UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
POLICY. PLANNING AND EVALUATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Federal Register Notice on the 90-Day Review
FROM: Richard D. Morgenstern
Acting Assistant Admini
•x
TO: Assistant Administrators
Associate Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Regional Administrators
Attached please find a copy of the Federal Register notice on
the 90-Day Review, signed yesterday. We expect that it will appear
in the Federal Register early next week.
A number of people from different offices helped in the
preparation of this notice. Thank you!
Attachment
Primed on Kecycltd Faptr
-------
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
NINETY DAT ECONOMIC REVIEW OF REGULATIONS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Request for public comment
SUMMARY: This notice requests public comments that will assist the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in responding to a directive
from President Bush. The directive requests the Agency to undertake
a 90-day review to identify any unnecessary and burdensome
regulations which impose needless costs on consumers and
substantially impede economic growth, and to accelerate actions
which will promote economic growth. EPA invites the public to make
written comments and/or to attend several open meetings.
DATES: EPA invites members of the public to make written comments
by March 20, 1992. Because the 90-day period will conclude on April
27, 1992, comments received later than March 20, 1992, will still
be welcome, but EPA may not be able to consider them fully in this
90-day review. EPA will also include discussion of possible
regulatory changes at several meetings open to the public (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below). At these meetings EPA hopes to
consider any written comments that have been received on the areas
being discussed; thus it would be helpful (although not required)
-------
if written comments on issues that might be discussed at these
meetings are received at least several days before the meetings.
There will also be time set aside at these meetings for members of
the public to speak.
ADDRESSES: Five copies of each set of written comments should be
sent to: Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (PM-219), Attention: 90-Day Review, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments
should include the docket number FRL - . The public docket will
include copies of all written comments received in response to this
notice. The docket will be available for public review at EPA
Headquarters during normal business hours. To review the docket
please contact Mark Goldman at EPA Headquarters, (202)260-4454.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact:
Mark Goldman, (202)260-4454, Office of Communications, Education
and Public Affairs (A-107), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. For specific information
about one of the public meetings or particular EPA programs, see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 28, 1992, President Bush requested the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, along with
-------
the heads of other Federal regulatory departments and agencies to
"set aside a 90 - day period...to evaluate existing regulations and
programs and to identify and accelerate action on initiatives that
will eliminate any unnecessary regulatory burden or otherwise
promote economic growth." The President asked the Agency to
identify those regulations which .impose substantial costs on the
economy and to determine whether each such regulation adheres to a
set of five standards or criteria which he set out in his
memorandum. He further requested the Agency to work closely with
the public and other agencies on this effort and to make a report
to him at the end of the 90-day period. (See Appendix 1, "Reducing
the Burden of Government Regulation," Memorandum from President
George Bush, January 28, 1992, and Appendix 2, "Regulatory
Coordination," Memorandum from President George Bush, January 28,
1992.)
In response to this directive, EPA has initiated a review of
its regulations and related activities. In a memorandum to key
Agency staff, EPA Administrator William K. Reilly stated that the
President's request "presents EPA with an opportunity to accelerate
the use of innovative, cost-minimizing regulatory approaches and to
speed pro-growth activities. It also provides an opportunity to
reconsider regulations that unnecessarily impede economic growth."
(See Appendix 3, "90-Day Economic Review of Regulations,"
Memorandum from Administrator William K. Reilly, February 5, 1992. )
Administrator Reilly's memorandum stated that to fulfill the
President's request, EPA will undertake "a 90-day effort to
-------
identify specific steps we could take in each of these areas, and
to provide an assessment of the economic effects of suggested
actions.... All of these actions must be consistent with our
statutory mandates and environmental objectives." The memorandum
further stated that, "In fact these initiatives promise to advance
environmental interests, which is the President's objective, by
better integrating our efforts with national economic priorities of
promoting jobs, investment and growth." Administrator Reilly's
memorandum made it clear that the intent of EPA's review is not to
slow down environmental progress, but rather to find ways to
achieve this progress in protecting public health and the
environment in a more economically efficient manner.
In order to make this 90-day review as meaningful as possible,
EPA plans to select a limited number of specific regulations and
related activities which appear to present special opportunities to
promote the President's goals and to focus its analysis on them.
Although EPA will be preparing a report for the President on the
review at the end of 90 days, some of the analyses may continue
past that time.
For its review, EPA will select the topics for focussed
analysis from existing and proposed individual regulations, groups
of regulations, non-regulatory programs and policies and procedures
that implement those regulations and programs. The Administrator's
memorandum and the section of this notice entitled "Program Office
Reviews and Public Meetings" list several topics that are already
being considered for this review and on which EPA would especially
-------
appreciate comments.
Public comments on regulations under development will continue
to proceed through the normal notice and comment process, and this
notice does not extend those comment periods. Further, any
revisions to regulations initiated as a result of this review will
be made only after full notice and comment.
Thus, the purpose of this request for public comment is to
invite interested members of the public to identify regulations and
related activities for EPA's review and to provide information that
would be useful to EPA in its review.
Guidelines for Comments
In light of the short time available for this review, the
Agency makes the following requests concerning any comments that
members of the public choose to submit:
1. Each regulation or related activity that a commenter suggests
for review should meet the President's criteria as well as meet the
following tests:
(a) Any suggested changes that might be made as a result of
the review must be within EPA's statutory authority.
(b) Significant economic savings would be possible if changes
are made.
(c) Proposed changes will not compromise environmental
protection goals.
2. Because EPA intends to focus its review on a limited number of
regulations and related activities, commenters who suggest more
-------
than one regulation or related activity for review should also
suggest which one(s) should receive EPA's priority attention.
3. Each regulation or related activity that is suggested for
review should be accompanied by a short (1-2 page) summary of why
it meets the President's criteria and any factual material or
analysis that would assist EPA in the review. Supporting materials
may be appended. EPA is particularly interested in information
concerning economic and environmental effects.
4. The comments most useful to EPA would be those that both (1)
identify a specific regulatory burden that can be shown to be
unnecessary, for instance, due to changes in the regulatory context
or new data or analysis, and (2) include suggestions for achieving
the same environmental goal(s) in a less burdensome or more
efficient manner.
Program Office Reviews and Public Meetings
The four EPA program offices are at various stages in reviews
of several topics. They have also scheduled some meetings to which
members of the public are invited. Formal advisory committee
meetings listed below also have been or will be announced
separately in the Federal Register. These meetings will focus in
whole or in part on the review effort.
As mentioned above, at these meetings EPA hopes to consider
any written comments that have been received on the areas being
discussed; thus it would be helpful (although not required) if
written comments on issues that might be discussed at these
-------
meetings are received at least several days before the meetings.
There will also be time set aside at these meetings for members of
the public to speak.
1. Office of Air and Radiation. The Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee will meet on Tuesday, March 31, 1992, from 10:30 AM to
4:00 PM, at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, Pennsylvania Ave. and 14th
Street N.W., Washington, D.C. For further information contact: Paul
Rasmussen (202)260-7430.
2. Office of Water. The Management Advisory Group to the
Assistant Administrator for Water will meet on March 9, 10, and 11,
1992, at the Holiday Inn, Interstate 80, Grand Island, Nebraska. On
March 11, at 10:00 A.M., a portion of the agenda will be dedicated
to two particular topics of discussion under the moratorium:
stormwater control and trading discharge allocations between point
and nonpoint sources. For further information contact: Michelle
Miller, (202)260-5554.
3. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The Office has
recently received extensive public comment as it conducted reviews
of Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Implementation. These reviews have suggested a series of areas for
reform. In addition, the Office has recently conducted a series of
public outreach activities involving affected environmental groups
and citizens, regulated industries, states and local governments,
research institutions, and other Federal Agencies. Based on these
efforts, the Office is focussing during the Spring of 1992 on two
areas of reform: redirecting RCRA towards waste presenting
-------
significant risks; and revitalization of Superfund. The Office
plans to publish a Federal Register notice inviting comment on the
first area for reform in April. A public meeting on the second area
for reform is planned for late March (details will be announced
when they are available). In addition, the Office will hold public
meetings and have additional opportunities for public comment as
other areas are targeted for reform in the near future. For further
information contact: Margaret Schneider (202)260-4617.
4. Office of Pesticides. Prevention and Toxic Substances. The
Office plans to take advantage of upcoming meetings of interested
groups to solicit public input on actions the Agency is taking and
might take to improve its programs. In particular, officials will
attend the Pesticide Users Advisory Committee meeting on March 24-
25, 1992, and the meeting of the American Association of Pesticide
Control Officials on March 16-18, 1992, both in Washington, O.C. At
these meetings, EPA plans to discuss, among other current issues,
incentives to encourage the development and registration of
pesticides that may present lower overall risks to human health and
the environment than those currently on the market. The Office is
also already considering several specific issues in the context of
this review: how best to address the risks of lawn care pesticides,
chemical inventory exemptions and EPA's Section 8(e) policy on
-------
environmental releases under the Toxic Substances Control Act. For
further information contact: Judith Nelson (202)260-2890.
