13016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDIX C TO PART 4.—ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF DISABILITIES—Continued 

Diagnostic 

code No. 

20/100 (6/30); 20/70 (6/21); 20/50 (6/15) ............................................................................................................................. 6076 

20/40 (6/12) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6077 

One eye 20/200 (6/60), with visual acuity of other eye: 

20/200 (6/60) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6075 

20/100 (6/30); 20/70 (6/21); 20/50 (6/15) ............................................................................................................................. 6076 

20/40 (6/12) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6077 

One eye 20/100 (6/30), with visual acuity of other eye: and other eye: 

20/100 (6/30); 20/70 (6/21); 20/50 (6/15) ............................................................................................................................. 6078 

20/40 (6/12) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6079 

One eye 20/70 (6/21), with visual acuity of other eye: 

20/70 (6/21) or 20/50 (6/15) .................................................................................................................................................. 6078 

20/40 (6/12) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6079 

One eye 20/50 (6/15), with visual acuity of other eye: 

20/50 (6/15) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6078 

20/40 (6/12) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6079 

Each eye 20/40 (6/12) .................................................................................................................................................................. 6079 

Vitiligo .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7823 

Vulva disease or injury of .................................................................................................................................................................... 7610 

Weak foot ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5277 

[FR Doc. E7–4914 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117; FRL–8289–6] 

RIN 2060–AO18 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of reconsideration of 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 10, 2006, EPA 

published a final rule entitled, 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors.’’

Following that final action, the 

Administrator received a petition for 

reconsideration. In response to the 

petition, EPA is announcing its 

reconsideration of three aspects of the 

rule: operator stand-in provisions, data 

requirements for continuous monitors, 

and the status of operating parameters 

during the 2 weeks prior to mercury and 

dioxin/furan testing. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before April 19, 2007. 

Because of the need to resolve the issues 

raised in this action in a timely manner, 

EPA will not grant requests for 

extensions beyond this date. If, 

however, a public hearing is held, the 

comment period will remain open until 

May 4, 2007. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA by March 27, 2007 requesting to 

speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold 

a public hearing on April 4, 2007. If you 

are interested in attending the public 

hearing, contact Pamela Garrett at (919) 

541–7966 to verify that a hearing will be 

held. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117, by one of 

the following methods. 

Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

E-mail: Send your comments via 

electronic mail to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117. 

Facsimile: Fax your comments to 

(202) 566–1741, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117. 

Mail: Send your comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA, Mailcode 

6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–

0117. 

Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), EPA West Building, Room B108, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC, 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–

0117. Such deliveries are accepted only 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays), and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–

0117. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

requested, it will be held at EPA’s 

Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13017 

Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC, or 

an alternate site nearby. If no one 

contacts Pamela Garrett by March 27, 

2007 requesting to speak at a public 

hearing, we will not hold a hearing. The 

public hearing will provide interested 

parties the opportunity to present data, 

views, or arguments concerning the 

reconsideration. The record for this 

action will remain open for 30 days after 

the date of the hearing to accommodate 

submittal of rebuttal and supplementary 

information. 

Docket. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information 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. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This 

Docket facility and the Public Reading 

Room are open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The Docket telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Walt Stevenson, Energy Strategies 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division (D243–01), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

(919) 541–5264, e-mail 

stevenson.walt@epa.gov. For questions 

about the public hearing, contact 

Pamela Garrett (919) 541–7966. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this notice of reconsideration 

apply to me? 

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background Information 

III. Actions We Are Taking 

IV. Discussion of Issues for Reconsideration 

A. Operator Stand-in Provisions 

B. Data Requirements for Continuous 

Monitors 

C. Status of Operating Parameters During 

the 2 Weeks Prior to Mercury and 

Dioxin/Furan Testing 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this notice of reconsideration 

apply to me? 

1. Regulated Entities 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by this reconsideration notice 

are municipal waste combustion units 

with a design combustion capacity of 

greater than 250 tons per day (tpd). The 

New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) and emission guidelines for 

municipal waste combustors affect the 

following categories of sources: 

Category NAICS 

code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry, Federal government, and State/ 

local/tribal governments.

562213, 

92411 

Solid waste combustors or incinerators at waste-to-energy facilities that generate electricity or steam from the combustion of garbage (typically municipal solid waste); and 

solid waste combustors or incinerators at facilities that combust garbage (typically 

municipal solid waste) and do not recover energy from the waste combustion. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities that are 

regulated by the final large municipal 

waste combustors (MWC) rules. You 

should consult the applicability 

provisions of the NSPS and emission 

guidelines to determine if you are 

subject to the rule. 

