National Demand Survey Respondent Data ( fullset2. sd2)

Cleaned data on National Demand Survey respondents living in Ohio.

Data Element Definitions ADULT Adult (= 1) AGE Age in years AGEEMP Age*( 1 unempl) BLACK African American (= 1) BOATER Boating Obs (= 1) BOAT_ USE Boat used on last trip (= 1) CAR Car used on trip (= 1) COLD Targeted cold water fish (= 1) COLLEGE College graduate (= 1) FISHER Fishing Obs (= 1) FULL_ ID Unique ID for all Observations in the set FULTIME Currently work full time (= 1) HOME 5 Digit zipcode of home town HOME_ MK Occupation is home maker (= 1) HOURS Number of leasure hours per week HOUSE_ SZ Household size HS Graduated high school (= 1) INCOME Annual household income KID7_ 15 Number of kids between 7 and 15 KIDS6 Number of kids 6 years and under KIDS_ 16 Number of kids older than 16 KID_ 7UP Number of kids 7 and up LN_ INC Natural log of annual income LN_ INC2 Natural log of anual income^ 2 MALE Male (= 1) MISSWORK Would have worked (= 1) MOR_ BOAT Boat moored on last trip (= 1) MOTOR Motor boat used (= 1) NOHS Did not graduate high school (= 1) NONPART Non participant (= 1) NUMTRP Participated at trip stage (= 1) NUMVIS Number of trips in last season ( weight) OTHCANOE Other kayak/ canoe (= 1) OTHER Non white, non african american (= 1) OUTLINK Row number of visited site outside of Oh OUT_ ST Flag for individual taking a trip out of OWN_ BOAT Own boat used on last trip (= 1) PAID_ CST Paid cost of trip (= 1) PARTIME Currently works part time (= 1) PCT_ KIDS Kids as percentage of household RAFTING Rafting (= 1) RESPNUM RESPONDENT ID RETIRED Currently retired (= 1) RIVRCH RF1NUM for outside state visited sites. RNT_ BOAT Rented boat on last trip (= 1) ROWING Rowing (= 1) RURAL From rural area (= 1) SAILING Sail boat used (= 1) SCHOOL At least College education SHARE Number of people sharing cost SITEID RF1ID of last visited site STATE Respondent home state STUDENT Student (= 1) SUBURB From suburban area (= 1) SWIMER Swimming Obs (= 1) TOW_ BOAT Towed boat on last trip (= 1) TRIPDIST Dist to matched site for out of state. UNEMPL Currently unemployed (= 1) UNKWNBOT No information in boat used (= 1) URBAN From urban area (= 1) VIEWER Viewing Obs (= 1) VISITS Number of visits to last site ( weight) WAGE Hourly wage ( default $ 5.15) WARM Targeted warm water fish (= 1) WHITE White (= 1) WHTWATER White water kayak/ canoe (= 1) WNDSURF Wind surfing (= 1)


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 39035]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14017]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1, 2020.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topic:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: June 24, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14017 Filed 6-25-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 46997]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0287]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor
Registration

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (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 its
review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval
to renew an ICR titled, ``Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor
Registration.'' This ICR is necessary for ELD vendors to register their
ELDs with the Agency.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0287 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 Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 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, 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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    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 website. 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: Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: On December 16, 2015, FMCSA published a final rule
titled ``Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents,'' (80 FR 78292) that established minimum performance and
design standards for hours-of-service (HOS) ELDs; requirements for the
mandatory use of these devices by drivers currently required to prepare
HOS records of duty status (RODS); requirements concerning HOS
supporting documents; and measures to address concerns about harassment
resulting from the mandatory use of ELDs.
    To ensure consistency among ELD vendors and devices, detailed
functional specifications were published as part of the December 2015
final rule. Each ELD vendor developing an ELD technology must register
online at a secure FMCSA website where the ELD provider can securely
certify that its ELD is compliant with the functional specifications.
Each ELD vendor must certify that each ELD model and version has been
sufficiently tested to meet the functional requirements in the rule
under the conditions in which the ELD would be used.
    ELD vendors must self-certify and register their devices with FMCSA
online via Form MCSA-5893, ``Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor
Registration and Certification.'' FMCSA expects 100% of respondents to
submit their information electronically. Once completed, FMCSA issues a
unique identification number that the ELD vendor will embed in their
device(s). FMCSA maintains a list on its website of the current ELD
vendors and devices that have been certified (by the vendors) to meet
the functional specifications. The information is necessary for fleets
and drivers to easily find a compliant ELD for their use in complying
with the FMCSA regulation requiring the use of ELDs.
    Title: Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Vendor Registration.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0062.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: ELD vendors.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 224.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.
    Expiration Date: December 31, 2018.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 336 hours [224 respondents x 2
devices per respondent x 3 updates per device x 15 minutes per
response].
    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 under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: September 12,
2018.
Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2018-20157 Filed 9-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 106)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26782]
[DOCID:fr04jn09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 524

