14938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

i. Revise paragraph (k)(2). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 273.18 Claims against households. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) States must establish claims even 

if they cannot be established within the 

timeframes outlined under paragraph 

(d) of this section. 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(O) If allotment reduction is to be 

imposed, a due date or time frame to 

either repay or make arrangements to 

repay the claim in the event that the 

household stops receiving benefits. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) The date of delinquency for a 

claim covered under paragraph 

(e)(5)(i)(B) of this section is the due date 

of the missed installment payment 

unless the claim was delinquent prior to 

entering into a repayment agreement, in 

which case the due date will be the due 

date on the initial notification/demand 

letter. * * * 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(2) These rates do not apply to: 

(i) Any reduction in benefits when 

you disqualify someone for an IPV; 

(ii) The value of court-ordered public 

service performed in lieu of the 

payment of a claim; or, 

(iii) Payments made to a court that are 

not subsequently forwarded as payment 

of an established claim. 

* * * * * 

PART 276—STATE AGENCY 

LIABILITIES AND FEDERAL 

SANCTIONS 

§ 276.2 [Amended] 

5. In § 276.2, amend paragraph (c) by 

removing ‘‘273.18(h)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘273.18(l)’’. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 22, 2009. 

E. Enrique Gomez, 

Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–7151 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0047] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Regulations; Port of New 

York and Vicinity 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document supplements 

the Coast Guard’s May 2008 proposal to 

amend the existing special anchorage 

area at Perth Amboy, New Jersey, at the 

junction of the Raritan River and Arthur 

Kill. The proposed amendment is 

necessary to facilitate safe navigation 

and provide for a safe and secure 

anchorage for vessels of not more than 

65 feet in length. This supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking provides 

updated coordinates for the proposed 

amendment and revises the proposed 

use limitations. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2008–0047 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these methods. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Mr. Jeff Yunker, 

Waterways Management Coordinator, 

Coast Guard, telephone 718–354–4195, 

e-mail Jeff.M.Yunker@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0047), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG– 

2008–0047’’ in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the balloon 

shape in the Actions column. If you 

submit your comments by mail or hand 

delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 8c by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit them by mail and 

would like to know that they reached 

the Facility, please enclose a stamped, 

self-addressed postcard or envelope. We 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period 

and may change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert USCG– 

2008–0047 in the Docket ID box, press 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules 14939 

Enter, and then click on the item in the 

Docket ID column. You may also visit 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the Department of 

Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But, you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

During times of tidal shifts, vessels 

moored near the edge of this special 

anchorage area were found swinging out 

into the Raritan River Cutoff and the 

Raritan River Federal Channels. Since 

moored vessels in a special anchorage 

area are exempt from the Inland Rules 

of the Road [Rule 30 (33 U.S.C. 2030) 

and Rule 35 (33 U.S.C. 2035)]; vessels 

swinging out into these Federal 

Channels create a high risk of collision 

with larger commercial vessels that 

transit past this special anchorage area, 

especially at night and during times of 

inclement weather. Also, when larger 

commercial vessels maneuver to avoid a 

collision with recreation vessels that 

swing out into these channels it creates 

a hazardous, close-quarters passing 

situation with other larger commercial 

vessels operating within these Federal 

Channels. 

On May 8, 2008, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘‘Anchorage 

Regulations; Port of New York and 

Vicinity’’ (Docket number USCG–2008– 

0047) in the Federal Register (73 FR 

26054). In that NPRM, the Coast Guard 

proposed to add a ‘‘note’’ to the 

regulation. The Coast Guard received 

two letters commenting on the NPRM, 

and one request for a public meeting. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received two letters 

commenting on the NPRM, and both 

letters stated that the geographic points 

appeared to be incorrect. The Coast 

Guard agrees with these comments. It 

was determined that, during the Coast 

Guard’s internal review process prior to 

publication of the NPRM, the incorrect 

positions from an earlier draft were 

transposed to the final version of the 

NPRM that was published in the 

Federal Register. The special anchorage 

area location was submitted to the 

National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

and they provided the positions so the 

special anchorage area would be 

displayed adjacent to the Federal 

Channel on navigation charts. The 

positions proposed in this supplemental 

NPRM were provided by NOAA to 

correct this issue. 

In addition to correction of the 

coordinates as discussed above, one 

commenter requested the following 

three revisions. 

First, the commenter requested that 

the Coast Guard enlarge the special 

anchorage area one block north to Smith 

Street as extended to give certain city 

moorings the benefit of a special 

anchorage. The current special 

anchorage area bisects the Municipal 

Marina, and the commenter’s proposed 

change would cover the waters to the 

end of the Municipal Marina. The Coast 

Guard agrees because the extension 

covers waters under the jurisdiction of 

the Perth Amboy Municipal Marina, and 

this supplemental NPRM proposes to 

extend the northern boundary of the 

special anchorage area to an extension 

of Smith Street. 

Second, the commenter requested that 

the Coast Guard require only that 

vessels in the special anchorage area 

and their attached moorings do not 

impinge on the Shipping Channels, and 

require no additional buffer zone 

between the recreational vessels and the 

Federal Channel. The Coast Guard 

agrees. This comment has been 

incorporated into the revised positions 

provided by NOAA to display the 

special anchorage area adjacent to the 

Federal Channel, and proposed in this 

supplemental NPRM. 

Third, the commenter requested that 

the Coast Guard revise the proposed 

‘‘note’’ to provide that mariners contact 

the Fleet Captain of the Raritan Yacht 

Club at 732–297–7727, 732–826–2277 or 

on VHF Channel 9, and only prohibit 

the use of mooring piles or stakes 

seaward of the pier head line in 

accordance with the Waterfront 

Management Plan for the Mooring Field 

at Perth Amboy, NJ as authorized by the 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection. The Coast 

Guard agrees and has revised the 

proposed rule to include these changes. 

The Coast Guard also has removed the 

designation ‘‘note’’ from this proposed 

text, and replaced it with the new 

paragraph designation (d)(10)(i). 

The commenter who submitted the 

requests above also requested a public 

meeting ‘‘in the event’’ that the 

requestor’s comments were not 

incorporated. Because the Coast Guard 

agrees with the comments above and 

has incorporated them into this 

supplemental NPRM for further public 

comment, the Coast Guard believes a 

public meeting would not aid this 

rulemaking. 

Finally, this supplemental NPRM 

reflects technical amendments made 

between the publication of the May 

2008 NPRM and this supplemental 

NPRM. (See 73 FR 35010.) As a result 

of these technical amendments, the 

regulation for this special anchorage 

area is now codified at 33 CFR 

110.60(d)(10), instead of 33 CFR 

110.60(aa). Similarly, 33 CFR 110.60 

was titled ‘‘Port of New York and 

vicinity’’ when the May 2008 NPRM 

issued, but now is titled ‘‘Captain of the 

Port, New York’’; to avoid confusion the 

Coast Guard has not changed the title of 

this supplemental NPRM. 

As discussed above, this 

supplemental NPRM proposes corrected 

coordinates for the special anchorage 

area. Further, this rulemaking is 

intended to reduce the risk of vessel 

collisions by adding amplifying 

information regarding the use of the 

special anchorage area. This would be 

accomplished by adding the following: 

‘‘This area is limited to vessels no 

greater than 20 meters in length and is 

primarily for use by recreational craft on 

a seasonal or transient basis. These 

regulations do not prohibit the 

placement of moorings within the 

anchorage area, but requests for the 

placement of moorings should be 

directed to the Raritan Yacht Club Fleet 

Captain (telephone 732–297–7727, 732– 

826–2277, or VHF Channel 9) to ensure 

compliance with local and state laws. 

All moorings shall be so placed that no 

vessel, when anchored, will at any time 

extend beyond the limits of the area. 

Fixed mooring piles or stakes are 

prohibited seaward of the pier head 

line. Mariners are encouraged to contact 

the Raritan Yacht Club Fleet Captain for 

any additional ordinances and to ensure 

compliance with additional applicable 

state and local laws.’’ 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
14940 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

This proposed addition will greatly 

increase navigation safety and is 

necessary due to the boundary of the 

special anchorage area being adjacent to 

the Raritan River Cutoff and Raritan 

River Federal Channels. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 

This finding is based on the fact that 

this rule would require recreational 

vessels to anchor a greater distance from 

the Raritan River Cutoff and Raritan 

River Federal Channels. As displayed 

on the government navigation charts, 

the current boundaries of the special 

anchorage area and adjacent Federal 

Channels nearly overlap. This proposed 

rule would greatly reduce the possibility 

of marine casualties, pollution 

incidents, or human fatalities that could 

be caused by these recreational vessels 

anchoring within, or near, the Federal 

Channels and causing a collision with 

any of the approximately 5,000 

commercial vessels that transit the 

Raritan River Cutoff Channel on an 

annual basis. Vessel transit statistics 

from the ACOE Navigation Data Center 

are available online at: http:// 

www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/ 

wcsc.htm. Additionally, vessels would 

still be able to anchor in an area 

approximately 850 to 1,050 yards wide 

by 480 to 980 yards long off the 

southern Perth Amboy shoreline. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This proposed rule would affect the 