B. How do I obtain a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

Docket. The docket number for this 

action and the final large MWC NSPS 

(40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb) and 

emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cb) is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2005–0117. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, 

electronic copies of the final rule and 

this notice of reconsideration are 

available on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network Web site 

(TTN Web). Following signature, EPA 

posted a copy of this notice on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

II. Background Information 

Section 129 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), entitled ‘‘Solid Waste 

Combustion,’’ requires EPA to develop 

and adopt NSPS for new units and 

emission guidelines for existing units 

for solid waste incineration units 

pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129. 

Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires 

EPA to conduct a 5-year review of the 

NSPS and emissions guidelines and, in 

accordance with sections 129 and 111, 

revise the NSPS and emission 

guidelines. EPA undertook and 

completed that review. On December 

19, 2005 (70 FR 75348), EPA proposed 

amendments to the NSPS and emission 

guidelines to reflect the revisions EPA 

believes are appropriate. EPA carefully 

considered comments received on the 

proposal and promulgated the 

amendments on May 10, 2006 (71 FR 

27323). 

Following the promulgation of the 

final amendments to the large MWC 

rule, EPA received a petition for 

reconsideration from Earthjustice. The 

purpose of today’s notice is to initiate a 

process for responding to issues raised 

in the petition. 

III. Actions We Are Taking 

We are granting reconsideration of, 

and requesting comment on, three of the 

four issues raised in the petition for 

reconsideration: (1) The provisions to 

allow provisionally-certified control 

room operators to perform the duties of 

a certified chief facility operator or 

certified shift operator; (2) the data 

availability requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS); 

and (3) the status of operating 

parameters during the 2 weeks prior to 

mercury and dioxin/furan testing. EPA 

is not proposing any rule changes as a 

result of this reconsideration. 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

We are seeking public comment only 

on the three issues specifically 

identified in this notice. We will not 

respond to any comments addressing 

other aspects of the large MWC rule or 

any related rulemakings. 

Our final decision on reconsideration 

of the issue raised by the petitioner for 

which we are not granting 

reconsideration will be issued no later 

than the date by which we take final 

action on the issues discussed in this 

action. 

IV. Discussion of Issues for 

Reconsideration 

This section of the preamble contains 

EPA’s basis for our proposed response 

to the issues identified in the petition 

for reconsideration. 

A. Operator Stand-in Provisions 

Earthjustice, in their petition of July 7, 

2006, states ‘‘EPA must reconsider its 

decision to allow untrained employees 

to perform the duties of a certified chief 

facility operator or certified shift 

operator.’’ Below, EPA presents its 

rationale for the training and 

certification requirements contained in 

the final rule for large MWC units. This 

presentation includes a review of (1) 

requirements under CAA section 129(d); 

(2) requirements under section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA); (3) training 

and certification requirements adopted 

for large MWC units in 1995 under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Eb; (4) 

implementation guidance issued in 

1998; (5) revisions proposed for large 

MWC units in December 2005; (6) 

public comments received on the 

proposed operator certification 

requirements; and (7) operator ‘‘standin’’ requirements contained in the final 

May 2006 rule. 

Under CAA section 129(d), EPA 

‘‘shall develop and promote a model 

State program for the training and 

certification of solid waste incineration 

unit operators * * *. It shall be 

unlawful to operate any unit in the 

category unless each person with 

control over processes affecting 

emissions from such unit has 

satisfactorily completed a training 

program meeting the requirements 

established by the Administrator under 

this section.’’ Additionally, under 

section 12(d) of the NTTAA, EPA is 

directed to incorporate readily available 

voluntary consensus standards into its 

regulations unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. 

In the 1995 rule for MWC units, EPA 

addressed both the training 

requirements and certification 

requirements. The rule addresses the 

training requirements in two ways. 

First, to promote and assist State air 

pollution control offices, EPA 

developed and distributed an MWC 

training program. The 1995 rule 

required all control room operators, 

shift supervisors, and chief facility 

operators to complete the training. 

Second, the 1995 rule required MWC 

owners and operators to develop a sitespecific operating manual that included: 

(1) A summary of the 1995 MWC rule; 

(2) description of the basic combustion 

theory applicable to the MWC; (3) 

procedures for receiving, handling, and 

feeding municipal solid waste to the 

MWC; (4) procedures for start-up, 

shutdown, and malfunction at the 

MWC; (5) procedures for maintaining 

proper combustion air supply to the 

MWC; (6) procedures for operating 

within the requirements of the 1995 

MWC rule; (7) procedures for 

responding to periodic upset or offspecification conditions; (8) procedures 

for minimizing particulate matter 

carryover; (9) procedures for ash 

handling; (10) procedures for 

monitoring emissions from the MWC; 

and (11) a review of reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. The 1995 

rule required the manual to be used to 

train a wide range of individuals at the 

MWC. Not only did the 1995 rule 

require training of the control room 

operators, shift supervisors, and chief 

facility operator, but it also required 

training of the crane/load handlers, ash 

handlers, maintenance personnel, as 

well as any other person at the MWC 

with responsibilities affecting the 

operation of MWC. The 1995 MWC rule 

required initial training of these 

individuals and an annual review of the 

manual. The 1995 rule required that a 

copy of the manual be kept in a location 

readily accessible by these personnel. 