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0665]

Ophthalmic and Topical Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Change of
Sponsor; Diclofenac; Ivermectin Otic Suspension

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor for diclofenac sodium
cream and ivermectin otic suspension from IDEXX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
to Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.

DATES: This rule is effective June 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  David R. Newkirk, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IDEXX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 7009 Albert
Pick Rd., Greensboro, NC 27409, has informed FDA that it has
transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 141-186
for SURPASS (diclofenac sodium) topical cream and NADA 141-174 for
ACAREXX (ivermectin) otic suspension to Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica,
Inc., 2621 North Belt Highway, St. Joseph, MO 64506-2002. Accordingly,
the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 524.590 and 524.1195 to reflect
the change of sponsorship.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 524

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 524 is
amended as follows:

PART 524--OPHTHALMIC AND TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 524 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  524.590  [Amended]

0
2. In paragraph (b) of Sec.  524.590, remove ``065274'' and in its
place add ``000010''.

Sec.  524.1195  [Amended]

0
3. In paragraph (b) of Sec.  524.1195, remove ``065274'' and in its
place add ``000010''.

    Dated: May 27, 2009.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E9-13015 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66128-66131]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0929]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Coast Guard
Sector Detroit Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is updating its recurring special local
regulations in the Captain of the Port Detroit. This rule updates
fifteen special local regulation locations, dates, and sizes, adds six
special local regulations, removes six established special local
regulations, and reformats the regulations into an easier to read table
format. These amendments will ensure safety of life on navigable waters
to be used for a various events immediately prior to, during, and
immediately after these events.

DATES: This rule is effective January 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0929 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On October 17, 2018 the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the
Federal Register (83 FR 52333) entitled ``Special Local Regulations;
Marine Events in the Coast Guard Sector Detroit Captain of the Port
Zone.'' The NPRM proposed to establish fifteen permanent special local
regulations for annually recurring events in the Captain of the Port
Detroit Zone under Sec.  100.911. The NPRM was open for comment for 30
days. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on
our proposed regulatory action related to these special local
regulations. During the comment period that ended November 17, 2018, we
received two comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the
likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an
unknown number of spectators in close proximity to these various
special local regulations along the water pose extra and unusual
hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is
establishing a Special Local Regulation around the event locations
listed in table to help minimize risks to safety of life and property
during this event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two positive comments encouraging this
rule on our NPRM published October 17, 2018. There are no changes in
the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule updates fifteen special local regulation locations,
dates, and sizes, adds six special local regulations, removes six
established special local regulations, and reformats the regulations
into an easier to read table format. The exact duration and dates of
the special local regulations will be determined annually. In light of
the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special
local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and
participants. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
special local regulation 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day for each special local regulation.
Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit most safety zones which
will impact small designated areas within the COTP zone for short
durations of time. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the
rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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
special local regulation 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 contact 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
Order13132.
    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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 updates
fifteen special local regulation locations, dates, and sizes, adds six
special local regulations, removes six established special local
regulations, and reformats the regulations into an easier to read table
format. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L[60] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

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:  33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  100.911 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.911   Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Coast
Guard Sector Detroit Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) General. The regulations in this section apply to the marine
events listed in Table 1 to Sec.  100.911, along with the requirements
of Sec.  100.901. These regulations will be enforced for the duration
of each event, on or about the dates indicated. Annual notice of the
exact dates and times of the effective period of the regulations with
respect to each event, the geographical area, and details concerning of
the event will be made by publication in the Federal Register via a
Notice of Enforcement, published in a Local Notices to Mariners, and
broadcast over VHF-FM radio. Although listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations, sponsors of events listed in the table to Sec.  100.911
are still required to submit marine event applications in accordance
with Sec.  100.15.
    (b) Special local regulations. (1) No vessel may enter, transit
through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
regulated area shall contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given
to them by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    (3) All geographic coordinates in Table 1 to Sec.  100.911 are
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

                        Table 1 to Sec.   100.911
                           [COTP Zone Detroit]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Sector Detroit special
             Event                 local regulations          Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta    All waters of the       Two days in
 Rowing Event, Wyandotte, MI.    Detroit River,          April or May.
                                 Trenton Channel
                                 between the following
                                 two lines going from
                                 bank-to-bank: the
                                 first line is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]10.98' N,
                                 083[deg]09.29' W; the
                                 second line, to the
                                 north, is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]11.7' N,
                                 083[deg]08.9' W.
(2) Wy-Hi Rowing Regatta        All waters of the       Two days in
 Rowing Event, Wyandotte, MI.    Detroit River,          April or May.
                                 Trenton Channel
                                 between the following
                                 two lines going from
                                 bank-to-bank: the
                                 first line is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]10.98' N,
                                 083[deg]09.29' W; the
                                 second line, to the
                                 north, is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]11.7' N,
                                 083[deg]08.9' W.
(3) Wyandotte Rowing Regatta,   All waters of the       Two days in
 Wyandotte, MI.                  Detroit River,          April or May.
                                 Trenton Channel
                                 between the following
                                 two lines going from
                                 bank-to-bank: the
                                 first line is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]10.98' N,
                                 083[deg]09.29' W; the
                                 second line, to the
                                 north, is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]11.7' N,
                                 083[deg]08.9' W.
(4) Motor City Mile Swimming    All waters of the       One day in June
 Event, Detroit, MI.             Detroit River, Belle    or July.
                                 Isle Beach between
                                 the following two
                                 lines: the first line
                                 is drawn directly
                                 across the channel
                                 from position
                                 42[deg]20.517' N,
                                 082[deg]59.159' W to
                                 42[deg]20.705' N,
                                 082[deg]59.233' W;
                                 the second line, to
                                 the north, is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]20.754' N,
                                 082[deg]58.681' W to
                                 42[deg]20.843' N,
                                 082[deg]58.792' W.
(5) Wyandotte Invites Rowing    All waters of the       One day in July
 Event, Wyandotte, MI.           Detroit River,          or August.
                                 Trenton Channel
                                 between the following
                                 two lines going from
                                 bank-to-bank: the
                                 first line is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]10.98' N,
                                 083[deg]09.29' W; the
                                 second line, to the
                                 north, is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]11.7' N,
                                 083[deg]08.9' W.
(6) Roar on the River           All U.S. waters of the  Three
 Powerboat Race, Trenton, MI.    Trenton Channel         consecutive
                                 bounded by an east/     days in July or
                                 west line starting at   August.
                                 a point on land at
                                 the northern end of
                                 Elizabeth park in
                                 Trenton, MI, located
                                 at position
                                 42[deg]8.2' N;
                                 083[deg]10.6' W,
                                 extending east to a
                                 point near the center
                                 of the Trenton
                                 Channel at position
                                 42[deg]8.2' N;
                                 083[deg]10.4' W,
                                 extending South to
                                 the Grosse Ile
                                 Parkway Bridge
                                 located at position
                                 42[deg]7.7' N;
                                 083[deg]10.5' W, west
                                 to the shore.
(7) St. Clair River Classic     All U.S. waters of the  One weekend in
 Power Boat Race, St. Clair,     St. Clair River         July or August.
 MI.                             bounded by latitude
                                 42[deg]50.5' N to the
                                 north and latitude
                                 42[deg]48.5' N to the
                                 south; the shoreline
                                 of the St. Clair
                                 River on the west;
                                 and the international
                                 boundary line on the
                                 east.
(8) Marine City Water Ski       All U.S. waters of the  One day at the
 Show, Marine City, MI.          St. Clair River 200     end of July or
                                 feet seaward of         beginning of
                                 latitude position       August.
                                 42[deg]43.382' N, and
                                 to the south by 2,000
                                 feet to 200 feet
                                 seaward of latitude
