[Federal Register: August 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 49940]
[DOCID:fr16au10-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on November 18, 2010, from
8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn College Park, Grand Ballroom, 10000 Baltimore
Ave., College Park, MD.
    Contact Person: Margaret McCabe-Janicki, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1535, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On November 18, 2010, the committee will discuss, make
recommendations, and vote on information related to the premarket
approval application for MelaFind, sponsored by MELA Sciences. MelaFind
is a computer-controlled multi-spectral dermoscope that uses light,
wavelengths from 430 nanometers (nm) (blue) through 950 nm (near
infrared), to image the skin through a thin layer of liquid (alcohol or
oil), making lesion structures under the skin surface visible to the
observer. A complementary metal oxide semiconductor digital camera
inside the probe captures the images and then differentiates them among
pigmented skin lesions for melanoma risk using predefined software
statistical pattern recognition algorithms.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 9, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before October 28, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may
be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by November
2, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
Conference Management Staff,<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in advance
of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 11, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-20156 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: October 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59360]
[DOCID:fr12oc05-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3259-EM]

Florida; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Florida (FEMA-3259-EM), dated September 20,
2005, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 20, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 20, 2005, the President declared an emergency
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford
Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Florida resulting from Tropical Storm Rita beginning
on September 18, 2005, and continuing are of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121-5206 (Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such an
emergency exists in the State of Florida.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act to save lives, protect public health and safety, and
property or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the
designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide
emergency protective measures, (Category B), including direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program. This
assistance excludes regular time costs for subgrantees' regular
employees. In addition, you are authorized to provide such other
forms of assistance under Title V of the Stafford Act as you may
deem appropriate.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. For a period of up to 72 hours, assistance for
emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance,
will be provided at 100 percent Federal funding of the total
eligible costs.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Acting Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security,
under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Justin DeMello, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
emergency.
    I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Florida
to have been affected adversely by this declared emergency:

    Broward, Collier, Miami-Dade, and Monroe Counties for Public
Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures), including
direct Federal assistance, at 75 percent Federal funding of the
total eligible costs.
    For a period of up to 72 hours, assistance for emergency
protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be
provided at 100 percent Federal funding of the total eligible costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs, 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-20427 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22921-22922]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08978]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

    Extension: Rule 206(4)-7; OMB Control No. 3235-0585; SEC File
No. 270-523.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Investment
Advisers Act rule 206(4)-7 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-7), Compliance procedures
and practices.'' Rule 206(4)-7 requires each investment adviser
registered with the Commission to (i) Adopt and implement internal
compliance policies and procedures, (ii) review those policies and
procedures annually, (iii) designate a chief compliance officer, and
(iv) maintain certain compliance records. The rule is designed to
protect investors by fostering better compliance with the securities
laws. The collection of information under rule 206(4)-7 is necessary to
assure that investment advisers maintain comprehensive internal
programs that promote the advisers' compliance with the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940. The information collected under this rule may
also assist Commission staff in assessing investment advisers'
compliance programs.
    This collection of information is mandatory. The information
collected pursuant to the rule 206(4)-7 is reviewed by the Commission's
examination staff; it will be accorded the same level of
confidentiality accorded to other responses provided to the Commission
in the context of its examination and oversight program.
    The respondents to this information collection are investment
advisers registered with the Commission. Our latest data indicate that
there were 10,773 advisers registered with the Commission as of
February 1, 2013. The Commission has estimated that compliance with
rule 206(4)-7 imposes an annual burden of approximately 87 hours per
respondent. Based on this figure, the Commission estimates a total

annual burden of 937,251 hours for this collection of information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and
suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB
control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 11, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08978 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


i Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis Early Action Compact Milestone Technical Report Prepared by The Capital Area Planning Council ( CAPCO) On behalf of The Austin Round Rock MSA Clean Air Coalition Austin, Texas, March 2004 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 2 Federal and State Rules .......................................................................................... 2 3 Local Measures ....................................................................................................... 4 4 Photochemical Modeling and Design Value Analysis ............................................ 6 4.1 Photochemical Modeling .................................................................................... 6 4.2 Trends in Ozone Monitoring Data in Austin........................................................ 9 5 Emissions Trends from 2007 to 2012.................................................................... 12 5.1 Area Sources..................................................................................................... 13 5.2 Non Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................ 16 5.3 On Road Mobile Sources.................................................................................. 18 5.4 Point Sources.................................................................................................... 27 6 The Continuing Planning Process ........................................................................ 32 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 1 1 Introduction Section II, E of the Austin Round Rock MSA Early Action Compact entitled " Maintenance for Growth" lists three options for the area to demonstrate that attainment of the ozone standard will be maintained through 2012. Due to the insufficient time for the development of a 2012 modeling emissions inventory, option c was selected for the analysis. The objective of this document, in accordance with option c, is to identify and quantify federal, state, and/ or local measures indicating sufficient reductions to offset growth estimates. Staff has evaluated the anticipated future growth of the region to ensure that the area will remain in attainment of the 8 hour standard for the time period 2007 through 2012 and 2015, as appropriate. This evaluation included analysis of population growth and its effect on on road mobile emissions and area sources, and new and planned new point sources. Details that support this summary may be found in the referenced appendices.

Descriptions of Federal, State and Local reduction measures are presented in the Austin/ Round Rock Emissions Reduction Strategies document ( March 2004). Local reduction measures are described in detail by the source type affected, the control strategy, implementation plan, estimated emission reduction, and estimated cost. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 2 2 Federal and State Rules 2.1 Introduction Control strategy projections are estimates of future year emissions that also include the expected impact of modified or additional control regulations. We determined future scheduled regulations, whether at the federal, state, or local level, and applied them to sources in our area. Fuel switching, fuel efficiency improvements, improvements in performance due to economic influences, or any occurrence that alters the emission producing process may also affect future year emissions. These should all be reflected in the projections through the future year control factor, emission factor, or in some cases,

by adjusting the activity growth forecast. Control factors and emission factors vary by source category and are continuously being revised and improved based on field and laboratory measurements. In many cases, it will also be necessary to account for multiple programs, which affect the same source category. Therefore, expected controls are calculated for each action and applied appropriately on the stated dates. Other programs are complex and determining appropriate control factors or adjustments to activity forecasts for specific source categories is not straightforward. For example, initiatives to reduce energy use, such as the EPA Green Lights program, are aimed at reducing electricity demand. This, in turn, is tied to reductions in emissions from individual utility boilers. Emission caps or allowance programs set overall constraints on future emission levels, but this must also be translated into reductions at individual units in most cases.

For trading programs, a simplified approach may be to constrain emissions at individual units to the level used to calculate the emission budget. More complex approaches would examine how individual units will respond   by controlling emissions or purchasing credits.

2.2 Federal and State Rules In 1999, the Texas Legislature passed two laws governing emissions for point sources in Texas. The 2007 and 2012 emission inventories account for Senate Bill 7, which limits NOx emissions from grand fathered electric generating utilities ( EGU) in central and Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 3 eastern Texas and Senate Bill 766, which increases emissions fees on grand fathered nonelectric generating facilities. Tables 4.1 1 and  2 summarize state and federal rules effective through the 2007   2012 planning period for the Austin Round Rock MSA.

The CAAP projects emission reductions from the following federal and state initiatives.

Table 0 1 EPA ISSUED RULES Estimated NOx Category Reductions in 2007 ( tpd) Area Source measures: VOC NOx Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Auto Body Refinishing 1.44 0.52 n/ a n/ a On Road measures: Tier 2 Vehicle Emission Standards National Low Emission Vehicle Program Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Rule 5.71 1.70 0.34 16.79 3.01 11.78 Non Road measures: Small Spark Ignition Handheld Engines Emissions from Compression Ignition Engines Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines Recreational Marine Standards Locomotives 9.27 n/ a 3.48 2.28 Point Source Measures: ALCOA Consent Decree n/ a 54 Table 2.1 1. Federal emission reduction rules Sec. Category Reductions in 2007 ( tpd) Area Source: VOC NOx 3.1 Degreasing Units 1.96 n/ a 3.2 HB 2914 Grand fathered Pipelines TBD TBD On road Source: 3.3 Stage 1 Vapor Recovery 3.72 n/ a Non road Source: 3.4 Low Emission Diesel TBD TBD Point Source: 3.5 SB 7 EGU NOx Reductions n/ a 10.09 3.6 SB 766 Voluntary Emissions Reduction Permit TBD TBD 3.7 HB 2912 Grandfathered Requirements TBD TBD 3.8 Cement Kiln NOx Limits n/ a 2.16 Table 2.1 2. Summary of TCEQ Issued Rules for Reduction Strategies Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 4 3 Local Measures Various emission reduction techniques can effectively reduce ozone precursors. Emission reduction methods employed nationally ( e. g., automotive emission reductions), statewide and regionally ( emission reductions from EGUs) benefit the Austin area, but more reductions are needed to ensure clean air for the region. The EAC provides the mechanism for implementation of local emission reduction techniques to show attainment of the standard. Table 3.1 presents list of the local emission reduction measures.

NOx Reductions ( tpd) VOC Reductions ( tpd) A1 Inspection and Maintenance ( I& M) 3.19 4.19 A2 Idling Restrictions on Heavy Diesel 0.19 0.00 A3 Commute Emission Reduction Program 0.27 0.30 A4 Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirement Change 0.00 4.88 A5 Low Emission Gas Cans 0.00 1.97 A6 Degreasing Controls 0.00 6.38 A7 Autobody Refinishing Controls 0.00 0.05 A8 Cutback Asphalt 0.00 1.03 A9 Low Reid Vapor Pressure Gas 0.00 2.87 A10 BACT and Offsets for New or Modified Point Sources TBD TBD A11 Petroleum Dry Cleaning 0.00 1.06 A12 Texas Emission Reduction Program ( TERP) 2.00 0.00 A13 Power Plant Reductions 7.08 0.00 Total ( Does not include TBD) 12.73 23.64 Emission Reduction Measures ( State Regulations)

Table 3.1 List of local emissions reduction strategies. Reductions in 2007. Note: The I& M program assumes participation from Hays County. Without Hays Co participation reductions are 2.89tpd and 3.84tpd of NOx and VOC respectively.

The emissions share of the local reduction measures is presented in figures 3.1 and 3.2.

Detailed description of each local reduction measure is presented in the Austin/ Round Rock Emissions Reduction Strategies document ( March 2004). In this report the selected measures are described by the source type affected, the control strategy, implementation plan, estimated emission reduction, and estimated cost. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 5 2007 NOx Emission Inventory Emissions Reductions Point Sources Nonroad Mobile Sources Affected by TERP OnRoad Mobile Sources Affected by I/ M OnRoad Mobile Sources Unaffected by I/ M Area Sources Nonroad Mobile Sources Unaffected by TERP TERP 1% I/ M 2% TERP 1% All Point Source Reductions 5%

Figure 3.1 Share of the local emission reduction measures to the 2007 NOx Emissions Inventory 2007 VOC Emission Inventory Emissions Reductions Point Sources OnRoad Mobile Sources Affected by I/ M OnRoad Mobile Sources Unaffected by I/ M Area Sources Nonroad Mobile Sources All Area Sources Controls 11%

I/ M 2%

Figure 3.2 Share of the local emission reduction measures to the 2007 VOC Emissions Inventory Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 6 4 Photochemical Modeling and Design Value Analysis This chapter discusses impacts of the federal and local measures on 2007 ozone levels.

Projected 2007 emission inventories were developed for the modeling domain and used with the identical meteorological data and CAMx configuration developed for the Base Case to model the Future Case. Relative reduction factors and future 8 hour ozone design values at Austin's CAMs sites were calculated in accordance with the U. S. EPA's Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8 Hour Ozone NAAQS ( 1999) and the U. S. EPA's Protocol for Early Action Compacts ( 2003). The results indicate that regardless of whether current 8 hour ozone design values are calculated based on the years straddling the latest emission inventory for the area ( 1998 2000) or the time period of the attainment designation ( 2001 2003),

the attainment test is passed at both Austin monitors during this modeling episode.

4.1 Photochemical Modeling Figure 4.1 1 presents design values for Austin Round Rock MSA and emissions trends.

Note that EPA regulatory monitoring sites were installed after 1996.

The design values for the years that straddle 1999 were used as the " current" year to estimate the design value for 2007. These design values were the highest measured in the Austin area at both monitors. More recent monitoring provides lower design values and the latest design values for the years straddling 2002 do not exceed the standard. Since the worst case design values were used in this CAAP, it is important to put these values into perspective.

Analysis of the various metrics related to the meteorological conditions indicates that the conditions favorable to formation of high ozone occurred more often than normal during 1999 and less often than normal in 2001. The selection of the " current" year is based on the date of the most recent emissions inventory. If an emissions inventory were prepared for 2002, then the current year would be 2002, which has a maximum design value of 84 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 7 ppb. Note that the 2007 design value is affected by federal and state rules that will reduce regional and local emission in 2007. The effects of local emission reduction measures selected in the EAC CAAP were modeled separately.

Figure 4.1 1 Austin Round Rock MSA design value and emissions trends Future Case modeling used projected 2007 emission inventories with the meteorological data and CAMx configuration developed for the successful Base Case. Inputs followed EPA's Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8 Hour Ozone NAAQS ( 1999) and their Protocol for Early Action Compacts ( 2003). Photochemical modeling is an iterative process. The emissions inventories used in the model are often refined to better predict emissions. The modeling for the future case has been performed with five versions of the 2007 emissions inventory, each with minor modifications or improvements. This modeling provides results that are close to the standard of 85 ppb, but in three cases the design value has been slightly below the standard ( 84.8 ppb, 84.5 ppb, 84.91 ppb, 84.55 ppb and 84.37 ppb) and in two cases the design value has been slightly above the standard ( 85.6 ppb and 85.08 ppb). It is likely that the 2007 emissions inventory for the Houston/ Galveston area will be modified by TCEQ in the near future, which may affect future case model values. Results of Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 8 future case modeling are too close to the standard to provide meaningful conclusions about the area's likelihood of demonstrating attainment by 2007 without local emission reduction measures.

Monitor site 1999 design value Relative reduction factor Estimated design value for 2007 * Attainment of the 8 hour standard? Audubon 89 ppb 0.948 84.37 Yes Murchison 87 ppb 0.948 82.48 Yes Table 4.1 2 Model results for base 2007 modeling with the September 1999 Episode Emission Reduction Measure NOx Reductions tpd VOC Reductions tpd 1I/ M 2.89 3.84 Heavy Duty Vehicle Idling Restrictions 0.19 0.0 Commute Emission Reduction Program 0.27 0.30 Low Emission Gas Cans 0.0 2.60 Stage I Vapor Recovery 0.0 4.88 Degreasing Controls 0.0 6.38 Autobody Refinishing 0.0 0.05 Cut Back Asphalt 0.0 1.03 Low Reid Vapor Pressure Gas 0.0 2.87 TERP 2.0 0.0 Power Plant Reductions 7.08 0.0 TERMs 0.719 0.828 Table 4.1 3 List of Modeled Emission Reduction Measures 1 Note that NOx and VOC reductions due to the Inspection and Maintenance program are estimated for Travis and Williamson County. The Low Emission Gas Cans measure includes residential and commercial use. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 9 Strategy Model Run Emission Reduction Measure 1 I/ M only ( without Hays County) 2 All State Assisted Measures ( with TERMs) but without I& M in Hays County and without low Reid Vapor Pressure gasoline 3 TERP only ( modeled at 2 tpd reduction) All measures with VOC reductions and no NOx reductions Low Emission Gas Cans Stage I Vapor Recovery Degreasing Controls Autobody Refinishing Cut Back Asphalt 4 Low Reid Vapor Pressure Gas 5 Point Sources Only Table 4.14 List of Emission Reduction Measures Modeled for Each Strategy.

Control Strategy Run Monitor site 1999 design value Relative reduction factor Estimated design value for 2007 * Attainment of the 8 hour standard? Audubon 89 ppb 0.944 84.02 Yes 1 Murchison 87 ppb 0.944 83.13 Yes Audubon 89 ppb 0.937 83.39 Yes 2 Murchison 87 ppb 0.934 81.26 Yes Audubon 89 ppb 0.946 84.19 Yes 3 Murchison 87 ppb 0.947 82.39 Yes Audubon 89 ppb 0.946 84.19 Yes 4 Murchison 87 ppb 0.945 82.22 Yes Audubon 89 ppb 0.944 84.02 Yes 5 Murchison 87 ppb 0.943 82.04 Yes Table 4.1 5 Model Results for Emission Reduction Measures Applied to Base 2007 EI with the September 1999 Episode 4.2 Trends in Ozone Monitoring Data in Austin TCEQ ( previously the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and prior to that the Texas Air Control Board) has monitored ozone concentrations at two sites in Austin since 1983. The site at Murchison has not moved, but the other site was moved in 1997 to the current site named Audubon. To be consistent, these analyses will be limited to the time period beginning in 1997 when ozone concentrations were measured at both the Murchison and Audubon sites. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 10 Since the EAC addresses 8 hour ozone concentrations, these analyses will be performed for 8 hour time periods. A number of analysis metrics can be used to evaluate trends in ozone concentrations. Among these are the highest concentration, the second highest concentration, the third highest concentration and the fourth highest concentration. At each monitor the annual 8 hour ozone design value is calculated over three consecutive years. It is the average of the fourth highest daily 8 hour ozone concentration measured over each of the three consecutive years. The area wide design value is the highest of the design values for all of the monitors in the area. The average for the design value is truncated and if that value is greater than or equal to 85 ppb, the standard is exceeded.

Figure 4.2 1 shows the four highest 8 hour ozone concentrations and the design values at the Audubon monitoring site from 1997 to 2003. Figure 4.2 2 shows those same values for the Murchison monitoring site. Figure 4.2 3 shows the design values for Audubon and Murchison and the area design values from 1997 to 2002.

An analysis of historical trends of monitoring in the Austin area indicates that a design value of 89 ppb is the highest ever measured. A simple analysis of potential 8 hour ozone design values in Austin based on historical monitoring data indicated that in 2003 87 ppb is the highest design value likely to be monitored. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 11 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 1997 1998 199 9 2000 2001 2002 2003 8 Hr Ozone Conc, ppb.

highest 2nd high 3rd high 4th high Design value Figure 4.2 1. Four Highest 8 hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values ( ppb) at the Audubon monitoring station for the 1997 through 2003 period.

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 8 Hr Ozone Conc, ppb.

highest 2nd high 3rd high 4th high Design value Figure 4.2 2 Four Highest 8 hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values ( ppb) at the Murchison monitoring station for the 1997 through 2003 period.

Austin Area 8 Hour Ozone Design Values, ppb 75 80 85 90 95 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 8 Hr Ozone Conc, ppb.

Murchison Design Value Audubon Design Value Area Wide Design Value Figure 4.2 3. Design Values for Austin Area Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 12 5 Emissions Trends from 2007 to 2012 The goal in developing emission projections is to attempt to account for as many of the important variables that affect future year emissions as possible. They are a function of change in activity ( growth or decline) combined with changes in the emission rate or controls applicable to the source. To a large extent, projection inventories are based on forecasts of industrial growth, population growth, changes in land use patterns, and transportation growth. Changes in the emission rate of sources can be influenced by such causes as technological advances, environmental regulations, age or deterioration, how the source is operated, and fuel formulations.

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 display NOx and VOC emissions in 2007 and 2012. Most significant reductions are visible in the onroad mobile category.

NOx Emissions from 2007 to 2012 in Austin Round Rock MSA 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Area Sources Nonroad Mobile Sources Onroad Mobile Sources Point Sources Emission Category Tons per Day 2007 2012 Figure 5.1 Austin Round Rock MSA NOx Emissions from 2007 to 2012 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 13 VOC Emissions from 2007 to 2012 in Austin Round Rock MSA 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 Area Sources Nonroad Mobile Sources Onroad Mobile Sources Point Sources Emission Category Tons per Day 2007 2012 Figure 5.2 Austin Round Rock MSA VOC Emissions from 2007 to 2012 Note that total anthropogenic emissions in 2012 are smaller by 20.89tpd and 3.89tpd of NOx and VOC respectively from 2007 future year base. These emissions reductions are mainly due to the federal and state rules discussed earlier and due to the cleaner vehicles and new technology that will be available by 2012..

5.1 Area Sources The emissions associated with area sources are directly related to population and economic activity. These two data sources are typically used to estimate area source emissions.

The population of the region has been growing for the past 60 years and is expected to continue to grow through 2012. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 14 County 1999 2002 2005 2007 2012 Bastrop 55.68 62.78 74.41 76.77 96.49 Caldwell 31.49 34.71 37.31 40.09 46.52 Hays 93.62 109.48 128.14 144.51 184.50 Travis 788.50 851.59 931.17 985.47 1095.30 Williamson 236.61 289.85 328.62 358.66 428.30 TOTAL 1205.90 1348.41 1499.66 1605.50 1851.11 Population ( thousands)

Table 5.1 1 Population Growth ( CAPCO Regional Forecast 2000 to 2030, REMI, 2003)

As the population increases, so will the economic activity in the region. Though the economy of the region has slowed in recent years, the overall trend from 1999 through 2012 continues to show an increase.

County 1999 2002 2005 2007 2012 Bastrop 0.93 0.96 1.02 1.06 1.12 Caldwell 0.43 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.46 Hays 3.86 3.61 3.89 4.11 4.61 Travis 68.90 65.13 64.39 66.08 68.53 Williamson 9.10 9.09 9.36 9.68 10.11 TOTAL 83.23 79.21 79.10 81.36 84.83 Employment as Manufacturing Total ( thousands)

Table 5.1 2 Total manufacturing employment forecast ( CAPCO Regional Forecast, REMI, 2003)

With this increase in population and economic growth in the region, emissions from area sources are expected to increase only 14.2% from 1999 to 2012. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 15 Area Sources Emission Trend 1999 2007 2012 BASTROP NOx 0.60 0.76 0.82 VOC 4.52 5.53 6.16 CALDWELL NOx 0.54 0.67 0.68 VOC 15.29 15.75 17.17 HAYS NOx 0.58 0.79 0.85 VOC 5.47 7.67 8.21 TRAVIS NOx 3.21 4.05 4.28 VOC 50.60 57.04 57.58 WILLIAMSON NOx 3.00 3.84 3.86 VOC 14.68 20.44 21.25 MSA NOx 7.93 10.12 10.50 VOC 90.56 106.42 110.37 Table 5.1 3 Area Source Emission Trends Break Down ( Tons per Day), CAPCO For more details, please see the report, Emissions Inventory Comparison and Trend Analysis for the Austin Round Rock MSA: 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007, & 2012, in the Appendices to Chapter 6. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 16 5.2 Non Road Mobile Sources Projected MSA non road mobile emissions for 2002, 2005, 2007 and 2012 were developed using the EPA's NONROAD model and accounted for several federal programs including: Standards for Compression ignition Vehicles and Equipment,

Standards for Spark ignition Off road Vehicles and Equipment, Tier III Heavy duty Diesel Equipment, Locomotive Standards, Recreational Marine Standards, and Lawn and Garden Equipment. The non road mobile emissions totals were calculated by using the following equation:

Base Case Year Non Road Model Emissions = Base Case Emission Inventory Projection Year Non Road Model Emissions Projection Year Emission Inventory 1999 2002 2005 2007 2012 Bastrop 0.92 0.54 0.54 0.99 0.57 Caldwell 0.61 0.40 0.44 0.68 0.89 Hays 1.53 1.28 1.23 1.77 1.30 Travis 15.59 16.53 14.15 12.70 13.93 Williamson 3.84 3.93 3.28 3.73 3.39 Total 22.49 22.68 19.63 19.87 20.07 Non Road VOC Emissions Table 5.2 1 Non Road Mobile Source NOx Emissions ( tons per day), Austin Round Rock MSA 1999 2002 2005 2007 2012 Bastrop 1.72 1.39 1.68 1.66 1.81 Caldwell 1.42 1.17 1.43 1.39 2.41 Hays 1.88 1.68 1.89 1.84 1.94 Travis 16.69 16.24 17.98 16.21 16.38 Williamson 6.73 6.45 6.90 6.36 7.11 Total 28.44 26.93 29.88 27.46 29.65 Non Road NOx Emissions Table 5.2 2 Non Road Mobile Source CO Emissions ( tons per day), Austin Round Rock MSA The following figures graphically depict the Non road mobile emission trend. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 17 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 1999 2002 2005 2007 2012 Year NOx Emissions ( tpd)

Bastrop Caldwell Hays Travis Williamson Total Figure 5.2 1 Non Road Mobile NOx Emissions, Austin Round Rock MSA 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 1999 2002 2005 2007 2012 Year VOC Emissions ( tpd)

Bastrop Caldwell Hays Travis Williamson Total Figure 5.2 2 Non Road Mobile VOC Emissions, Austin Round Rock MSA Emissions were grown using the Nonroad model ( version 2002a). Population, and the distribution of population in urban and rural areas, has considerable affect this category.

However, the population growth that is expected is offset by new technology and upcoming emission regulation on non road mobile engines due to state and federal Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 18 regulations. This accounts for the near straight line effect seen in the NOx trend in Figure 5.2 1. However, for VOC the continued population increases are shown from 2007 to 2012 ( Figure 5.2 2).

5.3 On Road Mobile Sources VMT Screen: Because on road mobile emissions account for a significant amount of the region's ozone forming emissions, the region has focused much of its attention on growth in that area. It was, therefore, reasonable to perform a test to determine if the future planned transportation network( s) will contribute increasing or decreasing amounts of NOx and VOC. One test that uses readily available data is a review of the relative change in VMT, also referred to as a VMT " screen". Staff has chosen to use the VMT screen that EPA originally developed for its proposed transitional ozone classification.

The VMT screen tests if any expected increase in VMT in a future year will be offset by technology and control measures. That is, that the expected associated emissions in a future year will not exceed the associated emissions of the base year.

The current CAMPO long range transportation plan is based on VMT for the years 1997,

2007, 2015 and 2025. TxDOT supplied the1999 VMT. The " VMT Screen" for years 2007 and 2015 of the plan, Mobility 2025, gave the following results.

NOx VOC Three County Three County CAMPO LRP CAMPO LRP Year No Controls With I& M No Controls With I& M 1999 29,002,000 29,002,000 2007 19,815,722 18,801,663 20,413,830 17,869,330 2015 9,162,901 7,316,813 15,036,818 11,943,306 Table 5.3 1 Emission Reductions in VMT from 1999 to 2015, with and without I/ M VMT in the three county region is expected to increase 40% from 1999 to 2007 and 90%

from 2007 to 2015. The associated NOx will decrease by so much during those years that it will be as though there were a 31.7% decrease in VMT from 1999 to 2007 and a 68.4% decrease from 1999 to 2015. Additional, though less substantial, decreases will be Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 19 realized from the region's implementation of an I/ M program in Travis, Williamson and Hays Counties in 2005 ( 35.2% and 74.8%). Also, VOC will be reduced by 29.6% from 1999 until 2007 and 48.2% from 1999 to 2015. Reductions of VOC will also be greater with the I/ M program ( 38.4% and 58.8%). The expected increases in population and the planned expansion of the roadway system will contribute to an increase in VMT, but will not cause on road emissions to exceed 1999 levels.

Because Bastrop and Caldwell Counties are outside the CAMPO boundaries, and because they will not participate in the I/ M program, a separate VMT screen was conducted for the aggregate 5 county region. The results are similar to those realized for the CAMPO area.

NOx VOC Five County MSA Five County MSA TTI VMT TTI VMT Year No Control Measures No Control Measures 1999 32,506,000 32,506,000 2007 27,677,756 22,332,084 2015 9,796,164 15,907,780 Table 5.3 2 Emission Reductions in VMT from 1999 to 2015 VMT is expected to increase in the five county region by 36% from 1999 to 2007 and 79.3% from 1999 to 2015. Without I/ M in the five county region, NOx from VMT is expected to decline by 33.3% from 1999 to 2007 and 69.9% from 1999 to 2015. The VOC will also decline ( 31.3% and 51.1%). Again, the expected increases in population and the planned roadway system that will contribute to an increase in VMT will not contribute to emissions exceeding the amount of on road emissions seen in 1999.

One conclusion from this analysis is that the currently planned roadway system will not exacerbate the production of ozone in the MSA through 2015. The details of all calculations are included in the Appendices to Chapter 6. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 20 Emissions Comparisons: Another way to evaluate VMT and associated emissions is to compare the estimated emissions for future years to the base year emissions. Multiplying the emission factor by the VMT results in an estimate of the daily emissions associated with on road travel. This evaluation shows a decrease in both NOx and VOC emissions,

despite an increase in VMT.

TTI, Five County, No Controls NOx VOC Year VMT ( miles) EF ( g/ mi) VMT X EF ( tons) Year VMT ( miles) EF ( g/ mi) VMT X EF ( tons) 1999 32,506,000 2.433 87 1999 32,506,000 1.425 51 2007 44,508,000 1.185 58 2007 44,508,000 0.715 35 2015 58,274,000 0.409 26 2015 58,274,000 0.389 25 Table 5.3 3 Emission Reductions from 1999 to 2015 Both evaluation techniques, the VMT screen and comparison of emissions, show large enough decreases in on road emissions to more than offset the anticipated growth in VMT through 2015. These decreases in emissions will be even greater once the I/ M program is implemented.

The following tables are the VMT screens. Each title includes the targeted precursor, the area covered, source of VMT, and any additional local control measures included in the emissions factor. For example, " NOx, 5 county, TTI VMT, No controls" means that the emission factors are for NOx, the entire 5 county MSA is covered, the VMT is from the TTI report on the September episode, and there were no additional local control measures included in the MOBILE6 input files. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 21 NOx, 3 County, TxDOT & CAMPO VMT, No Controls NOx 1999 VMT = 29,002,000 Emission Factors I s the 1999 VMT greater than or equal to the VMT for the future year? Yes/ No 1999 2.4490 2007 VMT1999   EF2007/ EF1999 × VMT 2007 YES 19,815,722.34 2007 1.1920 2015 0.4070 2015 VMT1999   EF2015/ EF1999 × VMT 2015 YES 9,162,901.18 2025 Plan VMT 1999 29,002,000 * HPMS 1999 VMT 2007 40,712,000 2015 55,135,000 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 22 VOC, 3 County, TxDOT & CAMPO VMT, No Controls VOC 1999 VMT = 29,002,000 Emission Factors I s the 1999 VMT greater than or equal to the VMT for the future year? Yes/ No 1999 1.4080 2007 VMT1999   EF2007/ EF1999 × VMT 2007 YES 20,413,829.55 2007 0.7060 2015 0.3840 2015 VMT1999   EF2015/ EF1999 × VMT 2015 YES 15,036,818.18 2025 Plan VMT 1999 29,002,000 * HPMS 1999 VMT 2007 40,712,000 2015 55,135,000 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 23 NOx, 3 County, TxDOT & CAMPO VMT, I& M NOx 1999 VMT = 29,002,000 Emission Factors I s the 1999 VMT greater than or equal to the VMT for the future year? Yes/ No 1999 2.4490 2007 VMT1999   EF2007/ EF1999 × VMT 2007 YES 18,801,662.72 2007 1.1310 2015 0.3250 2015 VMT1999   EF2015/ EF1999 × VMT 2015 YES 7,316,812.98 2025 Plan VMT 1999 29,002,000 * HPMS 1999 VMT 2007 40,712,000 2015 55,135,000 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 24 VOC, 3 County, TxDOT & CAMPO VMT, I& M VOC 1999 VMT = 29,002,000 Emission Factors I s the 1999 VMT greater than or equal to the VMT for the future year? Yes/ No 1999 1.4080 2007 VMT1999   EF2007/ EF1999 × VMT 2007 YES 17,869,329.55 2007 0.6180 2015 0.3050 2015 VMT1999   EF2015/ EF1999 × VMT 2015 YES 11,943,306.11 2025 Plan VMT 1999 29,002,000 * HPMS 1999 VMT 2007 40,712,000 2015 55,135,000 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 25 NOx, 5 county, TTI VMT, No controls NOx VMT Screen 1999 VMT = 32,506,000 Emission Factors I s the 1999 VMT greater than or equal to the VMT for the future year? Yes/ No 1999 2.4330 2007 VMT1999   EF2007/ EF1999 × VMT 2007 YES 21,677,755.86 2007 1.1850 2015 0.4090 2015 VMT1999   EF2015/ EF1999 × VMT 2015 YES 9,796,163.58 TTI VMT 1999 32,506,000 * TTI VMT Sept. 20, 1999 episode 2007 44,508,000 2015 58,274,000 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 26 VOC, 5 County, TTI VMT, No Controls VOC 1999 VMT = 32,506,000 Emission Factors I s the 1999 VMT greater than or equal to the VMT for the future year? Yes/ No 1999 1.4250 2007 VMT1999   EF2007/ EF1999 × VMT 2007 YES 22,332,084.21 2007 0.7150 2015 0.3890 2015 VMT1999   EF2015/ EF1999 × VMT 2015 YES 15,907,779.65 TTI VMT 1999 32,506,000 * TTI VMT Sept. 20, 1999 episode 2007 44,508,000 2015 58,274,000 Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 27 5.4 Point Sources The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality provided emission data for point sources in the CAPCO region for the 1999 EI. In the 1999 EI, the point source was subcategorized into major point source and minor point source. Point source inventory was developed for 1999 and 2007 for the EAC Clean Air Plan. A uniform change for 2002 and 2005 was assumed and 2012 is expected to stay unchanged based on feedback from power plant stakeholders.

Austin Energy and Lower Colorado River Authority ( LCRA) provided emissions for the EGUs they operate in the area. The NEGU ( Non Electric Generating Units) emission totals for the five counties were provided by TCEQ. Table 5.4 1 provides projected total emissions for the areas power plants ( EGUs) for 1999 and 2007.

EGU Point Source Emissions ( tpd) in the MSA and Surrounding Area 1999 2007 County Facility Name NOx VOC NOx VOC Bastrop Sam Gideon Electric Power Plant 7.10 0.33 3.94 0.11 Bastrop Lost Pines 1 Power Plant n/ a n/ a 1.50 0.23 Bastrop Bastrop Clean Energy Center n/ a n/ a 2.21 0.12 Fayette Fayette Power Project 60.82 0.55 28.12 0.78 Hays Hays Energy Facility n/ a n/ a 3.70 0.96 Milam Sandow Steam Electric 24.20 0.33 13.19 0.32 Travis Decker Lake Power Plant 8.15 0.44 3.80 0.12 Travis Holly Street Power Plant 2.88 0.12 2.98 0.01 Travis Sand Hills n/ a n/ a 1.03 0.20 Travis Hal C Weaver Power Plant 1.99 0.03 1.86 0.05 Total 105.14 1.80 62.32 2.91 Total MSA 20.12 0.92 21.01 1.81 Table 5.4 1 Point Source Emissions from EGU, Austin   Round Rock MSA and Surrounding Austin Energy's proposed Ten Year Strategic Plan includes an Energy ( generation)

Resource Plan. Under this plan, the Holly Power Plant will be retired by Dec. 31, 2007.

Cost effective energy efficiency and load shifting are established as the first response toward meeting new load; and cost effective renewable energy sources will be increased Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 28 as practical to reduce generation dependency on fossil fuels, such as natural gas. As part of their resource strategy, Austin Energy has developed an objective to make a strong commitment to renewable energy. The two measures are to achieve a renewable portfolio standard of 20% and an energy efficiency target of 15% by 2020.

1999& 2007 NEGU Major Point Source Emissions ( tpd) in the MSA and Surrounding Area 1999 2007 County Facility Name NOx VOC NOx VOC Caldwell Durol Western Manufacturing, Inc. 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Caldwell Luling Gas Plant 0.89 0.26 0.29 0.04 Caldwell Maxwell Facility 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.06 Caldwell Prairie Lea Compressor Station 2.66 0.04 2.23 0.03 Caldwell Teppco Crude Oil LLC, Luling Station 0.00 0.01 n/ a n/ a Comal APG Lime Corp 1.15 0.00 1.15 0.00 Comal Sunbelt Cemebt of Texas LP 7.61 0.12 3.79 0.13 Comal TXI Operations LP 3.34 0.14 3.43 0.15 Hays Parkview Metal Products, Inc. 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.03 Hays Southern Post Co. Commercial Metal 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 Hays Southwest Solvents and Chemicals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hays Texas LeHigh Cement 7.20 0.18 5.24 0.55 Milam Aluminum Company of America 54.26 4.25 4.64 0.38 Travis RIN3M Austin Center 0.15 0.03 0.15 0.03 Travis Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.17 Travis Austin White Lime Co. 0.89 0.00 0.94 0.02 Travis IBM Corporation 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.04 Travis Lithoprint Co., Inc. 0.00 0.05 n/ a n/ a Travis Motorola Ed Bluestein 0.46 0.17 0.01 0.04 Travis Motorola Integrated Circuit Division 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.02 Travis Multilayer TEK, L. P. 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.21 Travis Raytheon Systems, Co. 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 Travis Twomey Welch Aerocorp, Inc. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Williamson Aquatic Industries, Inc. 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.04 Total 78.82 6.02 22.14 1.95 Total MSA 12.46 1.50 9.13 1.28 Table 5.4 2 Point Source Emissions from major NEGU Table 5.4 2 provides projected NEGU emission totals for 1999 and 2007. The largest emitter from the NEGU Major Point Source category is the Aluminum Company of Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 29 America ( ALCOA). They have committed to reducing their emissions by 90% by 2007,

which will have a substantial impact on the reduction for the entire category.

The total MSA point source VOC emission amounts increase slightly from 1999 to 2012 due to the new permitted EGUs. This occurred due to the development of several new point source related projects in the region. The projected reduction in NOx emission levels is due to the governmental regulations aimed at reducing point source related emission of NOx. Figures 5.4 1 and  2 graphically illustrates the trend for major point source emissions for all counties in the Austin Round Rock MSA.

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 1999 2002 2005 2007 2012 Year NOx ( tpd) Bastrop Caldwell Hays Travis Williamson Total Figure 5.4 1 Point Source NOx Emissions Trend, Austin Round Rock MSA Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 30 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1999 2002 2005 2007 2012 Year VOC ( tpd) Bastrop Caldwell Hays Travis Williamson Total Figure 5.4 2 Point Source VOC Emissions Trend, Austin Round Rock MSA Power   Austin Energy and Renewable Sources Austin Energy's proposed Ten Year Strategic Plan is the high level blueprint for their priorities for the next decade. The plan emphasizes reliability, customer service, cost effectiveness, positioning for technology, and greater generation diversity.

Included within the larger plan is an Energy ( generation) Resource Plan. Under the energy resource plan, the Holly Power Plant will be retired by Dec. 31, 2007; cost

effective energy efficiency and load shifting are established as the first response toward meeting new load; and cost effective renewable energy sources will be increased as practical to reduce generation dependency on fossil fuels, such as natural gas. The closing of the Holly Power Plant will reduce NOx emissions by 2.4 TPD in Travis County. As part of their resource strategy, Austin Energy has developed an objective to make a strong commitment to renewable energy. The two measures are to achieve a renewable portfolio standard of 20% and an energy efficiency target of 15% by 2020. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 31 A more detailed description of these rules can be also found in the document " Local Emission Reduction Strategies" and Chapter 5 of the CAAP. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 32 6 The Continuing Planning Process CAPCO and CAMPO staff will analyze air quality and related data and perform necessary modeling updates annually. In addition to the data sources used for the above analyses, staff may add information from The Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Project ( CTSIP). The CTSIP is a nonprofit organization that tracks 40 key indicators ( e. g., water pollution, air quality, density of new development) that show the economic,

environmental and social health of our MSA. The results of all these analyses will be reported in the June semi annual reports beginning in June 2005.

Using similar methods as for the above analysis, staff will evaluate:

1. future transportation patterns;

2. all relevant actual new point sources; and 3. impacts from potential new source growth.

Future Transportation Patterns: As part of the Mobility 2030 plan development process CAMPO staff will perform the VMT screen for years 2007 and 2017. The screen will test to be sure that any expected increase in VMT over the planning horizons will be offset by technology and control measures, that is, that the expected associated emissions will not exceed the associated emissions of the base year ( 1999).

As part of this analysis, the emission factors will be reviewed and updated as necessary.

Review of the emission factors includes checking and updating the fleet mix.

This test will also be performed prior to adoption of any CAMPO long range transportation plan update or amendment that significantly increases VMT.

New Point Sources and Potential New Point Sources: In addition to the VMT screen and review of area sources, staff will include a list and impact analysis of the relevant new and potential new point sources. Staff will obtain data on these relevant new and potential new point sources from TCEQ. Austin Round Rock MSA Attainment Maintenance Analysis 33 The annual analysis will determine the adequacy of the selected control measures. After review by the appropriate elected officials, these measures will be adjusted if necessary.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34006-34007]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13683]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0245; FRL-10023-20]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal and
Consolidation of Currently Approved Collections; EPA's Safer Choice
Program Product and Partner Recognition Activities; Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew
and consolidate existing approved Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting
the consolidated ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection
that is summarized in this document. The consolidated ICR is entitled:
``Safer Choice Program Product and Partner Recognition Activities''
identified by EPA ICR No. 2692.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-[new]. The
ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public
review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0245, online using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Linda Rutsch, Data Gathering and
Analysis Division, 7406M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate 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.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through 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 particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
    6. Identify the docket ID number assigned to the ICR in the subject
line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the ICR
title and related EPA and OMB numbers.

III. What do I need to know about the PRA?

    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information subject to PRA approval
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for the EPA regulations in title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final
rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal
Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instruments or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in a list
at 40 CFR 9.1.
    As used in the PRA context, burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

IV. What ICR does this request apply to?

    Title: EPA's Safer Choice Product and Partner Recognition
Activities.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2692.01.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-[new].
    ICR status: This ICR reflects the consolidation of the following
currently approved ICRs: ``Safer Choice Product Recognition Program''
(EPA ICR No. 2302.03, OMB Control No. 2070-0178) and ``Safer Choice
Label Consultations'' (EPA ICR No. 2487.02, OMB Control No. 2070-0189.
The ``Safer Choice Product Recognition Program'' (EPA ICR No. 2302.03,
OMB Control No. 2070-0178); is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2022 and
the ``Safer Choice Label Consultations'' (EPA ICR No. 2487.02, OMB
Control No. 2070-0189) is scheduled to expire on November 31, 2022.
    Abstract: This ICR will cover the information collection activities
associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
individuals, businesses, organizations, and government entities
participating in or collaborating with EPA's Safer Choice program.
These components are

designed to: Improve data efficiency by electronic data collection via
a cloud-based Salesforce system called the Safer Choice Community;
monitor the public's awareness of the Safer Choice program and label;
and, clarify the Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards application
process and form.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .33
to 16 hours per response. The consolidated ICR, a copy of which is
available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this
estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR include the following North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes associated with industries most likely affected by
the paperwork requirements:
     325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing;
     325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
(Primary);
     325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturing;
     325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing;
     325520 Adhesive Manufacturing;
     3256 Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation
Manufacturing;
     325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing;
     325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing;
     325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing (Primary);
     325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing;
     325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing;
     325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical
Manufacturing;
     325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and
Preparation Manufacturing;
     423850 Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies
Merchant Wholesalers (Primary);
     424490 Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant
Wholesalers;
     424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant
Wholesalers (Primary);
     424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant
Wholesalers;
     4451 Grocery Stores;
     445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience)
Stores (Primary);
     445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores;
     446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores;
     453210 Office Supplies and Stationery Stores;
     453998 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except
Tobacco Stores) (Primary);
     454110 Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses;
     481 Air Transportation;
     531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Mini-
warehouses);
     531312 Nonresidential Property Managers;
     541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except
Nanobiotechnology) (Primary);
     561210 Facilities Support Services;
     561720 Janitorial Services;
     561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services;
     611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools;
     611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools;
     622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals;
     711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar
Events with Facilities;
     7211 Traveler Accommodation;
     722511 Full-Service Restaurants;
     8123 Dry cleaning and Laundry Services;
     813410 Civic and Social Organizations (Primary);
     813910 Business Associations (Primary);
     921190 Other General Government Support; and
     924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid
Waste Management Programs (Primary).
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 7,566.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 2,892 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $736,302. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $190,702 and an estimated cost of $545,600 for non-
burden hour paperwork costs, e.g., capital investment or maintenance
and operational costs.

V. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approvals?

    The consolidation of the currently approved ICRs is expected to
result in an overall increase of 1,558 hours in the total estimated
combined respondent burden that is currently approved by OMB. This
information collection combines the burdens from two previously
approved ICRs, EPA ICR No. 2302.03 and EPA ICR No. 2487.02. The
difference between the current burden request and the previously
approved requests is primarily due to the inclusion of Partner of the
Year Awards collection activities when calculating the burden of this
ICR. Additionally, minor adjustments were made in EPA's estimates of
the number of respondents and of the burden.
    The total combined cost burden from these two previously approved
ICRs was $2,045,616. The total cost burden requested for this ICR is
$2,208,906. The difference between the current cost burden request and
the previously approved requests are due to the inclusion of Partner of
the Year Awards collection activities when calculating the burden, as
well as adjustments in EPA's estimates of the number of respondents and
of the burden. In addition to the adjustments listed above, the wage
rates and material costs were revised to reflect 2020 dollars for this
information collection request.
    In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-
question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal
agencies and departments and is based on the submission instructions
established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by
EPA and OMB prior to 1995. The Agency does not expect the change in
format to result in substantive changes to the information collection
activities or related estimated burden and costs.

VI. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the consolidated
ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB
for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue
another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity for the
public to submit additional comments for OMB consideration.
    If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process,
please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-13683 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37822-37824]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0509]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Fourth of July
Fireworks Display, Pittsburg, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the navigable
waters of the New York Slough for the loading, transport, and launching
of fireworks used during the Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Fireworks
Display to be held on July 4, 2008. This safety zone is intended to
prohibit vessels and people from entering into or remaining within the
regulated areas in order to ensure the safety of participants and
spectators.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0509 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco,
California 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral Richardson, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the
rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator
craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety
concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations
in effect during the event.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display.

Background and Purpose

    The Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce will sponsor a fireworks display
on July 4, 2008, in the waters of New York Slough. The fireworks
display is meant for entertainment purposes. This safety zone is issued
to establish a temporary restricted area in New York Slough around the
fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the
transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks
display. This restricted area around the launch barge is necessary to
protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards
associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge. The Coast
Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the
fireworks display.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the navigable
waters of New York Slough near Pittsburg Marina. During the loading of
the fireworks barge, while the barge is being towed to the display
location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone
applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge
within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the
20-minute fireworks display, the area to which the temporary safety
zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters
around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet.
    Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled
to commence at 9 a.m. on July 4, 2008, and will take place at Pier 50
in San Francisco. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display
location is scheduled to take place between 1 p.m. and 8 p.m. on July
4, 2008. During the fireworks display, scheduled to start at
approximately 9:30 p.m., the fireworks barge will be located
approximately 400 feet from Pittsburg Marina on the New York Slough in
position 38[deg]02.42' N, 121[deg]52.97' W (NAD 83).
    The effect of the temporary, moving safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barge while the fireworks
are loaded at Pier 50, during the transit of the fireworks barge, and
until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or
vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or
vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations
are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the
fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and
transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum
impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged
in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can pass safely around the
area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing
have ample space outside of the effected portion of New York Slough to
engage in these activities, (iii) this rule will encompass only a small
portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (iv) the
maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded,
under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
    A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165-T11-057 to read as follows:

Sec.  165-T11-057  Safety Zone; Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Fourth of
July Fireworks Display, Pittsburg, CA.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone is established for the
waters of New York Slough surrounding a barge used as a launch platform
for a fireworks display.
    (1) Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge will take
place at Pier 50 in San Francisco.
    (2) Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the launch position.
    (3) During the fireworks display, scheduled to start at
approximately 9:30 p.m., the fireworks barge will be located
approximately 400 feet from Pittsburg Marina on the New York Slough in
position 38[deg]02.42' N, 121[deg]52.97' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Persons and
vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-16 or
the 24-hour Command Center via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4,
2008.

    Dated: June 23, 2008.
D.J. Swatland,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. E8-14988 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 73762]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0289]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers, Brokers
and Freight Forwarders

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests approval to
revise an ICR entitled, ``Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers,
Brokers and Freight Forwarders,'' which is used to provide registered
motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders a means of
meeting process agent requirements.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2011-0289 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8-794.pdf.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tura Gatling, Customer Support
Team Leader, Commercial Enforcement Division, Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone Number: (202)
385-2412; Email Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
authorized to register forhire motor carriers of regulated commodities
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13902; freight forwarders under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13903; and property brokers under provisions of
49 U.S.C. 13904. These persons may conduct transportation services only
if they are registered pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13901. The Secretary has
delegated authority pertaining to these registration requirements to
the FMCSA pursuant to 49 CFR 1.73(a)(5).
    Registered motor carriers (including private carriers), brokers and
freight forwarders must designate an agent on whom service of notices
in proceedings before the Secretary may be made (49 U.S.C. 13303).
Registered motor carriers must also designate an agent for every State
in which they operate and traverse in the United States during such
operations, agents on whom process issued by a court may be served in
actions brought against the registered transportation entity (49 U.S.C.
13304, 49 CFR 366.4). Every broker shall make a designation for each
State in which its offices are located or in which contracts are
written (49 U.S.C. 13304, 49 CFR 366.4). Regulations governing the
designation of process agents are found at 49 CFR part 366. This
designation is filed with the FMCSA on Form BOC-3, ``Designation of
Agents for Service of Process.''
    Title: Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight
Forwarders.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0015.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers, freight forwarders and brokers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 35,000.
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.
    Expiration Date: May 31, 2012.
    Frequency of Response: Form BOC-3 must be filed by all for-hire
motor carriers, freight forwarders and brokers when the transportation
entity first registers with the FMCSA. All brokers shall make a
designation for each State in which it has an office or in which
contracts are written. Subsequent filings are made only if the motor
carrier, broker or freight forwarder changes process agents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,833 hours [35,000 Form BOC-3
filings per year x 10 minutes/60 minutes to complete form = 5,833
hours].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued on: November 18, 2011.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-30741 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P