MEMORANDUM

To:		Docket for SO2 NAAQS

From:		Janet McCabe, OAR

Re:		Meetings on the proposed SO2 NAAQS

Date:		April 29, 2010

On 4/14/2010, EPA held a meeting at which provisions of the proposed SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards rule were discussed.  Present at
the meeting were Janet McCabe, Chet Wayland and Steve Page of EPA and
Mark MacLeod and Vicky Patton of Environmental Defense.  The topic
discussed was the process for designating areas nonattainment under a
future revised standard.

On 4/14/2010, EPA held a meeting at which provisions of the proposed SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards rule were discussed.  Present at
the meeting were Janet McCabe, Chet Wayland and Steve Page of EPA and
Paul Billings and Janice Nolan of the American Lung Association.  The
topic discussed was the process for designating areas nonattainment
under a future revised standard.

On 4/21/2010, EPA held a meeting at which provisions of the proposed SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards rule were discussed.  Present at
the meeting were Janet McCabe and Chet Wayland of EPA and John Walke of
NRDC.  The topic discussed was the process for designating areas
nonattainment under a future revised standard.


 ADVANCE \d6

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1823.03

REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PFC
REDUCTION/CLIMATE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY

March 11, 2008

	TABLE OF CONTENTS

	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION
COLLECTION………………………….. . .1

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection	1

1(b)	Short Characterization	1

	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION.
………………………………………. . 2

2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection	2

2(b)	Practical Utility and Users of the Data	2

2(c)	Assessment of Partnership’s Achievements. . . . . . . . . . .  .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .….. .3

	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION

CRITERIA………………………………………………...……
…………………………5

3(a)	Nonduplication	5

3(b)	Public Notice Request Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	5

3(c)	Consultations	5

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	6

3(e)	General Guidelines	6

3(f)	Confidentiality	6

3(g)	Sensitive Questions	7

	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED……………….. . . .
. . .7

4(a)	Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes	7

4(b)	Information Requested.	7

5.		THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .
. . 10

5(a)	Agency Activities	11

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management.	11

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility	11

5(d)	Collection Schedule	11

6.		ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION. . . . . . . . . .
. . 12

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden	12

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs	12

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	13

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs	13

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs	14

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden	15

6(g)	Burden Statement	15

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

This ICR is entitled "Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the
Perfluorocompound (PFC) Reduction/Climate Partnership for the
Semiconductor Industry," EPA ICR number 1823.03.

1(b)	Short Characterization

On February 14, 2002, President Bush announced a goal to reduce U.S.
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity – the ratio of emissions to
economic output by American industry – by 18 percent over the next 10
years without sacrificing economic growth. Achieving this aim will
require a combination of short-, medium-, and long-term actions.
Initially, the Administration has adopted policies to encourage industry
to take voluntary actions using available, cost-effective technologies
and best practices to reduce GHG emissions intensity.  EPA’s PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry is an
important program contributing to the overall reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions from projected 2010 levels.  The semiconductor industry
partnership, along with EPA’s Energy Star programs and the Voluntary
Aluminum Industrial Partnership(VAIP) are voluntary initiatives seeking
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using a pollution prevention
approach.

The PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry is
a voluntary program that promotes reduction of fluorinated compound (FC)
greenhouse gas emissions including perfluoromethane (CF4),
perfluoroethane (C2F6), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride
(NF3), and perfluoropropane (C3F8), from semiconductor manufacturing.  A
single hydrofluorocarbon, trifluoromethane (CHF3) is included in the
program with the PFCs due to its high global warming potential.  EPA’s
semiconductor industry partners have committed to reduce their PFC
emissions 10 percent below their 1995 baseline level and support the
President’s Climate VISION initiative.  As a partner to the industry,
EPA serves as a clearinghouse of technical information on successful
strategies for reducing PFC emissions that are economically,
technically, and environmentally sound.  EPA also helps assess the
global warming potential of potential substitute chemicals and publicly
recognizes the partner companies’ achievements.

Participation in the program begins with completion of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that outlines responsibilities of the PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership.  This MOU reflects a voluntary agreement
between a semiconductor manufacturer (the Partner Company) and EPA
(collectively, the Parties).  By joining the Partnership, a Company
agrees to submit a Company-specific annual report, identifying an
overall estimate of PFC emissions by gas, to a third party designated by
the participating Companies.  The MOU also specifies that the Partner
Company will direct the designated third party to create a confidential
data depository for the information supplied by the Partner Company.  In
addition, the MOU states that the Partner Company will direct the
designated third party to prepare an industry-wide annual report, to be
submitted to EPA, that aggregates PFC emissions estimates, and provides
each Partner Company’s annual emissions by gas on a “blind” or
anonymous basis.  The Partner Company also agrees that it will share
with the EPA and others in the semiconductor industry information about
successful PFC emission reduction processes and technologies that the
Partner Company considers nonconfidential.  This agreement applies only
to PFC emissions originating from U.S. semiconductor manufacturing sites
and can be terminated by either Party 30 days after the receipt of
written notice by the other Party with no penalties or continuing
obligations.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection

President Bush launched the Climate VISION initiative in February 2003
as part of his plan to reduce the national greenhouse gas intensity (the
amount of greenhouse gases emitted per dollar of GDP) by 18 percent over
10 years.  EPA’s semiconductor industry partners are contributing to
the Climate VISION’s efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
by striving to reduce their absolute PFC emissions 10 percent below
their 1995 baseline level (see
www.climatevision.gov/sectors/semiconductors).  The PFC Emission
Reduction Partnership also supports EPA’s pollution prevention goals.
Authority for collection of this information is provided in Sections
7403(a)(1), (b)(6), and (g)(1) [Clean Air Act (103].

EPA has developed this ICR to obtain authorization to collect
information from Companies participating in the PFC Reduction/Climate
Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry.  By participating in the
program, a Partner Company voluntarily agrees to the terms of various
information collections specified by EPA in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).  The Partner Company submits the MOU to EPA.  In
addition, the Partner Company should submit to a designated third party
a Company-specific annual report that includes an overall estimate of
the Partner Company’s PFC emissions by gas type.

An industry-designated third party aggregates information on
Company-specific PFC emissions into an industry-wide annual report, and
combined with information on Partner Companies’ PFC emissions
(submitted on a blind basis), EPA is able to evaluate the overall PFC
emission reductions achieved by the voluntary program.  The MOU’s
information-sharing provision allows EPA to collect and share
information about successful PFC emission reduction processes and
technologies that Partner Companies consider nonconfidential.

2(b)	Practical Utility and Users of the Data

The Agency has used the MOU to establish a framework for a voluntary
agreement with Companies in the Partnership.  EPA will use information
submitted in the industry-wide annual reports to demonstrate that
Partner Companies are reducing PFC emissions from semiconductor
manufacturing operations.  EPA also will use the information on an
annual basis to develop the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks.  The U.S. government committed to developing and maintaining
the Inventory under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).  In addition, EPA will use the information collected to
evaluate the quantity of emissions prevented and to publicize Company
and Partnership successes.  EPA may also use aggregated data to
disseminate information concerning the Partnership.  It is expected that
the industry will employ this information to understand the extent and
rate of growth of its PFC emissions in the U.S.  To further this
process, information sharing provided by Partner Companies will be used
by EPA to publicize new processes or technologies that reduce emissions,
and by the Partner Companies themselves to improve their environmental
performance.

2(c)	Assessment of Partnership’s Achievements

In 2001, OMB requested EPA to evaluate the extent to which the Partner
Companies would have reduced their PFC emissions in the absence of the
Partnership.  EPA constructed a top-down vintage model to better
understand the industry(s diverse and dynamic manufacturing technologies
and estimate the U.S. industry’s “business as usual” (BAU) PFC
emissions.

When estimating air emissions from any source, it is customary practice
to express the emissions as a product of two factors: an emissions
factor, expressed as emissions per unit of activity and an activity
factor, expressed in this case as a quantity of silicon consumed during
semiconductor manufacture.  EPA’s PFC Emissions Vintage Model (PEVM)
derives its PFC emissions factor from the Partners’ annual reports and
U.S. silicon consumption is derived from reports and projections
provided by VLSI Research (www.vlsiresearch.com).

Figure 1 near the end of this document depicts the Partners’ actual
PFC emissions through 2003 as compared to expected BAU emissions.
Figure 1 also presents the estimated reduction of the partners’ BAU
emissions attributable to the advent and adoption of copper
interconnects.  A full description of EPA’s PEVM used to estimate BAU
emissions with and without copper interconnects is available at
http://epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/resources.html.

Copper interconnect technology evolved since the inception of the
partnership in 1996 and was designed primarily to enable faster and
smaller products.  The smaller less resistive interconnects have also
delivered the added benefit of reducing the number of PFC emitting
process steps.  EPA has determined that the copper interconnect is the
only new manufacturing technology developed to date without the
Partnership’s influence that reduces the semiconductor industry’s
PFC emissions intensity.

The Partner Companies have identified and are implementing several other
new manufacturing technologies and process improvements aimed at
significantly improving their environmental performance.  In response to
EPA’s voluntary initiative, the Partner Companies and their material
suppliers have developed new production technologies including:

remote NF3 plasma cleaning for chemical vapor deposition (CVD) chambers,

process optimizations,

alternative chemicals, and

advanced PFC emissions abatement devices.

Remote NF3 chamber cleaning reduces PFC emissions by greater than 99
percent as compared to the traditional C2F6 cleaning process.  This
technology is now found on all new CVD equipment sold in the U.S. and is
being retrofitted to existing equipment by some Partner Companies.

In addition, Partner Companies have revisited their established
manufacturing processes and successfully adjusted their production
process “recipes” (i.e., parameters such as the PFC gas flow rates,
plasma power, and pressure) to reduce PFC use.  The Partners have also
improved the equipment’s ability to detect the process endpoint and
thus ensure PFC gas flow delivery only when necessary.  These types of
process optimizations have reduced PFC emissions and in some cases
improved throughput thereby delivering the added benefit of increased
productivity.

EPA’s Semiconductor Partnership and its aggressive PFC emission
reduction goal have sent a clear message to the industry’s equipment
and chemical suppliers.  The industry’s suppliers are responding by
designing new chemicals with lower global warming impact and improved
abatement devices that can neutralize PFC emissions before being
exhausted to the atmosphere.  For example, prior to the Partnership, the
industry’s abatement devices were designed to control regulated
criteria pollutants but these devices would not destroy the very stable
and non-reactive PFC gases.  Today, equipment suppliers offer a menu of
abatement options capable of controlling regulated pollutants and PFC
emissions in one device.  Many Partner Companies are choosing to upgrade
their abatement systems to address PFC emissions and most new
fabrication facilities are completely outfitted with the cleaner
advanced technologies.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Nonduplication

The information to be obtained under this ICR is not collected by any
other EPA program or Federal agency.  The PFCs are not currently
regulated chemicals, and the emissions of the gases are not tracked
elsewhere.  No databases are otherwise available for obtaining this
information.

3(b)	Public Notice Request Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA issued a
public notice in the Federal Register [XXX, 2008 Vol. XX, Number 162,
Page 51831-51832] soliciting public comments for a 60-day period ending
October XXXX, 2008.  EPA received no public comments on the ICR during
the comment period.

3(c)	Consultations

In the fall of 2000, EPA consulted with eight Companies in the PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership to obtain feedback on the burdens and
costs associated with the Partnership’s paperwork activities.  EPA
tried to ensure that the Partner Companies contacted were representative
of Companies across the Partnership.  After collecting their feedback,
EPA developed an average burden and cost estimate for each respondent
activity in this ICR and incorporated these estimates into the ICR’s
burden and cost calculations.  The Partnership’s composition and
responsibilities have not changed significantly since 2000.  Therefore,
EPA has not adjusted the burden estimates for the partnership’s
activities.  EPA has updated the compensation level for the labor
categories using U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics
information.  See Section 6 of this ICR for these calculations.

EPA consulted with the following Partner Companies:

NAME OF CONTACT

NAME OF ORGANIZATION

PHONE NUMBER

Jim Jewett

Intel

(480) 554-3621

Joe Mauser

Philips

(505) 822-7634

Coleen Miller & Tina Gilliland

Texas Instruments

(512) 356-7430

Mishelle Noble

Dominion Semiconductor

(703) 396-1120

Jamie Rubin

Agilent Technologies

(970) 288-4880

David Sovie

Eastman Kodak

(716) 722-9124

Tom Tamayo

International Business Machines

(802) 769-4950

Diane Van Schoten

Advanced Micro Devices

(408) 749-2045

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA requests that the Partner Company submit information on its PFC
emissions to the designated third party once per year.  The designated
third party will submit an industry-wide annual report to EPA once per
year.  EPA believes that any reduction in the frequency of this
information collection would impede efforts by EPA to evaluate results
of this program.  In particular, if information were submitted less than
once per year, emission inventories of greenhouse gases prepared by the
government on an annual basis would suffer because the information used
in such inventories would be dated.  A less frequent collection would
not enable EPA to track annual greenhouse gas emission reductions for
the Climate VISION initiative or to submit an accurate assessment to the
UNFCCC.

3(e)	General Guidelines

This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, OMB's implementing regulations, OMB's Information Collection
Review Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance.

3(f)	Confidentiality

No confidential information will be submitted to EPA at any point in the
information collection process.  Information submitted to EPA in the
industry-wide annual report will be either aggregated or provided on a
“blind” basis.  Further, data will be released by the designated
third party only if a sufficient number of semiconductor companies
participate in the Partnership so that aggregated emissions data cannot
be correlated back to an individual Partner Company or a small group of
Partner Companies.  In addition, other information regarding successful
PFC reduction strategies shared with EPA by the Partner Companies is
nonconfidential.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature or of matters usually considered
private to individuals will be asked.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes

The following is the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code and
the corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code associated with industries most likely to be affected by the
information collection requirements covered under this ICR:

SIC  								  NAICS

3674	Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing     334413

These SIC and NAICS codes refer to the industry respondents for the
Partnership.  These SIC and NAICS codes are applicable because the
Companies in the Partnership are semiconductor manufacturing companies.

4(b)	Information Requested

Companies participating in the  PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership submit
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to the EPA.  The Partner Companies
also agree to submit to the designated third party a Company-specific
annual report that provides an overall estimate of PFC emissions by
individual gas type.  The designated third party will submit to EPA an
industry-wide annual report that provides an aggregated estimate of PFC
emissions.  EPA may review Company-specific annual reports on the
premises of the designated third party, after the third party has
removed Company-identifying information.  In addition, by signing the
MOU, Partner Companies agree to share information about successful PFC
emission reduction processes with the EPA and others in the
semiconductor industry.  Each of these information collections is
described separately below, along with the respective data items and
respondent activities.

Memorandum of Understanding

A number of Partner Companies worked with EPA to prepare the MOU
establishing the terms of participation in the PFC Reduction/Climate
Partnership.  After reviewing the MOU, each Company must sign and submit
it to the Agency.  There are currently 21 semiconductor manufacturers
representing 80 percent of the U.S. industry participating in the
partnership.  All 21 companies have already reviewed and signed MOUs
with EPA.  EPA is not actively recruiting new partners so the MOU
activities and associated burden estimates have been removed from this
ICR renewal.

Company-specific Annual Report

The Partner Company agrees that it will prepare a Company-specific
annual report to be submitted to the designated third party. The
partners agree to report an estimate of PFC emissions by specific gas
type (e.g., perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), trifluoromethane (CHF3),
and perfluoropropane (C3F8)).  The partner’s report may also include a
written explanation of the methodology used to generate such estimates.
The Partner Company must submit its Company-specific annual PFC
emissions report to the designated third party by April 15 of each year
for the previous year.  Because emissions estimates have potential
competitive significance, they will be maintained on a Company-specific
confidential basis.

(i)	Data items

The Company-specific annual report must include the following
information:

The Partner Company name, name of a designated Partner Company
representative, contact phone number, and fax number;

Reporting period;

Overall estimate of PFC emissions for all U.S. facilities operated by
the Partner Company;

Description of methodology used for calculating PFC emissions estimate.
The following is to be included for the methodology elements:

Description of how PFC usage was determined;

Description of source of emissions factors and how they were applied;

Description of how reductions due to abatement or other reduction
techniques were accounted for; and

An example calculation (optional).

(ii)	Respondent activity

Partner Companies will complete and submit to the designated third party
the Company-specific annual report for each calendar year the MOU is in
effect (due April 15 of subsequent year).

Industry-wide Annual Reports

The designated third party is responsible for maintaining the
Company-specific annual reports and compiling them into an industry-wide
annual report.  The designated third party will create a confidential
data depository containing the annual reports supplied by the Partner
Companies.  The designated third party will provide to EPA an
industry-wide annual report.  This report will be in the form of a
letter to EPA.  Based on the Company-specific annual reports, the
designated third party will provide an aggregated, partnership report
estimating PFC emissions by gas.

The third party will make available to EPA emissions estimates prepared
by the Partner Companies and the written explanation of the methodology
used.  This information will be reviewed by EPA on the designated third
party’s premises.  The designated third party will remove
Company-identifying information from such documents before they are
reviewed by EPA.

(i)	Data items

The confidential data depository will include the following information:

The Partner Company name, name of a designated Partner Company
representative, contact phone number, and fax number;

Reporting period;

Overall estimate of PFC emissions for all U.S. facilities operated by
the Partner Company,

Description of methodology used for calculating PFC emissions estimates.

The industry-wide annual report prepared by the designated third party
will include the following information:

Reporting period;

Total number of participating semiconductor manufacturers; and

Total PFC emissions estimate for the semiconductor industry partnership.

(ii)	Respondent activities

In developing and submitting this information, the designated third
party will perform the following activities:

Develop and update confidential data depository;

Receive Company-specific annual reports and enter into confidential data
depository;

Complete and submit to EPA the industry-wide annual report containing an
aggregated PFC emissions estimate;

File and maintain copies of annual reports; and

Make emissions estimates and written explanations of the methodology
prepared by Partner Companies available to EPA for review.

Information Sharing

Each Partner Company agrees that it will share with EPA and others in
the semiconductor industry information about successful PFC emission
reduction processes and technologies that the Partner Company considers
nonconfidential.

(i)	Data item

Documentation describing applicable PFC reduction processes and
technologies.

(ii)	Respondent activity

The Partner Companies will share information about successful PFC
emission reduction processes and technologies by submitting this
information to EPA.

5. 	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a)	Agency Activities

The Partnership requires EPA to perform certain activities associated
with the Company-specific Annual Report, the Industry-wide Annual
Report, and the Information Sharing.  Each of these three ongoing
information collections, and the Agency’s activities associated with
them, are described in more detail below.

Memorandum of Understanding

EPA developed an MOU in cooperation its industry partners and has signed
agreements with the majority of the U.S. industry.  EPA does not expect
to take any further actions related to the partnership’s MOU.

Company-specific Annual Reports

EPA will perform the following activities with regard to the
Company-specific annual report submitted by the Partner Company to the
designated third party:

Review Company-specific annual reports on the premises of the designated
third party, on a blind basis.

Industry-wide Annual  Reports

EPA will perform the following activities with regard to the
industry-wide annual report submitted by the designated third party to
EPA:

Receive and review the industry-wide annual report; and

File and maintain copies of the report.

Information Sharing

EPA will perform the following activities with respect to information
sharing with the Partner Company and the public:

Establish and maintain clearinghouse of technical information on
successful strategies for reducing PFC emissions; and

Provide public recognition of Partner Companies’ achievements in
reducing PFC emissions and for their public service in protecting the
environment.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR,
EPA uses electronic equipment such as personal computers and applicable
database software.  EPA will ensure the accuracy and completeness of
collected information by reviewing each Partner Company’s submitted
information.  EPA will maintain files of MOUs and other reports.  Public
access to the overall annual emission estimate will be possible through
EPA’s partnership Internet web site (www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc),
annual CCAP reporting, EPA’s annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks, and informational materials EPA will prepare to
publicize the successes of the Partnership.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

EPA reviewed available company Web sites for Partner companies that were
believed may be small entities.  Upon completion of the review, EPA
estimates none of its semiconductor industry Partners are small
entities.  Regardless, EPA has designed the program and reporting form
to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate
information.  In addition, the burden associated with the PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry is
inherently reduced since the initial agreement to participate is
voluntary.

5(d)	Collection Schedule

EPA collects information in the MOU, which is completed and submitted by
the Partner Company.  EPA will receive the Partnership’s emissions
report from the designated third party on an annual basis.  EPA may
collect other program information on a periodic basis or as the
information is submitted.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

Exhibit 1 presents the estimated annual respondent burden and costs for
information collection activities associated with the PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry.  The
exhibit includes the number of hours required to conduct the information
collection activity and the cost associated with each requirement.  In
developing burden estimates for each information collection requirement
in this ICR, EPA consulted with current Partner Companies.  (See Section
3(c) of this ICR for information on the consultations.)  As shown in
Exhibit 1, EPA estimates a total annual respondent burden of
approximately 11,426 hours.  Assumptions used in calculating this
estimate are described below.

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

Labor Costs

EPA estimates respondent labor costs by adding U.S. wages to
employers’ costs for employee compensation for the appropriate
respondent categories and multiplying the total by 1.35 to adjust for an
assumed 35 percent overhead rate.  For the Partner Companies, EPA
estimates average hourly labor rates of $114.87 for legal staff, $113.02
for engineering managers, $64.15 for semiconductor production
technicians, and $67.03 for clerical staff.  Table 1 summarizes EPA’s
estimated labor rates as explained above.

	Table 1:

	Average Hourly Respondent Labor Rates

Type of Respondent

Legal

Engineering

Managers

Technical (Semiconductor Production)

Clerical

Wages (hourly)

$54.65

$52.90

$16.70

$18.83

Employee Compensation (hourly)	$30.44	$30.82	$30.82	$30.82

Total Hourly Labor Rate = sum of above x 1.35	$114.87	$113.02	$64.15
$67.03

Capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The Companies participating in the Partnership are not required to incur
any notable capital costs under the Partnership (i.e., for analytical
equipment used to develop PFC emissions factors).  The Partner
Companies’ equipment suppliers normally characterize PFC emissions and
provide this information as a standard business practice.  In addition,
emissions factors tables are available to the industry through the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Companies participating in the Partnership may incur annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs.  Partner Companies may incur O&M costs by
continuing to develop and operate gas tracking programs, operating and
maintaining analytical equipment to allow for continued analysis of
emissions, and submitting information to EPA (based on postage costs of
$3.00 per mailing).  Partner Companies also may incur O&M costs
associated with travel to meetings as a part of their sharing of
information.

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

Exhibit 2 presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs for the
information collection activities associated with this ICR.  EPA
estimates an average hourly labor cost (labor plus overhead) of $71.34
for legal staff, $66.72 for managerial staff, $48.91 for technical
staff, and $19.65 for clerical staff.  To derive these estimates, EPA
used the “Hourly Salary Table 2007 - GS” from the Department of
Personnel Management.  For purposes of this ICR, EPA assigned staff the
following government service levels:

Legal Staff				GS-15, Step 1

Managerial Staff			GS-14, Step 4

Technical Staff			GS-12, Step 5

Clerical Staff			GS-5, Step 1.

	To derive the loaded hourly estimates, EPA multiplied hourly rates by
the standard government overhead factor of 1.6.  As shown in Exhibit 2,
EPA estimates that the annual Agency burden for all activities covered
in this ICR is 218 hours at a total cost of $12,696.

6(d) 	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Respondent Burden and
Costs

Respondent Universe

EPA expects the current 21 Partner Companies to maintain their active
participation for the three-year effective life of this ICR renewal.
The following paragraphs discuss the information collections these
Partner Companies will perform under the Partnership.  Exhibit 1
calculates the annual burden and cost to Partner Companies in performing
these collections.

Company-Specific Annual Report

Each Partner Company agrees to prepare a Company-specific annual report
to be submitted to the designated third party.  The report will provide
an estimate of the company(s PFC emissions by gas for the previous
calendar year.  Most of EPA’s current Partner Companies have
participated and prepared annual reports since 1999.  As shown in
Exhibit 1, EPA estimates that Partner Companies will require 290.5 hours
to prepare and submit the annual reports to the designated third party.

Industry-wide Annual Report

 	The designated third party will be responsible for receiving and
tracking the Company-specific annual reports and compiling them into an
industry-wide annual report.  The designated third party will create and
update a confidential data depository containing the annual reports
supplied by the Partner Companies.  The designated third party will
provide to EPA an industry-wide annual report.  Based on the
Company-specific annual reports, the designated third party

will provide an aggregated, overall PFC emissions estimate.

In addition, the designated third party will make available to EPA
emissions estimates prepared by the Partner Companies and the written
explanation of the methodology used.  This information also will be
maintained on site by the designated third party and reviewed by EPA on
the designated third party’s premises.  These activities are reflected
in Exhibit 1.

Information Sharing

The Companies participating in the Partnership agree to share with EPA
information about successful PFC emission reduction processes and
technologies that the Partner Companies consider nonconfidential, and
will share such nonconfidential information with others in the
semiconductor industry.  Partner Companies may incur burden and costs
for attending meetings (including travel and lodging costs),
participating in teleconferences with EPA and industry, and other
outreach efforts.  EPA estimates the all 21 Partner Companies will share
information each year.  The Partners’ expected activities are
reflected in Exhibit 1.

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Respondent Tally

In Exhibit 1, EPA estimates the total annual respondent burden and cost
for the PFC Emission Reduction Partnership to be approximately 11,426
hours and $1,054,780.  The bottom line respondent burden over the
three-year period covered by this ICR is approximately 34,278 hours, at
a total cost of approximately $3,164,340.  The total annual capital and
O&M costs for the partnership are estimated to be $116,319 per year.

Agency Tally

As shown in Exhibit 2, the annual Agency burden and cost are estimated
to be approximately 218 hours and $12,696 per year.  The bottom line
Agency burden over the three-year period covered by this ICR is
approximately 654 hours, at a total cost of approximately $38,088.

Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

EPA anticipates no significant variation in the annual respondent
reporting and/or recordkeeping burden over the next three years.

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

The number of burden hours has not changed from the previous ICR but the
estimated annual burden cost increased to reflect updated labor
compensation rates as provided by the U.S. Department of Labor. The
number of Companies in the Partnership is expected to remain at 21.
This ICR does not expect burden hours associated with the MOU
activities.

6(g)	Burden Statement

The annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 544 hours per Partner Company.  There is no
recordkeeping burden for Partners. The annual reporting burden is
estimated to be about eight hours for the designated third party.  The
eight-hour estimate includes time for preparing and submitting the
industry-wide annual report and making emissions data available to EPA.
The annual recordkeeping burden to the designated third party is
estimated to be roughly 46 hours.  This burden includes time for
updating and maintaining the data depository, receiving and entering
Company-specific reports into the depository, and filing and maintaining
copies of Company-specific annual reports.  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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 To comment on the Agency's need for this
information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for
this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0228, which is available
for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

An electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the
Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0228 in any correspondence.

Figure 1.  U.S. Partner Companies( PFC emission with and without EPA
Partnership.

 FCs are the most potent greenhouse gases known.  In comparison to an
equivalent amount of the common greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, PFCs are
6,000 - 24,000 times more potent.  Also, the atmospheric lifetimes of
the PFCs range from 2,600 to 50,000 years.

 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2007.
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf"
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf

 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics December 2007.
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf"
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

 PAGE

 PAGE   16


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF 										AIR AND RADIATION

December 16, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Environmental Groups

FROM:	Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on Friday, December 10, 2010 between several environmental groups and EPA and included the following individuals:

      Luke Tonafel (NRDC), Don Anair (UCS), Therese Langer (ACEEE), Siddiq Khan (ACEEE), Coralie Cooper (NESCAUM), Vickie Patton (EDF), Drew Kodjak (ICCT), Hilary Sinnamon (EDF), Ben Sharpe (ICCT), Jesse Prentice-Dunn (Sierra Club)              EPA: Byron Bunker, Cheryl Bynum, Tony Fernandez, and Angela Cullen

The discussion focused on stringency of the proposed engine and vehicle standards, advanced technology credits, and data collection.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71506-71508]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25040]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-N-0037]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Animal Drug User Fee Act Waivers and Reductions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the paperwork burden of
requesting a waiver or reduction of fees under Animal Drug User Fee Act
(ADUFA).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by December 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2007-N-0037 for ``Animal Drug User Fee Act Waivers and
Reductions.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions

OMB Control Number 0910-0540--Extension

    Enacted on November 18, 2003, the Animal Drug User Fee Act (Pub. L.
108-130) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and requires
FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain applications, products,
establishments, and sponsors. It also requires the Agency to grant a
waiver from, or a reduction of those fees in certain circumstances.
Thus, to implement this statutory provision of ADUFA, FDA developed a
guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Animal Drug User Fees and
Fee Waivers and Reductions.'' This document provides guidance on the
types of fees FDA is authorized to collect under ADUFA, and how to
request waivers and reductions from FDA's animal drug user fees.
Further, this guidance also describes the types of fees and fee waivers
and reductions; what information FDA recommends be submitted in support
of a request for a fee waiver or reduction; how to submit such a
request; and FDA's process for reviewing requests.
    Respondents to this collection of information are new animal drug
sponsors. Requests for waivers or reductions may be submitted by a
person paying any of the animal drug user fees assessed, including
application fees, product fees, establishment fees, or sponsor fees.
    FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of      Number of responses per    Total annual
        21 CFR section; activity            respondents           respondent             responses        Average burden per response       Total hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
740(d)(1)(A); significant barrier to                  55  1 time for each                         55  2.................................             110
 innovation.                                               application.
740(d)(1)(B); fees exceed cost..........               8  3.75......................              30  0.5 (30 minutes)..................              15
740(d)(1)(C); free choice feeds.........               5  1 time for each                          5  2.................................              10
                                                           application.
740(d)(1)(D); minor use or minor species              69  1 time for each                         69  2.................................             138
                                                           application.
740(d)(1)(E); small business............               1  1 time for each                          1  2.................................               2
                                                           application.
Request for reconsideration of a                       1  1 time for each                          1  2.................................               2
 decision.                                                 application.
Request for review (user fee appeal                    0  1 time for each                          0  0.................................               0
 officer).                                                 application.
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ..............  ..........................  ..............  ..................................             277
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on FDA's database system, from fiscal year (FY) 2014 to 2016
there were an estimated 177 sponsors subject to ADUFA. However, not all
sponsors will have any submissions in a given year and some may have
multiple submissions. The total number of waiver requests is based on
the average number of submission types received by FDA in FY 2014 to
2016.

    Dated: October 12, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-25040 Filed 10-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48508-48509]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20817]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0087]

Federal Advisory Committee National Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Council (NEMSAC); Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting notice--National Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The NHTSA announces a meeting of the NEMSAC to be held in the
Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. This notice announces the date,
time, and location of the meeting, which will be open to the public, as
well as opportunities for public input to the NEMSAC. The purpose of
NEMSAC, a nationally recognized council of emergency medical services
representatives and consumers, is to advise and consult with DOT and
the Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services
(FICEMS) on matters relating to emergency medical services (EMS).

DATES: The NEMSAC meeting will be held on October 15, 2018 from 8:30
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT, and on October 16, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. EDT. A public comment period will take place on October 15, 2018
between 11:15 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. EDT and October 16, 2018 between
10:45 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. EDT. Written comments for the NEMSAC from the
public must be received no later than October 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of
Transportation Headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Attendees should plan to arrive 10-15 minutes early.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gamunu Wijetunge, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of Emergency Medical Services, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, NPD-400, Washington, DC 20590, [email protected] or
202-493-2793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the NEMSAC meeting is given under
the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C.
App.). The NEMSAC is authorized under Section 31108 of the Moving Ahead
with Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012.

Tentative Agenda of the National EMS Advisory Council Meeting

    The tentative NEMSAC agenda includes the following:

Monday, October 15, 2018 (8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT)

(1) Call to Order, Introductions, and Opening Remarks (8:30 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. EDT)
(2) Swearing in of NEMSAC Members (9:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. EDT)
(3) Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest by NEMSAC Members (9:15 a.m. to
9:30 a.m. EDT)
(4) Approval of August 14-15, 2017 Meeting Minutes (9:30 a.m. to 9:45
a.m. EDT)
(5) Federal Liaison Update--Reports and Updates from the Departments of
Transportation, Homeland Security, and Health & Human Services (9:45
a.m. to 10:30 a.m. EDT)
(6) Overview of the FICEMS Strategic Plan (10:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.
EDT)
(7) Public Comment Period (11:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. EDT)
(8) Recess for Lunch--(11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. EDT)
(9) Continue discussion of FICEMS Strategic Plan (1:15 p.m. to 2:15
p.m. EDT)
(10) Review and Discussion of Previously Approved NEMSAC
Recommendations (2:15 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. EDT)
(11) Review of Ongoing NHTSA Projects (3:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT)

Tuesday, October 16, 2018 (8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT)

(1) Reconvene and Introductions (8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m. EDT)
(2) Discussion of NEMSAC Focus Areas for 2018-2019 (9:30 a.m.-10:45
a.m. EDT)
(3) Public Comment Period (10:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. EDT)
(4) Continue Discussion of NEMSAC Focus Areas for 2018-2019 (10:45
a.m.-11:30 a.m. EDT)
(5) Election of Chair and Vice-Chair (11:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m. EDT)
(6) NEMSAC Next Steps and Wrap Up, and Adjourn (11:45 a.m.-12 Noon EDT)

    Registration Information: This meeting will be open to the public;
however, pre-registration is requested. Individuals wishing to attend
must register online no later than October 8, 2018. For NEMSAC please
register at: https://www.connect.space/nemsac-2018. For assistance with
NEMSAC registration, please contact Gamunu Wijetunge at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. There will not be a
teleconference option for this meeting.
    Public Comment: Members of the public are encouraged to comment
directly to the NEMSAC during designated public comment periods. In
order to allow as many people as possible to speak, speakers are
requested to limit their remarks to 5 minutes. Written comments from
members of the public will be distributed to NEMSAC at the meeting and
should reach the NHTSA Office of EMS no later than October 8, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted by either one of the following
methods: (1) You may submit comments by email: [email protected] or (2)
you may submit comments by fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A final agenda as well as meeting materials will be available to
the public online through www.EMS.gov on or before October 8, 2018.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 20, 2018.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2018-20817 Filed 9-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6715-6716]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03030]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0021]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of denials.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 97
individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) in interstate commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    FMCSA received applications from 97 individuals who requested an
exemption from the FMCSRs prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating
a CMV in interstate commerce.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption if
it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
absent such an exemption.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal
exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's
medical information provided by the applicant.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the
criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3). Therefore, the 97 applicants in this notice have been
denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 12 applicants met the diabetes requirements of 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3) and do not need an exemption:

Jerome E. Bembry (FL)
Scott J. Blair (MI)
Bryan D. Cash (MI)
John C. Czar (PA)
James P. Despirito (PA)
Lawrence Jackson (MO)
Curtis L. Jones (NY)
Wesley A. McLaughlin (PA)
Francisco Paz (TX)
Keith R. Smith (MN)
Eloy O. Valdez (CA)
Matthew Windle (GA)

    The following 55 applicants were not operating CMVs in interstate
commerce:

Warren E. Akiona (WA)
Mohammed B. Alnounou (MI)
Robert F. Aubert (IA)
David G. Barclay (PA)
Roy E. Barticciotto (NY)
Lucrecia Bethea (NJ)
Michael A. Bogardus (NY)
Vincent F. Brewer (MI)

Christopher W. Brown (FL)
Rodney W. Buxkemper (TX)
Douglas R. Christian (GA)
Marie A. Clark (MA)
Daniel G. Close (AL)
Timothy P. Deignan (MA)
Roy D. Draughon (OH)
Saul Garcia (CA)
John A. Gott (MD)
Paul T. Haegele (ND)
David A. Heard (SD)
Marvin M. Heatherly (TN)
Justin M. Herb (IN)
Daniel T. Hernandez (TX)
Terry D. Higdon (TN)
Donald F. Higgins (IN)
Steven W. Hobbs (GA)
Demarco L. Johnson (GA)
Howard Jones (NY)
Hoyt M. Jordan (IA)
David E. Logan (OR)
Aner A. Maldonado (IL)
Robert R. Martinez (CA)
Daniel P. McCartney (IL)
James A. McFail (DC)
Richard A. Miller (PA)
Domenic Moffo (CT)
James P. Moran (WV)
James L. Morgan, Jr. (NC)
Steven E. Novitski (WI)
Mark A. Nowakowski (WA)
Michael A. Ragan (MD)
Timothy E. Reilly (CT)
Michael L. Roberts (IA)
Jesus P. Sanchez (AZ)
Rafael Santiago (FL)
Dewey D. Shawver (WA)
Kenneth J. Sortman (OH)
Wendell A. Sowards (OH)
Edward R. Sutton (CA)
Austin M. Thies (IA)
Hughes Tranquille (NY)
Robert E. Trumbull (OH)
Ronald L. Weaver (PA)
Walter S. Whitehorn (AK)
Bruce A. Willard (NH)
Ricky D. Yates (GA)

    The following two applicants have had more than one hypoglycemic
episode requiring hospitalization or the assistance of others, or has
had one such episode but has not had one year of stability following
the episode: Steven G. Donovan, (MO); Dagmar E. Kark, (WA).
    The following four applicants had other medical conditions making
the applicant otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations:

Carl Bouie (MD)
Kenneth D. Ettinger (PA)
Leonard W. Narragon (TX)
Roger G. Rousseau (WA)

    The following three applicants did not have endocrinologists
willing to make statements that they are able to operate CMVs from a
diabetes standpoint: Mohd Issa R.A. El Muhtaseb, (IL); Eleazar Pina,
(IL); Robert B. Puckett, (IL).
    The following two applicants have peripheral neuropathy or
circulatory insufficiency of the extremities likely to interfere with
the ability to operate a CMV: Flavio Pereira, (MA); Charlie T. Melson,
(GA).
    The following applicant does not meet the minimum age criteria
outlined in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) which states that an individual must be
at least 21 years old to operate a CMV in interstate commerce: Michael
J. Sabarese, (NJ).
    The following 18 applicants were exempt from the diabetes standard:

Troy L. Bunch (NC)
Shawn M. Cody (IN)
Rodger L. Davis (VA)
Stuart A. Desautel (WA)
Gary D. Detwiler (CA)
Gary M. Fuller (IN)
Herman Harris (SC)
Kenneth L. Johnson (FL)
Paul Key (IL)
Leodon L. Killinger (ME)
James C. Lewis (LA)
Mario M. Moreno (CA)
Robert C. Newell (KY)
Pedro Pagan (NY)
Horace G. Perry (TX)
Domingo D. Rangel (TX)
Dale Z. Stephens (PA)
David D. Trupia (NY)

    Issued on: February 7, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03030 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     REGION IX AIR and RADIATION DIVISION

                          Technical Support Document
                                      for
                       EPA's Clean Air Act Rulemaking
                                    for the
                     California State Implementation Plan

           San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

                Rule 2250, Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration

                           Prepared by: Stanley Tong

                                   May 2020

RULE IDENTIFICATION  -

Agency
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District)

SIP Approved Rule
There is no prior version of this rule in the California SIP.

Subject of this TSD
Rule 2250  -  Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration
Adopted  -  October 19, 2006
Submitted  -  April 30, 2020

BACKGROUND AND RULE SUMMARY

The SJVUAPCD regulates the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is classified as "Extreme" nonattainment for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),  "Serious" nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and "Moderate" nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 40 CFR 81.305.

SJVUAPCD's staff report for Rule 2250, Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration, states that historically the District focused its emission reduction efforts on equipment and processes that required a District permit, and that enforcement of emission reductions required by the District's rules were assured by these permit requirements.

On October 19, 2006, the District adopted Rule 2250 as an alternative to its traditional permitting process. The District intended this rule to apply to certain sources that were traditionally exempted from its permitting program (e.g., internal combustion (IC) engines located at agricultural operations (Rule 4702, Internal Combustion Engines) and small boilers (Rule 4307, Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters  -  2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr)).

On June 21, 2018, the District amended Rule 4692, Commercial Charbroiling, to add registration and recordkeeping requirements for certain underfired charboilers that had previously been exempted from District permit requirements. Specifically, Rule 4692, section 5.2.2 now requires owners of underfired charbroilers to register their units pursuant to Rule 2250.

The District's staff report for Rule 2250 states that traditionally, the enforcement mechanism to ensure emission reductions from sources that are exempted from permit requirements would be to modify District Rule 2020, Exemptions, to require permitting of the exempted sources. The staff report further points out that the traditional permitting process is resource-intensive and contains several components that are not necessary to assure compliance with emission reductions from the sources exempted from the permitting process (e.g., frequent inspections and new source review requirements including best available control technology and emissions offsetting). The Staff Report states that the District concentrated on two main goals for Rule 2250: (1) ensure that emission units comply with all applicable rules and regulations, and (2) minimize workload for the District and affected sources of emissions.

The District points out that "[t]he registration program will only be available to units that are currently exempt from the District's permitting requirements, but which must meet standards contained in applicable rules and regulations...[Rule 2250] applies to all emission units required to get a [Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration] PEER per rule or regulation." At the time Rule 2250 was adopted, only Rule 4702, Internal Combustion Engines, and Rule 4307, Small Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters  -  2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr, were identified for participation in the PEER program.

More recently, Rule 4692, Commercial Charbroilers, became reliant on the PEER program when Rule 4692 was amended in 2018 to require certain underfired charbroilers, which had previously been exempt from the District's permitting program, to be registered pursuant to Rule 2250. This registration process provides a mechanism to ensure the enforceability of the new recordkeeping requirements that amended Rule 4692 has put in place for these underfired charbroilers.

Rule 2250 is largely an administrative rule and was developed to assure the enforceability of newly adopted and future rules applicable to equipment that is exempted from obtaining a permit. Although Rule 2250 does not directly result in emission reductions, we consider approval of the rule into the California SIP to be a SIP strengthening action.

The following is a brief description of key sections in Rule 2250.

Section 1 Purpose:
1. 	States "The purpose of this rule is to provide affected sources and the District with the necessary administrative mechanisms to determine compliance of permit-exempt equipment with applicable rules and regulations."

Section 2 Applicability:
2. 	States "This rule applies to owners or operators of any emissions unit required to obtain a Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration (PEER) by an applicable rule or regulation."

Section 3 Definitions:
3. 	Rule 2250 defines the following key terms.
    a. Existing Emissions Unit  -  an emission unit that has been operated prior to the PEER application date.
    b. Modification  -  Any action that necessitates a change to a valid PEER. Administrative changes shall not be considered modifications.
    c. New Emissions Unit  -  An emission unit that is first operated on or after the PEER application date.
    d. Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration Unit (PEER unit)  -  an emissions unit that has been granted a PEER under District Rule 2250, Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration, and that is operated as part of a stationary source.
    e. Portable PEER Unit  -  a PEER unit displaying a District-issued PEER unit identification tag, and is designed to be and is capable of being carried or moved from one location to another. Indications of portability include, but are not limited to, wheels, skids, carrying handles, dolly, trailer, platform or mounting.

Section 4 Requirements:
4. 	This section requires owners or operators of existing, and new or modified emission units to submit a PEER application. Section 4.3 allows, under specific circumstances, new emissions units that replace a PEER unit to operate prior to submittal of a complete PEER application.

5. 	Rule 2250's staff report states "...most equipment that is eligible for PEER must be certified to meet the applicable emissions requirements." It adds that since engines and boilers must meet the applicable emissions limits in Rules 4702 and 4307, the District is able to provide the flexibility of applying for registration prior to the operation of the equipment in contrast with a traditional permitting program in which an applicant must receive an authority to construct prior to installing and operating the emissions equipment.

6. 	Section 4 covers identification tags for portable PEER units, movement of a stationary PEER from one location to another, transferring PEERs between businesses, and temporary replacement units.

Section 5 PEER Application Content:
7.	This section lists what a complete PEER application must include.

Section 6 PEER Content:
8.	This section lists what each issued PEER must include.

EVALUATION CRITERIA  -  The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted rule.

      1.	Enforceability  -  CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to "include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques ... as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA]." The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 1990) and the Little Bluebook (Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

      2.	SIP Revisions  -  CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area, unless the modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutant(s).

EPA EVALUATION  -  A summary of our evaluation of the above criteria follows.

      1. 	Enforceability  -  The rule requirements and applicability are sufficiently clear to ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rule 2250 consistently. As discussed above in the background and rule summary section, Rule 2250 is administrative in nature. Our approval of Rule 2250 is a SIP strengthening action that requires owners or operators of any emission units to obtain a Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration when specified by an applicable District rule or regulation.

      2. 	SIP Revisions  -  At the time Rule 2250 was adopted, there were only two prohibitory rules (Rules 4307 and 4702) that required a PEER. Each of these rules required owners of specific equipment, which were exempted from the District's permitting requirements, to register that equipment per Rule 2250. For example,

      	Rule 4307, Boilers 2-5 MMBtu/hr, section 6.4 states:
      	"6.4    Equipment Registration Requirement
      	Except for units that require a Permit to Operate pursuant to Rule 2020 (Exemptions), the operator shall register with the District any unit subject to this rule no later than the applicable date shown in Table 3, in accordance with Rule 2250 (Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration)."

      	Rule 4702, IC Engines, section 5.11 states:
      	"5.11 Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration Requirements
      	The operator of an engine used exclusively in agricultural operations shall register such engine pursuant to Rule 2250 (Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration), except for an engine that meets any one of the following conditions:

      	5.11.1 The engine is required to have a Permit-to-Operate pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 42301.16; or
      	5.11.2 The engine is not required to comply with Section 5.2 of this rule."

      	In 2018, the District amended Rule 4692, Commercial Charbroiling, to require owners of certain underfired charbroilers to register their units pursuant to Rule 2250.

      	Rule 4692, Commercial Charbroilers, section 5.2.2 states:
      	"5.2.2 Underfired Charbroiler Registration Requirements
      	The owner of an underfired charbroiler subject to this rule shall register such underfired  charbroiler pursuant to Rule 2250 (Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration), in lieu of permitting under the requirements of Rule 2010 (Permits Required)."

      	Currently, the registration requirements appear to serve simply as a means to ensure the enforceability of certain requirements imposed by other District rules for emission units historically exempted from District permit requirements, and there are no emission control requirements contained in Rule 2250. For example, the registration requirement in Rule 2250 ensures that owners and operators keep certain records regarding their underfired charbroiler operations in accordance with the requirements of Rule 4692 as revised in 2018. Some categories of emission units may still be subject to emission limits contained within a prohibitory rule that cites Rule 2250. Rule 2250 does not relax the District's SIP-approved permit program.

We have determined that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with any CAA requirements, including requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS, nor would our approval of Rule 2250 relax any pre-November 15, 1990 control requirement in the California SIP.

EPA ACTION  -

The submitted Rule 2250 strengthens the SIP. The administrative requirements in Rule 2250 do not result in direct emission reductions, but they help the District to enforce emission limits in specific rules, such as Rules 4307 and 4702, that cite Rule 2250, for equipment that is exempted from obtaining a permit. In addition, Rule 2250 supports the enforcement of requirements to register and keep records for certain underfired charbroilers subject to Rule 4692. Rule 2250 meets the requirements of CAA section 110 and part D. Therefore, we recommend approval of Rule 2250 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3).

REFERENCES  -

 "State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations," May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
 EPA Region IX, "Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies," August 21, 2001, (the Little Bluebook).
 SJVUAPCD Rule 2250, Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration, as adopted on October 19, 2006, and submitted to the EPA by CARB on April 30, 2020, including final staff report, "District Rule 2250 (Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration) District Rule 3155 (Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration Fees)," dated October 19, 2006.
 SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, Commercial Charbroiling, as amended on June 21, 2018, and submitted to the EPA by CARB on November 21, 2018, by letter dated November 16, 2018.
 SJVUAPCD "Rule Action Package for Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling)," dated July 11, 2018, including: Memorandum dated June 21, 2018, from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO to SJVUAPCD Governing Board, "RE: ITEM NUMBER 9: ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DISTRICT RULE 4692 (COMMERCIAL CHARBROILING)," and Attachment C "Final Draft Staff Report, June 21, 2018, Amendments to Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling)."
 SJVUAPCD Rule 4307, Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr, as amended on April 21, 2016, and approved into the SIP, 82 FR 37817 (August 14, 2017).
 SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, Internal Combustion Engines, as amended on November 14, 2013, and approved into the SIP, 79 FR 24029 (April 25, 2016).


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63315-63317]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25273]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0849]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ordinance Removal; Saipan Harbor, CNMI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in support of
World War II ordinance disposal found southeast of Buoy 3 in Saipan
Harbor. This safety zone will encompass a 140 yard radius centered
around a blue and white buoy, located at approximately 15 degrees
13.370 minutes North Latitude, 145 degrees 42.256 minutes East
Longitude, southeast of Buoy 3 in Saipan Harbor. (NAD 1983)

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from October 23,
2014 until December 18, 2014. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from September 19, 2014, until October 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0849. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. 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.
(EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Chief Kristina Gauthier, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Guam at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have any questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins Program Manager,
Docket Operations, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
COTP Captain of the Port

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard received notice of the ordinance on September 10, 2014. Due
to the emergent nature of this incident, the Coast Guard did not have
time to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. The ordinance was
discovered during operations related to the grounded M/V PAUL RUSS
which was covered under the temporary final rule USCG-2013-0203.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reason mentioned above, the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Due to the
late notice and inherent danger in removal of ordinance, and a grounded
vessel, delaying the effective period of this safety zone would be
contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    A safety zone is a water area, shore area, or water and shore area,
for which access is limited to authorized person, vehicles, or vessels
for safety or environmental purposes. The purpose of this rulemaking is
to protect mariners from the potential hazards associated with salvage
operations. Approaching too close to such operations could potentially
expose the mariner to hazardous conditions.

C. Discussion of Rule

    In order to protect the public from the hazards associated with the
ordinance and subsequent removal operations, the Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone, effective from September 19, 2014
until December 18, 2014. The enforcement period for this rule is from
September 19, 2014 until December 18, 2014.
    The safety zone is located within the Guam COTP Zone (See 33 CFR
3.70-15), and will cover all waters bounded by a circle with a 140-yard
radius centered around the ordinance, located at approximately 15
degrees 13.370 North Latitude, 145 degrees 42.256 minutes East
Longitude, from the surface of the water to the ocean floor.
    The general regulations governing safety zones contained in 33 CFR
165.23 apply. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative thereof. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may
enforce the zone. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this
rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that
application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of maritime safety. Vessels or persons violating this rule may
be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and/or 50
U.S.C. 192.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order
12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast
Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be extremely minimal
based on the limited geographic area affected by it.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Traffic
will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander<PHONE_NUMBER>. During the effective period,
we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the
Saipan shipping channel and surrounding waters.

3. 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 rule. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. 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 rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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 rule will not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 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 determined
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a closed area of the Saipan Harbor, to vessel traffic and
water sports above and below the water, until further notice. This rule
is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-0849 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-0849  Safety Zone; Ordinance Removal, Saipan Harbor,
CNMI.

    (a) Location. The following area, within the Guam Captain of the
Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor, is a safety zone: All waters bounded by a circle with
a 140-yard radius, centered around the World War II era ordinance,
located at approximately 15 degrees 13.370 minutes North Latitude, 145
degrees 42.256 minutes East Longitude, southeast of Buoy 3 in Saipan
Harbor (NAD 1983).
    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective from September 19,
2014 until December 18, 2014.
    (c) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced from
September 19, 2014 until December 18, 2014.
    (d) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in Sec.  165.23 apply. Entry into, transit through or within
this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative thereof.
    (e) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may
enforce this temporary safety zone.
    (f) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this rule
for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that
application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of maritime security.
    (g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: September 19, 2014.
B.J. Kettner,
Commander, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2014-25273 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P