These requirements ensure that 

individuals working at an MWC are well 

trained and know how the plant is to be 

operated. 

Relative to CAA certification 

requirements, EPA considered 

development of a certification program. 

However, as a first step, consistent with 

NTTAA requirements, EPA conducted a 

review to see if such standards or 

techniques were already developed and 

available. EPA identified the availability 

of the national MWC operator 

certification program that had been 

developed and implemented by the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME). The ASME program 

satisfied EPA’s needs. The program was 

titled ‘‘Standards for the Qualification 

and Certification of Resource Recovery 

Facility Operators (QRO)–1989.’’ The 

ASME/QRO certification is MWC plantspecific and ASME certifies only the 

supervisory positions of chief facility 

operator and shift supervisor. As the 

first step toward certification, the 

individual must obtain an ASME 

provisional certification. Next, the 

individual must ‘‘document 6 months of 

satisfactory employment at the level of 

chief facility operator or shift supervisor 

in that resource recovery facility.’’ After 

completing the 6-month employment, 

the individual may apply for MWC sitespecific certification testing. A control 

room operator can also obtain ASME 

provisional certification, but cannot take 

the ASME test for full certification until 

the control room operator elevates to the 

level of chief facility operator or shift 

supervisor. 

The 1995 MWC rule requires that 

during all periods of MWC operations, 

one of the following people must be on 

site: A fully-certified chief facility 

operator, a provisionally-certified chief 

facility operator scheduled to take the 

ASME/QRO full certification test, a 

fully-certified shift supervisor, or a 

provisionally-certified shift supervisor 

scheduled to take the ASME/QRO full 

certification. If these individuals must 

leave the MWC plant during their 

operating shift, a provisionally-certified 

control room operator may stand in. 

Shortly after adopting the MWC rule in 

1995, questions arose about the control 

room operator ‘‘stand-in’’ provisions. 

The basic question was: could a 

provisionally-certified control room 

operator stand in for longer than a 

partial operating shift? For example, if 

the chief facility operator was out of the 

State at a meeting, and the shift 

supervisor became sick and was out for 

a number of days, what should be done? 

Should the MWC plant stop operations 

until a certified individual returns, 

while hundreds of tons of municipal 

solid waste were being received daily? 

Should the waste be diverted to some 

other location? 

To address these issues, an 

enforcement guidance memorandum 

was issued by EPA on May 14, 1998 

(‘‘John Seitz memo’’). The guidance 

memorandum addresses what to do for 

periods up to 12 hours, up to 2 weeks, 

and greater than 2 weeks. Such periods 

could occur during vacations, training, 

administrative activities, or sickness. If 

both the certified chief facility operator 

and shift supervisor would be away 

from the MWC for more than 2 weeks, 

the guidance memorandum requires the 

MWC owner or operator to notify EPA 

of what actions were being taken to 

address the absence of certified 

personnel and to submit supplemental 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13019 

monthly reports until the certified 

personnel returned or were replaced. 

Such extended period could occur if a 

certified individual was transferred to 

another MWC, the certified individual 

discontinued employment at the MWC, 

or the certified individual was 

dismissed. The 1998 guidance memo 

has been used for the past 9 years for 

implementation of the operator stand-in 

provisions. 

On December 19, 2005, EPA proposed 

revisions to the 1995 MWC rule. One of 

the proposed revisions was to 

incorporate the provisions of the 1998 

guidance memorandum into the MWC 

rule. These same provisions had already 

been incorporated into the small MWC 

rules (subparts AAAA and BBBB, 40 

CFR part 60) on December 6, 2000. EPA 

received a number of comments on the 

2005 proposal, including one comment 

on the proposed control room operator 

stand-in provisions. The commenter 

supported the proposal, but noted that 

the stand-in/certification provisions 

should be expanded to address a recent 

issue being faced by the MWC industry: 

The turnover of certified chief facility 

operators and certified shift supervisors 

has increased due to the growing 

employment opportunities in the power 

generation and industrial boiler 

industries. The commenter noted that it 

was not uncommon to lose one or more 

certified individuals from an MWC 

plant in the same year. The commenter 

also noted that when an employee (the 

control room operator in most cases) 

was promoted to the shift supervisor 

position (or chief facility operator 

position), the employee would have to 

act in that capacity for 6 months before 

the employee could apply for ASME/ 

QRO testing. Since this activity would 

take more than 2 weeks, under the 1998 

guidance memo the owner or operator of 

the MWC would be required to notify 

EPA of this activity and provide 

monthly reports. 

EPA carefully considered the 

comment, noting that the request 

limited the focus of the exemption to 

provisionally-certified control room 

operators. EPA considered CAA 

requirements, NTTAA requirements, 

training requirements in the rule, 

ASME/QRO requirements, and the 1998 

guidance memo. Under the May 10, 

2006 rule, all control room operators 

will have already completed the EPA 

training course, will have completed 

initial training and annual review of a 

site-specific MWC operating manual, 

and under this exemption will already 

have achieved provisional certification 

by the ASME/QRO program. In its 

evaluation, EPA concluded this limited 

exemption did not undermine the MWC 

regulation, did not allow untrained 

individuals to operate the MWC, and 

would, in fact, improve the efficiency of 

the regulation by reducing unnecessary 

reporting and paperwork requirements. 

The final rule adopted on May 10, 2006, 

added text at 40 CFR 60.54b(c)(3) that 

says: ‘‘A provisionally certified operator 

who is newly promoted or recently 

transferred to a shift supervisor position 

or a chief facility operator position at 

the municipal waste combustion unit 

may perform the duties of the certified 

chief facility operator or certified shift 

supervisor without notice to, or 

approval by, the Administrator for up to 

6 months before taking the ASME QRO 

certification exam.’’

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

continues to believe that this provision 

is appropriate and, therefore, is not 

proposing to change it. The EPA is, 

however, soliciting comment on the 

appropriateness of the provision from 

interested parties and will make a final 

decision on the issue after fully 

considering any such comments. 

B. Data Requirements for Continuous 

Monitors 

The second issue addressed by this 

notice of reconsideration is the data 

availability requirements for CEMS. 

Earthjustice in their petition states ‘‘EPA 

must reconsider its CEMS data 

availability requirements.’’ Earthjustice 

suggests the final CEMS data 

requirements are inadequate. In 

particular, Earthjustice took exception 

to the elimination of a ‘‘requirement that 

operators obtain CEMS data for 75 

percent of the operating hours per day 

before the data is counted toward the 

CEMS data availability requirements.’’

In this section, EPA presents its 

rationale for the CEMS data availability 

requirements contained in the final rule. 

This includes a review of (1) The 

progression of CEMS data requirements 

from 1979 thru 1995, (2) proposed 2005 

CEMS data requirements for large MWC 

units, (3) public comments on proposed 

requirements, and (4) final 2006 data 

requirements. 

In development of NSPS under CAA 

section 111, EPA has constantly pushed 

for increased CEMS application and 

improvements. Relative to boiler 

standards, the first NSPS to use CEMS 

as a continuous compliance test method 

was the 1979 NSPS for electric utility 

boilers (40 CFR part 60, subpart Da). 

This was followed with identical CEMS 

requirements under the subpart Db, 40 

CFR part 60, NSPS (1987) for industrial 

boilers and the subpart Dc, 40 CFR part 

60, NSPS (1990) for commercial boilers. 

This was followed with revised, but 

similar, CEMS requirements under the 

subpart Ea, 40 CFR part 60, NSPS (1991) 

and the subpart Eb, 40 CFR part 60, 

NSPS (1995) for large MWC units. 

CEMS technology has continued to 

improve, and EPA has continued to 

increase requirements. 

CEMS data availability requirements, 

and the format of those requirements, 

have been refined and revised over time. 

The CEMS data requirements under the 

1979 subpart Da NSPS for electric utility 

boilers includes a minimum CEMS data 

generation rate of 75 percent of the 

operating hours per day for 22 days in 

each 30 day period. This minimum data 

collection requirement equates to 55 

percent CEMS data availability (0.75 × 

(22/30) = 0.55). This same requirement 

was incorporated into the 1987 subpart 

Db for industrial boilers and the 1990 

subpart Dc for commercial boilers. EPA 

reformatted these requirements slightly, 

and in the 1991 subpart Ea NSPS for 

MWC units, included a minimum data 

requirement of 75 percent of the 

operating hours per day for 75 percent 

of the operating days per month. This 

minimum data collection requirement 

equates to 56 percent data availability 

(0.75 × 0.75 = 0.56). 

Under section 129 of the CAA 

amendments of 1990, EPA was required 

to upgrade the subpart Ea requirements 

to be based on the use of maximum 

available control technology (MACT). 

An upgraded subpart Eb was adopted in 

1995. The upgrade to subpart Eb 

included increased CEMS data 

requirements. Under the 1995 subpart 

Eb, the minimum data availability 

requirement was 75 percent of the 

operating hours per day for 90 percent 

of the operating days per calendar 

quarter. This minimum data 

requirement equates to a minimum of 68 

percent data availability (0.75 × 0.90 = 

0.68). 

Acting in accordance with the 

requirements of CAA section 129(a)(5), 

EPA initiated a review of the 1995 

subpart Eb rule for large MWC units, 

which included a review of CEMS data 

availability requirements. As described 

in the December 19, 2005 proposal, EPA 

obtained calendar year 2003 CEMS data 

from a large MWC plant. The data 

included CEMS information on six 

parameters (sulfur dioxide, oxygen, 

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, 

hydrogen chloride, opacity, and flue gas 

temperature at the inlet to the 

particulate matter control device), for 

each of the three MWC units at the 

plant, and for all four quarters of 

operation in 2003. Overall, this data 

base contained 72 calendar quarters of 

CEMS data (6 × 3 × 4 = 72). For all 

quarters and all parameters, the CEMS 

data availability level was more than 99 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13020 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

percent. This information had been 

formatted differently than EPA’s 1995 

rule. The data statistics presented were 

in hours of valid CEMS data generated 

per quarter divided by the hours of 

MWC operation per quarter. It did not 

consider a 75 percent daily data 

requirement. Because of the differences 

of data formats, EPA made conservative 

assumptions and proposed to increase 

the minimum data requirement to 75 

percent of the operating hours per day 

for 95 percent of the operating days per 

calendar quarter. This proposed 

requirement equates to a minimum data 

requirement of 72 percent CEMS data 

availability (0.75 × 0.95 = 0.72). 

On December 19, 2005, EPA proposed 

these more stringent requirements for 

subpart Eb. EPA received a number of 

comments on the proposal including 

comments on the CEMS data availability 

requirements. The most relevant 

comment regarding CEMS data 

availability was that the CEMS data 

availability analysis used by EPA had 

not been adjusted to include the 

proposed 75 percent daily data 

requirement. The commenter suggested 

this adjustment would have reduced the 

99 percent data availability level shown 

by the analysis. Rather than adjust the 

analysis, EPA elected to revise the 

format of the CEMS data availability 

requirements to match the analysis. This 

would also eliminate the need for the 

conservative assumptions made in 

adjusting from one format to the other. 

CEMS data availability would be based 

simply on actual hours of MWC 

operation. 

The percent of operation format is 

becoming common for reporting CEMS 

data availability generally. Under EPA’s 

acid rain control program, more than 

1,000 electric utility boilers report 

information on CEMS data generation to 

EPA. The hourly data submitted is 

compiled by EPA as the ratio (percent) 

of hours of CEMS data generation 

relative to hours of boiler operation per 

calendar quarter. The 75 percent daily 

data requirement is not used. EPA 

recently upgraded the subpart Da NSPS 

for new electric utility boilers and in 

that action revised the CEMS data 

requirements to be based on the percent 

of boiler operating hours. The 75 

percent daily data requirement was 

dropped from subpart Da. The percent 

of operation format is a superior metric 

for CEMS performance. It does not 

credit data as being available for a full 

24-hour day unless it is available for a 

full 24 hours. Data is credited on an 

hour-by-hour basis. Under the earlier 75 

percent daily data format, a day was 

counted as a full day if more than 75 

percent (18 hours) of data were 

generated. 

In the May 10, 2006, large MWC rule, 

EPA revised the CEMS data availability 

requirements to be based on the hours 

of MWC operation. Also, in 

consideration of public comments on 

the potential need for back-up CEMS, 

EPA revised the data requirement to 90 

percent on a calendar quarter basis and 

95 percent on a calendar year basis. The 

final requirement equates to a minimum 

data requirement of 90 percent CEMS 

data availability on a calendar quarter 

basis and 95 percent on an annual basis. 

The final rule adopted on May 10, 

2006, contains revised text at 40 CFR 

60.58b(e)(7) to read as follows: ‘‘At a 

minimum, valid continuous monitoring 

system hourly averages shall be 

obtained* * * for 90 percent of the 

operating hours per calendar quarter 

and for 95 percent of the operating 

hours per calendar year that the affected 

facility is combusting municipal waste.’’

In summary, EPA has continued to 

upgrade CEMS data requirements. The 

final requirements are superior to the 

proposed requirements and earlier 

requirements. As shown in Table 1 of 

this preamble, on a calendar quarter 

basis, the proposed requirements would 

have required a minimum of 1,539 

hours of CEMS data generation (71 

percent) per calendar quarter as 

opposed to the final requirements with 

a minimum of 1,944 hours of CEMS data 

generation (90 percent) per calendar 

quarter. 

TABLE 1.—MINIMUM CEMS DATA REQUIREMENTS UNDER 40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART Eba

Data required 

(per calendar quarter) 

1995 

Rule 

2005 Proposal 2006 

Final 

Hours ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,458 b 1,539 c 1,944 d

Percent ................................................................................................................................................................. 68 71 90 

(a) Table based on the assumption that an MWC operated for 24 hours per day for a 90 day calendar quarter: (24 × 90 = 2,160 hours of MWC 

operation). 

(b) CEMS data for 75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the days per quarter: (0.75 × 24)(0.90 × 90) = 1,458 hours of 

data. 

(c) CEMS data for 75 percent of the operating hours per day for 95 percent of the days per quarter: (0.75 × 24)(0.95 × 90) = 1,539 hours of 

data. 

(d) CEMS data for 90 percent of the MWC operating hours per quarter: (0.90)(90 × 24) = 1,944 hours of data. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

believes that the data availability 

requirements contained in the final rule, 

including the elimination of the 

requirement to obtain data for 75 

percent of the operating hours per day, 

is the preferred approach. The EPA is, 

therefore, not proposing to change the 

requirement. The EPA is, however, 

soliciting comment on the issue from 

interested parties and will make a final 

decision on the issue after fully 

considering any such comments. 

C. Status of Operating Parameters 

During the 2 Weeks Prior to Mercury 

and Dioxin/Furan Testing 

The third issue addressed by this 

notice of reconsideration is the 

operating parameter testing for activated 

carbon injection (ACI) rate. Earthjustice 

in their petition says ‘‘EPA must 

reconsider its operating parameter 

requirements * * *. EPA’s rule now 

allows MWC to avoid meeting mass 

carbon feed rate limits for dioxin/furan 

testing, as well as mercury testing, and 

increases to more than 4 weeks per year 

the total amount of time that MWC can 

avoid meeting mass carbon feed rate 

limits.’’ Below, EPA presents its 

rationale for the mass carbon feed rate 

alternatives in the final rule. This 

presentation includes a review of the 

following: (1) The requirements in the 

1994 proposed and 1995 final large 

MWC rules, (2) requirements in the 

2005 proposed amendments to the large 

MWC rule, (3) public comments 

received on proposed amendments, and 

(4) requirements in the final 2006 large 

MWC rule. 

First, it is useful to briefly review 

MWC control systems. MWC units use 

either spray dryer/fabric filter (SD/FF) 

scrubbing systems or spray dryer/ 

electrostatic precipitator (SD/ESP) 

scrubbing systems as the basic 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13021 

component of their MACT control 

system. Other technologies are used to 

supplement this primary control system. 

ACI is one technology used to 

supplement dioxin/furan control and 

mercury control. Of the 167 large MWC 

units, 120 MWC units use ACI for 

supplemental control. The 

supplemental use of ACI reduces 

mercury emissions by about 90 percent 

from the level achieved by the scrubbing 

system alone and reduces dioxin/furan 

emissions by about 75 percent from the 

level achieved by the scrubbing system 

alone. 

In 1995, dioxin/furan emissions at 

MWC units were stack tested. CEMS to 

measure dioxin/furan were unavailable. 

To supplement the annual dioxin/furan 

test, various operating parameters are 

measured continuously. The rule 

requires the continuous monitoring of 

the following site-specific operating 

parameters: (1) MWC load level (steam 

generation rate), (2) flue gas 

temperatures at the inlet to the 

particulate matter control device, and 

(3) ACI injection rate (mass carbon feed 

rate). The allowable rate for these 

parameters is established during the 

dioxin/furan stack test and is sitespecific for each MWC unit. Relative to 

mercury testing, the 1995 rule requires 

measurement of ACI mass flow rate 

during both the dioxin/furan stack test 

and the mercury stack test, with the 

more restrictive of the two flow rates 

applied. For all three operating 

parameters, the site-specific limits are 

applied on a continuous basis until the 

next annual stack test when new 

parameters are established. 

The site-specific parameters discussed 

above adequately addressed operating 

parameters for the initial MACT 

compliance test (December 2000). 

Owners and operators of the MWC units 

would have had adequate time 

following control device retrofits for 

pre-testing and adjusting the control 

system before the initial MACT 

compliance test. However, there 

remained the question of what should 

be done for subsequent compliance 

tests. 

The 1995 MWC rule answered that 

question by providing the following at 

40 CFR 60.53b(b): ‘‘During the annual 

dioxin/furan performance test and 2 

weeks preceding* * * the municipal 

waste combustor load limit may be 

waived in accordance with permission 

granted by the Administrator * * * for 

the purpose of evaluating system 

performance, testing new technology or 

control technologies, diagnostic testing, 

or related activities for the purpose of 

improving facility performance* * *.’’

An identical 2-week waiver is provided 

in 40 CFR 60.53b(c) for establishing the 

site-specific operating parameter for flue 

gas temperature at the inlet to the 

particulate matter control device during 

dioxin/furan testing. Optimizing ACI 

rate was not addressed. 

In the 2005 proposal, 40 CFR 

60.53b(b) and (c) were proposed to be 

revised to allow waiver of municipal 

waste combustor load limit and flue gas 

temperature at the inlet to the 

particulate matter control device during 

either dioxin/furan testing or mercury 

testing. Previously, optimization testing 

for these two parameters was allowed 

during only dioxin/furan testing. 

Additionally, companion text was 

added in 40 CFR 60.58b(m) to allow 

optimization testing for ACI injection 

rate before mercury testing. The 2005 

proposal also required the testing 

waiver be a written document. The 

proposal did not propose to add 

optimization testing for ACI injection 

rate before dioxin/furan testing. 

One comment received on the 2005 

proposal indicated EPA should revise 

the rule to make it clear that all three 

operating parameters are waived for up 

to 2 weeks prior to testing for either 

dioxin/furan or mercury. This would 

assure consistency, since all three 

parameters affect both dioxin/furan 

emissions and mercury emissions. The 

text in the final 2006 rule allows a 2- 

week waiver for optimization of the 

three operating parameters, whether 

testing for dioxin/furan or mercury. 

The optimization tests are expected to 

be relatively short. In most cases, the 

optimization testing for dioxin/furan 

and mercury will be conducted during 

the same test period. This is an 

economic reality: the duration of the test 

program significantly affects the cost of 

testing. To illustrate this, EPA randomly 

selected and compiled dioxin/furan and 

mercury testing dates that occurred at 

27 MWC units during their initial 

compliance tests. EPA noted the date 

the testing was started and the date it 

was completed, and calculated the 

duration from start to finish (including 

time that existed between dioxin/furan 

and mercury tests). The most common 

test duration for dioxin/furan and 

mercury testing for the 27 MWC units 

was 2 days. The average test duration 

was 3.6 days. All test programs took less 

than 8 days. Clearly, optimization 

testing for dioxin/furan and mercury is 

expected to be coordinated and 

completed in 2 weeks or less. The only 

exception envisioned is for an 

exceptionally well operated MWC plant 

that under 40 CFR 60.58(g)(5)(iii) is not 

required to conduct dioxin/furan tests 

on all units each year. In such cases, it 

is possible that only mercury emissions 

will be optimized and tested. This 

should occur in limited circumstances 

because the operating parameters 

optimized for mercury control would be 

of little utility if the previous 

parameters determined from dioxin/ 

furan testing were more stringent and 

were controlling. In any case, a test 

period of up to 2 weeks is judged to be 

adequate for dioxin/furan and mercury 

optimization testing, with the period 

allowed by the Administrator 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

In summary, the procedure for 

establishing operating parameters has 

been refined for consistency over time. 

The application for a waiver prior to 

testing must now be made in writing to 

the Administrator. The testing duration 

schedule, as determined by the 

Administrator, is expected to be 2 weeks 

or less. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

believes that the provision for 

optimization testing for ACI injection 

before dioxin/furan testing contained in 

the final rule is appropriate and, 

therefore, is not proposing to change it. 

The EPA is, however, soliciting 

comment on the issue from interested 

parties and will make a final decision 

on the issue after fully considering any 

such comments. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This notice of reconsideration is not 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, 

therefore, not subject to review under 

the Executive Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This notice of reconsideration does 

not impose any new information 

collection burden. The Office of 

Management and Budget previously 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the NSPS 

and emission guidelines for large MWC 

units under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., at the time the NSPS and 

emission guidelines were promulgated 

on December 19, 1995 and subsequent 

recertifications. The information 

collection request has been assigned 

OMB Control Number 2060–0210 (EPA 

ICR No. 1506.10). 

This action results in no changes to 

the information collection requirements 

of the NSPS or emission guidelines and 

will have no impact on the information 

collection estimate of project cost and 

hour burden made and approved by 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13022 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

OMB. Therefore, the information 

collection requests have not been 

revised. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of the large MWC rules on small 

entities, small entity is defined as 

follows: (1) A small business in the 

regulated industry that has gross annual 

revenues of less than $6 million; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a 

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this notice of reconsideration 

on small entities, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This notice of 

reconsideration will not impose any 

requirements on any entities because it 

does not impose any additional 

regulatory requirements. We continue to 

be interested in the potential impacts of 

this action on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if EPA 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. 

Before EPA establishes any regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including Tribal governments, EPA 

must have developed, under section 203 

of the UMRA, a small government 

agency plan. The plan must provide for 

notifying potentially affected small 

governments, enabling officials of 

affected small governments to have 

meaningful and timely input in the 

development of EPA’s regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this notice 

of reconsideration contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This notice of 

reconsideration imposes no enforceable 

duty on any State, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. Thus, 

this notice of reconsideration is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications.’’

‘‘Policies that have Federalism 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government.’’

This notice of reconsideration does 

not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This notice of 

reconsideration will not impose direct 

compliance costs on State or local 

governments, and will not preempt 

State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this notice of 

reconsideration. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This notice of 

reconsideration does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on Tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this notice of reconsideration. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13023 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying to those regulatory actions 

that concern health or safety risks, such 

that the analysis required under section 

5–501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This notice of reconsideration is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because the large MWC final rule is 

based on technology performance. Also, 

this notice of reconsideration is not 

‘‘economically significant.’’

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This notice of reconsideration is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; 

15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

with explanations when EPA does not 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

EPA is not proposing to make any 

changes to the regulatory requirements 

in the large MWC final rule in this 

action, including requirements that 

involve technical standards. As a result, 

the NTTAA discussion set forth in the 

May 10, 2006, final rule remains valid. 

The requirements of NTTAA, therefore, 

do not apply to this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 14, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–5022 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Parts 1544, 1546, and 1548 

[Docket No. TSA–2004–19515; Amendment 

Nos. 1544–7, 1546–4, and 1548–4] 

RIN 1652–AA52 

Air Cargo Security Requirements; 

Compliance Dates; Amendment 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), DHS. 

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This interim final rule (IFR) 

amends the Air Cargo Security 

Requirements final rule (Air Cargo Final 

Rule) by extending the compliance dates 

by which aircraft operators, foreign air 

carriers, and indirect air carriers (IACs) 

must ensure that their employees and 

agents with unescorted access to cargo, 

and IAC proprietors, general partners, 

officers, directors, and certain owners of 

the entity successfully complete a 

Security Threat Assessment (STA). This 

extension is based on technology 

problems that TSA is experiencing with 

the processing of STA applications. 

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective 

March 20, 2007. 

Comment Date: Comments must be 

received by May 21, 2007. 

Compliance Dates: Compliance date 

for STAs for employees under 

§§ 1544.228, 1546.213, 1548.15, and for 

IAC proprietors, general partners, 

officers, directors and certain owners of 

the entity under § 1548.16: Changed 

from March 15, 2007, to a requirement 

that the operators submit names and 

other identifying information to TSA by 

May 15, 2007. The date that all covered 

individuals must have successfully 

completed the STAs is extended to a 

date that TSA will specify in a future 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Compliance dates for STAs for agents 

under §§ 1544.228, 1546.213, and 

1548.15: Changed from June 15, 2007, to 

a requirement that the operators submit 

names and other identifying information 

to TSA by July 15, 2007. The date that 

all covered individuals must have 

successfully completed the STAs is 

extended to a date that TSA will specify 

in a future notice in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the TSA docket number to 

this rulemaking, using any one of the 

following methods: 

Comments Filed Electronically: You 

may submit comments through the 

docket Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. 

You also may submit comments through 

the Federal Rulemaking portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments Submitted by Mail, Fax, or 

In Person: Address or deliver your 

written, signed comments to the Docket 

Management System, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001; Fax: 202–493–2251. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

format and other information about 

comment submissions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tamika McCree, Office of 

Transportation Security Network 

Management (TSA–28), Transportation 

Security Administration, 601 South 

12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202; (571–

227–2632); tamika.mccree@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

This interim final rule is being 

adopted without prior notice and prior 

public comment. However, to the 

maximum extent possible, TSA will 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment on regulations issued without 

prior notice. Accordingly, TSA invites 

interested persons to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. See ADDRESSES above for 

information on where to submit 

comments. 

With each comment, please include 

your name and address, identify the 

docket number at the beginning of your 

comments, and give the reason for each 

comment. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

rulemaking, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. You may submit 

comments and material electronically, 

in person, by mail, or fax as provided 

under ADDRESSES, but please submit 

your comments and material by only 

one means. If you submit comments by 

mail or delivery, submit them in two 

copies, in an unbound format, no larger 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES