Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37859 

contain more than one emissions unit. 

For a petroleum refinery, there are 

several categories of process units that 

could include: those that separate and/ 

or distill petroleum feedstocks; those 

that change molecular structures; 

petroleum treating processes; auxiliary 

facilities, such as steam generators and 

hydrogen production units; and those 

that load, unload, blend or store 

intermediate or completed products. 

SO2 means sulfur dioxide. 

Startup means the setting in operation 

of an affected facility for any purpose. 

(3) Reasonable Progress Measures. On 

June 7, 2011, EPA and HOVENSA 

entered into a Consent Decree (CD) in 

the U.S. District Court for the Virgin 

Islands to resolve alleged Clean Air Act 

violations at its St. Croix, Virgin Islands 

facility. The CD requires HOVENSA, 

among other things, to achieve emission 

limits and install new pollution controls 

pursuant to a schedule for compliance. 

The measures required by the CD are 

expected to reduce emissions of NOX by 

5,031 tons per year (tpy) and SO2 by 

3,460 tpy. The emission limitations, 

pollution controls, schedules for 

compliance, reporting, and 

recordkeeping provisions of the 

HOVENSA CD constitute an element of 

the long term strategy and address the 

reasonable progress provisions of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1). Should the existing 

federally enforceable HOVENSA CD be 

revised, EPA will reevaluate, and if 

necessary, revise the FIP after public 

notice and comment. 

(4) HOVENSA requirement for 

notification and four factor analysis. 

HOVENSA must notify EPA 60 days in 

advance of startup and resumption of 

operation of refinery process units at the 

HOVENSA, St. Croix, Virgin Islands 

facility. HOVENSA shall submit such 

notice to the Director of the Clean Air 

and Sustainability Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, 

New York, New York, 10007–1866. 

HOVENSA’s notification to EPA that it 

intends to start up refinery process units 

must include a complete analysis of 

reasonable measures needed to comply 

with regional haze requirements. EPA 

will revise the FIP as necessary, after 

public notice and comment, in 

accordance with regional haze 

requirements including the ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ provisions in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). HOVENSA will be 

required to install any controls that are 

required by the revised FIP as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than 5 years after the effective date of 

the revised FIP. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15463 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0168; FRL–9692–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Revisions to UAC Rule 401—Permit: 

New and Modified Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of Utah 

on April 17, 2008 and partially approve 

SIP revisions submitted by the State of 

Utah on September 15, 2006. The 

revisions contain new rules in Utah’s 

Title 307 Rule 401 (Permit: New and 

Modified Sources). The intended effect 

of this action is to propose to approve 

the rules that are consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA.) This action is 

being taken under sections 110 and 112 

of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0168, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0168. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through 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, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37860 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 

8P–AR, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

(303) 312–6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What Authorities Apply to EPA’s 

Proposed Action 

IV. EPA’s Analysis and Proposed Action on 

SIP Revisions 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials HAP mean or refer to 

Hazardous Air Pollutant. 

(iv) The initials MACT mean or refer 

to Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology. 

(v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(vi) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review. 

(vii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(viii) The words State or Utah mean 

the State of Utah, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(ix) The initials UAC mean or refer to 

the Utah Administrative Code. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. 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. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On September 20, 1999, the State of 

Utah submitted a renumbering and 

recodification of its Utah Administrative 

Code (UAC) rules within the Utah SIP. 

EPA took final action to approve 

portions of this submittal on February 

13, 2006 (71 FR 7670). In that action 

EPA approved the recodification of 

R307–413–7 (Exemption from Notice of 

Intent Requirements for Used Oil 

Burned for Energy Recovery, previously 

found under R307–7–2 and 3). On 

September 15, 2006, the State of Utah 

again submitted a renumbering and 

recodification of its UAC rules within 

the Utah SIP which renumbered R307– 

413–7 to R307–401–14 (Used Oil 

Burned for Energy Recovery). We are 

proposing to approve this renumbering 

in this action. 

On April 17, 2008, the State of Utah 

submitted a revision to R307–401–14 

which changed the definition of 

‘‘Boiler.’’ We are proposing to approve 

this definition change in this action. 

On October 1, 1990, R307–6 (De 

minimis Emissions from Air Strippers 

and Soil Venting Projects) was approved 

into the Utah SIP. On August 14, 1998, 

EPA approved revisions to R307–6 (63 

FR 43624). On January 8, 1999, Utah 

submitted substantive revisions to 

R307–6, which also renumbered R307– 

6 to R307–413–8 and R307–413–9. EPA 

did not act on this submittal. On 

September 15, 2006, Utah submitted 

revisions which moved R307–413–8 and 

R307–413–9 to R307–401–15 (Air 

Strippers and Soil Venting Projects) and 

R307–401–16 (De minimis Emissions 

from Soil Aeration Projects). Utah’s 

January 8, 1999, submittal is superceded 

by the September 15, 2006, submittal. 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve R307–401–15 and approve 

R307–401–16 as submitted on 

September 15, 2006, in this action. 

All other portions of the September 

15, 2006, submittal not addressed in this 

action will be addressed at a later date. 

III. What Authorities Apply to EPA’s 

Proposed Action 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states, 

‘‘Each revision to an implementation 

plan submitted by a State under this Act 

shall be adopted by such State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision to a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act.’’ 

The states’ obligation to comply with 

each of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) is 

considered as ‘‘any applicable 

requirement(s) concerning attainment.’’ 

A demonstration is necessary to show 

that this revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS, including those for ozone, 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, 

sulfur dioxide, lead, nitrogen oxides or 

any other requirement of the Act. 

The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requires states to include a minor New 

Source Review (NSR) program in their 

SIP to regulate modifications and new 

construction of stationary sources 

within the area as necessary to assure 

the NAAQS are achieved. EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

51.160–164 are intended to ensure that 

new source growth is consistent with 

maintenance of the NAAQS and 40 CFR 

51.160(e) requires states to identify 

types and sizes of facilities which will 

be subject to review under their minor 

NSR program. For sources identified 

under 40 CFR 51.160(e), section 

51.160(a) requires that the SIP include 

legally enforceable procedures that 

enable a state or local agency to 

determine whether construction or 

modification of a facility, building, 

structure or installation, or combination 

of these will result in a violation of 

applicable portions of the control 

strategy; or interference with attainment 

or maintenance of a national standard in 

the state in which the proposed source 

(or modification) is located or in a 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37861 

neighboring state. Section 110(i) of the 

CAA specifically precludes states from 

changing the requirements of the SIP 

except through SIP revisions approved 

by EPA. SIP revisions will be approved 

by EPA only if they meet all 

requirements of section 110 of the CAA 

and the implementing regulations at 40 

CFR part 51. See CAA section 110(l); 40 

CFR 51.104. 

EPA recognizes that, under the 

applicable Federal regulations, states 

have broad discretion to determine the 

scope of their minor NSR programs as 

needed to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. The states have significant 

discretion to tailor minor NSR 

requirements that are consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 51. 

States may also provide a rationale for 

why the rules are at least as stringent as 

the 40 CFR part 51 requirements where 

the revisions are different from those in 

40 CFR part 51. For example, states may 

exempt from minor new source review 

certain categories of changes based on 

de minimis or administrative necessity 

grounds in accordance with the criteria 

set out in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 

636 F.2d 323, 360–361 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 

De minimis sources are presumed not to 

have an impact and their emissions 

would not prevent or interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS, even within 

nonattainment areas. 

Since there are no ambient air quality 

standards for air toxics, the area’s 

compliance with any applicable 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards, as well 

as any Federal mobile source control 

requirements under CAA sections 112 

or 202(l) would constitute an acceptable 

demonstration of noninterference for air 

toxics. A revision to the SIP cannot 

interfere with any federally mandated 

program such as a MACT standard (or 

related section 112 requirements). 

IV. EPA’s Analysis and Proposed 

Action on SIP Revisions 

In this proposed rulemaking, we are 

proposing to approve the renumbering 

of R307–413–7 to R307–401–14 (Used 

Oil Burned for Energy Recovery) as 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

September 15, 2006, because this 

provision had been previously approved 

into the Utah SIP (71 FR 7670) and the 

revision does not contain substantive 

changes to the rule. We are also 

clarifying that R307–401–14(3) refers to 

the owner or operator of a boiler as 

described in R307–401–14(1). 

We are proposing to approve changes 

to the definition of ‘‘Boiler’’ in R307– 

401–14(1) as submitted by the State of 

Utah on April 17, 2008, in this action. 

The current federally approved 

definition of ‘‘Boiler’’ in R307–413–7 

references Utah’s solid and hazardous 

waste definition of ‘‘Boiler’’ in R315–1– 

1 as it was defined in 40 CFR 260.10, 

as amended on July 1, 2002. Utah’s 

current federally approved version of 

R315–1–1 incorporates by reference 40 

CFR 260.10, as amended on July 1, 

2008. Since there is no substantive 

difference between 40 CFR 260.10, as 

amended on July 1, 2002, and 40 CFR 

260.10, as amended on July 1, 2008, we 

are proposing to approve this definition 

change in R307–401–14. 

We are proposing to conditionally 

approve R307–401–15 and approve 

R307–401–16 as submitted on 

September 15, 2006, in this action. We 

are proposing to conditionally approve 

R307–401–15 because R307–401–15(3) 

allows for ‘‘test or monitoring method 

approved by the executive secretary,’’ 

which is director’s discretion. Utah 

submitted a letter to EPA on February 

24, 2012, committing to revise R307– 

401–15(3) to remove the executive 

secretary’s discretion to approve 

alternate test or monitoring methods 

(see docket). Utah must submit a SIP 

revision to change or remove this 

language not later than one year after 

the date of final publication of this 

rulemaking. If, however, Utah does not 

submit such a revision within this 

timeframe, EPA’s conditional approval 

of R307–401–15(3) will revert to a 

disapproval. 

R307–401–15 and R307–401–16 

allows all air stripper, soil venting and 

soil aeration projects to be exempt from 

notice of intent and approval order 

requirements if the estimated actual air 

emissions from volatile organic 

compounds from a given project are less 

than 5 tons per year (R307–401–9(1)(a)) 

and the level of any one hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) or combination of HAPs 

is less than the levels listed in R307– 

410–4(1)(d) (Toxic Screening Levels and 

Averaging Periods). EPA has approved 

similar de minimis thresholds for 

criteria pollutants in past rulemakings: 

The State of Idaho’s permit to construct 

regulations, which were approved final 

on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217); and 

the State of Montana’s exclusion for de 

minimis changes, which were approved 

final on February 13, 2012 (77 FR 7531). 

R307–401–15 and R307–401–16 contain 

provisions which are smaller in nature 

and scope than the previously approved 

rulemakings, as they generally only 

apply to the remediation of 

underground storage tanks. EPA finds 

the revisions would not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment of the NAAQS, rate of 

progress and reasonable further progress 

(as defined in section 171), or any other 

applicable requirement of this Act. 

A review of air stripper, soil venting 

and soil aeration projects from 2008– 

2010 which were exempted from notice 

of intent and approval order 

requirements under R307–401–15 and 

R307–401–16 show negligible criteria 

pollutant emissions (see docket). In 

addition, data from the Utah leaking 

underground storage tank program 

shows a significant decrease in the 

number of new cleanups initiated over 

the last 10 years (see docket). These 

provisions meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.160 because they require prior 

written approval (R307–401–15(2), 

R307–401–16(1)) of the State and have 

testing requirements (R307–401–15(3)) 

to ensure that exempted projects do not 

exceed the de minimis thresholds as 

described in R307–401–9. 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

Based on the above discussion, EPA 

finds that the revisions are consistent 

with all CAA requirements. We are 

proposing to approve the renumbering 

of R307–413–7 to R307–401–14 (Used 

Oil Burned for Energy Recovery) as 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

September 15, 2006; changes to the 

definition of ‘‘Boiler’’ in R307–401– 

14(1), as submitted by the State of Utah 

on April 17, 2008; and conditionally 

approve R307–401–15 and approve 

R307–401–16 as submitted on 

September 15, 2006. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37862 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 7, 2012. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15476 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 84 

RIN 0920–AA38 

[Docket No. CDC–2012–0009; NIOSH–258] 

Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing 

Apparatus Remaining Service-Life 

Indicator Performance Requirements 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: As a component of its ongoing 

update of respirator certification 

standards under Part 84 and in response 

to a petition to amend 42 CFR 84.83(F), 

HHS proposes a revision to the current 

requirement for open-circuit selfcontained breathing apparatus (OC– 

SCBA) remaining service-life indicators 

(indicators), which are devices built into 

a respirator to alert the user that the 

breathing air provided by the respirator 

is close to depletion. HHS intends to 

revise the current standard, employed 

by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) located within the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

to allow greater latitude in the setting of 

the indicator alarm to ensure that the 

alarm more effectively meets the 

different worker protection needs of 

different work operations. This revision 

sets a default service life at 25 percent 

of the rated service time and allows the 

indicator to be adjusted higher by the 

manufacturer, at the request of the 

purchaser. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by HHS RIN 0920–AA38, by 

either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket CDC–2012–0009. 

• Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert 

A. Taft Laboratories, MS–C34, 4676 

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 

45226. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All 

relevant comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or http:// 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/review/ 

docket258/default.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Szalajda, NIOSH National 

Personal Protective Technology 

Laboratory (NPPTL), P.O. Box 18070, 

626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 

15236, (412) 386–5200 (this is not a tollfree number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

preamble to this notice of proposed 

rulemaking is organized as follows: 

I. Public Participation 

II. Background 

A. Introduction 

B. Background and Significance 

C. Need for Rulemaking 

D. Public Meetings for Discussion and 

Comment 

III. Summary of Proposed Rule 

IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice) 

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks) 

I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

J. Plain Writing Act of 2010 

V. Proposed Rule 

I. Public Participation 

Interested persons or organizations 

are invited to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written views, 

arguments, recommendations, and data. 

Comments are invited on any topic 

related to this proposal. In addition, 

HHS invites comment specifically on 

the following question related to this 

rulemaking: 

1. HHS proposes that the remaining 

service-life indicator (indicator) be set at 

25 percent of the rated service time of 

the respirator, as a default setting, with 

the option for the setting to be adjusted 

higher by the manufacturer, at the 

discretion of the purchaser. Is 25 

percent of the rated service time of the 

respirator an appropriate default setting 

for the indicator? 

2. Should the rule specify an upper 

limit that would require that the 

indicator be set to alarm no earlier than 

a set amount, such as 50 percent of rated 

service time? Are there possible 

emergency or rescue scenarios for which 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1