9180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

and the public and the environment 

while reactor vessels are in a 

containment building in a controlled 

environment with a trained team of 

operators, inspectors, and maintenance 

staff. 

The petitioner suggests that the NRC 

regulations be amended as follows: 

(1) Prohibit dry storage cask systems 

that do not meet NRC certification 

requirements from being produced 

under what the petitioner states is 

industry pressure to ‘‘accept-as-is.’’ 

(2) Base certification of casks on code 

requirements to include design criteria 

and technical specifications on a 100- 

year timeframe instead of the current 

20-year design specification that the 

petitioner views as inadequate. The 

petitioner also suggests that the NRC 

conduct a regulatory review of an indepth technical evaluation for public 

comment at the 20 year CoC reapproval 

interval to address cask deterioration 

issues. 

(3) Approve a method for dry cask 

transfer capacity as part of the original 

ISFSI certification process and 

construction license that will allow for 

immediate and safe maintenance on a 

faulty or failing cask. The petitioner 

states that stored irradiated fuel in dry 

casks approaches approximately 400 

degrees Fahrenheit while the irradiated 

waste storage pool water is kept at 100 

degrees Fahrenheit. The petitioner 

subsequently asserts that the resubmersion of dry casks and resultant 

steam flash threaten workers, and may 

thermally shock the irradiated nuclear 

fuel rods. The petitioner also states that 

the ability to perform maintenance 

safely should be a regulatory priority 

and that procedures to act promptly in 

an emergency situation and safely 

transfer spent fuel must be outlined in 

NRC regulations. 

(4) Ensure that dry casks are qualified 

for transport at the time of onsite storage 

approval certification. The petitioner 

states that transport capacity of 

shipment offsite must be required if an 

environmental emergency occurs or for 

security purposes to an alternative 

storage location or repository as part of 

the approval criteria. The petitioner 

suggests that Chapter 1 of the NRC’s 

Standard Review Plan (NUREG 1567) 

should clearly define the transport 

requirements in §§ 72.122(i), 72.236(h), 

and 72.236(m). 

(5) Specify that the most current 

ASME codes and standards be adopted 

for all spent fuel storage containers with 

no exceptions. The petitioner states that 

the NRC should no longer issue 

‘‘justifications and compensatory 

measures’’ for ASME codes or allow the 

industry to design or manufacture casks 

that conform to safety regulations to 

‘‘the maximum extent practical’’ instead 

of actual ASME Code requirements. The 

petitioner also states that ASME Code 

requirements should be enforced 

unconditionally, with no exceptions or 

exemptions. 

(6) Require ASME code stamping for 

fabrication, which would specify that an 

ASME-certified nuclear inspector, who 

is independent from the manufacturer 

and vendor, must be onsite at the 

fabrication plant. The petitioner also 

suggests that code stamping activities be 

subject to unannounced NRC 

inspections. 

(7) Require that all fabrication 

materials be supplied by ASMEapproved material suppliers who are 

certificate holders. The petitioner is 

concerned that if a supplier who is not 

certified is used, material certification 

under the NG/NF–2130 ASME standard 

is not possible and means that material 

traceability is not achieved. 

(8) Require that the current ASME 

Codes and standards for conservative 

heat treatment and light tightness are 

adopted and enforced. 

(9) Require a safe and secure hot cell 

transfer station coupled with an 

auxiliary pool to be built as part of an 

upgraded ISFSI certification and 

licensing process. The petitioner states 

that the licensee must have a dry cask 

transfer capability for maintenance and 

during emergency situations after 

decommissioning for as long as the 

spent fuel remains on site. 

(10) Require real-time heat and 

radiation monitoring at ISFSIs at all 

nuclear power plant sites and storage 

facilities that are not located at reactor 

sites maintained by the utilities and that 

the monitoring data be transmitted in 

real-time to affected State health, safety, 

and environmental regulators. 