                                 position
                                 42[deg]42.983' N.
(9) Detroit Hydrofest Power     All U.S. waters of the  Three
 Boat Race, Detroit, MI.         Detroit River in        consecutive
                                 Scott Middle Ground,    days in August
                                 north of Belle Isle,    or September.
                                 Michigan, starting at
                                 positions
                                 42[deg]20.506' N,
                                 083[deg]00.016' W, on
                                 the Douglas MacArthur
                                 Bridge; extending
                                 east to the Belle
                                 Isle Crib Light at
                                 42[deg]21.205' N,
                                 082[deg]57.996' W.
(10) Bay City Grand Prix        All waters of the       One weekend at
 Powerboat Races, Bay City, MI.  Saginaw River bounded   the end of June
                                 on the north by the     or beginning of
                                 Liberty Bridge,         July.
                                 located at
                                 43[deg]36.3' N,
                                 083[deg]53.4' W, and
                                 bounded on the south
                                 by the Veterans
                                 Memorial Bridge,
                                 located at
                                 43[deg]35.8' N,
                                 083[deg]53.6' W.
(11) Tug Across the River,      All U.S. waters of the  One day in June
 Detroit, MI.                    Detroit River,          or July.
                                 Detroit, Michigan,
                                 bounded on the south
                                 by the International
                                 boundary, on the west
                                 by 083[deg]03' W, on
                                 the east by
                                 083[deg]02' W, and on
                                 the north by the U.S.
                                 shoreline. This
                                 position is located
                                 on the Detroit River
                                 in front of Hart
                                 Plaza, Detroit, MI.
(12) Michigan Championships     All waters of the       One day in
 Swimming Event, Detroit, MI.    Detroit River and       August or
                                 Belle Isle Beach        September.
                                 between the following
                                 two lines: the first
                                 line is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]20.517' N,
                                 082[deg]59.159' W to
                                 42[deg]20.705' N,
                                 082[deg]59.233' W;
                                 the second line, to
                                 the north, is drawn
                                 directly across the
                                 channel from position
                                 42[deg]20.754' N,
                                 082[deg]58.681' W to
                                 42[deg]20.997' N,
                                 082[deg]58.846' W.
(13) Bay City Tall Ships        All waters throughout   Tri-annually in
 Parade of Sail, Bay City, MI.   the federal             July.
                                 navigational channel
                                 of Saginaw Bay from
                                 Light Buoy 11 at
                                 position
                                 43[deg]43.90' N,
                                 083[deg]46.87' W and
                                 Light 12 at position
                                 43[deg]43.93' N,
                                 083[deg]46.95' W to
                                 the Saginaw River,
                                 and on all waters of
                                 the Saginaw River
                                 from its mouth to the
                                 Veterans Memorial
                                 Bridge in Bay City,
                                 MI at position
                                 43[deg]35.77' N,
                                 083[deg]53.60' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Marine safety unit
             Event               Toledo special local         Date
                                      regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14) Frogtown Race Regatta,     All waters of the       One day in
 Toledo, OH.                     Maumee River, Toledo,   September.
                                 OH, from the Martin
                                 Luther King Jr.
                                 Memorial Bridge at
                                 River Mile 4.30 to
                                 the Michael DiSalle
                                 Bridge at River Mile
                                 6.73.
(15) Dragon Boat Learning       All waters of the       One day in June
 Festival, Toledo, OH.           Maumee River in         or July.
                                 Toledo, OH between
                                 the Martin Luther
                                 King Jr. Memorial
                                 Bridge at river mile
                                 4.30 and a line
                                 extending from a
                                 point at position
                                 41[deg]38.78' N,
                                 083[deg]31.84' W at
                                 International Park
                                 straight across the
                                 river to shore near
                                 the mouth of Swan
                                 Creek at position
                                 41[deg]38.79' N,
                                 083[deg]32.03' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. Sec.  [thinsp]100.912 through 100.921, 100.927, and 100.928
[Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec.  100.912, Sec.  100.913, Sec.  100.914, Sec.  100.915,
Sec.  100.916, Sec.  100.917, Sec.  100.918, Sec.  100.919, Sec.
100.920, Sec.  100.921, Sec.  100.927, and Sec.  100.928.

    Dated: December 18, 2018.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2018-27772 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Placeholder: confidential business information item

NCHA CUE Application for 2008

For more information please contact Aaron Levy by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7772-7773]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0028]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 20 individuals from the
hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on January 22, 2021. The
exemptions expire on January 22, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0028 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On December 16, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt
of applications from 20 individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR
81553). The public comment period ended on January 15, 2021, and two
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.

    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Of the two comments
received, one was in support of issuing the exemptions and the other
was outside the scope of this notice.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the
driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each
applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an
individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an
equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting
each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in Sec.
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 20 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, Sec.
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Hassan Abdi (MN)
Matthew Acken (UT)
Ryan Bailey (FL)
Gage Burchett (VA)
Andrew Cho (NY)
Jeffrey Daniel (NV)
Tyler Davis (TX)
Gabriel Despanie (LA)
Zachrey Gill (MI)
Nicholas Grabanski (TX)
Michael Hartman (OK)
Andrew Hatch (IA)
Joshua Johnson (CO)
William Lavender (OH)
MarcKenzie Loriston (FL)
Ronald Pridgen (NC)
Zachary Reagan (TX)
Michael L. Smith (NC)
Carlos Sotelo Sanchez (CA)
Matthew Spainhoward (KY)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02017 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 87857-87861]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29252]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812; FRL-9956-11-Region 9]

Approval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada;
Infrastructure Requirements To Address Interstate Transport for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection on April 10, 2013, and
supplemented on March 25, 2016. The SIP revision and supplement address
the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone
(O3) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The
EPA's rationale for proposing to approve Nevada's April 10, 2013 SIP
revision and March 25, 2016 supplement is described in this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2014-0812 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3856<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittals
III. The EPA's Assessment
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address structural
SIP requirements to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS no later
than three years after the promulgation of a new or revised standard.
Section 110(a)(2) outlines the specific requirements that each state is
required to address in this SIP submission that collectively constitute
the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. SIP
submittals that address these requirements are referred to as
``infrastructure SIPs'' (I-SIP). In particular, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that
will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' (prong 1) or
``interfere with maintenance'' (prong 2) of the applicable air quality
standard in any other state. This action addresses the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements of prongs 1 and 2 for Nevada's I-SIP
submissions.
    On March 27, 2008, the EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone.\1\
This action triggered a requirement for states to submit an I-SIP to
address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three
years of issuance of the revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final
Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 13, 2013, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' which provides ``advice on the development
of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS . . . as well as
infrastructure SIPs for new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the
future.'' \2\ The EPA followed that guidance with an additional memo
specific to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) requirements for the
2008 O3 standard on January 22, 2015 entitled, ``Information
on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2015 Transport
Memo).\3\ While this memo did not provide specific guidance to western
states regarding how to address the interstate transport requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), it did contain preliminary modeling
information for western states. This 2015 Transport Memo, following the
approach used in the EPA's prior Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR),\4\ provided data identifying ozone monitoring sites that were
projected to be in nonattainment or have maintenance problems for the
2008 ozone NAAQS in 2018. Also, the EPA provided the projected
contribution estimates from 2018 anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in each
state to ozone concentrations at each of the projected sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10 (September 13, 2013).
    \3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10 (January 22, 2015).
    \4\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 4, 2015, the EPA published a Federal Register Notice
entitled, ``Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS.'' \5\ This Notice of Data Availability (NODA) was an update of
the preliminary air quality modeling data that was released January 22,
2015, and was also used to support the proposed Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (``CSAPR Update''),
which proposed to address interstate transport obligations in the
eastern United States.\6\ The EPA's modeling was updated a second time
with the release of the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (``CSAPR Update'').\7\ The CSAPR Update addresses
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS in the eastern United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August
4, 2015).
    \6\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
    \7\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, Final Rule, 81 FR 74504 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR Update modeling provided data used to identify ozone
monitoring sites that are projected to be nonattainment or have
maintenance problems (following the CSAPR approach) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in 2017.\8\ The modeling further provided the projected ozone
contribution estimates from 2017 anthropogenic NOX and VOC
emissions in each state to ozone concentrations at each of the
projected monitoring sites. While the CSAPR Update did not finalize any
determinations regarding upwind state contributions to air quality
problems in the 11 western states,\9\ the supportive modeling included
data on potential interstate transport impacts among 11 western states,
including Nevada. In this action, we are utilizing these data to
evaluate the state's submittals and any interstate transport
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA adopted 2017 as the analytic year for the updated
ozone modeling information. See 80 FR 46273.
    \9\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, the western U.S. (or the
West) consists of the 11 western contiguous states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is obligated, pursuant to a judgment by the District of
Nevada in Nevada vs. McCarthy, to take final action by February 13,
2017 on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 of Nevada's April
2013 SIP revision and March 25, 2016 supplement.\10\ We previously took
action on the other I-SIP elements covered by Nevada's submittals for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS on November 3, 2015.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Judgment, Nevada v. McCarthy, Case 3:15-cv-00396-HDM-
WGC (D. Nev. June 22, 2016).
    \11\ Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality
State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for
Ozone, NO2 and SO2, 80 FR 67652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. State Submittals

