[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33934-33938]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0742]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of
Drugs in Commercial Distribution

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection
of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each 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 information collection for drug
establishment registration and product listing.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before September 17,

2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will
accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of September 17,
2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/
paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or
the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://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 https://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): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, 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-2011-N-0742 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Registration of Producers of
Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff 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 https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. 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: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://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 Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

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.

Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial
Distribution--21 CFR Part 207

OMB Control Number 0910-0045--Extension

    This information collection supports FDA's drug establishment
registration and listing regulations and associated guidance intended
to assist respondents in this regard. Requirements for drug
establishment registration and drug listing are set forth in section
510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21
U.S.C. 360), and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 262). Section 224 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) amended section 510(p) of the FD&C Act to
require electronic drug establishment registration and drug listing.
Regulations implementing these provisions are established under 21 CFR
part 207. Except as provided in Sec.  207.65, all information submitted
must be transmitted to FDA in electronic format by using our electronic
drug registration and listing system, in a form that we can process,
review, and archive. Establishment registration information helps FDA
identify who is manufacturing, repacking, relabeling,

and salvaging drugs and where those operations are performed. Drug
listing information gives FDA a current inventory of drugs
manufactured, repacked, relabeled, or salvaged for commercial
distribution. Both types of information facilitate implementation and
enforcement of the FD&C Act and are used for many important public
health purposes.
Registration Under Part 207
    Unless otherwise exempt under section 510(g) of the FD&C Act or
Sec.  207.13, all manufacturers, repackers, relabelers, and salvagers
must register each domestic establishment that manufactures, repacks,
relabels, or salvages a drug, or an animal feed bearing or containing a
new animal drug, and each foreign establishment that manufactures,
repacks, relabels, or salvages a drug, or an animal feed bearing or
containing a new animal drug, that is imported or offered for import
into the United States. When operations are conducted at more than one
establishment and common ownership and control among all the
establishments exists, the parent, subsidiary, or affiliate company may
submit registration information for all establishments.
    Private label distributors who do not also manufacture, repack,
relabel, or salvage drugs are not required to register under part 207.
FDA will accept registration or listing information submitted by a
private label distributor only if it is acting as an authorized agent
for and submitting information that pertains to an establishment that
manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages drugs.
    Under Sec.  207.21, domestic manufacturers, domestic repackers,
domestic relabelers, and domestic drug product salvagers must complete
initial registration of each establishment no later than 5 calendar
days after beginning to manufacture, repack, relabel, or salvage a
drug. In addition, foreign manufacturers, foreign repackers, foreign
relabelers, and foreign drug product salvagers must register each
establishment before the drug is imported or offered for import into
the United States.
    The information that must be provided to FDA for registration is
described in Sec.  207.25 and includes the following: (1) Name of the
owner or operator of each establishment; if a partnership, the name of
each partner; if a corporation, the name of each corporate officer and
director, and the place of incorporation; (2) each establishment's
name, physical address, and telephone number(s); (3) all name(s) of the
establishment, including names under which the establishment conducts
business or names by which the establishment is known; (4) registration
number of each establishment, if previously assigned by FDA; (5) a
Unique Facility Identifier in accordance with the system specified
under section 510 of the FD&C Act; (6) all types of operations
performed at each establishment; (7) name, mailing address, telephone
number, and email address of the official contact for the
establishment, as provided in Sec.  207.69(a); and (8) additionally,
with respect to foreign establishments subject to registration, the
name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address must be
provided for: (a) The U.S. agent, as provided in Sec.  207.69(b); (b)
each importer in the United States of drugs manufactured, repacked,
relabeled, or salvaged at the establishment that is known to the
establishment; and (c) each person who imports or offers for import
such drug to the United States.
    Registrants must update their registration information as
prescribed under Sec.  207.29.
National Drug Code (NDC)
    The NDC for a drug is a numeric code. Each finished drug product or
unfinished drug subject to the listing requirements of part 207 must
have a unique NDC to identify its labeler, product, and package size
and type. The format of an NDC is described under Sec.  207.33.
    Under Sec.  207.35, registrants must notify us of a change in any
of the drug characteristics (except certain identifying information)
for an NDC in Sec.  207.33, and assign a new product code and package
code for that drug.
Listing Under Part 207
    Under Sec.  207.41, registrants must list each drug that it
manufactures, repacks, relabels, or salvages for commercial
distribution. Each domestic registrant must list each such drug
regardless of whether the drug enters interstate commerce. When
operations are conducted at more than one establishment, and common
ownership and control exists among all the establishments, the parent,
subsidiary, or affiliate company may submit listing information for any
drug manufactured, repacked, relabeled, or salvaged at any such
establishment. A drug manufactured, repacked, or relabeled for private
label distribution must be listed in accordance with the requirements.
    Registrants must provide listing information for each drug in
accordance with the listing requirements described in Sec. Sec.
207.49, 207.53, and 207.54 that correspond to the activity or
activities they engage in for that drug. For both animal and human
drugs, each registrant must list each drug it manufactures, repacks, or
relabels for commercial distribution under the trade name or label of a
private label distributor using an NDC that includes such private label
distributor's labeler code.
    Additionally, in the case of human drugs, each registrant must list
each human drug it manufactures, repacks, or relabels using an NDC that
includes the registrant's own labeler code, regardless of whether the
drug is commercially distributed under the registrant's own label or
trade name or under the label or trade name of a private label
distributor.
    Under Sec.  207.45, for each drug being manufactured, repacked,
relabeled, or salvaged for commercial distribution at an establishment
at the time of initial registration, drug listing information must be
submitted no later than 3 calendar days after the initial registration
of the establishment.
    Each registrant must provide the listing information described
under Sec.  207.49 for each drug it manufactures for commercial
distribution. Each registrant must also provide the listing information
for each drug it repacks or relabels under Sec.  207.53. A registrant
who also relabels or repacks a drug that it salvages must list the drug
it relabels or repacks in accordance with Sec.  207.53. Registrants who
perform only salvaging with respect to a drug must provide the listing
information for that drug as required under Sec.  207.54. Additional
information may be requested for a listed drug as described in Sec.
207.55.
    Under Sec.  207.57, registrants must update drug listing
information submitted previously (either when the change is made or, at
a minimum, each June and December). Registrants must also notify FDA if
any listed drug has been discontinued from marketing or if any
discontinued drug has been reintroduced and provide listing information
for any drug not yet listed (at the time of annual establishment
registration if not sooner).
    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Number of
           Activity; 21 CFR section                Number of     responses per   Total annual              Hours per response               Total hours
                                                  respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial establishment registration; Sec.  Sec.           1,480               2           2,960  1.......................................           2,960
   207.17, 207.21, 207.25.
Annual review and update of registration                10,000               1          10,000  .5 (30 minutes).........................           5,000
 information (including expedited updates);
 Sec.   207.29.
Initial listing (including NDC); Sec.  Sec.              1,713            7.28          12,470  1.5.....................................          18,705
 207.33, 207.41, 207.45, 207.49, 207.53,
 207.54, 207.55.
June and December review and update (or                  5,300              20         106,000  .75 (45 minutes)........................          79,500
 certification) of listing; Sec.  Sec.
 207.35, 207.57.
Waiver requests; Sec.   207.65................               1               1               1  .5 (30 minutes).........................               1
Public disclosure exemption requests; Sec.                 100               1             100  1.......................................             100
 207.81(c).
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ........................................         106,266
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with the information collection.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Standard operating procedure (SOP) for creating and       Number of       Number of records     Total annual     Average burden per
               uploading the SPL file                    recordkeepers     per recordkeeper         records          recordkeeping        Total hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparation of SOP..................................              1,000                   1               1,000                  40              40,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with the information collection.

    Based on FDA data, we estimate that 1,480 respondents will submit
2,960 new establishment registrations annually. Based on the number of
registered establishments in our database, we estimate 10,000
registrants will provide 10,000 annual reviews and updates of
registration information (including expedited updates) or reviews and
certifications that no changes have occurred. The estimates include the
registration of establishments for both domestic and foreign
manufacturers, repackers, relabelers, and drug product salvagers, and
registration information submitted by anyone acting as an authorized
agent for an establishment that manufactures, repacks, relabels, or
salvages drugs. The estimates include an additional 80 positron
emission tomography (PET) drug producers who are not exempt from
registration and approximately 30 manufacturers of plasma derivatives.
    We estimate that it will take 1 hour for registrants to submit
initial registration information electronically for each new
establishment. We also estimate that it will take approximately 30
minutes for each annual review and update of registration information
(including any expedited updates) or each review and certification that
no changes have occurred. The burden hour estimates above are based on
our familiarity with the amount of time it takes registrants to input
registration information electronically since June 2009. The estimates
are an average of the time it would take to register a domestic or
foreign establishment and an average of the time it would take to
review registration information and update several registration items
in the database or review registration information and only certify
that no changes have occurred.
    Based on the number of drugs listed annually since June 2009, we
estimate that approximately 1,713 registrants will report 12,469 new
listings annually (including the information submitted to obtain a
labeler code and to reserve an NDC for future use).
    Based on the number of drugs in our listing database and the
current number of changes to listing information submitted, we estimate
5,300 registrants will each report 20 reviews and updates (including
the information submitted to revise an NDC) for a total of 106,000
annually.
    The estimates for the number of drug listings include both domestic
and foreign listings, listings submitted by registrants for products
sold under their own names as well as products intended for private
label distribution, and information submitted related to an NDC and to
obtain a labeler code. The estimate for the number of drugs subject to
the listing requirements includes PET drugs and approximately 30 plasma
derivatives. The estimates for the number of June and December reviews
and updates of listing information include the number of changes to
drug characteristics pertaining to the drug product code to obtain a
new NDC and the reports of the withdrawal of an approved drug from sale
under 21 CFR 314.81(b)(3)(iii).
    Based on our familiarity with the time required to input listing
information electronically since June 2009, we estimate that it will
take registrants 1 hour and 30 minutes to submit information
electronically for each drug they list for the first time (for both
foreign and domestic registrant listings). These estimates are an
average of the time it will take manufacturers, repackers, relabelers,
and drug product salvagers, with drug product salvagers taking
considerably less time than manufacturers. The estimates include the
time for submitting the content of labeling and other labeling in
electronic format. (For drugs subject to an approved marketing
application, the electronic submission of the content of labeling under
Sec.  314.50(l)(1)(i) is approved under OMB control number 0910-0001).
We also estimate that it will take 45 minutes for each June and
December review and update. These estimates represent the average
amount of time to review and update listing information or to review
and certify that no changes have occurred. The estimates include the
time for submitting any labeling for each drug, changes to the drug's
characteristics submitted for a new NDC, and reports of the withdrawal
of an approved drug from sale under Sec.  314.81(b)(3)(iii).
    In 2009, to help respondents transition to the current electronic
reporting requirements, FDA issued the guidance for industry entitled

``Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Drug
Establishment Registration and Drug Listing.'' The document provides
guidance to industry on the statutory requirement to submit
electronically drug establishment registration and drug listing
information. The guidance describes the types of information to include
for purposes of drug establishment registration and drug listing and
how to prepare and submit the information in an electronic format
(Structured Product Labeling (SPL) files) that FDA can process, review,
and archive. The burden attributed to the guidance includes the
preparation of an SOP for creating and uploading the SPL file. Although
most firms will already have prepared an SOP for the electronic
submission of drug establishment registration and drug listing
information, each year additional firms will need to create an SOP. As
reflected in table 2, FDA estimates that approximately 1,000 firms will
expend 40 hours to prepare, review, and approve an SOP, for a total of
40,000 hours annually.

    Dated: July 12, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15298 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36042-36048]
[DOCID:fr23jn06-16]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-8187-2]
RIN 2060-AN63

Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Reformulated Gasoline
Requirements for Former Severe Nonattainment Areas Under the 1-Hour
Ozone Standard That Were Redesignated to Attainment for the 1-Hour
Standard Prior to Its Revocation, and Which Are Current Nonattainment
Areas for the 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is seeking comment on two alternative proposals regarding
reformulated gasoline requirements for an area formerly classified as a
severe ozone nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (``NAAQS'' or ``standard'') that was redesignated
to attainment for that standard before its revocation, and which is
currently designated as nonattaiment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
Under the first option, this area would be required to use federal
reformulated gasoline (RFG) at least until it is redesignated to
attainment for the 8-hr NAAQS. Under the second option, the State could
request the removal of RFG, and EPA would grant such a request upon a
demonstration that removal would not result in loss of any RFG-related
emission reductions relied upon in the State's Implementation Plan
(SIP) for ozone. Atlanta is the only area that falls within the scope
of this proposal.

DATES: Comments: All public comments must be received on or before
August 22, 2006. To request a public hearing, contact Kurt Gustafson at
(202) 343-9219 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If a hearing is requested no
later than July 13, 2006, a hearing will be held at a time and place to
be published in the Federal Register. Persons wishing to testify at a
public hearing must contact Kurt Gustafson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
submit copies of their testimony to the docket and to Kurt Gustafson at
the addresses below, no later than 10 days prior to the hearing. After
the hearing, the docket for this rulemaking will remain open for an
additional 30 days to receive comments. If a hearing is held, EPA will
publish a document in the Federal Register extending the comment period
for 30 days after the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0318, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0318.
     Mail: Air Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0318,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room B102, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Air
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0318, Such deliveries are accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0318. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit I.B. of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
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 Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proposed rule, contact Kurt Gustafson, Environmental Scientist, Office
of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs
Division, mailcode 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
343-9219; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action may affect you if you produce, distribute, or sell
gasoline for use in the Atlanta area.
    The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to
comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples,
you should carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40
CFR part 80. If you have any questions, please call the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            NAICS codes
                Category                        \a\        SIC codes \b\                    Examples of potentially  regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................          324110            2911  Petroleum Refiners.
Industry................................          422710            5171  Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.
                                                  422720            5172
Industry................................          484220            4212  Gasoline Carriers.
                                                  484230            4213
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
 \b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Docket Copying Costs. You may be charged a reasonable fee for
photocopying docket materials, as provided by 40 CFR part 2.

Outline of This Preamble

I. Background and Regulatory History
II. What Action Is EPA Taking?
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Intergovernmental Relations
    1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    2. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    3. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
    F. Protection Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Background and Regulatory History

    Today's proposal follows from previous EPA action in replacing the
1-hour ozone standard with a more protective 8-hour standard. 69 FR
23951 (April 30, 2004). EPA has to date issued two rules that clarify
the extent to which Clean Air Act obligations that existed under the 1-
hour ozone standard continue in effect under the 8-hour standard. These
rules are the Phase 1 implementation rule, 69 FR 23951 (April 30,
2004), and the Phase 2 implementation rule. 70 FR 71612 (November 29,
2005). Although in the Phase 2 rule EPA addressed the requirements for
the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG) in most parts of the country as
a result of the transition to the 8-hour standard, EPA indicated that

it would address in a separate action what RFG requirements should
apply to--a former severe nonattainment area under the 1-hour standard
that was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour standard before it
was revoked, but after the area was designated nonattainment for the 8-
hour standard.
    In the Phase 1 rule, EPA addressed two interrelated key issues
regarding the transition from the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. First, at what time the 1-hour NAAQS would be revoked
(i.e., no longer apply). Second, what protections would remain in place
to ensure that, once the 1-hour NAAQS was revoked, air quality would
not degrade and that progress toward attainment would continue as areas
transition from implementing the 1-hour NAAQS to implementing the 8-
hour NAAQS.
    On the first issue, EPA decided that the 1-hour NAAQS would be
revoked in full, including the associated designations and
classifications, one year following the effective date of the
designations for the 8-hour NAAQS. For most areas, which were
designated effective June 15, 2004, that means the 1-hour NAAQS and the
related designation and classification no longer applied as of June 15,
2005.
    On the second issue, the anti-backsliding approach adopted in the
Phase 1 rule established that all areas designated nonattainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS remain
subject to mandatory control measures that applied by virtue of the
area's classification for the 1-hour NAAQS. These control measures are
called ``applicable requirements,'' and are primarily the control
measures that areas were required to adopt and implement based on the
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification.\1\ Similarly, EPA concluded
that areas designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
designated attainment subject to a Section 175A maintenance plan for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS
remain subject to the applicable requirements. EPA provided that these
areas must retain those control measures as part of the approved SIP,
but need not reactivate those measures that the area may have shifted
to a contingency measure prior to the time the area was designated for
the 8-hour NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the proposed Implementation rule, EPA identified Federal
RFG as an applicable requirement. (See proposed definition of
``applicable requirement'' in draft regulatory text, availability of
which was announced at 68 FR 46536, August 6, 2003.) In the final
rule, however, EPA did not include RFG in the list of applicable
requirements. EPA instead clarified that RFG is required under a
Federal program, and thus differs significantly from the programs on
the final list of applicable requirements, which are developed and
adopted by States for inclusion in the state implementation plan
(SIP). EPA recognized that various issues exist regarding the scope
and applicability of the RFG program during and after implementation
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that need further clarification. EPA
stated that we were still considering how to treat RFG and that we
would address these issues in an action separate from the Phase 1
rule. Thus, EPA did not include RFG in the list of applicable
requirements in the Phase 1 Rule, and EPA made no decision at that
time concerning RFG treatment in the transition to the 8-hour NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2003 proposal for implementation of the 8-hour NAAQS,
EPA defined the ``applicable requirements'' as those 1-hour control
measures that applied in an area as of the effective date of the 8-hour
designation for the area (for most areas, June 15, 2004). 68 FR 32821
(June 2, 2003). The draft regulatory text, issued in August 2003,
relied instead on those control measures in place on the date of
revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS (for most areas, June 15, 2005). In the
final rule, EPA defined applicable requirements as those control
measures in place as of the date of signature of the Phase 1 rule,
(i.e., April 15, 2004). EPA thereafter issued a final rule changing
this date to the effective date of the 8-hour designations--for most
areas this would be June 15, 2004. 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
Thus, in the Phase 1 rule, EPA adopted an anti-backsliding approach and
established a trigger date for determining which 1-hour control
requirements continued to apply in an area after revocation of the 1-
hour NAAQS. Redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS after this
trigger date but prior to the revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS would not
change which obligations remain applicable requirements.
    In the Phase 2 Implementation Rule, EPA specified that the nine
original mandatory RFG covered areas, as well as mandatory ``bump up''
areas (described in the ``Background'' section below) that would no
longer be classified as severe based solely on the revocation of the 1-
hour NAAQS, would remain covered areas at least until they are
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. EPA relied on an anti-
backsliding approach similar to that relied upon in the Phase 1 rule.
69 FR 23857. (April 30, 2004). However, EPA did not address in that
Phase 2 final rule whether RFG would continue to be required in bump-up
areas that are designated nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS, but are
no longer classified as severe based on a redesignation to attainment
for the 1-hour NAAQS before revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA
designated Atlanta as a marginal nonattainment area under the 8-hour
ozone standard, 70 FR 34660 (June 15, 2005), and redesignated Atlanta
from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour NAAQS, prior to
revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS. 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Atlanta
is the only covered area that falls within the scope of this proposal.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    In this proposal, EPA addresses the issue of whether an area
originally designated as a severe ozone nonattainment area under the 1-
hour standard as a result of failure to meet attainment deadlines, and
which was then redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour standard prior
to revocation of that standard, should remain an RFG covered area
because it is designated as an ozone nonattainment area (marginal) for
the 8-hour NAAQS. This involves interpretation of section 211(k)(10)(D)
and consideration of the appropriate anti-backsliding approach under
these circumstances.
    Under section 211(k)(5), RFG is required in any ``covered area.''
The term ``covered area'' is defined in section 211(k)(10)(D) as:

    [T]he 9 ozone nonattainment areas having a 1980 population in
excess of 250,000 and having the highest ozone design value during
the period 1987 through 1989 shall be ``covered areas'' for purposes
of this subsection. Effective one year after the reclassification of
any ozone nonattainment area as a severe ozone nonattainment area
under section 181(b) of this title, such severe area shall also be a
``covered area'' for purposes of this subsection.

    The second sentence of section 211(k)(10)(D) identifies areas that
become covered areas because they have been reclassified as a severe
area under CAA section 181(b). These are called ``bump-up'' areas. Five
areas were reclassified to severe for the 1-hour NAAQS--Baton Rouge,
Atlanta, Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, and Washington, DC--(which was
already an opt-in area). They became mandatory RFG covered areas one
year after their reclassification as a severe area.
    The areas that are RFG covered areas based on the bump-up provision
were designated as ozone nonattainment areas by operation of law at the
time of the 1990 CAA amendments, and their bump-up to severe occurred
by operation of law based on EPA's determination under section 181(b)
that the areas failed to attain the 1-hour NAAQS by the applicable
attainment

date. Thus, their reclassification to severe was not based on a
determination that their air quality met the severe area ozone design
value. Instead, reclassification was based on their failure to meet the
applicable attainment date. The bump-up to severe has two effects--a
later attainment date is set for the area, and a variety of additional
control measures become mandatory for the area. The federal RFG program
becomes a mandatory control measure in an area one year after the area
is bumped up to a severe classification.
    EPA believes that section 211(k)(10)(D) is ambiguous on the issue
of whether a bump-up area continues to be a covered area when it is no
longer classified as severe. The text of the provision could be read to
set the defining criteria as the occurrence of reclassification to
severe, a historical fact that does not change based on subsequent
changes in classification. It could also be read as identifying areas
that are reclassified to severe, but as leaving unresolved what happens
when they are no longer so classified. Given this ambiguity, EPA has
discretion to determine whether bump-up areas should remain subject to
the RFG program once they are no longer classified as severe and, if
they may exit the program, to set appropriate criteria for doing so.
    EPA has already exercised its discretion under 211(k)(10)(D) with
respect to bump-up covered areas that are no longer classified as
severe based solely on revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS, and has
specified that they must continue to use RFG after revocation of the 1-
hour NAAQS at least until they are redesignated to attainment for the
8-hour NAAQS. 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). This applies to all
bump-up RFG areas other than Atlanta. For those areas, any of the
reasonable choices for a trigger date (e.g., date of issuance of 8-hour
designations, effective date of 8-hour designations, or date of 1-hour
NAAQS revocation) would all lead to continued use of RFG. On each of
those dates, the areas were designated as severe 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas and RFG was a mandatory federal requirement. Use of
any of these trigger dates would mean that subsequent removal of the
severe classification based on revocation of the 1-hr NAAQS would not
change the obligation to use RFG. For further discussion of this
approach, see 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
    Atlanta is unique among the bump-up areas in that it was
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour NAAQS prior to that
standard's revocation. It has been designated nonattainment and
classified as marginal for the 8-hour NAAQS. For Atlanta, the choice of
a reasonable trigger date could make a difference in whether the
requirement to use RFG would continue after revocation of the 1-hr
NAAQS.
    EPA invites comment on the factors it should consider in exercising
its discretion with respect to specifying RFG requirements for Atlanta.
In interpreting section 211(k)(10)(D) and determining the kind of
antibacksliding approach, including trigger date, that is appropriate
regarding the requirement to use Federal RFG in Atlanta, EPA believes
that it is appropriate to focus it's consideration on: (1) Current 8-
hour ozone designation, (2) the likely effect on ozone NAAQS
attainment, and (3) the likely effect on the fuel infrastructure. EPA
also believes it is appropriate to focus it's consideration on how
these factors apply in Atlanta, as this proposed rule would determine
the appropriate Federal RFG requirements for this one specific ozone
nonattainment area, as compared to a general rule that is broadly
applicable to many areas and many different types of control measures.
    EPA is inviting comment on two options for this covered area. Under
the first option, the area would be required to use RFG at least until
it is redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS. The anti-
backsliding trigger date would be the same as that in the Phase 1
implementation rule--the effective date of the 8-hour NAAQS
designations. On that date Atlanta was a severe area, and the
requirement to use RFG was mandatory, starting January 1, 2005, based
on the area's 1-hour nonattainment classification. The subsequent
redesignation to attainment of the 1-hr NAAQS would not change the
continuing obligation to use RFG after revocation of the 1-hr NAAQS.
    This option would emphasize that the area is still an ozone
nonattainment area notwithstanding its redesignation to attainment of
the 1-hour NAAQS. Under the first option, EPA would exercise its
discretion to require continued use of RFG in Atlanta, based on the
area's continued status as an ozone nonattainment area under the 8-hour
NAAQS. Atlanta would remain an RFG covered area at least until it is
redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS, along with the other
bump-up areas addressed in the related RFG final rule. 70 FR 71612
(November 29, 2005). For further discussion of this approach, see 70 FR
71612 (November 29, 2005).
    Under the second option, the trigger date for Atlanta would be the
date of revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS. The use of this trigger date
would mean that if RFG was a mandatory obligation on that date, then
the obligation would continue after revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS. If
RFG was not a mandatory obligation on that date then it would not
continue after the date of revocation. Hence the primary issue under
this option would be whether RFG should be considered a mandatory
obligation as of the trigger date.
    As noted above, section 211(k)(10)(D) and the Act are ambiguous on
whether the obligation to use RFG would continue to apply as of this
trigger date, since the prior redesignation to attainment for the 1-
hour NAAQS means the area was no longer classified as a severe area as
of that date. The issue is not whether a requirement that applied on
the trigger date should continue to apply after revocation, but whether
this specific federal requirement would or would not apply on the
trigger date. To the extent this issue could be seen as overlapping
with the more general issue of having an anti-backsliding approach, EPA
believes the indicia of Congressional intent on how to resolve this
issue under section 211(k)(10)(D) are ambiguous.
    Under this second option, EPA would exercise its discretion and
resolve the ambiguity by allowing the RFG requirement to stop for the
Atlanta area, based on the removal of the severe classification upon
redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA would condition,
this however, on the State requesting such removal of RFG and
demonstrating that removal would not result in a loss of emissions
reductions relied upon in the ozone state implementation plan
(``SIP'').
    This second option would place somewhat more emphasis on
flexibility for the State in determining whether this Federal ozone
related control measure should apply in the area, for the following
reasons. The only area to which this proposal would apply is Atlanta,
which is currently implementing a state low sulfur, low RVP fuel
control measure that has been approved into its SIP.\2\ The removal of
Atlanta as an RFG covered area would

simplify the tasks confronting the fuel refining and distribution
system, as new fuel that meets both the state fuel requirements and the
Federal RFG requirements would not need to be produced and
distributed.\3\ This would directionally reduce the burden on a fuel
infrastructure system that has been tasked to meet several new Federal
fuel requirements adopted over the last few years. In addition, this
option acknowledges the significant progress Atlanta has made in
reducing ozone levels and attaining the 1-hour NAAQS, and the fact that
Atlanta's significant progress in reducing ozone levels has occurred
without the use of RFG. Because the option requires a demonstration
that dropping the RFG requirement will not lead to a loss in emissions
reductions relied upon in the SIP, this option should not adversely
affect Atlanta's SIP planning for future attainment of the 8-hour
standard.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In an effort to limit the number of different types of state
fuels required around the country and thus, increase fungibility of
fuels, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), included a ``boutique
fuels'' provision. The provision requires EPA to publish a list of
the ``total number of fuels'' approved into SIPs as of September 1,
2004, and, importantly, limits EPA's future fuel approvals for a
state to a fuel that is already in use in their Petroleum for
Administration Defense District. The Georgia State fuel program was
included on the list that EPA published for approval, 71 FR 32532,
(June 6, 2006), and thus the Georgia fuel would not be limited by
the EPAct boutique fuel listing provisions.
    \3\ Although the deadline has passed for Atlanta to have begun
using RFG as a result of its redesignation to severe nonattainment
for the 1-hour standard on September 26, 2003, 68 FR 55469
(September 26, 2003), that requirement has been stayed pending
appeal of a district court decision affirming the RFG requirement in
State of Georgia v. Leavit, No. 04-2778-CC (N.D. Ga., Atlanta Div.).
    \4\ If EPA selected this option for purposes of the final rule,
and compliance with the conditions could be determined as of that
date, then EPA could proceed to adopt a final rule that reflected
these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes it has discretion in choosing the appropriate trigger
date for purposes of anti-backsliding. The use of the date of
revocation of the 1-hr NAAQS as the trigger date under this option
would not raise the SIP planning concerns that led to rejection of this
as an appropriate trigger date for the Phase 1 rule. EPA rejected the
date of revocation as a trigger date for the Phase 1 rule because it
would interfere with SIP planning, especially for areas required to
submit SIP plans by the date of revocation. 70 FR 5596 (February 3,
2005) Here, the date of revocation has already passed. In addition,
Atlanta has demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS without relying
on the use of RFG and there are no indications that the second option
would interfere with Atlanta's SIP planning for attainment of the 8-
hour NAAQS.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would not add any new requirements involving the
collection of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget has approved
the information collection requirements contained in the final RFG/
antidumping rulemaking (see 59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994) and has
assigned OMB control number 2060-0277 (EPA ICR No. 1951.08). If EPA
finalizes the option that would require continued use of RFG in
Atlanta, the rule would merely continue a pre-existing legal
requirement, and would impose no new information collection
requirements. If EPA finalizes the option of removing the RFG
requirement for Atlanta, there would be a reduction in information
collection requirements.
    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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not
more than 1,500 employees (13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    Based on the definition of a small entity as outlined above, EPA
has identified approximately 26 small entities that could potentially
be impacted by this proposal. If EPA finalizes the option that would
require continued use of RFG in Atlanta, the rule would merely continue
a pre-existing legal requirement, and would impose no new costs. If EPA
finalizes the option of removing the RFG requirement for Atlanta, this
option would lead to a reduction in costs.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I hereby certify, that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
insofar as the proposed rule, when promulgated, will either continue an
existing statutory requirement or will provide relief from the
requirement. This proposed rule will not impose any additional
requirements on small entities. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome

comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Intergovernmental Relations

1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    If finalized, this proposal would contain no new enforceable duty
that may result in expenditures to entities of concern under UMRA of
$100 million or more in one year. If EPA finalizes the option that
would require continued use of RFG in Atlanta, the rule would merely
continue a pre-existing legal requirement, and would impose no new
costs. If EPA finalizes the option of removing the RFG requirement for
Atlanta, this option would lead to a reduction in costs, and would not
trigger UMRA requirements. Although EPA does not believe that UMRA
imposes requirements for this rulemaking, EPA notes that the
environmental and economic impacts of the RFG program were assessed in
EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 1994 RFG rules.
2. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or we consult
with state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless the Agency
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt state or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those
requirements include providing all affected state and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, we also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate state and local officials
regarding the conflict between state law and federally protected
interests within the Agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. One of the proposed options
would only impose requirements on certain refiners and other entities
in the gasoline distribution system, and not on States. The
requirements of the proposed rule will be enforced by the federal
government at the national level. Thus, the requirements of Section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
3. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The proposed rule does not create a mandate for any tribal government.
The rule would not impose any enforceable duties on these entities.
Rather, the rule would affect only those refiners, importers or
blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import RFG for sale in
the nonattainment areas addressed in the proposed rule, and the
gasoline distributors and retail stations in those areas. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

E. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk
that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, section 5-501
of the Executive Order directs us to evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, this proposed rule does not concern
an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children.

F. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, directs us to
use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless
it would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use
of any voluntary consensus standards.

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for the fuel controls in today's proposed rule
comes from CAA section 211(k) (42 U.S.C. 7545(k)), directing EPA to
issue regulations regarding the use of reformulated gasoline, and
section 211(c) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)), which allows us to
regulate fuels that either contribute to air pollution which endangers
public health or welfare or which impair emission control equipment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 16, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-5620 Filed 6-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76781-76783]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0157]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed revision of the
previously approved collection of information, OMB 2127-0646.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes the collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2010-0157 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Block, Contracting Officer's
Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NTI-
131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., W46-499, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Block's phone number is
202-366-6401 and his e-mail address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed revision of the previously approved collection
of information, OMB 2127-0646:

Evaluation Surveys for Impaired Driving and Seat Belt Interventions

    Type of Request--Revision of the previously approved collection of
information.
    OMB Clearance Number--2127-0646.
    Form Number--NHTSA 1010, NHTSA 1011.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes to conduct telephone
surveys to evaluate interventions designed to increase seat belt use
and reduce alcohol-impaired driving. Sample sizes would range from 200
to 2000 depending on the geographic unit being surveyed (Nation,
Region, State, Community) and the evaluation design for the
intervention (e.g., number of analytic groups). Interview length would
be 10 minutes. The surveys would collect information on attitudes,
awareness, knowledge, and behavior related to the intervention. The
surveys would follow a pre-post design where they are administered
prior to the implementation of the intervention and after its
conclusion. Interim survey waves may also be administered if the
duration of the intervention permits.
    In conducting the proposed surveys, the interviewers would use
computer-assisted telephone interviewing to reduce interview length and
minimize recording errors. The proposed surveys would be anonymous.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--NHTSA was established to reduce the number of deaths,
injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on
the Nation's highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is
authorized to conduct research as a foundation for the development of
motor vehicle standards and traffic safety programs.
    The heavy toll that alcohol-impaired driving exacts on the nation
in fatalities, injuries, and economic costs is well documented. In
addition, non-use of seat belts continues to contribute significantly
to the number of traffic fatalities. The persistence of these traffic
safety problems points to an ongoing need for effective interventions
to address alcohol-impaired driving and non-use of seat belts. This in
turn calls for strong evaluation efforts to identify what interventions
are effective.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) is a funding and authorization
bill that governs United States federal Surface Transportation
spending. Signed into law in 2005, sections within the law have
stimulated heightened program activity to reduce alcohol-impaired
driving and increase seat belt use. Under section 410 of SAFETEA-LU,
spending authority for State grants to implement alcohol-impaired
driving countermeasures rose from slightly under $40 million in 2005 to
$139 million in 2009. To be eligible for the grants, States had to
carry out a specified number of programs from the following list:
Statewide checkpoints and/or saturation patrols, prosecution and
adjudication outreach programs, increased rate of BAC testing of
drivers in fatal crashes, stronger sanctions for high-risk drivers with
BACs of 0.15 percent or more, effective alcohol rehabilitation for
repeat offenders or a program to refer them to DWI courts, underage
drinking prevention programs, administrative license suspension or
revocation for DUI, and self-sustaining impaired driving prevention
programs. Section 406 of SAFETEA-LU set the funding authority for State
seat belt performance grants at $124.5 million per year between 2006
and 2009. States were eligible for the grants based on specified seat
belt performance criteria. Under Section 405 of SAFETEA-LU, funding
authority for State occupant protection incentive grants increased from
$19.84 million in 2005 to $25 million in 2009. Grant eligibility was
based on specified criteria regarding the presence of occupant
protection programs, laws, and associated penalties for violation. Use
of grant funds was restricted to implementing and enforcing occupant
protection programs. Section 2009 of SAFETEA-LU established a new
program to administer at least 2 high visibility enforcement programs
to increase seat belt use and/or reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-
impaired driving. Grant funds could be used for the development,
production, and use of broadcast and print media in carrying out
traffic safety law enforcement campaigns.
    Funding of these programs has continued with extension of SAFETEA-
LU into fiscal years 2010 and 2011. NHTSA needs to be prepared for
inclusion of the programs in the upcoming Surface Transportation
Reauthorization. This means maintaining a strong evaluation program
that monitors the effectiveness of intervention models being
implemented under this funded intervention activity, and identifies
where changes are needed. Telephone surveys have been an important
component in NHTSA's evaluation activity. They have been used to
measure public awareness of intervention campaigns, penetration of
campaign messages, and perceived risk of negative consequences from
engaging in proscribed behavior. The surveys have typically followed a
pre-post design, where differences between an initial baseline survey
wave and a later survey wave were associated with an intervening
intervention. NHTSA has found such surveys to be valuable in assessing
the multi-million dollar national media campaigns conducted for the
National Alcohol Crackdowns and the National Click It or Ticket
Mobilizations. They also have been useful in evaluating localized
programs that tested variants of intervention models by providing
information to assess campaign communications or interpret collected
behavioral measures. With seat belt and impaired driving intervention
activity anticipated to remain heavy for the foreseeable future, there
is a need for NHTSA to continue to apply these data collection

techniques to see if the campaigns are achieving their objectives.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
Over the next 3 years, NHTSA intends to conduct National telephone
surveys to collect data from 36,000 participants. For the National
Alcohol Crackdown, 2 sets of pre/post intervention surveys, each with
sample sizes of 1,500, will be administered annually for 3 years.
Similarly, for the National Click It or Ticket Mobilization, 2 sets of
pre/post intervention surveys, each with sample sizes of 1,500, will be
administered annually for 3 years.
    In conducting one or more of the National surveys, NHTSA may have a
need to collect information to assess localized activity associated
with the National Alcohol Crackdown or National Click It or Ticket
Mobilization. This would involve augmentation of the pre- and post-
national sample with one or more Regional, State, or Community samples.
These samples will range from 200 to 2,000. Typically they will be
approximately 500. NHTSA intends to complete a maximum of 24,000 of
these localized interviews over the next three years.
    In addition to the surveys associated with the National Alcohol
Crackdown and National Click It or Ticket Mobilization, NHTSA intends
to conduct telephone surveys to assess selected demonstrations of
interventions designed to reduce alcohol-impaired driving and/or
increase seat belt use. The surveys will follow a pre-post design.
Interventions sustained over an extended period of time may add one or
more interim survey waves. Typically, a State demonstration survey will
require 500 participants per survey wave. A regional demonstration can
range from as few as 200 participants for a small county to 2,000
participants for a Region covering more than one State. NHTSA intends
to complete a maximum of 40,800 of these interviews over the next three
years.
    Interviews will be conducted with persons at residential phone
numbers selected using random digit dialing. For interviews conducted
with persons using landline phones, no more than one respondent per
household will be selected. For interviews conducted with persons on
cell phones, a single user of the cell phone will be selected. Each
sample member will complete just one interview. Businesses are
ineligible for the sample and would not be interviewed.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that
respondents in the sample would require an average of 10 minutes to
complete the telephone interviews. The annual estimated reporting
burden on the general public for the National surveys would be a
maximum of 2,000 hours to conduct 12,000 interviews. Over the requested
three year period, this would be 6,000 hours to conduct 36,000
interviews. The annual estimated reporting burden on the general public
for the localized Crackdown and Mobilization surveys would be a maximum
of 1,333.33 hours to conduct 8,000 interviews. Over the requested three
year period, this would be 4,000 hours to conduct 24,000 interviews.
The annual estimated reporting burden on the general public for the
demonstration project surveys would be a maximum of 2,266.67 hours to
conduct 13,600 interviews. Over the requested three year period, this
would be 6,800 hours to conduct 40,800 interviews. In total, the annual
estimated reporting burden on the public would be a maximum of 5,600
hours to conduct 33,600 interviews. Over the requested three year
period this would be 16,800 hours to conduct 100,800 interviews. The
respondents would not incur any reporting cost from the information
collection. The respondents also would not incur any record keeping
burden or record keeping cost from the information collection.

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

Jeffrey Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-30975 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33276]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP21-895-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Castleton FTS Negotiated Rate
to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210610-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-896-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Tenaska FTS Negotiated Rate to
be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/10/21.
    Accession Number: 20210610-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 14, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13421 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59807-59808]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0529; Airspace Docket No. 13-ANM-17]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Glasgow, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at the Glasgow VHF
Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
navigation aid, Glasgow, MT, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Salt Lake City, and
Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs). This improves
the safety and management of IFR operations within the National
Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 10, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace
at Glasgow, MT (78 FR 41337). Interested parties

were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of
FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E en route airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface, at the Glasgow VOR/DME navigation aid,
Glasgow, MT, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control of Salt Lake
City, and Minneapolis ARTCCs by vectoring aircraft from en route
airspace to terminal areas. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code.
Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
controlled airspace at the Glasgow VOR/DME, Glasgow, MT.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En route domestic airspace areas.

* * * * *

ANM MT E6 Glasgow, MT [New]

Glasgow VOR/DME, MT
    (Lat. 48[deg]12'55'' N., long. 106[deg]37'32'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by lat. 49[deg]00'00'' N., long.
109[deg]11'00'' W.; to lat. 49[deg]00'00'' N., long. 108[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 49[deg]00'00'' N., long. 107[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat.
49[deg]00'00'' N., long. 106[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat. 49[deg]00'00''
N., long. 105[deg]30'00'' W.; to lat. 48[deg]21'00'' N., long.
104[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 46[deg]45'10'' N., long. 103[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 45[deg]27'21'' N., long. 103[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat.
45[deg]28'48'' N., long. 103[deg]10'00'' W.; to lat. 45[deg]36'35''
N., long. 104[deg]05'26'' W.; to lat. 45[deg]48'16'' N., long.
106[deg]34'25'' W.; to lat. 46[deg]00'00'' N., long. 106[deg]58'05''
W.; to lat. 46[deg]54'00'' N., long. 108[deg]49'30'' W., thence to
the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 19, 2013.
Christopher Ramirez,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-23669 Filed 9-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P