(11) Require what the petitioner 

describes as ‘‘Hardened Onsite Storage’’ 

to fortify ISFSIs and dry casks from 

terrorist attacks. The petitioner cites a 

study by the National Academy of 

Sciences entitled, ‘‘Safety and Security 

of Commercial Nuclear Fuel Storage,’’ 

supported by the NRC (Grant No. NRC– 

04–04–067). According to the petitioner, 

this study states that the NRC should 

upgrade the requirements in 10 CFR 

Part 72 for dry casks, specifically to 

improve resistance to terrorist attacks. 

The petitioner also quotes from a paper 

describing the potential of terrorist 

attacks on dry casks by Gordon 

Thompson, the Director of the Institute 

for Resource and Security, entitled, 

‘‘Assessing Risks of Potential Malicious 

Actions at Commercial Nuclear 

Facilities: A Case of a Proposed ISFSI at 

Diablo Canyon Site’’ (June 27, 2007): 

‘‘the dry cask storage modules used at 

ISFSIs are not designed to resist attack. 

At all recently established ISFSIs in the 

USA, spent fuel is contained in metal 

canisters with a wall thickness of about 

1.6 cm. Each canister is surrounded by 

a concrete over pack, but the over pack 

is penetrated by channels that allow 

cooling of the canister by convective 

flow of air. Attackers gaining access to 

an ISFSI could employ readily available 

skills and explosives to penetrate a 

canister in a manner that allows free 

flow to the spent fuel, and could use 

incendiary devices to initiate burning of 

fuel cladding, leading to a release of 

radioactive material to the atmosphere.’’ 

(12) Establish funding to conduct 

ongoing studies to evaluate the effects of 

age-related material degradation on dry 

casks and to assess the structural 

integrity of the casks and fuel cladding. 

The petitioner has stated that these 

studies would gather the data necessary 

for the management of future damage 

and to determine design specifications 

for future irradiated nuclear waste 

storage. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day 

of February 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–4444 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 55 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2009–0111; FRL–8777–6] 

Outer Continental Shelf Air 

Regulations Consistency Update for 

Alaska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule-consistency 

update. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a 

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf 

(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements 

applying to OCS sources located within 

25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries 

must be updated periodically to remain 

consistent with the requirements of the 

corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as 

mandated by the Clean Air Act (‘‘the 

Act’’). The portion of the OCS air 

regulations that is being updated 

pertains to the requirements for OCS 

sources in the State of Alaska. The 

intended effect of approving the OCS 

requirements for the State of Alaska is 

to regulate emissions from OCS sources 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9181 

1The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and 

the preamble to the final rule promulgated 

September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further 

background and information on the OCS 

regulations. 

in accordance with the requirements 

onshore. The change to the existing 

requirements discussed below is 

proposed to be incorporated by 

reference into the Code of Federal 

Regulations and is listed in the 

appendix to the OCS air regulations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 2, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R10–OAR–2009–0111, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments; 

B. E-Mail: greaves.natasha@epa.gov; 

C. Mail: Natasha Greaves, Federal and 

Delegated Air Programs Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Mail Stop: AWT–107, Seattle, WA 

98101; 

D. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 10, Attn: 

Natasha Greaves (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, 9th 

Floor. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2009– 

0111. 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Natasha Greaves, Federal and Delegated 

Air Programs Unit, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop: 

AWT–107, Seattle, WA 98101; 

telephone number: (206) 553–7079; email address: greaves.natasha@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

Why Is EPA Taking This Action? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

What Criteria Were Used To Evaluate Rules 

Submitted To Update 40 CFR Part 55? 

III. Administrative Requirements 

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: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

I. Background Information 

Why Is EPA Taking This Action? 

On September 4, 1992, EPA 

promulgated 40 CFR part 55,1 which 

established requirements to control air 

pollution from OCS sources in order to 

attain and maintain federal and state 

ambient air quality standards and to 

comply with the provisions of part C of 

title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all 

OCS sources offshore of the States 

except those located in the Gulf of 

Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude. 

