR Panel convening for Friday, February 27, 2004, from 10: 00 am to 12: 00 Noon, in room 6428 of Ariel Rios North at EPA Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. If you have any questions please contact me at 564 7253.

Sincerely yours,

/ s/

Alexander Cristofaro Small Business Advocacy Chair Enclosures cc: Mary Smith, OW Jessica Furey, OPEI Martha Seagall, OW Ken Munis, OPEI John Fox, OW Pooja Parikh, OGC Joanne Dea, OW Maryellen Levine, OGC Karen Brown, OPEI Mark Kataoka, OGC


[Federal Register: November 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 65444-65446]
[DOCID:fr03no08-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0164]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: This notice solicits public comments on continuation of the
requirements for the collection of information on safety standards.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the
public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes a collection of information on eight
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) and one regulation, for
which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. The information collection
pertains to requirements that specify certain safety precautions
regarding items of motor vehicle equipment must appear in the vehicle
owner's manual.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Ms. Lori
Summers, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W43-314, NVS-112,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Ms. Lori Summers telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please
identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB
Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    (1) Title: Consolidated Vehicle Owner's Manual Requirements for
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0541.

    Form Number: This collection of information uses no standard form.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Individuals, households, business, other for-
profit, not-for-profit, farms, Federal Government and state, local or
tribal government.
    Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 30111 authorizes the issuance of Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) and regulations. The agency, in
prescribing a FMVSS or regulation, considers available relevant motor
vehicle safety data, and consults with other agencies, as it deems
appropriate. Further, the statute mandates that in issuing any FMVSS or
regulation, the agency considers whether the standard or regulation is
``reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of
motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed,'' and whether such a standard will contribute to carrying
out the purpose of the Act. The Secretary is authorized to invoke such
rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out these
requirements. Using this authority, the agency issued the following
FMVSS and regulations, specifying that certain safety precautions
regarding items of motor vehicle equipment appear in the vehicle
owner's manual to aid the agency in achieving many of its safety goals:
FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,''
FMVSS No. 110, ``Tire selection and rims,'' FMVSS No. 138, ``Tire
pressure monitoring systems,'' FMVSS No. 202, ``Head restraints,''
FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing materials,'' FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection,'' FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages,'' FMVSS
No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' Part 575 Section 103, ``Camper
loading,'' and Part 575 Section 105, ``Utility vehicles.'' This notice
requests comments on the information collections of these FMVSSs and
regulations.
    Description of the need for the information and proposed use of the
information: In order to ensure that manufacturers are complying with
the FMVSS and regulations, NHTSA requires a number of information
collections in FMVSS Nos. 108, 110, 138, 202, 205, 208, 210, and 213,
and Part 575 Sections 103 and 105. FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment.'' This standard requires that
certain lamps and reflective devices with certain performance levels be
installed on motor vehicles to assure that the roadway is properly
illuminated, that vehicles can be readily seen, and the signals can be
transmitted to other drivers sharing the road, during day, night and
inclement weather. Since the specific manner in which headlamp aim is
to be performed is not regulated (only the performance of the device
is), aiming devices manufactured or installed by different vehicle and
headlamp manufacturers may work in significantly different ways. As a
consequence, to assure that headlamps can be correctly aimed,
instructions for proper use must be part of the vehicle as a label, or
optionally, in the vehicle owner's manual.
    FMVSS No. 110, ``Tire selection and rims.'' This standard specifies
requirements for tire selection to prevent tire overloading. The
vehicle's normal load and maximum load on the tire shall not be greater
than applicable specified limits. The standard requires a permanently
affixed vehicle placard specifying vehicle capacity weight, designated
seating capacity, manufacturer-recommended cold tire inflation
pressure, and manufacturer's recommended tire size. The standard
further specifies rim construction requirements, load limits of non-
pneumatic spare tires, and labeling requirements for non-pneumatic
spare tires, including a required placard. Owner's manual information
is required for ``Use of Spare Tire.'' FMVSS No. 110 will require
additional owner's manual information on the revised vehicle placard
and tire information label, on revised tire labeling, and on tire
safety and load limits and terminology.
    FMVSS No. 138, ``Tire pressure monitoring systems,'' specifies
requirements for a tire pressure monitoring system to warn the driver
of an under-inflated tire condition. Its purpose is to reduce the
likelihood of a vehicle crash resulting from tire failure due to
operation in an under-inflated condition. The standard requires the
Owner's Manual to include specific information on the low pressure
warning telltale and the malfunction indicator telltale. In a final
rule published April 8, 2005, most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 4,536 kg or less (e.g., excluding motorcycles) were required
to be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system by September 1,
2008 and include related safety information in the Owner's Manual.
    FMVSS No. 202, ``Head restraints.'' This standard specifies
requirements for head restraints. The standard, which seeks to reduce
whiplash injuries in rear collisions, currently requires head
restraints for front outboard designated seating positions in passenger
cars and in light multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. In
a final rule published on May 4, 2007 (69 FR 74880), FMVSS No. 202 will
require that vehicle manufacturers include information about
appropriate adjustment of front outboard seat head restraints in
Owner's Manuals for 80 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2009 and of front outboard seats of all vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010. The final rule will require
that vehicle manufacturers include information about appropriate
adjustment of optionally provided rear outboard seat head restraints in
Owner's Manuals for 80 percent of vehicles manufactured with rear head
restraints after September 1, 2010 and all vehicles with optionally
provided rear outboard head restraints manufactured on or after
September 1, 2011.
    FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing materials.'' This standard specifies
requirements for all glazing materials used in windshields, windows,
and interior partitions of motor vehicles. Its purpose is to reduce the
likelihood of lacerations and to minimize the possibility of occupants
penetrating the windshield in a crash. More detailed information
regarding the care and maintenance of such glazing items, as the glass-
plastic windshield, is required to be placed in the vehicle owner's
manual.
    FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection.'' This standard
specifies requirements for both active and passive occupant crash
protection systems for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and small buses. Certain safety features, such as air bags, or
the care and maintenance of air bag systems, are required to be
explained to the owner by means of the owner's manual. For example, the
owner's manual must describe the vehicle's air bag system and provide
precautionary information about the proper positioning of the
occupants, including children. The owner's manual must also warn that
no objects, such as shotguns carried in police cars, should be placed
over or near the air bag covers.
    FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt assembly anchorages.'' This standard
specifies requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to ensure
effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of failure in
a crash. The standard requires that manufacturers place the following
information in the vehicle owner's manual: a. An explanation that child
restraints are designed to be secured by means of the vehicle's seat
belts, and, b.

A statement alerting vehicle owners that children are always safer in
the rear seat.
    FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems.'' This standard specifies
requirements for child restraint systems and requires that
manufacturers provide consumers with detailed information relating to
child safety in air bag equipped vehicles. The vehicle owner's manual
must include information about the operation and do's and don'ts of
built-in child seats.
    Part 575 Section 103, ``Camper loading.'' This standard requires
that manufacturers of slide-in campers designed to fit into the cargo
bed of pickup trucks affix a label to each camper that contains
information relating to certification, identification and proper
loading, and to provide more detailed loading information in the
owner's manual of the truck.
    Part 575 Section 105, ``Utility vehicles.'' This regulation
requires manufacturers of utility vehicles to alert drivers that the
particular handling and maneuvering characteristics of utility vehicles
require special driving practices when these vehicles are operated on
paved roads. For example, the vehicle owner's manual is required to
assure that headlamps can be correctly aimed, instructions for proper
use must be part of the vehicle as a label, or optionally, in the
vehicle owner's manual.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,051 hours.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 22.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Comments are invited on:
    Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including
whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information
collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.

Public Participation

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\1\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: October 28, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E8-26096 Filed 10-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P