Dated: February9^/ 1992
f
Ridhard O. Morgenste^i,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Appendices:
1. "Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation," Memorandum
from President George Bush, January 28, 1992.
2. "Regulatory Coordination," Memorandum from President George
Bush, January 28, 1992.
3. "90-Day Economic Review of Regulations," Memorandum from
Administrator William K. Reilly, February 5, 1992.
-------
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY HEADS
SUBJECT• Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation.
As you know, excessive regulation and red tape have isposed an
enoraous burden on our econoay — a hidden tax on the average
American household in the fora of higher prices for goods and
services. Just as Americans have the right to expect their
government to spend tax dollars wisely, they have the right
to expect cost-effective and miniaally burdensone regulation.
Although the Congress has thus far failed to pass most of the
Administration's regulatory refers proposals, there is auch the
Administration can and should do on its own to reduce the burden
of regulation.
A major part of this undertaking aust be to weed out unnecessary
and burdensome government regulations, which impose needless
costs on consumers and substantially iapede economic growth. w«
must be constantly vigilant to avoid unnecessary regulation and
red tape.
We nust also remember that even those regulatory programs that
may have been justified when adopted often fail to keep pace with
important innovations. New technologies and markets can quickly
make existing rules obsolete. 3y the same token, existing
regulations often iapose unnecessary constraints on emerging
technologies and aarkets that could not have been foreseen at
the ti=e the regulations were promulgated. Existing regulatory
programs also need to be revised to take advantage of regulatory
innovations, such as the flexible, aarket-based approaches to
regulation that aany of your agencies have developed over the
past few years.
Z an concerned that, because of the constant pressure to
develop new programs, we are not doing nearly enough to review
and revise existing programs. Tor that reason, I ask chat each
of your agencies set aside a 90-day period, beginning today,
to evaluate existing regulations and programs and to identify
and accelerate action on initiatives that will eliminate any
unnecessary regulatory burden or otherwise promote economic
growth. During this period, agency resources should, to
the saxiaua extent possible, be devoted to these efforts.
Specifically, I request that you take the following steps:
-------
1. Owing the 90-day review period, your agency should work
with the public, other interested agencies, the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the Council
on Competitiveness to (i) identify each of your agency's
regulations and programs that iapose a substantial cost on
the economy and (ii) determine whether each such regulation
or program adheres to the following standards:
(a) The expected benefits to society of any regulation
should clearly outweigh the expected costs it imposes
on society.
(b) Regulations should be fashioned to maximize net
benefits to society.
(c) To the aaxiaum extent possible, regulatory agencies
should set performance standards instead of pre-
scriptive coaaand-and-ecntrol requirements, thereby
allowing the regulated coamunity to achieve regulatory
goals at the lowest possible cost.
(d) Regulations should incorporate market mechanisms to the
maxiaum extent possible.
(e) Regulations should provide clarity and certainty to the
regulated community and should be designed to avoid
needless litigation.
2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, and as soon as
possible, your agency should propose administrative changes
(including repeal, where appropriate) that will bring eacn
regulation and program into conformity with the standards
set forth above. As you iapieaent these proposals, you
should carefully order your agency's regulatory priorities
to ensure that programs imposing the largest unnecessary
burden are the first to be revised or eliminated.
3. You should designate, in consultation with the Council on
Competitiveness, a senior official to serve as your agency's
permanent regulatory oversight official. This person will
be-responsible for conducting the review, for implementing
the resulting proposals, and for ensuring that future
regulatory actions conform to the standards set forth in
this memorandum and in applicable Executive orders.
4. To the naxiaum extent permitted by law, and subject to the
exceptions listed below, ycur agency should refrain froa
issuing any proposed or final rule during the 90-day review
-------
period. This moratorium on new regulations will ensure
that, to the maximum extent possible, agency resources are
devoted to reducing the regulatory burden on the economy.
Of course, you should not postpone any regulation that is
subject to a statutory or judicial deadline that falls
during the review period. This moratorium does not apply
to:
(a) regulations that you determine, after consultation with
the working group of the Council on Competitiveness
described below, will foster economic growth;
(b) regulations that respond to emergencies such as
situations that pose an imminent danger to human health
or safety;
(c) regulations that you determine, after consultation with
the working group of the Council on Competitiveness
described below, are essential to a criminal lav
enforcement function of the United States;
(d) regulations issued with respect to a military or
foreign affairs function of the United States;
(e) regulations related solely to agency organization,
management, or personnel; and
(f) formal regulations required by statute to be made on
the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.
5. At the end of the review period, each agency should submit
a written report to ae. Each report should indicate the
regulatory changes recommended or made during the review
. period and the potential savings to the economy of those
changes, including an estimate of the number of jobs that
will be created. It should also include a summary of
any regulatory programs that are left unchanged and an
explanation of how such prcgraas are consistent with the
regulatory standards set forth in paragraph 1 above.
The 90-day review, and the preparation of the reports described
in paragraph 5 above, will be coordinated by a working group of
the Council on Competitiveness, chaired by the Chairman of the
Council of Eccnonic Advisers and the Counsel to the President.
I lock forvard to your reports on this iaportant undertaking. I
am confident that, with your help, the executive branch can do
auch to create ccnditicns conducive to a healthy and robust
economy.
-------
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMODITY FUTURES
TRADING COMMISSION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
-------
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NUCLZAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
SUSJZCT: Reoulatorv Coordination
As you know, the Congress has failed to enact important
arswth-oriented legislation that we have proposed. Although
we will continue to work with the Congress to enact these
proposals, we must also redouble our efforts to create jobs and
achieve economic growth within existing statutory constraints.
For such efforts to succeed, we oust prevent the fragaentation of
policv-aaJcing and better coordinate existing programs within the
executive branch. We have made great strides in this area, but
more remains to be done. Your agencies share responsibility for
promoting safe and efficient energy production while at the same
time protecting the environment. It is therefore essential that
vou work together to streamline the regulatory process and ensure
that the regulated community is r.ot subject to duplicative or
inconsistent regulation.
I hope that improved coordir.ati.cn will be one especially valuable
outccse of the 90-day moratorium and review period described in
the attached memorandum. I lock forward to your reports on this
important undertaking. Although the Congress has created the
regulatory schemes within which we aust operate, I am confident
that, with your help, the executive branch can do much to create
conditions conducive to a healthy and robust economy.
-------
/K i
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEE -5 1992
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Regional Administrators
Associate Administrators
SUBJECT: 90-Day Economic Review of Regulations
President Bush has asked each federal agency to review its
reouiations over the next 90 days. I fully support this
initiative, for I believe it presents EPA with an opportunity to
accelerate the use of innovative, cost -minimizing regulatory
apcroacr.es and to speed pro -growth activities. It also provides
an" ooDort unity to reconsider regulations that unnecessarily
imcede economic growth. I have directed Dick Morgans tern to lead
a 90-dav effort to identify specific steps we could take in each
of these areas, and to provide an assessment of the economic
effects of suggested actions, your participation and support are
critical. All of these actions must be consistent with our
statutory mandates and. environmental objectives.
While many of EPA's regulations are exempt from the
moratorium because of statutory or judicial deadlines (including,
I am assured by both Michael Bosxin and Boyden Gray, proposals
necessarv to meet such deadlines), the review should cover the
full range of EPA activities . We should first identify those
rules or proposals necessary to meet deadlines to ensure they are
put into the review process as early as possible. Moreover, "we
should scrutinize every regulation to assure that expected costs
do not exceed expected benefits, and must continue to pursue
vicorcusly the most cost-effective strategies in all our
reouiatory actions. At the White House meeting on the review, I
prcDOsed the following areas in which I expect EPA can implement
more cost-effective approaches to achieving environmental"
objectives:
* reduce regulatory burdens for small communities and small
businesses;
* increase incentives for the use of clean fuels such as
natural gas;
* reform RCRA (through iegislaticn or regulation — the
mixture and derived from rule offers a near-term
opportunity);
-------
* expand market-based approaches to regulations;
* accelerate inclusionary rulemaking (particularly negotiated
ruleaakingsf or "reg negs-);
* accelerate rules that reduce the regulatory burden on the
economy; and
* strengthen innovative technology development and export
promotion efforts.
In addition, we should explore ways to speed biotechnology
referns.
Nothing I have proposed is inconsistent with EPA priorities.
In fact, these initiatives promise to advance environmental
interests, which is the President's objective, by better
integrating our efforts with national economic priorities of
promoting jobs, investment and growth. We have already made
substantial progress toward furthering economic objectives
through instituting regulatory reforms and developing programs
that benefit both the economy and the environment", often while
increasing energy efficiency. Enduring public support for
environmental protection depends on continued efforts to develop
and implement the most economically efficient environmental
programs.
Dick will develop a strategy for the review in consultation
with you. He will follow up with each of you shortly. Given
your commitment to developing environmental programs sensitive to
economic concerns, I am confident the review will be productive.
I have attached, for your review, a memorandum on this subject
issued by the President on January 28, 1992.
William K.
Attachment
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 121/Monday, June 25, 2007/Notices
34681
63, subpart JJ; was approved 06/07/
2007; OMB Number 2060-0324; expires
06/30/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1790.04; NESHAP—
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and
Phosphate Fertilizers Production
(Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subparts
AA and BB; was approved 06/07/2007;
OMB Number 2060-0361; expires 06/
30/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1799.04; NESHAP for
Mineral Wool Production (Renewal); in
40 CFR part 63, subpart ODD; was
approved 06/07/2007; OMB Number
2060-0362; expires 06/30/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1678.06; NESHAP for
Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Operations (Renewal); in 40 CFR part
63, subpart EE; was approved 06/071
2007; OMB Number 2060-0326; expires
06/30/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2213.02; Information
Collection Requirements for the Control
of Evaporative Emissions from New and
In-Use Portable Gasoline Containers
(Final Rule); was approved 06/06/07;
OMB Number 2060-0597; expires 06/
30/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1765.04; Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for
National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Automobile
Refinish Coatings (Renewal); in 40 CFR
part 59, subpart B; was approved 06/05/
2007; OMB Number 2060-0353; expires
06/30/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1927.04; Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for the
Emission Guidelines for Existing
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration (CISWI) Units (Renewal); in
40 CFR part 60, subpart ODOD; OMB
Control Number 2060-0451; expires 067
30/2010.
EPA ICR No. 0877.09; RadNet
(Renewal); was approved 05/22/2007;
OMB Number 2060-0015; expires 05/
31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1926.04; NSPS for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units (Renewal); in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart CCCC; was approved
05/22/2007; OMB Number 2060-0450;
expires 05/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1160.08; NSPS—Wood
Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing
Plants, NESHAP-MACT-Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants
(Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN;
was approved 05/23/2007; OMB
Number 2060-0114; expires 05/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2243.01; Procedures for
Implementing NEPA; in 40 CFR 6.506,
6.604, 6,703, and 6.803; was approved
05/21/2007; OMB Number 2020-0033;
expires 09/30/2007.
EPA ICR No. 1797.04; NSPS for
Standards of Performance for Storage
Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for which
Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced after June 11,
1973, and prior to May 19,1978
(Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart K;
was approved 05/21/2007; OMB
Number 2060-0442; expires 05/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1056.09; New Source
Performance Standards for Nitric Acid
Plants (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart G; was approved 05/21/2007;
OMB Number 2060-0019; expires OS/
31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2096.03; NESHAP for
Iron and Steel Foundries (Renewal); in
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE; was
approved 05/18/2007; OMB Number
2060-0543; expires 05/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2248.02; Applicant
Background Questionnaire: Race,
National Origin, Gender and Disability
Demographics; in 29 CFR 1614.601; was
approved 05/14/2007; OMB Number
2030-0045; expires 11/30/2007.
EPA ICR No. 1072.08; NSPS for Lead-
Acid Battery Manufacturing; in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KK (Renewal); was
approved 06/08/2007; OMB Number
2060-0081; expires 06/30/2010.
Comment Filed
EPA ICR No. 1189.19; Revisions to the
RCRA Definition of Solid Waste
(Proposed Rule); OMB Number 2050-
0053; OMB filed comment on 05/25/
2007.
EPA ICR No. 1693.04; Plant-
Incorporated Protectants; CBI
Substantiation and Adverse Effects
Reporting (Proposed Rule Related
Addendum); in 40 CFR part 174; OMB
Piled comment on 05/21/2007.
Dated: June 18, 2007.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies
Division.
[PR Doc. E7-12233 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0484; FRL-B330-2]
Board of Scientific Counselors,
National Center for Environmental
Research (NCER) Standing
Subcommittee Meeting—2007
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, Public Law
92-463, the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of a
meeting of the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) National Center for
Environmental Research (NCER)
Standing Subcommittee.
DATES: The meeting (a teleconference
call) will be held on Friday, July 13,
2007 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m All times
noted are eastern time. The meeting may
adjourn early if all business is finished.
Requests for the draft agenda or for
making oral presentations at the
conference call will be accepted up to
1 business day before the meeting.
ADDRESSES: Participation in the meeting
will be by teleconference only—meeting
rooms will not be used. Members of the
public may obtain the call-in number
and access code for the call from Susan
Peterson, whose contact information is
listed under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice. Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
ORD-2007-0484, by one of the
following methods:
• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Send comments by
electronic mail (e-mail) to:
ORD.Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0484.
• Fax: Fax comments to: (202) 566-
0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-ORD-2007-0484.
• Mail: Send comments by mail to:
Board of Scientific Counselors, National
Center for Environmental Research
(NCER) Standing Subcommittee—2007
Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0484.
• Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), Room B102, EPA West Building,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0484. Note:
this is not a mailing address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0484. 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
------- |