Section 328 of the Act requires that for 

such sources located within 25 miles of 

a State’s seaward boundary, the 

requirements shall be the same as would 

be applicable if the sources were located 

in the COA. Because the OCS 

requirements are based on onshore 

requirements, and onshore requirements 

may change, section 328(a)(1) requires 

that EPA update the OCS requirements 

as necessary to maintain consistency 

with onshore requirements. 

Pursuant to § 55.12 of the OCS rule, 

consistency reviews will occur (1) at 

least annually; (2) upon receipt of a 

Notice of Intent under § 55.4; or (3) 

when a state or local agency submits a 

rule to EPA to be considered for 

incorporation by reference in part 55. 

This proposed action is being taken in 

response to the submittal of a Notice of 

Intent on January 9, 2009 by Shell 

Offshore, Inc. of Houston, Texas. Public 

comments received in writing within 30 

days of publication of this proposed rule 

will be considered by EPA before 

publishing a final rule. 

Section 328(a) of the Act requires that 

EPA establish requirements to control 

air pollution from OCS sources located 

within 25 miles of States’ seaward 

boundaries that are the same as onshore 

requirements. To comply with this 

statutory mandate, EPA must 

incorporate applicable onshore rules 

into part 55 as they exist onshore. This 

limits EPA’s flexibility in deciding 

which requirements will be 

incorporated into part 55 and prevents 

EPA from making substantive changes 

to the requirements it incorporates. As 

a result, EPA may be incorporating rules 

into part 55 that do not conform to all 

of EPA’s state implementation plan 

(‘‘SIP’’) guidance or certain 

requirements of the Act. 

Consistency updates may result in the 

inclusion of state or local rules or 

regulations into part 55, even though the 

same rules may ultimately be 

disapproved for inclusion as part of the 

SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not 

imply that a rule meets the requirements 

of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it 

imply that the rule will be approved by 

EPA for inclusion in the SIP. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
9182 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2Each COA which has been delegated the 

authority to implement and enforce part 55, will 

use its administrative and procedural rules as 

onshore. However, in those instances where EPA 

has not delegated authority to implement and 

enforce part 55, as in Alaska, EPA will use its own 

administrative and procedural requirements to 

implement the substantive requirements. See 40 

CFR 55.14 (c)(4). 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

What Criteria Were Used To Evaluate 

Rules Submitted To Update 40 CFR Part 

55? 

In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA 

reviewed the rules submitted for 

inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they 

are rationally related to the attainment 

or maintenance of federal or state 

ambient air quality standards or part C 

of title I of the Act, that they are not 

designed expressly to prevent 

exploration and development of the 

OCS and that they are applicable to OCS 

sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also 

evaluated the rules to ensure they are 

not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12 

(e). In addition, EPA has excluded 

administrative or procedural rules,2 and 

requirements that regulate toxics which 

are not related to the attainment and 

maintenance of federal and state 

ambient air quality standards. 

III. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore 

not subject to OMB Review. This rule 

implements requirements specifically 

and explicitly set forth by the Congress 

in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, 

without the exercise of any policy 

discretion by EPA. These OCS rules 

already apply in the COA, and EPA has 

no evidence to suggest that these OCS 

rules have created an adverse material 

effect. As required by section 328 of the 

Clean Air Act, this action simply 

updates the existing OCS requirements 

to make them consistent with rules in 

the COA. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The OMB has approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 55, and by 

extension this update to the rules, under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

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

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0249. The OMB Notice of Action 

is dated January 15, 2009. The approval 

expires January 31, 2012. 

OMB’s Notice of Action dated January 

15, 2007 indicated that the, the annual 

public reporting and recordkeeping 

burden for collection of information 

under 40 CFR part 55 is estimated to 

average 112 hours per response. 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 and are 

identified on the form and/or 

instrument, if applicable. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) generally requires an agency to 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

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 not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule 

implements requirements specifically 

and explicitly set forth by the Congress 

in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, 

without the exercise of any policy 

discretion by EPA. These OCS rules 

already apply in the COA, and EPA has 

no evidence to suggest that these OCS 

rules have had a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by section 328 of 

the Clean Air Act, this action simply 

updates the existing OCS requirements 

to make them consistent with rules in 

the COA. Therefore, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

of more in any one year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. 

