80314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The QBRM avoided cost estimate is 

derived from a methodology proposed 

by the Postal Service in Docket No. 

R97–1. Based on that methodology, the 

Postal Service observes that the avoided 

cost estimate has decreased over time as 

the Postal Service has ‘‘continued to 

capture savings as a result of * * * 

technological improvements’’ in the 

recognition of handwritten addresses on 

reply pieces. Id. at 18. The mail 

processing cost of a handwritten reply 

mailpiece serves as the baseline for 

comparison to the mail processing costs 

for a QBRM reply piece to determine the 

avoided cost estimate. Accordingly, 

‘‘when all empirical facts are 

considered,’’ the Postal Service 

‘‘proposes the continued use of the 

Docket No. R97–1 QBRM cost avoidance 

methodology.’’ Id. at 18–19. 

Proposal Twenty also updates and 

revises the productivity estimates 

developed in the BRM fee cost studies. 

In those studies, many of the 

productivity estimates are based upon 

proxies rather than direct observation or 

measurement of actual activities. 

Moreover, some of the productivity 

estimates that are based upon field 

studies are dated. Id. at 16. 

The Postal Service relies on two 

studies to develop inputs used in the 

cost studies. The first is the BRM 

Practices Study, which was conducted 

in 2005 and presented in Docket No. 

R2006–1, USPS LR–L–34. Id. at 19. The 

BRM Practices Study ‘‘measure[s] the 

percentage of mail by price category that 

is processed using various counting, 

rating, and billing methods.’’ Id. It is 

periodically updated. Based upon recent 

field observations, the Postal Service 

states that the data inputs from the 2005 

BRM Practices Study ‘‘should be relied 

upon to develop the BRM fee 

estimates.’’ Id. at 23. 

The second study develops 

productivity data, representing various 

counting, rating, and billing activities, 

which have been manually collected at 

postal field sites. The most recent field 

study was conducted during the 

summer of 2011. Id. Based upon this 

study, the Postal Service develops 

productivity data for the following 

activities: web Business Reply Mail 

Accounting System counting, web End 

of Run counting, machine counting, 

manual counting, weight averaging 

counting (letters), weight averaging 

counting (flats & parcels), PostalOne! 

billing, and manual billing. Id. at 26. 

Data from the 2011 Field Study were 

also used to develop ‘‘minutes per day’’ 

estimates that support the QBRM 

quarterly fee and revise the nonletter 

size BRM monthly fee cost studies. 

The Petition, Attachments, and library 

references estimating the impact of 

Proposals Sixteen through Twenty are 

available for review on the 

Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.prc.gov. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Larry 

Fenster is designated as Public 

Representative to represent the interests 

of the general public in this proceeding. 

Comments are due no later than 

December 30, 2011. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Petition of the United States 

Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a 

Proceeding To Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles 

(Proposals Sixteen through Twenty), 

filed December 13, 2011, is granted. 

2. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2012–2 to consider the matters 

raised by the Postal Service’s Petition. 

3. Interested persons may submit 

comments on Proposals Sixteen through 

Twenty no later than December 30, 

2011. Reply comments are due no later 

than January 9, 2012. 

4. Larry Fenster is appointed to serve 

as the Public Representative to represent 

the interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

5. The Motion of GameFly, Inc., to 

Strike Portions of USPS Petition for 

Rulemaking, Docket No. RM2012–2, 

filed December 7, 2011, is dismissed as 

moot. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32906 Filed 12–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080; FRL–9610–1] 

RIN 2060–AR16 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source 

Standards for Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing; Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

revise certain provisions of the area 

source national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

prepared feeds manufacturing published 

on January 5, 2010 (final rule). These 

revisions will clarify the regulatory 

requirements for this source category 

and ensure that those requirements are 

consistent with the record. The 

revisions address the generally available 

control technology (GACT) 

requirements for pelleting processes at 

large, existing prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities, specifically 

removal of the cyclone 95-percent 

design efficiency requirement, as well as 

associated requirements for compliance 

demonstration, monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping; clarification of the 

requirement that doors be kept closed in 

areas where materials containing 

chromium and manganese are stored, 

used, or handled; and clarification of 

the requirement to install a device at the 

point of bulk loadout to minimize 

emissions. These amendments are not 

expected to result in increased 

emissions or in the imposition of costs 

beyond those described in the January 5, 

2010, final rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by January 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0080, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http://www.epa.

gov/oar/docket.html. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the EPA Air and Radiation Docket 

Web site. 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0080 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: Send comments to (202) 566– 

9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0080. 

• Mail: Area Source NESHAP for 

Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 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–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0080. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80315 

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 http://www.

regulations.gov or email. The www.

regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://www.regulations.

gov, your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

instructions on submitting comments, 

see Section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the Federal Docket Management System 

index at www.regulations.gov. 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, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through www.regulations.

gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 

Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan 

King, Outreach and Information 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C404–05), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

Telephone number: (919) 541–5665; fax 

number: (919) 541–0242; email address: 

king.jan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. Why is the EPA issuing a proposed rule? 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

III. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

A. Submitting CBI 

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

IV. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

V. What amendments are being proposed? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory 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 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Why is the EPA issuing a proposed 

rule? 

This document proposes amendments 

affecting sources regulated under the 

area source national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

for prepared feeds manufacturing 

published on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 

522). Because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment, we have 

published a direct final rule in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register revising the generally 

available control technology (GACT) 

standard for pelleting operations at 

large, existing prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities; clarifying the 

requirement to keep doors closed in 

areas where materials containing 

chromium and manganese are stored, 

used, and handled; and clarifying the 

requirement that a device of any type 

can be used during the bulk loadout 

process. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule and the direct final rule 

will become effective on February 21, 

2012 without further notice. If we 

receive adverse comment, we will 

address all public comments in any 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse 

comment by January 23, 2012 on a 

distinct provision of this proposed rule, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register indicating which 

provisions we are withdrawing. The 

provisions that are not withdrawn will 

become effective on the date set out 

above, notwithstanding adverse 

comment on any other provision. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. The regulated 

categories and entities potentially 

affected by the rule include: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Other Animal Foods Manufacturing .......................................... 311119 Animal feeds, prepared (except dog and cat), manufacturing. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 

63.11619, subpart DDDDDDD (NESHAP 

for Area Sources: Prepared Feeds 

Manufacturing). If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

either the state delegated authority or 

the EPA regional representative, as 

listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subparts A 

(General Provisions). 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
80316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2We are not changing any requirements for new 

large, prepared feeds manufacturing facilities. We 

have amended the regulatory text to clarify that the 

design efficiency requirement and associated 

compliance mechanisms, monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping requirements apply only to new 

sources. 

III. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to the EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark all of the information that you 

claim to be CBI. For CBI information in 

a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to the 

EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 

CD–ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD– 

ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (e.g., subject heading, 

Federal Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions. The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

IV. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

Electronic Access. In addition to being 

available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this direct final action will also 

be available on the Worldwide Web 

(WWW) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Because this is 

an amendment of regulatory language 

through rulemaking, a redline version of 

the regulatory language has been created 

and has been placed in the docket 

(http://www.regulations.gov, see Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080) to aid 

the public’s ability to comment on the 

regulatory text. Following signature, a 

copy of this final action will be posted 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 

for newly proposed or promulgated 

rules at the following address: http://

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

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

V. What amendments are being 

proposed? 

On January 5, 2010 (75 FR 522), the 

EPA promulgated the NESHAP for area 

source prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities as subpart DDDDDDD in 40 

CFR part 63. Existing affected sources 

(i.e., construction or reconstruction of 

the facility began on or before July 27, 

2009) must comply with the rule by 

January 5, 2012, while new affected 

sources (i.e., construction or 

reconstruction of the facility began after 

July 27, 2009) were required to comply 

by January 5, 2010, or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

Today’s proposal consists of three 

revisions and clarifications. The rule 

requires that pelleting operations at 

large prepared feeds manufacturing 

facilities (i.e., those facilities with an 

average daily feed production level 

exceeding 50 tons per day) use cyclones. 

In the final rule, these cyclones were 

required to have a 95-percent design 

efficiency. This proposal revises this 

requirement for existing sources only.2

Such sources must use cyclones, and 

those cyclones must be operated in 

accordance with good air pollution 

control practices and manufacturer’s 

specifications and operating 

instructions, if available, or standard 

operating procedures must be developed 

by the facility owner or operator to 

ensure proper operation and 

maintenance of the cyclone. 

In the preamble to the final rule, we 

recognized that the cyclones employed 

on pelleting operations at existing, large 

prepared feeds manufacturing facilities 

were generally available and provided 

effective Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) 

emissions control (75 FR 533). We 

added the 95-percent design efficiency 

requirement in the final rule because we 

thought, based on limited data from 

sources that would need to install 

cyclones, that a large percentage of 

existing cyclones at large facilities 

already met that design efficiency (75 

FR 544). In assessing the costs of the 

design efficiency requirement as part of 

our GACT analysis, we estimated that 

few existing sources (approximately 2 

percent) did not have cyclones and 

would need to install them to meet the 

requirement (Economic Impact Analysis 

for the Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 

Area Source NESHAP, June 17, 2009, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0080– 

0036). We also explained in the final 

rule that it was not our intent to force 

prepared feed manufacturers to replace 

older, well-designed, and properly 

operating cyclones with new highefficiency cyclones (75 FR 533). Indeed, 

we recognized that requiring the 

replacement of older, well designed, 

properly operating cyclones was not 

cost effective, because the incremental 

emission reductions would be very low 

and the costs would be high (75 FR 

533). 

The EPA included in the final rule 

three different mechanisms by which a 

source could demonstrate compliance 

with the design efficiency requirement. 

40 CFR 63.11621(e)(1)–(3). A source 

could show compliance by having either 

cyclone manufacturer certification/ 

specifications, a certification by a 

professional engineer or responsible 

official, or a Method 5 performance test 

that indicates whether PM is being 

released from the system (Appendix A 

to part 60) (which determines the 

particulate matter mass rate at the inlet 

and outlet of the cyclone). The EPA has 

recently learned that most existing 

sources would need to install new 

cyclones to provide the required 

documentation for demonstrating 

compliance with the final rule. (Material 

presented by prepared feeds industry 

representatives at the January 25, 2011, 

meeting with EPA staff, and Industry 

Request for Administrative Stay and 

Reconsideration—June 10 2011, both of 

which are located in Docket No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0080). That was not the 

intent of the final rule, and this result 

cannot be reconciled with the GACT 

analysis underlying the final rule. 

As noted above, we premised the 

design efficiency requirement in the 

final rule for existing sources on the 

assumption that all but a few cyclones 

were meeting that requirement and that 

only a few sources would need to install 

new cyclones. Our cost analysis in the 

final rule tracked this assumption. We 

now recognize that this assumption was 

incorrect, and that our regulations, as 

written, would require many existing 

facilities to replace existing cyclones, 

which is contrary to our GACT analysis. 

As explained in the final rule, the 

replacement of older, well designed, 

properly operating cyclones is not cost 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80317 

effective (75 FR at 533). We are therefore 

proposing to revise the requirement of 

the final rule for pelleting operations at 

existing large, prepared feeds 

manufacturing facilities (i.e., those 

facilities with an average daily feed 

production level exceeding 50 tons per 

day) to require the use of cyclones. We 

are also proposing that the cyclones be 

operated in accordance with good air 

pollution control practices and 

manufacturer’s specifications and 

operating instructions, if available, or 

standard operating procedures must be 

developed by the facility owner or 

operator to ensure proper operation and 

maintenance of the cyclone. These 

proposed revisions are wholly 

consistent with the record supporting 

the final rule, including the cost 

analysis and our determination that 

cyclones are generally available for 

existing sources and effectively control 

HAP emissions. 

Further, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the requirements for 

demonstration of compliance, 

monitoring, and the notification, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for existing sources only, 

consistent with the removal of the 

design efficiency requirement for those 

sources. This action proposes to amend 

the notification of compliance status 

requirements such that the cyclone 

manufacturer’s operating specifications 

or standard operating procedures 

developed by the prepared feeds 

manufacturer be required as part of the 

record instead of one of the cyclone 

parameters as specified in the final rule 

(i.e., inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, 

pressure drop, or fan amperage range). 

The revised annual compliance 

certification would include all instances 

when the cyclone does not operate 

according to manufacturer 

specifications or the standard operating 

procedures. This would replace the 

requirement for existing sources to 

include in the annual compliance 

certification the cyclone parameters 

listed in the final rule. We are also 

proposing to revise the recordkeeping 

requirements for existing sources to 

require the owner or operator to record 

the results of weekly visual inspections. 

This would replace the requirement in 

the January 5, 2010, final rule for 

existing sources to record the daily inlet 

flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, 

or fan amperage. 

This action also clarifies that the 

requirement to keep doors closed in 

areas where materials containing 

manganese and chromium are stored, 

used, or handled does not apply to areas 

where finished prepared feeds product 

is stored in closed containers, since 

there are no HAP emissions in these 

areas. See 40 CFR 63.11621(a)(iii). 

Finally, there has been some 

confusion regarding the type of device 

needed to comply with the bulk loadout 

provision at 40 CFR 63.11621(d). These 

proposed amendments would clarify 

that any type of device may be used to 

minimize the distance between the 

place where bulk loadout occurs and the 

vehicle being loaded. The distance may 

also be minimized by the design of the 

loadout process itself (e.g., the loadout 

arm positioned directly above the 

vehicle being loaded). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action 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 Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden above 

that required in the original rule. The 

revisions do not require additional 

information collection requirements and 

may result in an overall reduction of the 

information collection burden. 

Therefore, the information collection 

requests are not being amended. The 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) previously approved the 

information collection request (ICR) 

contained in the existing regulations 

(subpart DDDDDDD, 40 CFR part 63) 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0635 (ICR 2354.02). The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 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 would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations found at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this action on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. This 

action does not impose any additional 

costs over those in the final rule 

published on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 

522). In fact, the clarifications contained 

in this action are expected to reduce 

costs for some small businesses that 

would otherwise have installed control 

equipment, but that would not be 

required to do so as a result of these 

amendments. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandate under the provisions of title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

state, local, or tribal governments, or the 

private sector. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or the private sector. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action imposes no obligations upon 

them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This direct final rule 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 direct final 

rule does not impose any requirements 

on state and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
80318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This direct final rule imposes no 

requirements on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under Section 5–501 

of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to EO 13045 because it is 

based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12886. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (’’NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities, 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

direct final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This direct final rule 

makes revisions and clarifications to the 

rule and should not result in increased 

emissions beyond those described in the 

final rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Particulate 

matter, Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 15, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32830 Filed 12–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 110816505–1734–02] 

RIN 0648–BB39 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan; Secretarial 

Amendment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of a Secretarial amendment; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a Secretarial 

Amendment to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

to establish a mechanism for specifying 

annual catch limits and accountability 

measures for the small-mesh 

multispecies fishery. The Secretarial 

Amendment, incorporating a draft 

Environmental Assessment and an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, is 

available for public comment. NMFS is 

proposing this amendment because the 

New England Fishery Management 

Council has been delayed in 

implementing the mechanism to specify 

annual catch limits and accountability 

measures for the silver hake, red hake, 

and offshore hake stocks. This 

amendment is intended to comply with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

requirements for establishing a 

mechanism for specifying annual catch 

limits and accountability measures in 

this fishery. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than 5 p.m. eastern 

standard time, on February 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: An environmental 

assessment (EA) was prepared for the 

Secretarial Amendment that describes 

the proposed action and other 

considered alternatives, and provides an 

analysis of the impacts of the proposed 

measures and alternatives. Copies of the 

Secretarial Amendment, including the 

EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA), are available on 

request from Daniel Morris, Acting 

Regional Administrator, Northeast 

Regional Office, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These 

documents are also available online at 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2011–0206, by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2011–0206’’ 

in the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Moira 

Kelly. 

• Mail: Daniel Morris, Acting 

Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope, 

‘‘Comments on Whiting Secretarial 

Amendment.’’ 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS