location, length of each project (if applicable), a brief project
description, completion/implementation date, and emissions reductions
for NOX and VOCs. EPA's detailed evaluation of the
approvability of the State's TCMs can be found in the TSD to this
action. EPA agrees that the implementation of TCMs will reduce
NOX emissions in the DFW area by 1.53 tpd and VOC emissions
by 1.61 tpd. We therefore propose to approve the State's TCMs into the
DFW SIP.
c. Measures Discussed in the April 23, 2008 Letter From TCEQ
    Texas provided a letter on April 23, 2008 supplementing the
information in the May 2007 SIP. Below we discuss two of the issues
raised in the letter (TERP and DERCs) in detail as these have
significantly impacted our review of the modeling and weight of
evidence as discussed in section V-B.
i. Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP)
    TERP is a discretionary economic incentive program (EIP) providing
economic incentives to reduce emissions. Although TERP is composed of
several different components, the part of the plan that EPA approved
into the Texas SIP is the diesel emission reduction program. See 66 FR
57160 (November 14, 2001). The approved TERP program is a grant
program, unique to Texas, that provides funds through TCEQ in a variety
of categories, including emissions reduction incentive grants, rebate
grants (including grants for small businesses), and heavy and light
duty motor vehicle purchase or lease programs, all with the goal of
improving air quality in Texas. Examples of TERP programs include
assisting small businesses in purchasing lower-emission diesel
vehicles, helping school districts to reduce emissions from school
buses, and providing funds to support research and development of
pollution-reducing technology. TERP is available to all public and
private fleet operators that operate qualifying equipment in any of the
ozone nonattainment counties within the State, including the nine that
comprise the DFW area.
    State rules that govern TCEQ administration of TERP were approved
into the SIP on August 19, 2005, at 70 FR 48647. The State's previous
methodologies for determining emissions reductions from this type of
program have been found acceptable by EPA.
    Texas twice submitted TERP estimated emission reductions within the
DFW area for approval into the DFW SIP. The first submission, on May
13, 2005, has not previously been approved into the SIP as SIP credit,
but DFW has received air quality benefits from the emissions reductions
achieved. This first plan submitted calculations based upon legislative
funding that projected NOX emissions reductions of 22.2 tpd
from TERP, which would be achieved by June 15, 2007. To date however,
the State has shown that only 18.45 tpd of

the calculated 22.2 tpd NOX emissions reductions have
occurred, leaving a shortfall of 3.75 tpd.\4\ As explained below, this
shortfall of 3.75 tpd TERP SIP credit will be addressed and corrected
by March 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The shortfall was the result of an error in calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second plan, submitted on April 23, 2008, projected
NOX emissions reductions of 14.2 tpd from TERP, which would
be achieved by March 1, 2009. The amount of TERP credit allocated to
DFW is predicated on the funding formula set up by the Texas
Legislature. For the 2008/2009 biennium, the Texas Legislature fully
funded TERP in the amount of $297,144,243. TCEQ will award these TERP
grants based on program criteria \5\ and it is possible to project
NOX emissions reductions to occur by March 1, 2009, by using
an estimated funding allotment for the DFW area. For example, if 50% of
the available 2008 funds and 70% of the 2009 funds are used for
projects in DFW, the 3.75 tpd shortfall noted above will be corrected,
and an additional 14.2 tpd reduction in NOX emissions can be
expected.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rather than allocating funds among a subset of eligible
(nonattainment) counties, the State will allocate based on the cost
effectiveness of each project.
    \6\ FY08 TERP funds total approximately $146 million and nearly
$40 million went to rebate grants, a 3rd party grant and unfunded
FY07 applications, leaving approximately $106 million for FY08. As
of May 22, 2008, the DFW area implemented TERP projects totaling
18.45 tpd, but the May 13, 2005 submission projected 22.2 tpd (22.2-
18.45 = 3.75). Assuming $6,000/ton, 250 days/yr and 7 yr project
life, it will cost approx. $39,375,000 to correct the May 13, 2005
submission TERP deficiency (6,000 x 250 x 7) x 3.75 = 39,375,000.
The applications submitted to TCEQ for projects in DFW for FY08 were
approximately $94.5 million. Subtract the May 13, 2005 submission
shortfall ($94,500,000-$39,375,000) and we are left with
approximately $55,125,000. Divide by the (6,000 x 250 x 7) to
estimate tons reduced by projects for the applications submitted
($55,125,000/10,500,000 = 5.25 tpd for the FY08 applications. Of the
projected 14.2 tpd: 14.2-5.25 = 8.95 tpd, (6,000 x 250 x 7) x 8.95 =
$93,975,000. Thus, the DFW goal for project applications for FY09 is
approximately $93,975,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions reductions projected for the 2008/2009 TERP are
quantifiable, as they are projected to reduce NOX by 14.2
tpd by March 1, 2009.\7\ This measure is surplus, as it will be used to
fund projects that are not otherwise required under the Act or the
Federally-approved SIP. The measure is permanent, because the average
project life extends beyond the period in which it is used in the
applicable SIP demonstration. TERP is fully funded by the Texas
Legislature and has a history of adequate personnel and resources to
implement the program. The TCEQ is obligated to monitor, assess and
report on the implementation of TERP to the Texas Legislature. Annual
reports document, by area, the total number of tons reduced, tons
reduced per year, average cost per ton, grant recipients and type of
project funded. During the first grant cycle for 2008, which spanned
January through April, TCEQ received applications for the DFW area
requesting a total of approximately $94.5 million, which exceeds the
2008 target projected in the April 23, 2008 supplemental letter (see
the docket) and is unprecedented for the DFW area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ TCEQ cannot award funds for the FY2009 applications prior to
September 1, 2008, but the grant application process could begin
prior to that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Projected reductions are calculated based on ``cost per ton'' of
previous projects. The cost cited by the TCEQ and used in this
estimation is $6,000/ton. Historically, TERP has provided
NOX reductions in DFW with costs averaging less than $4500/
ton, and the most recent average costs are under $4000/ton. We have
reviewed the information submitted to us (including TCEQ's April 2,
2008 TERP summary), and we agree with the State's cost per ton
analysis. We believe that the assumptions used to project emissions
reductions from the TERP are conservative, and reasonable for achieving
improvements in air quality.
    Projects funded by TERP in the DFW area will reduce NOX
emissions by March 1, 2009, and will contribute toward attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the area's attainment date. We are proposing
to approve that the TERP program will achieve NOX emissions
reductions of 22.2 tpd and 14.2 tpd, based on the May 13, 2005 and the
April 23, 2008 submittals combined.
ii. Discrete Emission Credits (DECs)
    A DEC represents one ton of certified emissions reductions
generated over a discrete time period. DECs can be generated by
discrete reductions in criteria pollutants, with the exception of lead,
from stationary, area or mobile sources statewide. When a stationary or
area source generates a DEC it is known as a discrete emission
reduction credit (DERC); when a mobile source generates a DEC it is
known as a mobile discrete emission reduction credit (MDERC). The use
of the term ``DERC'' collectively refers to DERCs and MDERCs unless
specifically stated as only applying to stationary DECs. Once certified
by the TCEQ, a DERC can either be banked for future use or used by a
source for a variety of uses, including to exceed allowable permit
limits, and to meet SIP requirements under 30 TAC Chapters 114, 115,
and 117. The authority to generate and use DERCs within Texas is found
at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 4--Discrete Emission
Credit Banking and Trading (the DERC rule). EPA granted final
conditional approval of the Texas DERC rule on September 6, 2006 (71 FR
52703).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ TCEQ submitted revisions to the DERC rule as a SIP revision
on October 24, 2006. The revisions included the changes to address
our conditional approval and other revisions identified in Texas
Senate Bill 784. EPA is currently evaluating whether the SIP
revision satisfies the conditional approval commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the use of DERCs will increase emissions in an area, the DFW
attainment demonstration must account for the possibility that all
DERCs will be used in the nonattainment area (See section 12.5(d) of
EPA Guidance entitled ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs,'' EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001 (Economic Incentive Program
(EIP) Guidance)). The TCEQ Emissions Bank currently has 20.4 tpd of DFW
NOX DERCs. The DFW attainment demonstration photochemical
modeling accounted for the possibility that all 20.4 tpd credits would
be used in the attainment year. Section 16.15 of EPA's EIP Guidance
provides that States may use an alternative to predicting that all
DERCs will be used in the attainment year by establishing an
enforceable mechanism to restrict the use of banked emission reductions
to ensure attainment goals. TCEQ determined that restricting the use of
DERCs to no more than 3.2 tpd would provide for attainment and be
consistent with the flexibility of the DERC program. In a letter dated
April 23, 2008, TCEQ provided economic and photochemical sensitivity
analyses supportive of this enforceable mechanism.
    Our proposed approval of the 8-hour DFW SIP is conditioned on the
TCEQ submitting a complete SIP revision that provides a 3.2 tpd
restriction on the amount of DERCs available for use in DFW beginning
March 1, 2009. The SIP revision may provide that the amount of DERCs
available for use beginning January 1, 2010, could increase above 3.2
tpd if the revision provides an enforceable mechanism and a
justification that the increase is consistent with attainment and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In a letter dated June
13, 2008, TCEQ committed to adopting these conditions. Specifically,
the TCEQ committed to submitting a SIP revision for the DERC rule that
adopts the necessary enforceable mechanism no later than March 1, 2009.
If Texas intends to allow for more than 3.2 tpd of DERCs to be used
beginning January

1, 2010, then the SIP revision must also provide appropriate limits on
the use of DERCs and a detailed justification explaining how the future
adjustments to the allowed DERC usage will be consistent with continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The justification must provide
sufficient detail such that the public can be assured that attainment
will continue to be projected in future years. The justification and
methodology for any increase in allowable DERC usage must be fully
identified in the TCEQ rulemaking and SIP submittal process.
    The SIP revision submitted by March 1, 2009, must adequately
provide for continued attainment, and include the justification and/or
methodology used by TCEQ to increase the amount of DERCs allowed for
use in DFW starting in calendar year 2010. The justification provided
by TCEQ must satisfy section 110(l) of the Act and demonstrate that the
increase will not interfere with attainment or any other applicable
measure of the Act. The analysis to satisfy section 110(l) will need to
address both quantity and spatial allocation impacts of increased DERC
usage on ozone levels.
    We will also consider whether TCEQ restricted allowable DERC usage
to 3.2 tpd consistent with the attainment demonstration for the year
2009. The DERC rule enables the TCEQ Executive Director (ED) to approve
Notice of Intent to Use Forms up to 90 days prior to the use period.
Therefore, it is possible that the ED could approve the use of DERCs
for a time period including March 1, 2009 and any time thereafter,
before the 3.2 tpd restriction has been adopted by the TCEQ and
submitted as a SIP revision. At the time EPA takes final action on the
proposed conditional approval, EPA will review all Notice of Intent to
Use Forms that have been approved for use in 2009 to ensure that the
total amount of DERCs approved for use beginning on March 1, 2009 does
not exceed 3.2 tpd.

E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

    The RACM requirement applies to all nonattainment areas that are
required to submit an attainment demonstration. Section 172(c)(1) of
the Act requires SIPs to provide for the implementation of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable and for attainment of the standard. EPA
interpreted the RACM requirements of 172(c)(1) in the General Preamble
to the Act's 1990 Amendments (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13498) as imposing
a duty on States to consider all available control measures and to
adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for
implementation in the particular nonattainment area. EPA also issued a
memorandum reaffirming its position on this topic, ``Guidance on the
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment
Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated
November 30, 1999. In addition, measures available for implementation
in the nonattainment area that could not be implemented on a schedule
that would advance the attainment date in the area would not be
considered by EPA as reasonable to require for implementation. EPA
indicated that a State could reject certain measures as not reasonably
available for various reasons related to local conditions. A state
could include area-specific reasons for rejecting a measure as RACM,
such as the measure would not advance the attainment date, or was not
technologically and economically feasible. Although EPA encourages
areas to implement available RACM measures as potentially cost-
effective methods to achieve emissions reductions in the short term,
EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires implementation of
potential RACM measures that either require costly implementation
efforts or produce relatively small emissions reductions that will not
be sufficient to allow the area to achieve attainment in advance of
full implementation of all other required measures.
    The TCEQ provided the DFW RACM analysis in Appendices K, L and M of
the SIP submittal. Texas evaluated control strategies for
NOX and VOC emissions, from area, point and mobile (on-road
and non-road) sources. The candidate strategies were identified by
reviewing documents published by multi-state air planning
organizations, EPA documents, and proposed and approved control
strategies for nonattainment areas in other states (see list in the
TSD). As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the SIP submittal,
sensitivity analyses and the photochemical modeling indicate that DFW
ozone is more responsive to NOX reductions than VOC
reductions. Based upon the analyses and modeling, only large reductions
of VOC emissions, over 100 tpd, would advance the attainment date in
DFW. We were unable to identify any additional available evaluated
measures that cumulatively would provide 100 tpd in VOC emissions
reductions and thus, advance the attainment date for the DFW area. Many
measures to reduce VOCs are already in place, through state and Federal
mobile source programs and rules to reformulate solvents, including the
recently published Federal rules for Architectural and Industrial
Coatings (73 FR 15604, March 24, 2008), which Texas estimates could
reduce VOC emissions in the DFW area by 12.5 tpd. On November 15, 2006,
TCEQ extended the VOC RACT requirements to include all nine counties in
the DFW area; we are acting on these measures in a separate rulemaking,
though in Section VI we are evaluating whether these rules implement
RACT. Our analysis showed that the State already is controlling the
significant VOC stationary and mobile sources to RACM levels in the
specific DFW area. For more detail, see the TSD.
    The majority of NOX emissions in the DFW area come from
mobile sources and industrial processes; emissions of NOX
have been reduced to a large extent with controls on EGUs and improved
mobile source programs. Our evaluation of Texas' modeling analyses
found that NOX reductions of at least 40 tpd would be needed
to advance the attainment date by one year. This is because at least 40
tpd of reductions will occur in the last year of the plan. We were
unable to identify any additional evaluated measures that cumulatively
would provide 40 tpd in NOX emissions reductions and thus,
potentially advance the attainment date for the DFW area. Many
NOX control measures are already in place in the nine
counties and in the eastern half of Texas. Texas extended the
NOX RACT requirements to include all of the nine counties.
Texas adopted new NOX control measures for ICI Sources
(brick, ceramic and lime kilns; glass melting furnaces, etc); EGFs;
Cement Kilns; and Stationary Internal Combustion (IC) Engines (gas-
fired, diesel and dual-fuel) in the nine counties. Texas also adopted
new NOX control measures for East Texas Combustion Sources
located outside of the DFW area.
    We also reviewed whether there were any additional available
evaluated strategies to reduce NOX emissions from mobile
sources. Our analysis showed that the State SIP has in place TCMs,
VMEP, TERP, ACT and a motor vehicle I/M program. Several of the
measures on the State's list are already covered under the TCMs, VMEP,
TERP and ACT programs and several other measures are being implemented
by various cities within the DFW area. Our analysis showed that the
State is controlling the significant NOX stationary and
mobile sources to RACM levels.
    The State estimated that NOX emissions reductions of
approximately 23 tpd from point sources and

approximately 20 tpd from fleet turnover will be in place in the DFW
area by March 1, 2009. Given the control strategies already in place
for the DFW area, any additional available measures would not advance
attainment. Moreover, we note that in order to advance attainment by a
year (i.e., by June 15, 2009), the State would have had to implement
any additional control measures needed for attainment by the beginning
of the 2008 ozone season, which has already passed. Thus, at this time,
it would be impossible to implement additional controls that would
advance attainment. EPA has reviewed the RACM analysis provided in the
SIP submittal for the DFW area and believes that the State has included
sufficient documentation concerning the rejection of certain available
measures as RACM for the DFW area.
    We propose that any other available evaluated measures are not
reasonably available for the DFW area, because they are either
economically and/or technically infeasible, or would not produce
emissions reductions sufficient to advance the attainment date in the
DFW area and, therefore, should not be considered RACM. For more
information, see the TSD.

F. Failure-to-Attain Contingency Measures Plan

    Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires nonattainment SIPs to provide
for a contingency plan that will take effect without further action by
the State or EPA if an area fails to attain the standard by the
applicable date. While the Act does not specify the type of measures or
quantity of emissions reductions required, EPA provided guidance on
contingency plans in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510). See the
TSD for a list of applicable guidance documents.
    EPA interprets sections 172 and 182 of the Act to require States
with moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas to include contingency
measures to implement additional emission reductions of 3% of the
adjusted base year inventory in the year following the year in which
the failure has been identified. EPA based the 3% recommendation in the
General Preamble on the fact that moderate and above areas are
generally required through the ROP/RFP requirements to achieve an
average of 3% reduction per year until they attain the NAAQS. The state
must specify the type of contingency measures, the quantity of
emissions reductions, and show that the measures can be implemented
with no further rulemaking and minimal further action by the state.
    For the failure-to-attain 1997 8-hour ozone contingency measures
plan, Texas identified contingency measures that were adopted for the
1-hour ozone standard but never implemented. The contingency measures
include State VOC rules approved by EPA in the Texas SIP for Offset
Lithographic Printing at 30 TAC 115.449(c) (approved April 6, 2000, 65
FR 18003, revised July 16, 2001, 66 FR 36917), Degassing or Cleaning of
Stationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels at section 115.549(b)
(approved January 26, 1999, 64 FR 03841, revised February 27, 2008, 73
FR 10380) and Petroleum Dry Cleaning at section 115.559(a) (approved
January 26, 1999, 64 FR 03841, revised February 27, 2008, 73 FR 10383).
Our review of the May 30, 2007 SIP revision indicates that the failure-
to-attain 1997 8-hour ozone contingency measures plan does not identify
sufficient measures to achieve additional emissions reductions of 3% of
the emissions in the adjusted 1999 base year emissions inventory, as
required by our interpretation of the Act (see EPA's General Preamble
at 57 FR 13498, 13510). Rather, the identified controls would only
achieve 0.35% reduction.
    Texas provided a commitment letter, which identifies contingency
measures that the State will recommend for adoption through rulemaking
and has committed to submit to EPA no later than March 1, 2009 as a SIP
revision (see letter of June 13, 2008, in the docket) adopted rules
that could achieve the additional reduction, providing a total of 3%,
for the failure-to-attain contingency measure plan. The commitment
letter states that Texas will adopt and submit no later than March 1,
2009 to EPA as a SIP revision, subject to the SIP public participation
requirements and commission approval, a revised failure-to-attain 1997
8-hour ozone contingency measures plan that would include the Federal
Motor Vehicle Control programs (FMVCP) occurring after the 2009 ozone
season, in addition to the already-identified VOC rules described
above. The FMVCP requires controls on both on- and non-road motor
vehicles, providing emissions reductions as the fleet is replaced with
newer vehicles (turns over). Texas' April 23, 2008 letter estimates
projected emissions reductions attributed to this 2009-2010 fleet
turnover from mobile sources occurring after the 2009 ozone season to
be approximately 20.78 tpd of NOX and 4.86 tpd of VOCs. The
emissions inventory from this attainment demonstration SIP submittal,
which uses 1999 as the base year, estimates emissions from
anthropogenic sources are 754.56 tpd NOX and 520.08 tpd VOC.
Texas projects the 2009-2010 fleet turnover reductions alone will
provide a 2.75% reduction of NOX and a 0.93% reduction of
VOC from the 1999 base year emissions. Texas also estimates that the
contingency measures identified in the May 30, 2007 submittal provide a
cumulative total of 1.8 tpd VOC reductions.
    We have reviewed the May 30, 2007, SIP revision and the State's
commitment and determined that the VOC and fleet turnover control
measures identified are specific and that the VOC measures are
enforceable because they are approved into the SIP and will become
effective if the area fails to attain the standard by the applicable
date. We have determined that the quantity of emissions reductions
exceeds 3% of the 1999 base year emissions inventory based upon Texas'
estimate that the 2009-2010 fleet turnover reductions will provide a
2.75% reduction of NOX and a 0.93% reduction of VOC from the
1999 inventory. We agree with the State's projected emissions
reductions. We believe Federal measures already scheduled for
implementation and not relied upon in the attainment demonstration are
appropriate contingency measures (Phase 2 Rule, 70 FR 71612, 71651).
    Therefore, we are proposing that the contingency measures
identified in the SIP submittal and in the State's commitment letter
would meet Federal requirements for a 1997 8-hour ozone failure-to-
attain contingency measures plan. We are proposing to approve the 1997
8-hour ozone failure-to-attain contingency measures plan for the DFW
area, contingent upon the State's adoption of and submittal to EPA, of
a new failure-to-attain contingency measures plan that includes the
above-described VOC rules and the additional described control measure,
fleet turnover from mobile sources after the 2009 ozone season. If
Texas submits a revised failure-to-attain 1997 8-hour ozone contingency
measures plan that includes the specifically identified measures, i.e.,
the VOC rules and fleet turnover after 2009 from mobile sources, we
will move forward with a final full approval of the 1997 8-hour ozone
failure-to-attain contingency measure SIP for the DFW area. Any
comments concerning whether these four measures are sufficient to meet
the failure-to-attain contingency measure requirement should be raised
at this time. EPA does not plan to provide an additional opportunity
for comment unless the State modifies these measures or submits a
failure-to-attain contingency

measures plan relying on other measures. Because the failure-to-attain
contingency measure SIP is a necessary component of the attainment
demonstration, if Texas fails to submit such a SIP revision, we cannot
move forward with a final conditional approval action on the DFW 1997
8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP, as we have also proposed in
this notice.

G. Attainment Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)

    The 1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP must include
MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. Conformity to a SIP means
that transportation activities will not produce new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS. It is a process required by section 176(c) of the Act for
ensuring that the effects of emissions from all on-road sources are
consistent with attainment of the standard. EPA's transportation
conformity rules at 40 CFR 93 require that transportation plans and
related projects result in emissions that do not exceed the MVEB
established in the SIP. The attainment year established in the DFW 1997
8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP is the calendar year of the
final ozone season for determining attainment, which is 2009. See 40
CFR 93.118(b).
    The attainment MVEB is the level of total allowable on-road
emissions established by the control strategy implementation plan.
Ozone attainment demonstrations must include the estimates of motor
vehicle VOC and NOX emissions that are consistent with
attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of
determining whether transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to the attainment demonstration SIP. In this case, the
attainment MVEBs set the maximum level of on-road emissions that can be
produced in 2009, when considered with emissions from all other
sources, which demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The 2009 attainment MVEBs established by this plan and that the EPA
is proposing to incorporate into the DFW SIP are listed in Table 12:

  Table 12.--2009 DFW Attainment Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Pollutant                               2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX........................................................       186.81
VOC........................................................        99.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We found the 2009 attainment MVEBs (also termed transportation
conformity budgets) ``adequate'' and on June 28, 2007, the availability
of these budgets was posted on EPA's Web site for the purpose of
soliciting public comments. The comment period closed on July 30, 2007,
and we received no comments. On March 21, 2008, we published the Notice
of Adequacy Determination for these attainment MVEBs (73 FR 15152).
Once determined adequate, these attainment MVEBs must be used in future
DFW transportation conformity determinations.
    The attainment budget represents the on-road mobile source
emissions that have been modeled for the attainment demonstration. The
budget reflects all of the on-road control measures in that
demonstration. We believe that the MVEBs are consistent with all
applicable SIP requirements and thus are proposing to approve adoption
of the 2009 attainment MVEBs into the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP. All future transportation improvement programs,
projects and plans for the DFW area will need to show conformity to the
budgets in this plan.

H. Section 110(l) Analysis

    Section 110(l) of the Act precludes EPA from approving a revision
of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and RFP (as defined in section 171),
or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA interprets section
110(l) to allow substitution of a control measure in the SIP with a
different control measure if the new measure will accomplish new and
contemporaneous emissions reductions to offset the loss of the control
measure being removed from the SIP. We also ensure that air quality
will not degrade and that progress toward attainment will continue as
EPA promulgates revised ozone standards.
    As of 2006, the DFW area is monitoring attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard (now revoked. See Phase I Rule, 69 FR 23951). Measures
from the 2000 1-hour SIP have been approved into the SIP and remain
enforceable, with one exception. The Texas Legislature caused the
statewide residential water heater emission standards to be relaxed in
2005 due to the inability of water heater manufacturers to supply units
compliant with the rule. Therefore, the more stringent rule was never
implemented. TCEQ requested that this measure be revised in the SIP and
substituted with new and contemporaneous reductions of NOX
emissions from the TERP program that were in excess of those required
by the April 27, 2005 DFW 5% IOP SIP. EPA agrees with the State
rationale. EPA and the State projected NOX reductions of 0.5
tpd from the State's residential water heater rule in the DFW area. The
reductions from the TERP program in the DFW 5% IOP SIP were projected
to provide 22.2 tpd in NOX emissions reductions, or an
excess of 4.23 tpd over the 5% IOP. The actual NOX emissions
reductions achieved however, were 18.45 tpd (22.2-18.45 = 3.75 tpd).
Even with this change in the projected emissions reductions of
NOX in the IOP Plan, however, the projected NOX
reductions used to make up for the revision of the residential water
heater rule are nearly met (4.23-3.75 = 0.48). And, per the discussion
in section III-C above, the shortfall of 0.02 tpd needed to make up for
the revised residential water heater rule is projected to occur.
    In summary, the State adopted the water heater rule for the purpose
of contributing to attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS. The emission
standards in the rule were made less stringent due to technical
infeasibility. The DFW area has monitored attainment of the 1-hour
NAAQS. TCEQ substituted new and contemporaneous reductions of
NOX emissions from the TERP program. In addition, Texas has
demonstrated attainment of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS using the revised
water heater rule. We therefore are proposing to find that the revised
State rule for residential water heaters meets section 110(l) of the
Act for the DFW area.

VI. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 of the Act require areas that are
classified as moderate or above for ozone nonattainment to adopt
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for sources
that are subject to Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA
and for ``major sources'' of VOC and NOX, which are ozone
precursors. See 42 U.S.C. sections 7502(c)(1) and 7511a(b) and (f).
RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility (44 FR 53762,

September 17, 1979). A CTG provides information on the available
controls for a source category and provides a ``presumptive norm''
RACT. In this action, EPA is addressing RACT for VOCs in the DFW area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and for the 1-hour standard; RACT
for NOX in DFW will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
    EPA published the 8-hour ozone designations and the Phase 1 Rule
for implementing the 8-hour ozone standard and the designations for the
8-hour ozone standard on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951,
respectively). At the time of designation, DFW was a nonattainment area
for the 1-hour ozone standard and had two outstanding 1-hour ozone
obligations: (1) The area did not have an approved 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration; and (2) the area did not have approved RACT
requirements for VOC emissions (VOC RACT). All other 1-hour
requirements were approved. For additional information, see the TSD.
    According to EPA's Phase 2 Rule (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005),
areas classified as moderate nonattainment or higher must submit a
demonstration, as a revision to the SIP, that their current rules
fulfill 1997 8-hour ozone RACT requirements for all CTG categories and
all major non-CTG sources. Since DFW is classified as moderate for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, for purposes of meeting the 8-hour RACT
requirement, the DFW area must demonstrate RACT level controls for
sources covered by a CTG document, and for each major non-CTG source
(100 tpy or greater potential to emit). The Phase 2 Rule, section IV.G
states, in part, that where a RACT SIP is required, State SIPs
implementing the 8-hour standard generally must assure that RACT is
met, either through a certification that previously required RACT
controls represent RACT for 8-hour implementation purposes or through a
new RACT determination. The RACT SIP submitted by TCEQ provides an
analysis which demonstrates how the DFW area meets RACT requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See the TSD for more information about
the State's VOC RACT analysis for DFW.
    In addition, the Phase 1 Rule provides that 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas are required to adopt and implement ``applicable
requirements'' according to the area's classification under the 1-hour
ozone standard (see 40 CFR 51.905(a)(i)). The DFW area was still
classified as a serious nonattainment area at the time of the 8-hour
designation and an outstanding ``applicable requirement'' for the DFW
area is VOC RACT. In the four core counties, which comprised the 1-hour
ozone nonattainment areas, Texas previously adopted rules to address
RACT requirements for all source categories covered by EPA CTGs, and to
address major sources at the moderate area major source threshold of
100 tpy. The EPA approved these rules as meeting VOC RACT for a
moderate 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (60 FR 12438). The
reclassification of the area from moderate to serious for the 1-hour
ozone standard, on February 18, 1998 (63 FR 8128), required Texas to
ensure that RACT was in place on non-CTG sources down to 50 tpy. Texas
submitted a SIP to address this requirement and we proposed to approve
the SIP submission as meeting the 1-hour ozone serious area VOC RACT
requirements for the DFW 1-hour ozone nonattainment area on January 18,
2001 (66 FR 4756). Although we received no comments on that proposal,
we never took final action.
    We are re-opening the comment period on that proposed action for 1-
hour ozone serious area RACT requirements, and intend to take final
action on it in the same rulemaking where we finalize action on the VOC
RACT 1997 8-hour ozone proposal. If these proposed actions are
finalized, the DFW area will have fulfilled all of its outstanding 1-
hour ozone VOC RACT obligations, and met the 1997 8-hour ozone VOC RACT
requirements.
    The State's submittal for the DFW area for meeting the 1997 8-hour
ozone RACT requirement included, among other things, the following two
components:
    (a) A list of all CTG or ACT source categories which matched those
categories with one or more corresponding State rules which implements
RACT and the affected sources in the nine counties,\9\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An earlier VOC-related Texas rulemaking was adopted on
November 15, 2006, and submitted to EPA on December 13, 2006, as a
SIP revision, which extended VOC control requirements to facilities
located in Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall counties.
This rulemaking subjected affected VOC sources in the five counties
mentioned above, to the same emissions limitation, control,
monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in
effect in the four core counties. As a result of this action, which
EPA is proposing to approve in a separate action, these new VOC
control requirements will be consistent for all nine counties in the
DFW area. Approval of VOC RACT for the DFW area is contingent upon
final approval of this related rulemaking, which extends VOC
controls from the four core counties to the five additional
counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) An analysis of RACT for all major sources in the nine counties
that are not covered by a CTG or ACT and how these are controlled to
meet RACT.
    Appendices to the SIP submittal identified the sources and the
currently applicable controls, which EPA had previously approved as
meeting RACT for the 1-hour standard, and included an analysis of
whether additional RACT controls were required for both CTG and non-CTG
sources.
    To ensure RACT was in place for all major sources, the State first
searched its permitting database to identify all sources that emit or
have the potential to emit at least 50 tpy of VOC in the DFW 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The State then provided a list of each major
source in a source category covered by a CTG/ACT and the State VOC RACT
Rule applicable to such major sources. The State analyzed whether the
existing CTG/ACT VOC RACT rules should be more stringent. Second, the
State listed potential major sources in source categories possibly not
covered by a CTG/ACT, and the State provided further technical analysis
for these.
    The State's RACT SIP analysis was available for public comment
prior to adoption by the State. EPA evaluated the following elements of
TCEQ's VOC RACT SIP submittal for the DFW Area:
     State Rules Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Sources
Covered by a CTG/ACT.
     Potential Major VOC Emissions Sources possibly not covered
by a CTG/ACT.
    A list of documents used to support our review and evaluation is
available in the TSD.
    The State's submittal included a table of all of the CTG and ACT
documents that have been issued by EPA and the corresponding State
Rules, contained at 30 TAC 115, which establish RACT rules for the
sources identified in each CTG or ACT. For two of the VOC source
categories (shipbuilding and rubber tire manufacturing), TCEQ provided
a negative declaration certifying that there are no sources of VOCs for
those categories in the DFW area. Texas concluded that all other CTG
sources currently have RACT-level controls.
    Since RACT can change over time as new technology becomes available
or the cost of existing technology decreases, it is important that
states review new technologies. As clarified in EPA's Phase 2 Rule,
``States and other interested parties should consider available
information that may supplement the CTG and ACT documents'' (70 FR
71655). In developing this submittal, TCEQ reviewed new technologies
and current control technologies and methodologies implemented as RACT
in other ozone nonattainment areas. TCEQ found that

Texas' VOC RACT rules for CTG/ACT covered sources are consistent with
or more stringent than the current control technologies and
methodologies implemented in other ozone nonattainment areas, which
were determined to fulfill RACT requirements. EPA agrees that the VOC
controls in place for DFW meet RACT. Please see the TSD for additional
information and analysis.
    As previously discussed, as part of addressing moderate area 1-hour
ozone requirements, EPA approved the Texas VOC rules implementing RACT
for all required CTG or ACT categories in the four core counties and
for major sources emitting 100 tpy or more VOC. The State extended the
previously approved moderate provisions to the five new nonattainment
counties, added as part of the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area. Additionally, the State had adopted for the four core counties,
which comprised the 1-hour nonattainment area, and we had proposed to
approve RACT rules for all sources emitting 50 tpy or more VOC as part
of addressing the 1-hour serious area requirements.
    For the CTG/ACT categories, based on EPA's review of the State
submittal, we conclude that the VOC controls in place meet RACT. EPA
finds that a negative declaration for two categories (shipbuilding and
rubber tire manufacturing) in the DFW area is appropriate. Based on (1)
this analysis, and (2) final approval of the rule extending the CTG VOC
controls throughout the 9-county DFW area (see footnote 9), EPA
believes the DFW area has met all the applicable requirements to have
VOC RACT rules for all CTG sources.
    The State's submittal also included a list of all potential major
sources of VOC emissions within source categories possibly not covered
by a CTG (or ACT) in the DFW area, together with a demonstration of how
each source was determined to fulfill RACT requirements. Given its
classification as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, TCEQ was
required to ensure RACT is in place for all sources that emit or have
the potential to emit at least 100 tpy (section 182(d) of the Act).
TCEQ looked at sources with a potential to emit as low as 50 tpy of VOC
to ensure RACT was in place for major sources not covered by a CTG or
ACT. The TCEQ's analysis shows how each major source meets VOC RACT
based on currently applicable controls and why no additional RACT
controls should be required.
    The State identified 36 potentially major sources of VOC emissions
in the DFW area, based on the 2002 emissions inventory. Of these 36
potential sources, 20 were determined by TCEQ to be covered by rules
that meet RACT, and one was shut down in 2004 (please see the TSD).
Based upon further analysis of the remaining 15 sources, the State
determined that three of the sources were not major sources. Their
allowable emissions are less than 100 tpy and therefore are not subject
to the RACT requirements; these are two asphalt roofing companies and a
brick kiln.
    Eleven of the 15 sources are major sources, but fall within a
source category covered by the State's VOC RACT rules. One of the 11
sources, Rock-Tenn Corporation, is subject to the State's VOC RACT
paper coating rule. The other 10 sources are subject to the State's VOC
RACT vent gas rule: Dartco, Chaparral Steel, Hensley Industries, Johns
Manville International, Owens-Corning Waxahachie, Exide, Ex-Tex LaPorte
LP, TXU Generation Co, Midlothian Energy, and Holcim. The only comment
the State received regarding the need for additional VOC RACT controls
was that a thermal oxidizer should be used to control VOC emissions
from the cement kiln. However, a cost analysis of the use of thermal
oxidizers shows the cost to be beyond RACT. Detailed cost information
is available in the TSD. The TCEQ's analysis shows that no additional
RACT controls are required.
    The remaining source out of the original 15 was determined to be
major and not within a source category controlled by the State's VOC
RACT rules: A beverage alcohol production facility (Miller Brewing).
Most of this facility's VOC emissions are fugitive emissions due to
product loss in the packaging area. In its RACT determination for
Miller Brewing Co, Texas stated, ``VOC emissions are controlled per
BACT in NSR Permit No. 3133. Additional control for RACT is not
economically feasible'' (TCEQ Appendix J). These types of sources have
an economic incentive to operate efficiently, in order to reduce
leakage of product, with the result in minimization of VOC emissions.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that this beverage alcohol
production facility meets RACT.
    EPA is proposing to find that the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area SIP meets the VOC RACT requirements based on current
applicable rules for all sources addressed by a CTG and all major non-
CTG sources. EPA proposes to approve the State's submittals
demonstrating that the DFW area meets the VOC RACT requirements for the
1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

VII. Proposed Action

    We propose to conditionally approve the 1997 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP revision for the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, submitted by the State on May 30, 2007, and
supplemented on April 23, 2008. Our proposed approval of the 8-hour DFW
SIP is conditioned on Texas adopting and submitting to EPA prior to
March 2009, a complete SIP revision to limit the use of DERCs,
beginning March 1, 2009. Our proposed conditional approval is
contingent upon Texas submitting the failure-to-attain contingency
measures plan SIP as specified in this proposal prior to the time EPA
takes final action on the attainment demonstration SIP. We are
proposing to find that all RACM for VOC and NOX have been
implemented in the DFW area. We found the attainment MVEBs to be
adequate on March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15152) and propose to approve the
2009 attainment MVEBs into the DFW SIP. We are proposing to approve
into the DFW SIP the VMEP and TCMs submitted on May 30, 2007. We cannot
finalize conditional approval of the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP unless and until (1) the State meets the contingency
regarding the failure-to-attain contingency measure requirement as
specified in this proposal, and (2) we have approved the DFW RFP Plan
and all of the control strategies relied upon in the attainment
demonstration. The control strategies are specifically listed below:
    a. The DFW area's RFP plan, associated MVEBs, and RFP contingency
measures;
    b. The April 9, 2003, Alcoa Federal Consent Decree;
    c. The rich burn gas-fired engine rule in the 33 counties east of
DFW;
    d. The DFW major source rule;
    e. The DFW minor source rule;
    f. The DFW gas-fired engine rule;
    g. The DFW EGUs rule;
    h. The DFW non-EGUs rule;
    i. The Auxiliary steam boilers in the 5 counties;
    j. The Stationary gas turbines rule in the 5 counties;
    k. The VOC Rules adopted on 11/15/06 by TCEQ;
    l. The DFW Energy Efficiencies Program;
    m. The Cement kiln rules;
    n. The finding that DFW is meeting RACM;
    o. The VMEP;
    p. The TCMs; and
    q. The failure-to-attain Contingency Measures Plan, revised as
specifically described today.

    r. An enforceable mechanism to limit the use of DERCs, as
specifically described today.
    We are taking action on a number of the items listed above in
separate Federal Register actions.
    We are proposing to approve that VOC rules implemented in all nine
counties meet the RACT requirements. These rules will result in
emissions reductions needed to help the DFW area attain the 8-hour
NAAQS for ozone.
    EPA is proposing to approve and conditionally approve these various
plans in accordance with section 110 and part D of the Act and EPA's
regulations.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 1, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E8-15805 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63017-63018]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2014-0011-N-20]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the renewal Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of
the information collection and its expected burden. The Federal
Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following collection of information was published on August 5, 2014 (79
FR 45585).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
(202) 493-6292), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On August 5, 2014, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register soliciting comment on ICR that the agency is seeking
OMB approval. See 79 FR 45585. FRA

received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection request (ICR) and the expected burden. The revised request
is being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: Safety and Health Requirements Related to Camp Cars.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0595.
    Abstract: To carry out a 2008 Congressional rulemaking mandate, FRA
issued new regulations on October 31, 2011. See 76 FR 67073. New
subpart E of part 228 prescribed minimum safety and health requirements
for camp cars that a railroad provides as sleeping quarters to any of
its train employees, signal employees, and dispatching service
employees (covered-service employees) and individuals employed to
maintain its right of way.
    Under separate but related statutory authority, FRA also amended
its regulations at 49 CFR part 228, subpart C regarding construction of
employee sleeping quarters. In particular, FRA's existing guidelines
with respect to the location, in relation to switching or humping of
hazardous material, of a camp car that is occupied exclusively by
individual's employed to maintain a railroad's right of way are being
replaced with regulatory amendments prohibiting a railroad from
positioning such a camp car in the immediate vicinity of the switching
or humping of hazardous material.
    Finally, FRA made miscellaneous changes to part 228, clarifying its
provision on applicability, removing an existing provision on the pre-
emptive effect of part 228 as unnecessary, and moving, without
changing, an existing provision on penalties for violation of part 228
from subpart B to subpart A.
    The information collected under this rule is used by FRA to ensure
that railroads operating camp cars comply with all the requirements
mandated in this regulation in order to protect the health and safety
of camp car occupants.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (Railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 1,043 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding this information collections to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB
at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of
the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-24987 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P