Before EPA establishes any regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, it must 

have developed under section 203 of the 

UMRA a small government agency plan. 

The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9183 

enabling officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and 

timely input in the development of EPA 

regulatory proposals with significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandates, 

and informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Today’s proposed rule contains no 

Federal mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, or tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or to the private sector in 

any one year. This rule implements 

requirements specifically and explicitly 

set forth by the Congress in section 328 

of the Clean Air Act without the 

exercise of any policy discretion by 

EPA. These OCS rules already apply in 

the COA, and EPA has no evidence to 

suggest that these OCS rules have 

created an adverse material effect. As 

required by section 328 of the Clean Air 

Act, this action simply updates the 

existing OCS requirements to make 

them consistent with rules in the COA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Orders 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 

1999)), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed 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 rule 

implements requirements specifically 

and explicitly set forth by the Congress 

in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, 

without the exercise of any policy 

discretion by EPA. As required by 

section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this 

rule simply updates the existing OCS 

rules to make them consistent with 

current COA requirements. This rule 

does not amend the existing provisions 

within 40 CFR part 55 enabling 

delegation of OCS regulations to a COA, 

and this rule does not require the COA 

to implement the OCS rules. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comments on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: 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 rule does not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes 

and thus does not have ‘‘tribal 

implications,’’ within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13175. This rule 

implements requirements specifically 

and explicitly set forth by the Congress 

in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, 

without the exercise of any policy 

discretion by EPA. As required by 

section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this 

rule simply updates the existing OCS 

rules to make them consistent with 

current COA requirements. In addition, 

this rule does not impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on tribal 

governments, nor preempt tribal law. 

Consultation with Indian tribes is 

therefore not required under Executive 

Order 13175. Nonetheless, in the spirit 

of Executive Order 13175 and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and 

tribes, EPA specifically solicits 

comments on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885 

(April 23, 1997)), applies to any rule 

that: (1) is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined 

under Executive Order 12866, and (2) 

concerns an environmental health or 

safety risk that EPA has reason to 

believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the planned rule on 

children, and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. In addition, the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportional risk to children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001)] because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

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 laws or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decided 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

As discussed above, this rule 

implements requirements specifically 

and explicitly set forth by the Congress 

in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, 

without the exercise of any policy 

discretion by EPA. As required by 

section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this 

rule simply updates the existing OCS 

rules to make them consistent with 

current COA requirements. In the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards and in light of the fact that 

EPA is required to make the OCS rules 

consistent with current COA 

requirements, it would be inconsistent 

with applicable law for EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in this 

action. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. EPA welcomes 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
9184 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify potentially 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards and to explain why such 

standards should be used in this 

regulation. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer 

Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Permits, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

Dated: February 20, 2009. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

Title 40, chapter I of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 55—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 55 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Section 328 of the Act (42 

U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) as amended by Public 

Law 101–549. 

2. Section 55.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) to read as 

follows: 

§ 55.14 Requirements that apply to OCS 

sources located within 25 miles of States’ 

seaward boundaries, by State. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) State of Alaska Requirements 

Applicable to OCS Sources, November 

9, 2008. 

* * * * * 

3. Appendix A to CFR part 55 is 

amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

under the heading ‘‘Alaska’’ to read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Part 55—Listing of State 

and Local Requirements Incorporated 

by Reference Into Part 55, by State 

* * * * * 

Alaska 

(a) * * * 

(1) The following State of Alaska 

requirements are applicable to OCS Sources, 

December 3, 2005, Alaska Administrative 

Code—Department of Environmental 

Conservation. The following sections of Title 

18, Chapter 50: 

Article 1. Ambient Air Quality Management 

18 AAC 50.005. Purpose and Applicability of 

Chapter (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.010. Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.015. Air Quality Designations, 

Classification, and Control Regions 

(effective 1/18/97) except (d)(2) 

Table 1. Air Quality Classifications 

18 AAC 50.020. Baseline Dates and 

Maximum Allowable Increases (effective 1/ 

18/97) 

Table 2. Baseline Dates 

Table 3. Maximum Allowable Increases 

18 AAC 50.025. Visibility and Other Special 

Protection Areas (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.030. State Air Quality Control 

Plan (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.035. Documents, Procedures, and 

Methods Adopted by Reference (effective 

1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.040. Federal Standards Adopted 

by Reference (effective 1/18/97) except 

(a)(H), (a)(I). (a)(N) through (a)(P), (a)(R) 

through (a)(U), (a)(W), (a)(Y), (a)(AA), 

(a)(CC) through (a)(EE), (a)(II)(a)(KK), (c)(4), 

(c)(5), (c)(12), (c)(14) through (c)(16), 

(c)(18), (c)(20), (c)(25), (c)(26) through 

(c)(29), (c)(30), (c)(31) and (g) 

18 AAC 50.045. Prohibitions (effective 1/18/ 

97) 

18 AAC 50.050. Incinerator Emissions 

Standards (effective 1/18/97) 

Table 4. Particulate Matter Standards for 

Incinerators 

18 AAC 50.055. Industrial Processes and 

Fuel-Burning Equipment (effective 1/18/ 

97) except (a)(3) through (a)(9), (b)(2)(A), 

(b)(4) through (b)(6), (e) and (f) 

18 AAC 50.065. Open Burning (effective 1/ 

18/97) 

18 AAC 50.070. Marine Vessel Visible 

Emission Standards (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.075. Wood-Fired Heating Device 

Visible Emission Standards (effective 1/18/ 

97) 

18 AAC 50.080. Ice Fog Standards (effective 

1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.085. Volatile Liquid Storage Tank 

Emission Standards (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.090. Volatile Liquid Loading 

Racks and Delivery Tank Emission 

Standards (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.100. Nonroad Engines (effective 

10/1/04) 

18 AAC 50.110. Air Pollution Prohibited 

(effective 5/26/72) 

Article 2. Program Administration 

18 AAC 50.200. Information Requests 

(effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.201. Ambient Air Quality 

Investigation (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.205. Certification (effective 1/18/ 

97) 

18 AAC 50.215. Ambient Air Quality 

Analysis Methods (effective 1/18/97) 

Table 5. Significant Impact Levels (SILs) 

18 AAC 50.220. Enforceable Test Methods 

(effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.225. Owner-Requested Limits 

(effective 1/18/97) except (c) through (g) 

18 AAC 50.230. Preapproved Emission 

Limits (effective 1/18/97) except (d) 

18 AAC 50.235. Unavoidable Emergencies 

and Malfunctions (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.240. Excess Emissions (effective 

1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.245. Air Episodes and Advisories 

(effective 1/18/97) 

Table 6. Concentrations Triggering an Air 

Episode 

18 AAC 50.260. Guidance for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology under the Regional 

Haze Rule (effective 12/30/07) 

Article 3. Major Stationary Source Permits 

18 AAC 50.301. Permit Continuity (effective 

10/1/04) except (b) 

18 AAC 50.302. Construction Permits 

(effective 10/01/04) 

18 AAC 50.306. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permits (effective 10/ 

01/04) except (c)(2) and (e) 

18 AAC 50.311. Nonattainment Area Major 

Stationary Source Permits (effective 10/01/ 

04) except (c) 

18 AAC 50.316. Preconstruction Review for 

Construction or Reconstruction of a Major 

Source of Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(effective 10/01/04) except (c) 

18 AAC 50.321. Case-By-Case Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (effective 

12/01/04) 

18 AAC 50.326. Title V Operating Permits 

(effective 10/01/04) except (c)(1), (h), (i)(3), 

(j)(5), (j)(6), (k)(1)(k)(3), (k)(5), and (k)(6) 

18 AAC 50.345. Construction, Minor and 

Operating Permits: Standard Permit 

Conditions (effective 1/18/97) 

18 AAC 50.346. Construction and Operating 

Permits: Other Permit Conditions (effective 

10/01/04) 

Table 7. Standard Operating Permit 

Condition 

Article 4. User Fees 

18 AAC 50.400. Permit Administration Fees 

(effective 1/18/97) except (c)(1) through 

(c)(3), (c)(6), (k)(3) and (m)(3) 

18 AAC 50.403. Negotiated Service 

Agreements (effective 1/29/05) 

18 AAC 50.405. Transition Process for Permit 

Fees (effective 1/29/05) 

18 AAC 50.410. Emission Fees (effective 1/ 

18/97) 

18 AAC 50.499. Definition for User Fee 

Requirements (effective 1/29/05) 

Article 5. Minor Permits 

18 AAC 50.502. Minor Permits for Air 

Quality Protection (effective 10/1/04) 

except (b)(1) through (b)(3), (b)(5), (d)(1) 

and (d)(2) 

18 AAC 50.508. Minor Permits Requested by 

the Owner or Operator (effective 10/1/04) 

18 AAC 50.509. Construction of a Pollution 

Control Project without a Permit (effective 

10/1/04) 

18 AAC 50.540. Minor Permit: Application 

(effective 10/1/04) 

18 AAC 50.542. Minor Permit: Review and 

Issuance (effective 10/1/04) except (a), 

(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (d) 

18 AAC 50.544. Minor Permits: Content 

(effective 10/1/04) 

18 AAC 50.546. Minor Permits: Revisions 

(effective 10/1/04) 

18 AAC 50.560. General Minor Permits 

(effective 10/1/04) except (b) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9185 

Article 9. General Provisions 

18 AAC 50.990. Definitions (effective 1/18/ 

97) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–4465 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 08–2088; MB Docket No. 08–149; RM– 

11475] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Columbus, GA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Dismissal. 

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the 

request of petitioner Georgia Public 

Telecommunications Commission 

(‘‘GPTC’’), permittee of noncommercial 

educational station WJSP–DT, DTV 

channel *23, Columbus, Georgia, 

dismisses GPTC’s pending petition for 

rulemaking to substitute DTV channel 

*11 for post-transition DTV channel *23 

at Columbus. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Y. Denysyk, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Order, 

MB Docket No. 08–149, adopted 

September 10, 2008, and released 

September 10, 2008. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

information collection burden ‘‘for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

This document is not subject to the 

Congressional Review Act. (The 

Commission, is, therefore, not required 

to submit a copy of this Order to the 

Government Accountability Office, 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) since this 

proposed rule is dismissed, herein.) 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Clay C. Pendarvis, 

Associate Chief, Video Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E9–4486 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 09–409; MB Docket No. 08–233; RM– 

11505] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Waco, TX 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Dismissal. 

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the 

request of petitioner Comcorp of Texas 

License Corp. (‘‘Comcorp’’), the 

permittee of post-transition DTV 

channel 44, Waco, Texas, dismisses 

Comcorp’s pending petition for 

rulemaking to substitute DTV channel 

25 for post-transition DTV channel 44 at 

Waco. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Y. Denysyk, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Order, 

MB Docket No. 08–233, adopted 

February 19, 2009, and released 

February 20, 2009. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

information collection burden ‘‘for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

This document is not subject to the 

Congressional Review Act. (The 

Commission, is, therefore, not required 

to submit a copy of this Order to the 

Government Accountability Office, 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) since this 

proposed rule is dismissed, herein.) 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Clay C. Pendarvis 

Associate Chief, Video Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E9–4484 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 531 and 533 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0042] 

Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy 

Standards—Model Years 2008–2020; 

Light Truck Average Fuel Economy 

Standards—Model Years 2008–2020; 

Request for Product Plan Information 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this request 

for comments is to acquire new and 

updated information regarding vehicle 

manufacturers’ future product plans to 

assist the agency in assessing what 

corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 

standards should be established for 

model years 2012 through 2016 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS