[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 22147]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Next-Generation Sequencing Technology, Data Formats
Standardization and Promotion of Interoperability Protocols; Public
Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is announcing a public
workshop entitled ``Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Technology, Data
Format Standardization and Promotion of Interoperability Protocols.''
The goal of this public workshop is to facilitate establishing
protocols for ensuring the safety and quality of next-generation
sequencing (NGS)-related information without sacrificing scientific
merit or interfering with innovative processes. The purpose of the
workshop is to engage NGS stakeholders in a forum to discuss the
current use of the technology and the development of data standards of
NGS-related information.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on September 24 and
25, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the National
Institute of Health Campus, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bldg. 35, Rm. 610,
Bethesda, MD 20892. Pre-registered participants will receive additional
information on parking and public transportation with their email
registration confirmation.
    Contact Person: Khaled Bouri, Office of Regulatory Science and
Innovation, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Rm.
4164, Silver Spring, MD 20903,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Please go to http://ngs-data-standardization.eventbrite.com to register. There is no registration
fee for the public workshop. Early registration is recommended because
seating is limited. Registration will be confirmed by email.
Registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided on a
space available basis beginning at 8 a.m. This workshop will also be
accessible via Webcast by following this link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/NGSStandards/.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Khaled Bouri (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance.
    Transcripts and Additional Information About the Workshop: The
workshop agenda and additional background materials will be accessible
at: http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/ucm227840.htm. Please be advised that as soon as possible after the
public workshop a transcript will be available at the same Web site.
Transcripts of the public workshop may also be requested in writing
from the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug
Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD
20857.

    Dated: April 15, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-08969 Filed 4-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34700-34703]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14571]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0431, FRL-9318-5]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide
Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2014

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of applications and information on
alternatives.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting applications for the critical use exemption
from the phaseout of methyl bromide for 2014. Critical use exemptions
last only one year. All entities interested in obtaining a critical use
exemption for 2014 must provide EPA with technical and economic
information to support a ``critical use'' claim and must do so by the
deadline specified in this notice even if they have applied for an
exemption in previous years. Today's notice also invites interested
parties to provide EPA with new data on the technical and economic
feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives.

DATES: Applications for the 2014 critical use exemption must be
postmarked on or before August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA encourages users to submit their applications
electronically to Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection Division, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If the application is submitted electronically,
applicants must fax a signed copy of Worksheet 1 to<PHONE_NUMBER> by the
application deadline. Applications for the methyl bromide critical use
exemption can also be submitted by U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Team, Mail Code 6205J,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by courier
delivery to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide
Review Team, 1310 L St., NW., Room 1047E, Washington DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information: U.S. EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline, 1-800-296-1996; also http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.
    Technical Information: Bill Chism, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC, 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for
applications?
    A. Who can respond to this request for information?
    B. Who can I contact to find out if a consortium is submitting
an application form for my methyl bromide use?
    C. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide
critical use exemption?
    D. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use
exemption?

    E. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous
year?
    F. What if I submit an incomplete application?
    G. What portions of the applications will be considered
confidential business information?
II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption?
    A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical
use exemption?
    B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use
exemption?
    C. What is the timing for applications for the 2014 control
period?

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for applications?

A. Who can respond to this request for information?

    Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must
complete the application form available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. The application may be submitted either by a
consortium representing multiple users who have similar circumstances
or by individual users who anticipate needing methyl bromide in 2014
and have evaluated alternatives and as a result of that evaluation,
believe they have no technically and economically feasible
alternatives. EPA encourages groups of users with similar circumstances
of use to submit a single application (for example, any number of pre-
plant users with similar soil, pest, and climactic conditions can join
together to submit a single application).
    In addition to requesting information from applicants for the
critical use exemption, this solicitation for information provides an
opportunity for any interested party to provide EPA with information on
methyl bromide alternatives (e.g., technical and/or economic
feasibility research).

B. Who can I contact to find out whether a consortium is submitting an
application for my methyl bromide use?

    You should contact your local, state, regional or national
commodity association to find out whether it plans to submit an
application on behalf of your commodity group. Additionally, you should
contact your state regulatory agency (generally this will be the
state's agriculture or environmental protection agency) to receive
information about its involvement in the process. If your state agency
has chosen to participate, EPA recommends that you first submit your
application to the state agency, which will then forward applications
to EPA. The National Pesticide Information Center Web site identifies
the lead pesticide agency in each state (http://npic.orst.edu/state1.htm).

C. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide critical
use exemption?

    An application form for the methyl bromide critical use exemption
can be obtained either in electronic or hard-copy form. EPA encourages
use of the electronic form. Applications can be obtained in the
following ways:
    1. PDF format and Microsoft Excel at EPA's Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html;
    2. Hard copy ordered through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996;
    3. PDF format and Microsoft Excel at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0431. The docket can be accessed at the http://www.regulations.gov
site. To obtain hard copies of docket materials, please e-mail the EPA
Docket Center<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
D. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use
exemption?

    To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide is
``critical,'' applicants must demonstrate that there are no technically
and economically feasible alternatives available for that use. In 2011,
the U.S. submitted an index of alternatives, which includes the current
registration status of available and potential alternatives, to the
Ozone Secretariat. That index is reproduced in Table 1 and can be
accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html. Specifically,
applications must include the following information for the U.S. to
successfully defend its nominations for critical uses. The information
requested below is included in the application form but we are
highlighting specific areas that applicants must address.
    Commodities such as dried fruit and nuts: Applicants must address
potential pest losses, quality, timing changes and economic
implications to producers when converting to alternatives such as:
sulfuryl fluoride and phosphine. If relevant, the applicant should also
include the costs to retrofit equipment or design and construct new
fumigation chambers for these uses. Applicants must include information
on the amount of methyl bromide and any other fumigants used as well as
the amounts of commodity treated with each fumigant. Include
information on the size of fumigation chambers where methyl bromide is
used, the percent of commodity fumigated under tarps, the length of the
harvest season, peak of the harvest season and duration, and volume of
commodity treated daily at the harvest peak. The Agency must have a
description of your future research plans which includes the pest(s),
chemical(s) or management practice(s) that you will be testing in the
future to support this CUE. Also include information on what pest
control practices organic producers are using for their commodity.
    Structures and Facilities (flour mills, rice mills, pet food):
Applicants must address potential pest losses, quality, timing changes
and economic implications to producers when converting to alternatives
such as: sulfuryl fluoride, micro-sanitation, and heat. If relevant,
the applicant should include the costs to retrofit equipment for these
pest control methods. List how many mills have been fumigated with
methyl bromide over the last three years, rate, volume and target
Concentration--Time (CT) of methyl bromide at each location, volume of
each facility, number of fumigations per year, and date facility was
constructed. The Agency must have a description of your future research
plans which includes the pest(s), chemical(s) or management practice(s)
you will be testing in the future to support this CUE. Also include
information on what pest control practices organic producers are using
for their facilities.
    Ham: List how many facilities have been fumigated with methyl
bromide over the last three years, rate, volume and target CT of methyl
bromide at each location, volume of each facility, number of
fumigations per year, and date facility was constructed. The Agency
must have a description of your future research plans which includes
the pest(s), chemical(s) or management practice(s) you will be testing
in the future to support this CUE.
    Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and Tomato: Applicants must address
potential yield, quality, and timing changes or economic implications
for growers and/or your region's production of these crops when
converting to alternatives such as: iodomethane plus chloropicrin, the
Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus
metam (sodium or potassium), and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) and any
fumigationless system (if data are available). If relevant, the
applicant should include the costs to retrofit equipment for these
uses. The Agency must have a description of your future research plans
which includes the pest(s), chemical(s) or management practice(s) you
will be testing in the future to support this CUE.
    Strawberry Fruit: Applicants must address potential yield, quality,
and timing changes, or economic implications for growers when
converting to alternatives such as:

iodomethane plus chloropicrin, the Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-
dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), and
any fumigationless system (if data are available). If relevant, the
applicant should include the costs to retrofit equipment for these
uses. The Agency must have a description of your future research plans
which includes the pest(s), chemical(s) or management practice(s) you
will be testing in the future to support this CUE.
    Nursery stock, Orchard Replant, Ornamentals, and Strawberry
Nursery: Applicants must address potential yield, quality, and timing
changes, or economic implications for growers and your region's
production of these crops when converting to alternatives such as:
iodomethane plus chloropicrin, the Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-
dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), and
dimethyl disulfide (if registered in your state), and steam. If
relevant the applicant should include the costs to retrofit equipment
for these uses. The Agency must have a description of your future
research plans which includes the pest(s), chemical(s) or management
practice(s) you will be testing in the future to support this CUE.

E. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous year?

    Critical use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not
renew automatically. Users desiring to obtain an exemption for 2014
must apply to EPA. Because of the latest changes in registrations,
costs, and economic aspects for producing critical use crops and
commodities, all applicants will be required to fill out the
application form completely.

F. What if I submit an incomplete application?

    EPA will not accept any applications postmarked after August 15,
2011. If the application is postmarked by the deadline but is
incomplete or missing any data elements, EPA will not accept the
application and will not include the application in the U.S. nomination
submitted for international consideration. If the application is
substantially complete with only minor errors, corrections will be
accepted. EPA reviewers may also call an applicant for further
clarification of an application, even if it is complete.

G. What portions of the applications will be considered confidential
business information?

    You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or
all of the information by placing on (or attaching to) the information,
at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed
legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as
``trade secret,'' ``proprietary,'' or ``company confidential.'' You
should clearly identify the allegedly confidential portions of
otherwise non-confidential documents, and you may submit them
separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If you
desire confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the
occurrence of a certain event, your notice should state that.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by
EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth under
40 CFR part 2, subpart B; 41 FR 36752, 43 FR 40000, 50 FR 51661. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when EPA receives
it, EPA may make it available to the public without further notice.
    If you are asserting a business confidentiality claim covering part
or all of the information in the application, please submit a non-
confidential version that EPA can place in the public docket for
reference by other interested parties. Do not include on the
``Worksheet 6: Application Summary'' page of the application any
information that you wish to claim as confidential business
information. Any information on Worksheet 6 shall not be considered
confidential and will not be treated as such by the Agency. EPA will
place a copy of Worksheet 6 in the public domain. Please note, claiming
business confidentiality may delay EPA's ability to review your
application.

II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption?

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical use
exemption?

    In October 1998, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require EPA
to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the
provisions of the Montreal Protocol for industrialized countries and to
allow EPA to provide a critical use exemption. These amendments were
codified in Section 604 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. Under
EPA implementing regulations, methyl bromide production and consumption
were phased out as of January 1, 2005. Section 604(d)(6), as added in
1998, allows EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide
from the phaseout for critical uses, to the extent consistent with the
Montreal Protocol.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 prohibit the production and import
of methyl bromide in excess of the amount of unexpended critical use
allowances held by the producer or importer, unless authorized under a
separate exemption. Methyl bromide produced or imported by expending
critical use allowances may be used only for the appropriate category
of approved critical uses as listed in Appendix L to the regulations
(40 CFR 82.4(p)(2)). The use of methyl bromide that was produced or
imported through the expenditure of production or consumption
allowances prior to 2005 is not confined to critical uses under EPA's
phaseout regulations; however, other restrictions may apply.

B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use
exemption?

    The Montreal Protocol provides that the Parties may exempt ``the
level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses
agreed by them to be critical uses'' (Art. 2H para 5). The Parties to
the Protocol included this language in the treaty's methyl bromide
phaseout provisions in recognition that alternatives might not be
available by 2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide agreed by the
Parties to be ``critical uses.''
    In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties to the Protocol agreed
to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a ``critical
use'' determination and an exemption from the production and
consumption phaseout:
    (a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as ``critical''
only if the nominating Party determines that:
    (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability
of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market
disruption; and
    (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable
from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the
crops and circumstances of the nomination.
    (b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for
a critical use should be permitted only if:
    (i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken
to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl
bromide;
    (ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and
quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also
bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl bromide;
    (iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made
to

evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory approval of
alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the
circumstances of the particular nomination. * * * Non-Article 5 Parties
[e.g., developed countries, including the U.S.] must demonstrate that
research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and
substitutes. * * *
    EPA has defined ``critical use'' in its regulations at 40 CFR 82.3
in a manner similar to Decision IX/6 paragraph (a).

C. What is the timing for applications for the 2014 control period?

    There is both a domestic and international component to the
critical use exemption process. The following outline projects a
timeline for the process for the 2014 critical use exemption.
    June 14, 2011: Solicit applications for the methyl bromide critical
use exemption for 2014.
    August 15, 2011: Deadline for submitting critical use exemption
applications to EPA.
    Fall 2011: U.S. Government (through EPA, Department of State, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and other interested Federal agencies)
prepares U.S. Critical Use Nomination package.
    January 24, 2012: Deadline for U.S. Government to submit U.S.
nomination package to the Protocol Parties.
    Early 2012: Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) reviews Parties'
nominations for critical use exemptions.
    Mid 2012: Parties consider TEAP/MBTOC recommendations.
    November 2012: Parties decide whether to authorize critical use
exemptions for methyl bromide for production and consumption in 2014.
    Mid 2013: If the Parties authorize critical uses, EPA publishes
proposed rule for allocating critical use allowances in the U.S. for
2014.
    Late 2013: EPA publishes final rule allocating critical use
allowances in the U.S. for 2014.
    January 1, 2014: Critical use exemption permits the limited
production and import of methyl bromide for specified uses for the 2014
control period.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
Elizabeth Craig,
Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-14571 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29633-29634]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-57-000]

MidAmerican Energy Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on April 20, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, MidAmerican Energy Company, submitted a
petition requesting the Commission to issue a declaratory order
approving proposed re-delineation and re-classification of its electric
facilities between transmission and local distribution.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.
Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the
comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to
serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 21, 2012.