following entities, some of which might 

be small entities: The owners or 

operators of recreational vessels 

intending to anchor immediately 

adjacent to Raritan River Cutoff and 

Raritan River Federal Channels, which 

could cause a marine casualty, pollution 

incident, or human fatality, due to a 

commercial vessel colliding with the 

anchored or moored recreational 

vessel(s). It would also affect 

commercial vessels by reducing the 

possibility that they will encounter 

hazardous, close-quarters passing 

conditions created by recreational 

vessels within the channels. However, 

the requirements contained within the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on these 

entities for the following reasons: The 

revised special anchorage area would 

require vessels to moor, or anchor, at a 

greater distance from the Raritan River 

and Raritan River Cutoff Federal 

Channels, reducing the threat of 

collision with vessels transiting the 

adjacent Federal Channel. This special 

anchorage area was never designed to 

authorize vessels to anchor, or moor, in 

a manner where they would extend into 

the Federal Channel creating a hazard to 

navigation. Additionally, vessels would 

still be able to anchor in an area 

approximately 850 to 1,050 yards wide 

by 480 to 980 yards long off the 

southern Perth Amboy shoreline. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Mr. Jeff 

Yunker, Waterways Management 

Coordinator, Coast Guard Sector New 

York, at 718–354–4195. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this proposed rule or any policy or 

action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules 14941 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 0023.1 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which does not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule 

involves changes to the size of a special 

anchorage area. We seek any comments 

or information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Amend § 110.60, by revising 

paragraph (d)(10) to read as follows: 

§ 110.60 Captain of the Port, New 

York. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(10) Perth Amboy, NJ. All waters 

bound by the following points: 

40°30′26.00′′ N, 074°15′42.00′′ W; thence 

to 40°30′24.29′′ N, 074°15′35.20′′ W; 

thence to 40°30′02.79′′ N, 074°15′44.16′′ 

W; thence to 40°29′35.70′′ N, 

074°16′08.88′′ W; thence to 40°29′31.00′′ 

N, 074°16′20.75′′ W; thence to 

40°29′47.26′′ N, 074°16′49.82′′ W; thence 

to 40°30′02.00′′ N, 074°16′41.00′′ W, 

thence along the shoreline to the point 

of origin. 

(i) This area is limited to vessels no 

greater than 20 meters in length and is 

primarily for use by recreational craft on 

a seasonal or transient basis. These 

regulations do not prohibit the 

placement of moorings within the 

anchorage area, but requests for the 

placement of moorings should be 

directed to the Raritan Yacht Club Fleet 

Captain (telephone 732–297–7727, 732– 

826–2277 or VHF Channel 9) to ensure 

compliance with local and state laws. 

All moorings shall be so placed that no 

vessel, when anchored, will at any time 

extend beyond the limits of the area. 

Fixed mooring piles or stakes are 

prohibited seaward of the pier head 

line. Mariners are encouraged to contact 

the Raritan Yacht Club Fleet Captain for 

any additional ordinances or laws and 

to ensure compliance with additional 

applicable state and local laws. 

(ii)[Reserved] 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 27, 2009. 

Dale G. Gabel, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–7357 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 59 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0971; FRL–8788–4] 

RIN 2060–AP33 

National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Aerosol 

Coatings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend 

the National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for 

Aerosol Coatings (aerosol coatings 

reactivity rule), which establishes 

national reactivity-based emission 

standards for the aerosol coatings 

category (aerosol spray paints) under 

section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. This 

proposed action amends Table 2A of the 

aerosol coatings reactivity rule by 

adding compounds and associated 

reactivity factors based on petitions we 

received; and by clarifying which 

volatile organic compounds are to be 

quantified in compliance 

determinations. Additionally, we are 

proposing certain changes related to the 

notice required for a company to certify 

that it will assume the responsibility for 

compliance with record keeping and 

reporting requirements for a regulated 

entity, and taking comment on whether 

to change who is liable following such 

certification. Finally, this action 

proposes minor revisions and 

corrections to the aerosol coatings 

reactivity rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 4, 2009, unless a public 

hearing is requested by April 13, 2009. 

If a hearing is requested on the proposed 

rule, written comments must be 

received by May 18, 2009. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing concerning the proposed 

regulation by April 13, 2009, a public 

hearing will be held on or about April 

17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0971, by one of the 

following methods: 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS