[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39959-39961]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0547]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River Miles 648 to 650;
Knoxville, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation on the Tennessee River from MM 648 to 650 on August 1, 2021
from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. This special local regulation is needed to
protect

personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created during the high speed races associated with the K-Town on the
River triathlon marine event. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP).

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0547 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Nicholas Jones, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 615-736-
5421, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MM Mile Marker
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 it is impracticable. We must
establish this regulation by August 1, 2021, and lack sufficient time
to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing this rule.
    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. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because of the safety
concerns for the participants in the K-Town on the River triathlon
taking place on August 1, 2021.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) has determined that there are safety concers for the
participants of the K-Town on the River Triathlon due to the normal
influx of both commercial and recreactional vessel traffic. This rule
is needed to protect participants for the duration of the swim portion
of the event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation from 7 a.m. until
11 a.m. on August 1, 2021. The special local regulation will cover all
navigable waters from mile 648 to 650 on the Tennessee River. The
duration of the zone is intended to protect participants of the K-Town
on the river triathlon. No vessel or person or vessel, other than the
participants, will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size location,
and duration of the zone. Vessel traffic will be limited for a four
hour duration on one day.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
special local regulation lasting only 4 hours that will prohibit entry
from mile 648 to 650 on the Tennessee River. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] and L[63a] of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T08-0547 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T08-0547  Tennessee River MM 648 to MM 650, Knoxville, TN.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to the
following area: All waters of the Tennessee River from MM 648 to 650.
    (b) Regulations. (1) All non-participants are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or
their designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the regulated area
must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the
COTP or the designated representative.
    (3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through
advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on Auguest 1,
2021, from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m.

    Dated: July 14, 2021.
A.M. Beach,
Captian, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2021-15805 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19032-19033]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08263]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-407-002.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.205(b): Fuel Tracker Amended-Supply (Effective 06/01/17)
to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170413-5273.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-623-001.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): Errata Filing for Updates to Cashout Mechanisms to be
effective 5/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170413-5232.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-654-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.403: SS-2 Inventory Adjustment (2017) to be
effective 5/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170413-5011.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-655-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Negotiated Rates--Colonial Gas to BBPC--793649 & 793651 to
be effective 5/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170413-5068.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-656-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits tariff filing per 154.203:
Notice Regarding Non-Jurisdictional Gathering Facilities (F-1157 F-665
et al).
    Filed Date: 04/13/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170413-5307.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-657-000.
    Applicants: TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd,TC Ironwood LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of TransCanada Power
Marketing Ltd. and TC Ironwood, LLC and Request for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170414-5159.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2017.

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

    Dated: April 17, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08263 Filed 4-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46784-46785]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18884]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13806-004]

5440 Hydro Inc.; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With
the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Exemption from Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 13806-004.
    c. Date filed: July 28, 2014.
    d. Applicant: 5440 Hydro Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Brooklyn Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Upper Ammonoosuc River, in the Town of
Northumberland, Coos County, New Hampshire. The project would not
occupy lands of the United States.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Lutz Loegters, 5440 Hydro Inc., 717 Atlantic
Avenue, Suite 1A, Boston, Massachusetts 02111,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: September 26, 2014.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13806-004.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Brooklyn Dam Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) An
existing 163-foot-long, 14-foot-high dam with three 49.5-foot-wide
trashracks, a 50-foot-long floodgate structure with 5 floodgates, and a
113-foot-long spillway with a crest elevation 878.69 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) and 2.54-foot-high
flashboards; (2) an existing 100-foot-long, 45-foot-wide forebay; (3)
an existing 9-foot-wide slide gate located in the forebay; (4) an
existing 26-acre impoundment having a gross storage capacity of 52-
acre-feet at the top of the flashboards (i.e., elevation 881.23 feet
NGVD29); (5) an existing 45-foot-long, 50-foot-wide powerhouse
containing two new 300-kilowatt (kW), Kaplan turbine-generating units
for a total installed capacity of 600 kW; (6) an existing tailrace; (7)
a new transformer and 250-foot-long, 35.4-kilovolt transmission line;
and (8) appurtenant facilities. The project would generate
approximately 2,800 megawatt-hours annually. The applicant proposes to
rehabilitate the powerhouse and tailrace and operate the project in a
run-of-river mode.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances

related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the New
Hampshire State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR
800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate (e.g., if there are no deficiencies and/or
scoping is waived, the schedule would be shortened).

Issue Deficiency Letter--September 2014
Issue Notice of Acceptance--November 2014
Issue Scoping Document--December 2014
Issue Notice Ready for Environmental Analysis--February 2015
Issue Notice of the Availability of the EA--July 2015

     Dated: August 4, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18884 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


9Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule, "Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards," RIN 2060-AQ86

1) It is requested that EPA provide the vehicle miles traveled for VMT1 through VMT4, using the same categories as laid out in Table III-2, Section III.B of the preamble.

2017 2030 Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard VMT1 VMT2 Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards  VMT3 VMT4 Total  VMT1 + VMT3 VMT2 + VMT4

2) It is suggested that EPA take comment on several aspects of the NSR permitting impacts.         a. Suggested that EPA take comment on 9-12 month estimate for the time it takes authorities to issue a permit, once the application is complete.  Also suggest taking comment on the assumption that it will take less time for the NSR GHG permitting process.       b. How long does it take for refineries to prepare the permits?  It is assumed that the time required to prepare a permit application would be added to the front end of the process.  Does EPA discuss this in Section V.B.?         c. EPA stated that the NSR cost of compliance, presumably for the 19 projected refineries, is incorporated into the engineering cost analysis conducted by EPA.  For NSR permits that may require the installation of conventional emission control equipment or process energy efficiency upgrades, EPA should discuss this assumption in section V.B. of the preamble and in the appropriate cost analysis section of the RIA.       d. Will EPA explain how the projected NSR analysis projects just 6 refineries (or would it be 19) triggering NRS for GHG emission increases when EPA estimates in the preamble that there would be GHG emissions increases of 4.9 million tons?       e. Based on EPA's NSR permitting analysis, the appears that the NOx and PM2.5 emissions increases would be small relative to the cumulative NOx and VOC emissions reductions projected from the Tier 3 fuel sulfur and vehicle program.  It is suggested that EPA discuss the emissions changes in the cost/benefit portion of the RIA and mention that EPA did not quantify the disbenefits of these emissions increases.       f. It is suggested that EPA discuss this in the Regulatory Flexibility Act portion of the preamble if any of the 19 refineries that are projected to trigger NSR are small refineries.  This discussion should include the caveats that NSR compliance costs are assumed to be part of EPA's estimated compliance costs for Tier 3.     3) It is suggested that EPA provide a crosswalk that compares the various provisions of Tier 3 with Carliforina's LEV III and fuel sulfur program.  This will be helpful in letting automakers and refiners understand the similarities and differences between the programs.

4) It is requested that EPA update all of the numbers in the preamble that would be affected by the 12-16% change in costs/benefits due to the inclusion of CA in the baseline.  In addition, it is requested that EPA explain that other states, listing each state, have adopted the CA program and that these costs/benefits were not included in the baseline.         a. The paragraph EPA is contemplating for the preamble that says that CA and other states have already adopted similar programs, it is suggested that EPA insert a footnote for all tables in Section III (i.e. each table should have the same footnote) with:   "The models upon which these reductions are based did not account for reductions that might reasonably be attributed to pre-existing State regulations in places such as California and xxxxx.  For the final rule EPA will separate the emissions reductions associated with Tier III from those associated with pre-existing State regulations."  Suggest also using the same footnote for the cost tables as well.       5) Given the fact that a large portion of the people to whom EPA is referring in Page 11 of the preamble live in California or other states where similar regulations have been promulgated, we recommend deleting the following sentences.  Just as a note , we had originally suggested identifying the proportion of those who live in California, but that would make the other sentences in the paragraph false.        The standards set forth in this proposed rule would significantly reduce levels of multiple air pollutants (such as ambient levels of ozone, PM, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and mobile source air toxics (MSATs)) across the country, with immediate impacts expected due to the proposed sulfur control standards starting in 2017. These reductions would help state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, many areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future.  Specifically, in 2017 almost 50 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, without additional controls.  Nonattainment with the NAAQS will continue into the future unless additional controls such as Tier 3 are adopted; in 2030 almost 32 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and 31 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Few other strategies exist that would deliver the same magnitude of multi-pollutant reductions projected to result from the proposed Tier 3 standards.       6) Similarly, we recommend the following edits to page 29.        In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, many areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future.  Specifically, in 2017 almost 50 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, without additional controls.  Nonattainment with the NAAQS will continue into the future unless additional controls are adopted; in 2030 almost 32 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and 31 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.   States and local areas are required to adopt control measures to attain the NAAQS and, once attained, to demonstrate that control measures are in place sufficient to maintain the NAAQS for ten years (and eight years later, a similar demonstration is required for another ten-year period).  The proposed Tier 3 standards would contribute to  be a critical part of areas' strategies to attain and maintain the standards.  Maintaining the standards has been challenging in the past, particularly for areas where high population growth rates lead to significant annual increases in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.  We project that in 2017 over 120 counties (with over 68 million people) will be within 10 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of additional controls.  These Counties that are not already located in States that have already adopted similar regulations in particular would benefit from the proposed Tier 3 standards as they work to ensure long-term maintenance of the NAAQS.     7) In the summary section of Section VII in the RIA, suggest adding a couple of sentences about the CA 12-16% as most of the nonattainment counties are likely to be California counties.  We suggest using text identical to what we would be used in the RIA Executive Summary.     8) Would like to discuss further the Ethanol vs Alcoholic Beverage Exposure Pathway discussion in the RIA.

9) Suggest EPA provide provide further clarifying language concerning the sensitivity analysis of using higher percent rate of return on investments for the refinery retrofits.

10) One commenter requested EPA to explanation their rationale for proposed to remove the national security exemption for vehicles.

11) Requested EPA to go out for comment on various options for the length of time that early reduction credits may be solvent under both the fuel sulfur and vehicle programs.

12) Suggest that EPA take comment on the trade-off between the effectiveness of catalysts at different fuel sulfur concentrations.