    Dated: May 11, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12067 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1010; FRL-      ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

West Virginia; Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for

the Charleston 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia.  The revision amends the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the
Charleston area.  This revision amends the maintenance plans' 2009 and
2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) by reallocating a portion
of the plans' safety margins which results in an increase in the MVEBs.
The revised plan continues to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone.  EPA is
approving this SIP revision to the West Virginia maintenance plan for
Charleston in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES:  This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register]  without further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse written comment by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register].  If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1010 by one of the following methods:

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

     B.    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     C.    Mail:   EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1010, Carol Febbo, Chief, Energy,
Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch, Mailcode 3AP23, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

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

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1010.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, WV
25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Martin Kotsch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever ``we'',

``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Summary of West Virginia's SIP Revision and EPA's Review

III. Final Action

IV.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

On July 11, 2006 (71 FR 39001) EPA redesignated the Charleston area of
West Virginia to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  For the
Charleston area, the redesignation included approval of an 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan, which identifies on-road MVEBs for VOCs and NOX, which
are ozone precursors, which are then used for transportation planning
and conformity purposes.  Subsequently after the SIP approval by EPA,
West Virginia discovered that the MVEBs which were included in the
previously approved maintenance plan did not provide a sufficient buffer
to account for unforseen future growth or significant changes in the
planning assumption data which was used in developing the original MVEBs
in its November 2005 submission.

II. Summary of West Virginia's SIP Revision and EPA's Review

2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

On January 8, 2007, the State of West Virginia submitted to EPA a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The SIP revision
proposes new MVEBs to reflect the reallocation of a portion of the
differences (safety margins) between the total base year

and total projected 2009 and 2018 emissions which produces an increase
in the MVEBs.  The base year is 2004 for the Charleston area.  By
increasing the MVEBs, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) is ensuring that transportation conformity can be
demonstrated in the Charleston area.  The January 8, 2007 submittal,
while increasing the MVEBs still ensures maintenance of the NAAQS for
ozone for the Charleston area.

Tables 1 and 2 and the discussion that follows describes the basis of
the new MVEBs for the Charleston area.

Table 1.--Charleston Area Reallocation of Safety Margin to the MVEBs

    Current MVEBs in the Approved Maintenance Plan

(Tons/Day)

2004 Base Year         2009 Projection     2018 Projection

        VOC                 16.1                              11.6
                 7.2

       NOX                  26.4                              19.8
                 8.2

                            Proposed MVEBs in the Revised Maintenance
Plan

(Tons/Day)

                                 2004 Base Year         2009 Projection
   2018 Projection

         VOC                  16.1                              12.9
                   7.5

         NOX                  26.4                              22.9
                   9.5

Table 2.--Charleston Area Total Emissions (Point, Area and Mobile)
Before and After Reallocation of Safety Margin to the MVEBs

(Tons/Day)

                                    Current Total Emissions in the
Approved Maintenance Plan

                                        2004 Base Year         2009
Projection     2018 Projection

   VOC                                52.3
46.8                        45.1

   NOX                              129.4
102.4                        80.6

Proposed Total Emissions in the Revised Maintenance Plan

                                    2004 Base Year         2009
Projection     2018 Projection

VOC                                52.3
48.1                        45.4

 NOX                             129.4                            105.5
                      81.9

For the Charleston, West Virginia 8-hour ozone maintenance area
addressed herein, the WVDEP recalculated the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs using
revised planning data which became available after the original
maintenance plan was submitted to EPA on November 30, 2005.  The 2009
and 2018 MVEBs for VOCs and NOX emissions listed above in Table 1 under
the Proposed MVEBs in the Revised Maintenance Plan section will serve as
the new MVEBs for transportation conformity planning.

As shown in Table 1, the State has proposed reallocating some of the
previous safety margin into the MVEBs for both VOCs and NOX.  The
remaining surplus emissions have been reserved as residual safety
margins in the total maintenance budgets to ensure continued maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

To explain how the safety margins are determined and allocated, the VOC
emissions for the Charleston area may be used as an example.  In Table
2, listed under the Current Total Emissions in the Approved Maintenance
Plan section, the total 2004 base year VOC emissions are 52.3 tons/day
(tpd), which is the maximum amount of VOC emissions consistent with
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The total projected 2009
emissions are 46.8 tpd, which provides a 5.5 tpd VOC safety margin
(i.e., the ozone NAAQS would continue to be maintained if total VOC
emissions increased as much as 5.5 tpd above the projected 2009
emissions of 46.8 tpd).  In the Proposed Total Emissions in the Revised
Maintenance Plan section the total projected emissions for 2009 would be
increased by 1.3 tpd through the increase in the allowable mobile
emissions for VOC while still leaving a safety margin of 4.2 tpd.
Therefore, even with the reallocation of some of the current safety
margin into the MVEBs, the State of West Virginia has left a safety
margin for any other unforseen growth.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving West Virginia's January 8, 2007 SIP revision submittal
which amends the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the Charleston area.
 These revisions amend the maintenance plans' 2009 and 2018 MVEBs to
reflect the reallocation of a portion of the plans' safety margins which
results in an increase in the MVEBs.  EPA is approving this SIP revision
to the maintenance plan for the Charleston area because the January 8,
2007 submittal continues to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.  EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comment, since no significant adverse comments were received on
the SIP revision at the State level.  However, in the (Proposed Rules(
section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if
adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on [Insert date
60 days after publication in the Federal Register] without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by [Insert date 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register].

If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.  EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action.  Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time

IV.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule approves pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4).   This rule also does not have tribal implications
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  .  This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.  In this context, in
the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use
voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove
a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be inconsistent
with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission to use VCS
in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the CAA.  Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply.  This rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.   EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  This rule is not a
(major rule( as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of publication of
this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action to approve the revised motor vehicle emission budgets for
the 8-hour Charleston Maintenance Plan may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

12/27/07

_________________
__________________________

Dated:                                				William T. Wisniewski,

 							Acting Regional Administrator,

                                      				Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

 2.  In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
the entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Charleston, WV
Area at the end of the table to read as follows:

§ 52.2520  	Identification of plan.

*	*	*	*	*

(e)* * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision

Applicable geographic area

State submittal date

EPA approval date

Additional explanation

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

8-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Plan for

the Charleston, WV

Area

Charleston Area

(Kanawha and

Putnam Counties)

11/30/05

7/11/06

71 FR 39001

01/08/07   	[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	Action includes  approval
of the following  new  motor vehicle emission budgets

(MVEBs):22.9 tons day (tpd) for 2009 and 9.5 tpd for 2018 for Nox and
12.9 tpd for 2009 and 7.5 tpd for    2018 for VOC.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 PAGE

 PAGE   10


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6687]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01530]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: January 19, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01530 Filed 1-19-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23700-23701]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
Release at the Mobile Regional Airport, Mobile, Alabama

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on land release request.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a request from the Mobile Airport
Authority to release 5.38 acres of non-aeronautical airport
property located at the Mobile Regional Airport in Mobile, Alabama, to
be sold to the County of Mobile.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA to the following address: Jackson Airports
District Office, Attn: Kevin Morgan, Program Manager, 100 West Cross
Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Jennifer F. Shearer, C.M., Director of Aviation,
P.O. Box 88004, 8400 Airport Blvd., Mobile, AL 36608-0004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Morgan, Program Manager, Jackson
Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS
39208-2307,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The land release request may be reviewed in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by Mobile
Airport Authority to release 5.38 acres of property at the Mobile
Regional Airport under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section
47107(h). The property will be purchased by County of Mobile for right-
of-way acquisition project to widen Tanner Williams Road. The property
is adjacent to Tanner Williams Road on the northwest portion of airport
property consisting of seventeen different partial parcels totaling
5.38 acres. The net proceeds from the sale of this property will be
used for eligible

airport improvement projects at the Mobile Regional Airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Mobile Regional Airport (MOB).

    Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on May 16, 2017.
Rans D. Black,
Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-10561 Filed 5-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60333-60340]
[DOCID:fr30se10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 173, and 178

[Docket No. PHMSA-06-25736 (HM-231)]
RIN 2137-AD89

Hazardous Material; Miscellaneous Packaging Amendments

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 2, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration published a final rule amending the Hazardous
Materials Regulations to: Revise several packaging related definitions;
add provisions to allow more flexibility when preparing and
transmitting closure instructions, including conditions under which
closure instructions may be transmitted electronically; add a
requirement for shippers to retain packaging closure instructions;
incorporate new language that allows for a practicable means of
stenciling the United Nations (UN) symbol on packagings; and clarify a
requirement to document the methodology used when determining whether a
change in packaging configuration requires retesting as a new design or
may be considered a variation of a previously tested design. The
February 2 final rule also incorporated requirements for the
construction, maintenance, and use of Large Packagings. This final rule
responds to one petition for reconsideration and four appeals submitted
in response to the February 2 final rule and also corrects several
errors that occurred in that rulemaking.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010.
    Voluntary Compliance Date: Compliance with the requirements adopted
herein is authorized as of September 30, 2010. However, persons
voluntarily complying with these regulations should be aware that
appeals may be received and as a result of PHMSA's evaluation of these
appeals, the amendments adopted in this final rule correction may be
revised accordingly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen Edmonson, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Ben Moore, Office of Hazardous
Materials Technology,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 2, 2010, PHMSA published a final rule under Docket No.
PHMSA-06-25736 (HM-231) (75 FR 5376) to: Revise several packaging
related definitions; add provisions to allow more flexibility when
preparing and transmitting closure instructions, including conditions
under which closure instructions may be transmitted electronically; add
a requirement for shippers to retain packaging closure instructions;
incorporate new language that allows for a practicable means of
stenciling the ``UN'' symbol on packagings; and clarify a requirement
to document the methodology used when determining whether a change in
packaging configuration requires retesting as a new design or may be
considered a variation of a previously tested design under the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). The
February 2 final rule also incorporated requirements for the
construction, maintenance, and use of Large Packagings harmonizing
these packaging requirements with those issued under the United Nations
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. This final rule
corrects several errors in the February 2 final rule and also responds
to four appeals and one petition for reconsideration. Because these
amendments do not impose new requirements, notice and public comment
procedures are unnecessary.

II. Petition for Rulemaking and Appeals to the Final Rule

    In response to the February 2 final rule, PHMSA received one
petition for rulemaking from the International Vessel Operators
Dangerous Goods Association (IVODGA), and four appeals to the final
rule from the following companies or organizations: American
Promotional Events, Inc. (APE); Association of American Railroads
(AAR); Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC); and the Reusable
Industrial Packaging Association (RIPA). All object to certain
requirements adopted in the February 2 final rule. Specifically, they
request that PHMSA: (1) Eliminate the minimum thickness requirements
for remanufactured steel and plastic drums; (2) reinstate the previous
definition for ``bulk packaging'' to retain the phrase ``no
intermediate form of containment;'' (3) revise the compliance date for
maintaining closure instructions to align with a packaging's retest
date; and (4) eliminate the vibration testing requirement for UN
standard Large Packagings.

A. Bulk Packaging Definition

    The February 2 final rule removed the phrase ``no intermediate form
of containment'' from the introductory language of the bulk packaging
definition contained in Sec.  171.8. PHMSA developed this definition as
a modification of the definition for bulk packagings proposed in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM; September 1, 2006 (71 FR 52017))
to clarify that Large Packagings that contain inner packagings are
considered bulk packagings under the HMR. This change placed a greater
emphasis on packaging design and volumetric capacity, and was developed
in part based on a petition from the Monsanto Company (P-1173). In the
NPRM, the definition for a bulk packaging was proposed to read a ``Bulk
packaging means: (1) Any specification cargo tank, tank car, or
portable tank constructed and marked in accordance with Part 178 of
this subchapter; (2) Any DOT Specification 3AX, 3AAX or 3T cylinder
constructed, marked and certified in accordance with Subpart C of Part
178 of this subchapter; or (3) Any industrial Packaging, Type A, Type
B, Intermediate Bulk Container [IBC], Large Packaging, or non-
specification packaging that has a volumetric capacity of greater than
450 L (119 gallons).''
    The DGAC, AAR, and IVODGA object to this definition as adopted in
the February 2 final rule stating that the adopted language was not
proposed in the NPRM; therefore, interested parties had no opportunity
to comment on the proposal, which is contrary to the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). They also state under the revised definition that
a transport vehicle (e.g., a railroad box car, dry goods truck, or
semitrailer) containing non-bulk hazardous materials packages may be
considered a bulk packaging.
    The September 1, 2006 NPRM definition for ``bulk packaging'' did
not include the phrase ``no intermediate form of containment.''
Therefore, interested parties were given an opportunity to comment in
response to the NPRM on the possible effect the removal of this phrase
would have on the proposed bulk packaging definition. Further, in
response to the petition for reconsideration and four appeals, we are
clarifying that a Large Packaging with one or more inner packagings or
articles is also a bulk packaging. Thus, in Sec.  171.8 we are
reinstating the phrase ``no intermediate form of containment'' in the
bulk packaging definition, and permitting Large Packagings that contain
articles or inner packagings to be defined as bulk packagings. We may
consider amendments to this definition in a future rulemaking.

B. Non-Bulk Packaging Definition

    PHMSA proposed in the NPRM to revise the non-bulk packaging
definition to eliminate the maximum capacity, gross mass, and water
capacity limits for non-bulk packagings. Specifically, the NPRM
proposed to define the term as follows: A ``Non-bulk packaging means
(1) any packaging constructed, marked, tested and certified as meeting
the standards specified in Subparts L and M of Part 178 of this
subchapter; (2) except for Specifications 3AX, 3AAX and 3T, any
Specification cylinder constructed, marked and certified in accordance
with subpart C of part 178 of this subchapter; and (3) any Industrial
Packaging, Type A, Type B, Intermediate Bulk Container, Large
Packaging, or non-specification packaging that has a volumetric
capacity of 450 liters (119 gallons) or less.'' In response to the
NPRM, the DGAC and APE request PHMSA remove the definitions for bulk
and non-bulk packaging from the HMR. The DGAC states the delineations
were arbitrary and the terms no longer served a useful purpose in
regulation. The APE states in its experience these terms were no longer
used in international regulations, were detrimental to the United
States (U.S.) transportation industry, and offered no safety benefits.
Other commenters to the NPRM found the removal of the volumetric
requirements from the definitions more confusing for determining the
application of markings, labels, and placards, and were concerned the
absence of this information may present a hazard communication problem
for emergency responders in that it may interfere with them discovering
a large amount of hazardous material during an incident. These
commenters were also concerned that the removal of the volumetric
requirements may possibly cause the distinction between IBCs and drums
to disappear. For example, IBCs and drums have distinctly different
handling requirements. IBCs, by definition, require mechanical handling
for movement, which is not the case for non-bulk packagings such as
drums. Changes in the volumetric capacities of these packagings may
result in compromises in handling safety. Therefore, PHMSA did not
adopt in Sec.  171.8 the non-bulk packaging definition as proposed in
the NPRM.
    In its appeal to the February 2 final rule, the APE requests PHMSA
define a non-bulk packaging for solids based on

a net mass limit of 400 kg and without the 450 L limitation. The APE
states this packaging is an undefined category--neither bulk nor non-
bulk, but there is no safety basis for excluding its use, and this
packaging was already authorized under PHMSA approval number CA
2006030023. The APE also states such packagings are common for
transporting consumer fireworks; an example would be a fiberboard box
with a low net mass of 75 kg but with a capacity in excess of 450 L.
Further, the APE states this size packaging issue does not arise in the
UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN
Recommendations).
    PHMSA agrees with the appellants that (1) the HMR do not define
packagings for solids with a net mass of 400 kg or less (non-bulk) but
a net capacity that exceeds 450 L, and packagings with a net mass that
exceeds 400 kg (bulk) but a net capacity that does not exceed 450 L;
(2) that many of the international requirements for bulk and non-bulk
packagings do not contain these quantity limits; and (3) packagings
that meet the HMR's performance standards should be considered
authorized packagings. However, we also recognize that many factors
concerning these size limits serve an important function in delineating
packaging types and performance testing in the U.S. Design and testing
of packages that fall within these sizes may not adequately account for
the handling characteristics that such large and heavy packagings may
require.Therefore, we are not revising the definition in Sec.  171.8
for a non-bulk packaging at this time, but will consider this issue
more fully for a future rulemaking.

C. Compliance Date for Package Closure Instructions

    The February 2 final rule revised Sec.  178.2(c) to require a
packaging manufacturer or other person certifying a packaging's
compliance with 49 CFR Part 178, and each subsequent distributor of
that packaging, to notify each person the packaging is transferred to
of all the requirements regarding the packaging that are not met at the
time of transfer. Each person who receives these written instructions
must retain a copy for 365 days from the date of issuance. This
notification may be in writing, stored electronically, including e-mail
transmissions or on a CD or similar device. Federal hazmat law defines
a ``person'' as including ``a government, Indian tribe, or authority of
a government or tribe that--(i) offers hazardous material for
transportation in commerce; (ii) transports hazardous material to
further a commercial enterprise; or (iii) designs, manufactures,
fabricates, inspects, marks, maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests
a package, container, or packaging component that is represented,
marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting
hazardous materials in commerce * * *.'' See 49 U.S.C. 5102(9); see
also 49 CFR 171.8.
    The DGAC states PHMSA misconstrued DGAC's comments to the NPRM
concerning closure instructions. In its appeal, the DGAC states
packagings may require retesting or updated test reports to ensure
closure instructions are consistent and repeatable with the manner in
which these packagings were closed when tested. It also states
completing packaging retesting before the October 1, 2010 effective
date of the final rule could be costly and time consuming. The DGAC
recommends adopting a two-year transition period for retaining closure
instructions to align with the current two-year periodic retesting
required for combination packagings and a one-year transition period
for single packagings.
    We agree with the appellant that adopting a closure instruction
retention period that aligns with the periodic retesting requirements
for the packaging would make it easier for the manufacturer and each
subsequent distributor of the packaging to comply with this
requirement. We also agree that making this change is appropriate given
that this requirement was intended to provide additional flexibility to
packaging manufacturers. Therefore, in this final rule, we are revising
the amount of time required for retaining packaging closure
instructions prescribed in Sec.  178.2(c)(1)(ii) to align with a
packaging's periodic retest date. We are also clarifying language in
Sec.  173.22(a)(4) to clearly state that additional requirements
concerning closure instruction retention, including the time period
required, are prescribed in Sec.  178.2(c).

D. Minimum Thickness Requirement for Remanufactured Steel and Plastic
Drums

    PHMSA added the phrase ``or remanufactured for reuse'' to the third
sentences in Sec.  173.28(a) and (f), respectively, which require steel
and plastic drums to meet the minimum thickness requirements for
reusable packagings. In their appeals, the DGAC and RIPA object to this
revision stating that Part 178 specification requirements for steel or
plastic manufactured or remanufactured drums do not include minimum
thicknesses and reconditioning, which is a form of reuse that has not
applied to remanufactured packagings for many years. They also state a
remanufactured drum is much like a new drum marked for single use in
that it must be tested, regardless of thickness, to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable performance requirements for its design,
and it cannot be reused or reconditioned. The appellants also state if
this provision were to go into effect, remanufactured drums not meeting
minimum thickness requirements will have to be taken out of service and
scrapped, which would cause the premature disposal of packagings that
are still otherwise useful.
    We agree with the appellants that this change may be misleading.
PHMSA recognizes the current HMR minimum thickness requirements apply
to packagings for reuse and reconditioning, and not to remanufactured
packagings. We also recognize a remanufactured packaging, regardless of
thickness, must be tested to demonstrate compliance with performance
requirements. This differs from the requirements for reuse and
reconditioning where the packaging is not subject to performance
requirements as a new design type before reuse or reconditioning.
Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising Sec.  173.28(a) and
(f) to remove the phrase ``or remanufactured for reuse'' to clarify
that this requirement does not apply to remanufactured packagings.

E. Vibration Testing for Large Packaging

    PHMSA added a vibration performance test in Sec.  178.985 for UN
standard Large Packagings to promote the integrity of these packagings
in transportation. The DGAC and APE object to this provision in their
appeals. Both state that PHMSA erroneously stated Large Packagings
would contain hazardous materials without an intermediate packaging,
but Large Packagings are designed to contain inner packagings, making
them essentially combination packagings that should comply with Sec.
173.24a(a)(5). The appellants state that PHMSA provided no safety
justification for the additional test, and that this change decreases
harmonization with international standards as the vibration test is not
included in international standards for these packagings. The
appellants also question why PHMSA would submit a paper to the UN
Committee of Experts to permit hazard class Division 1.1D, 1.4G, and
1.4S explosives in Large Packagings but not take this into account when
preparing the Docket No. PHMSA-06-25736 (HM-231) final rule.

    On its own initiative, PHMSA added the vibration test for Large
Packagings, other than for flexible Large Packagings, in the final rule
because, as PHMSA stated in the final rule, the similarity of the Large
Packaging's design to an IBC subjected it to similar packaging design
stresses and opportunities for failure. Further, PHMSA believes, based
on historical experience with the vibration test, that the test is an
essential component for assessing the integrity of an IBC packaging.
Therefore, the test is equally valid for assessing the integrity of a
Large Packaging, regardless of whether the Large Packaging is used as a
single or combination packaging. In addition, the NPRM's regulatory
language did provide for the placement of articles or inner packagings
in Large Packagings. However, these provisions were erroneously omitted
in the February 2 final rule. Therefore, we are revising the language
in Sec.  178.985(a) regarding the vibration test for Large Packagings
to state these packagings must be capable of passing the vibration
test, and clarifying that Large Packagings that contain inner
packagings are bulk packagings.
    PHMSA agrees with the appellants that the vibration test is not
currently required internationally for Large Packagings. In December
2006, PHMSA submitted a proposal (No. 2006/98) to the 30th session of
the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
(Sub-Committee) (the proposal is available at: http://www.unece.org/
trans/doc/2006/ac10c3/ST-SG-AC10-C3-2006-98e.pdf) to incorporate into
the UN Recommendations U.S.-issued competent authority approvals that
permit Division 1.4G (UN 0336) and Division 1.4S (UN 0337) consumer
fireworks to be transported in fiberboard and wood Large Packagings.
This proposal was based on the existing test provisions for these
packagings. PHMSA's intent in this proposal was to add a Large
Packaging authorization, not to amend the Large Packaging test
requirements. At that time, the vibration test was not yet required for
IBCs, but we were working with the Sub-Committee during that session to
add the vibration test for composite IBCs (see Canadian paper (2006/
78); the proposal is available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2006/
ac10c3/ST-SG-AC10-C3-2006-78e.pdf). PHMSA's intent was to add the
vibration test to the composite IBC packaging first, and then consider
what other packaging types it should apply to.
    PHMSA withdrew the proposal before it was considered by the Sub-
Committee and decided not to pursue it further at a future meeting
because we believed the information we received initially from industry
in support of the proposal was not sufficiently complete and may be
inaccurate. After further review, we also decided the proposal as
written at that time was not appropriate as a regulation to be made
available for general use by incorporating it into the UN
Recommendations. Therefore, the Sub-Committee never considered a
proposal from the U.S. to add a Large Packaging authorization for
identification number UN 0336 and UN 0337 fireworks. The Sub-Committee
document noting this withdrawal is available at: http://www.unece.org/
trans/doc/2006/ac10c3/UN-SCETDG-30-INF01e.pdf.
    Finally, on April 1, 2010, the U.S. submitted a working paper (No.
ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/32) for the consideration of the UN Committee of
Experts entitled ``Vibration test for large packagings'' that asks the
Committee to add the vibration testing for all Large Packaging intended
to contain liquids. A copy of this paper is available in the docket for
this final rule at http://www.regulations.gov.

F. Minimum Puncture Resistance for UN 50G Fiberboard Large Packagings

    The February 2 final rule added two puncture-resistant construction
requirements under Sec.  178.930 for rigid fiberboard UN 50 Large
Packagings. The first, in Sec.  178.930 (b)(1)(i), states the walls of
the packaging, including the top and bottom, must have a minimum
puncture resistance of 15 Joules (11 foot-pounds of energy) measured
according to the testing standards prescribed in the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 3036-1975(E) Board--
Determination of Puncture Resistance, which is incorporated by
reference in Sec.  171.7 of the HMR. The second, in Sec.  178.930
(b)(1)(ii), includes a requirement that metal staples used to fasten a
Large Packaging be formed or protected so that any inner lining cannot
be abraded or punctured by them. PHMSA added these requirements to
reduce the likelihood that sharp or protruding objects will puncture
these packagings.
    The APE opposes the ISO standard of puncture resistance for
fiberboard Large Packagings, stating the 15 Joules puncture-resistance
requirement introduces significant additional costs that foreign
competitors, who may import fireworks into the U.S. in packagings of
comparable mass and volume, are not required to comply with. The APE
also states heavier fiberboard would be needed to satisfy this
requirement, and this additional weight may reduce the amount of
material that can be placed in a packaging on a truck. The APE also
states PHMSA in the past issued an approval, CA number not provided,
that required a 5 Joules puncture resistance for fiberboard packagings
and requests that this standard be applied to the fiberboard Large
Packaging as well. We believe the commenter may be referring to
Competent Authority Approval number CA<PHONE_NUMBER>. This competent
authority permits APE to offer for transportation Division 1.4G (UN
0336) and Division 1.4S (UN 0337) fireworks in UN 50G Large Packagings
that conform to the UN Recommendations construction standards for these
packagings except that the walls, including the top and bottom of the
packaging, must pass a puncture resistance of 5 Joules instead of 15
Joules required for all other packagings of this type. Additional
packaging requirements also apply. A copy of the approval is available
under the ``Approvals Search'' link at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/
hazmat/regs/sp-a/approvals. Finally, the APE asserts that PHMSA did not
adequately consider its concerns pertaining to this requirement in its
comments to the NPRM.
    We agree with the appellant that the reduction in puncture
resistance from 15 to 5 Joules the appellant is requesting for
fiberboard UN 50G Large Packagings is adequate for the hazard class,
weight, and type of the hazardous materials permitted under this
approval. However, we disagree that this provision should be applied to
all Large Packagings in other types of hazardous materials service. For
example, the ability of a fiberboard packaging to resist further
tearing when punctured may be crucial to its survivability when it
contains materials that are heavier than fireworks, which typically are
lightweight when compared to their volume, or when it contains
materials that can disperse easily, such as those in grain or powder
form, or liquids in inner packagings. Therefore, we will continue to
authorize fiberboard Large Packagings that pass a 5 Joule puncture-
resistance test under the terms of an approval based on our
determination of its ability to transport a specific type of hazardous
material safely in transportation. To determine whether other types of
hazardous materials may be safely transported in a 5 Joule puncture-
resistant fiberboard Large Packaging, we may consider this issue and
the possibility of allowing the use of this type of packaging under the

terms of a Special Provision prescribed in Sec.  172.102 in a future
rulemaking.

E. Miscellenous Corrections

1. Editorial Corrections for Large Packagings
    In the February 2 final rule, PHMSA added standards for
constructing and testing Large Packagings, represented by the code
designation ``UN 50'' (rigid) or ``UN 51'' (flexible), but did not
consistently revise the references in the HMR to reflect this change.
In this rulemaking, we are revising the definition in Sec.  171.8, and
the references in Sec.  173.197 to correctly identify that the Large
Packaging standards and testing provisions in the HMR are now
prescribed in 49 CFR Part 178, Subparts P and Q. These corrections will
clarify that an approval from the Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Safety is no longer needed to construct and test a UN 50 or
UN 51 Large Packaging.
2. Section Numbers
    PHMSA renumbered several sections pertaining to Large Packagings in
the February 2 final rule to consolidate these requirements into
sections that occur in the ``Sec.  178.900'' series, beginning with
Sec.  178.900 and ending with Sec.  178.985. However, we did not
discuss this change in the preamble. In addition, several section
numbers that appeared in the final rule's regulatory text were not
revised to reflect these changes, and some existing sections numbers
were referenced incorrectly. These editorial changes are summarized
below.
    Section 178.503(e)(1)(i) was incorrectly referred to as Sec.
178.3(e)(1)(i) in Sec.  178.503(e)(1)(ii)(D) in the February 2 final
rule. This error is corrected in this final rule.
    Section 178.902 was renumbered Sec.  178.905; Sec.  178.903 was
renumbered Sec.  178.910; Sec.  178.905 was renumbered Sec.  178.920;
Sec.  178.906 was renumbered Sec.  178.925; Sec.  178.907 was
renumbered Sec.  178.930; Sec.  178.908 was renumbered Sec.  178.935;
Sec.  178.909 was renumbered Sec.  178.940, Sec.  178.1001 was
renumbered Sec.  178.950 in the February 2 final rule.
    In Sec.  178.910, the reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) containing
the identification codes for a Large Packaging design type was
incorrectly described in the NPRM and February 2 final rule as Sec.
178.901. This section was designated as Sec.  178.902 in the NPRM, and
renumbered Sec.  178.905 in the February 2 final rule. Therefore, in
Sec.  178.910(a)(1)(ii), the reference to Sec.  178.901 is renumbered
Sec.  178.905. Also in Sec.  178.910(a)(1)(ii), the reference to the
section containing the general requirements for testing Large
Packagings was incorrectly described in the NPRM and February 2 final
rule as Sec.  178.1001. Therefore, Sec.  178.1001 is renumbered Sec.
178.955 in this final rule.
    In Sec.  178.915(e), the ``p'' in packaging was placed erroneously
in lower case. In addition, the bottom- and top-lift testing sections
for Large Packagings were renumbered Sec.  178.970 and Sec.  178.975,
respectively, in the February 2 final rule but were incorrectly
described in Sec.  178.915(e) as Sec.  178.1004 and Sec.  178.1005.
These errors are also being corrected in this final rule.
    In the February 2 final rule, the sections that prescribe rigid
plastic and flexible Large Packaging standards were renumbered Sec.
178.925 and Sec.  178.940, respectively, but were incorrectly described
in Sec.  178.955(c)(5)(ii) as Sec.  178.906 and Sec.  178.909. Also, in
the February 2 final rule, Sec.  178.1001 was renumbered Sec.  178.955,
Sec.  178.1002 was renumbered Sec.  178.960, and Sec.  178.1015 was
renumbered Sec.  178.980. However, the references in Sec.  178.965(a)
and (b) to Sec.  178.955 and Sec.  178.960 were incorrectly described
as Sec. Sec.  178.1001 and 178.1002, respectively, and the reference in
Sec.  178.980(d) to Sec.  178.980(c) was incorrectly described as Sec.
178.1015(c).
    These errors are being corrected in this final rule.
    Section 178.1019 was renumbered Sec.  178.985 in the February 2
final rule.
3. Punctuation Errors
    In Sec.  178.601(g)(8)(xiii)(C), the comma placed erroneously
before the parenthetic phrase is removed, and the quotation mark used
as a symbolic representation for the word ``inches'' after the numbers
0.625 was replaced with the word ``inches.'' In Sec.
178.601(g)(8)(xiii)(D), the period placed erroneously after the word
``thickness'' is replaced with a comma.

V. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for this Rulemaking

    This final rule is published under authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b),
which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of
hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.
This final rule responds to one petition for reconsideration and four
appeals, and corrects several errors in the February 2, 2010 final
rule. The petition and appeals are available for review in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is a non-significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. This final rule is considered non-
significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). The revisions adopted in
this final rule do not alter the cost-benefit analysis and conclusions
contained in the Regulatory Evaluation prepared for the February 2,
2010 final rule.

C. Executive Order 13132

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''), and
the President's memorandum on ``Preemption'' published in the Federal
Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). This final rule preempts State,
local, and Indian tribe requirements, but does not impose any
regulation with substantial direct effects on the States, the
relationship between the national government and the States, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    The Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-
5127, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b))
preempting State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on the following
subjects:
    (1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous
materials;
    (2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous materials;
    (3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number,
contents, and placement of those documents;
    (4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
    (5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance,
recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container
represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in
transporting hazardous material.
    This final rule addresses covered subject items 1, 2, 3, and 5
above. This rule preempts any State, local, or Indian tribe
requirements concerning these subjects unless the non-Federal
requirements are ``substantively the

same'' as the Federal requirements. This final rule is necessary to
incorporate changes to the final rule in response to one petition for
reconsideration and four appeals, and to make corrections to the
February 2, 2010 final rule that without this rulemaking will become
effective on October 1, 2010.
    Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at Sec.
5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the
covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal
Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date
may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of
the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance.
This effective date of preemption is 90 days after the publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register.

D. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule
does not have tribal implications and does not impose direct compliance
costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order
13175 do not apply.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Procedures and Policies

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities.
An agency must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it
determines and certifies that a rule is not expected to have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
corrections and revisions contained in this final rule are minor and
will have little or no effect on the regulated industry. While
maintaining safety, it relaxes certain requirements. Many of the
amendments in this rulemaking are intended to correct or clarify
regulatory requirements specific to the February 2, 2010 final rule
concerning the construction and use of non-bulk and bulk packagings and
do not impose any additional costs on small entities.
    This final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive
Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking'') and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of
draft rules on small entities are properly considered. The changes in
this final rule will enhance safety, and I certify that this proposal,
if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of
$120.7 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following:
State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private
sector.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule imposes no new information collection requirements.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

I. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Sec. Sec.  42 U.S.C.
4321-4375, requires federal agencies to analyze regulatory actions to
determine whether the action will have a significant impact on the
human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations order federal agencies to conduct an environmental review
considering (1) the need for the action, (2) alternatives to the
action, (3) environmental impacts of the action and alternatives, and
(4) the agencies and persons consulted during the consideration
process. 40 CFR 1508.9(b). In the February 2, 2010 final rule, we
developed an assessment to determine the effects of these revisions on
the environment and whether a more comprehensive environmental impact
statement may be required. The requirements in this rulemaking will
reduce confusion and enhance voluntary compliance, thereby reducing the
likelihood of deaths, injuries, property damage, hazardous materials
release, and other adverse consequences of incidents involving the
transportation of hazardous materials. We have determined there will be
no significant environmental impacts associated with this final rule.

J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or it is
available at: http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 171

    Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

    Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,
Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Uranium.

49 CFR Part 178

    Hazardous materials transportation, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging
and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, we are amending 49 CFR Chapter I,
subchapter C as follows:

PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.53;
Pub. L. 101-410 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104-134
section 31001.

0
2. In Sec.  171.8, the following changes are made:
0
a. The definition for ``bulk packaging'' is amended by revising the
introductory text; and
0
b. The definition for a ``Large packaging'' is amended by revising
paragraph (5) to read as follows:

Sec.  171.8  Definitions and abbreviations.

* * * * *
    Bulk packaging means a packaging, other than a vessel or a barge,
including a transport vehicle or freight container, in which hazardous
materials are loaded with no intermediate form of containment. A Large
Packaging in which hazardous materials are loaded with an intermediate
form of containment, such as one or more articles or inner packagings,
is also a bulk packaging. Additionally, a bulk packaging has: * * *
* * * * *

    Large packaging * * *
    (5) Conforms to the requirements for the construction, testing and
marking of Large Packagings as specified in subparts P and Q of part
178 of this subchapter.
* * * * *

PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND
PACKAGINGS

0
3. The authority citation for part 173 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.

0
4. In Sec.  173.22, paragraph (a)(4) is amended by adding three new
sentences at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:

Sec.  173.22  Shipper's responsibility.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * * A person must maintain a copy of the manufacturer's
notification, including closure instructions (see Sec.  178.2(c) of
this subchapter) unless permanently embossed or printed on the
packaging. When applicable, a person must maintain a copy of any
supporting documentation for an equivalent level of performance under
the selective testing variation in Sec.  178.601(g)(1) of this
subchapter. A copy of the notification, unless permanently embossed or
printed on the packaging, and supporting documentation, when
applicable, must be made available for inspection by a representative
of the Department upon request for the time period of the packaging's
periodic retest date, i.e., every 12 months for single or composite
packagings and every 24 months for combination packagings.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  173.28, in paragraph (a), the third sentence is revised
and, in paragraph (f), the third sentence is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  173.28  Reuse, reconditioning, and remanufacture of packagings.

    (a) * * * Packagings not meeting the minimum thickness requirements
prescribed in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section may not be reused or
reconditioned for reuse.
* * * * *
    (f) * * * Drums or jerricans not meeting the minimum thickness
requirements prescribed in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section may not
be reused or reconditioned for reuse.

0
6. In Sec.  173.197, the first sentence in paragraph (c), introductory
paragraph is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  173.197  Regulated medical waste.

* * * * *
    (c) Large Packagings. Large Packagings constructed, tested, and
marked in accordance with the requirements specified in subparts P and
Q of part 178 of this subchapter and conforming to other requirements
of this paragraph (c) may be used for the transportation of regulated
medical waste, provided the waste is contained in inner packagings
conforming to the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section. * * *
* * * * *

PART 178--SPECIFICATIONS FOR PACKAGINGS

0
7. The authority citation for part 178 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.

0
8. In Sec.  178.2, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  178.2  Applicability and responsibility.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Retain copies of each written notification for the amount of
time that aligns with the packaging's periodic retest date, i.e., every
12 months for single or composite packagings and every 24 months for
combination packagings; and
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  178.503, paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(D) is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  178.503  Marking of packagings.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) The letters ``u'' and ``n'' appear exactly as depicted in Sec.
178.503(e)(1)(i) with no gaps.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec.  178.601, paragraphs (g)(8)(xiii)(C) and (g)(8)(xiii)(D)
are revised to read as follows:

Sec.  178.601  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (xiii) * * *
    (C) Closure ring style including bolt size (e.g., square or round
back, 0.625 inches bolt); and
    (D) Closure ring thickness,
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  178.910, paragraph (a)(1)(ii) is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  178.910  Marking of large packagings.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The code number designating the Large Packaging design type
according to Sec.  178.905. The letter ``W'' must follow the Large
Packaging design type identification code on a Large Packaging when the
Large Packaging differs from the requirements in subpart P of this
part, or is tested using methods other than those specified in this
subpart, and is approved by the Associate Administrator in accordance
with the provisions in Sec.  178.955;
* * * * *
0
12. In Sec.  178.915, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  178.915  General large packaging standards.

* * * * *
    (e) Large Packaging design types must be constructed in such a way
as to be bottom-lifted or top-lifted as specified in Sec. Sec.  178.970
and 178.975.

Sec.  178.930  [Corrected]

0
13. In Sec.  178.930, in the second sentence of paragraph (a)
introductory text, remove the word ``large'', and add the word
``Large'' in its place.

0
14. In Sec.  178.955, paragraph (c)(5)(ii) is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  178.955  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) A rigid plastic Large Packaging, which differs with regard to
additives used to comply with Sec.  178.925(b) or Sec.  178.940(b);
* * * * *
0
15. In Sec.  178.965, paragraphs (a), (b), and the last sentence in
paragraph (c) are revised to read as follows:

Sec.  178.965  Drop test.

    (a) General. The drop test must be conducted for the qualification
of all Large Packaging design types and performed periodically as
specified in Sec.  178.955(e) of this subpart.
    (b) Special preparation for the drop test. Large Packagings must be
filled in accordance with Sec.  178.960.
    (c) * * * Large Packagings conditioned in this way are not required
to be conditioned in accordance with Sec.  178.960(d).
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec.  178.980, paragraph (d)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  178.980  Stacking test.

* * * * *
    (d) Periodic retest.

    (1) The package must be tested in accordance with Sec.  178.980(c)
of this subpart; or
* * * * *

0
17. In Sec.  178.985, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  178.985  Vibration test.

    (a) General. All rigid Large Packaging and flexible Large Packaging
design types must be capable of withstanding the vibration test.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 22, 2010, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-24336 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59218-59219]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20596]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0695; FRL--9946-19-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Site Remediation (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Site Remediation (40
CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2062.06, OMB
Control No. 2060-0534), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through May 31, 2016. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5,
2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 28,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0695, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required
to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the
general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as well as for the
specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGGGG. This includes
submitting initial notification reports, performance tests and periodic
reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance
with the standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities with site remediation
activities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GGGGG).
    Estimated number of respondents: 286 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 140,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $13,900,000 (per year), which includes
$582,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total respondent burden hours as currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved Burdens. This decrease is not due to any program
changes. The decrease in labor hours occurred because this ICR corrects
a mathematical error in calculating managerial hours. The previous ICR
inadvertently calculated managerial labor hours as 50% of technical
labor hours, rather than 5%, for Federal Government respondents.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-20596 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P