    On April 10, 2013, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP) submitted its 2008 ozone NAAQS I-SIP (2013 submittal). Nevada's
2013 Submittal quoted the decision from the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012), which instructed
the EPA to quantify each state's significant contribution to air
quality problems in other states before requiring states to submit SIPs
addressing the interstate transport requirements with respect to such
pollution. Nevada's submittal also cited an EPA memorandum that
explained, in light of the D.C. Circuit decision, ``EPA cannot deem a
SIP deficient for failing to meet the good neighbor provision, if the
EPA has not quantified the state's obligation.'' \12\ The state
concluded that, ``Because US EPA has not informed Nevada of its
contribution to any ozone NAAQS attainment problem in downwind states,
the NDEP concludes that it is not obligated to address this requirement
at this time.'' Subsequent to Nevada's submission, however, the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit with respect to states'
obligations to submit a SIP addressing these requirements. See

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Memorandum from Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator of
the EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10 (November
19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the NDEP's conclusion with respect to the state's
obligation to submit a SIP addressing the interstate transport
requirements, the 2013 Submittal also included information intended to
demonstrate that emissions from the state do not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
other states. In particular, the 2013 Submittal referenced the EPA's
proposed CAIR rule and modeling, which excluded Western States,
including Nevada, from its analysis. Finally, the 2013 Submittal
discussed prevailing wind directions and nearby nonattainment areas in
Phoenix, Arizona, and throughout California, concluding ``NDEP finds it
reasonable to conclude that the Phoenix nonattainment area is not
significantly influenced by winds from Nevada.''
    Subsequent to the Supreme Court's vacatur of the D.C. Circuit's EME
Homer City decision, on March 25, 2016, Nevada supplemented the
Interstate Transport portions of its 2013 I-SIP submittal for the 2008
ozone NAAQS (2016 Supplement). The 2016 Supplement acknowledges and
addresses the EPA modeling released in the 2015 Transport Memo which
was updated by the August 2015 NODA. The 2016 Supplement acknowledges
that the EPA's modeling showed that emissions from Nevada impact air
quality in California and provides multiple reasons to support its
conclusion that Nevada nonetheless does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
any downwind states.\13\ For example, the 2016 Supplement states that
Nevada contributes slightly more than 1% of 2008 Ozone NAAQS at
monitors in Madera and Fresno, but notes that this contribution is less
than 1% of the projected 2017 design values for those monitors. It
notes that even if the interstate transport contribution were
eliminated, these monitors would not attain the 2008 ozone standard.
The monitors are located within an extreme nonattainment area that has
until 2031 to attain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The 2016 Supplement contends
that the one percent screening threshold used in CSAPR to identify
upwind states linked to downwind ozone problems is not appropriate in
cases where the total contribution of upwind states to a downwind air
quality problem are minimal and where the downwind design values are
significantly higher than the NAAQS, particularly in light of high
background concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We have summarized the primary concerns raised in Nevada's
2016 Supplement. The complete details of Nevada's analysis can be
found in the 2016 Supplement, which is contained in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Supplement discusses current emissions of ozone
precursors, controls in place for current sources, and the planned
shutdown of several coal-fired electrical generating units. It briefly
discusses VOC emissions, explaining that these are overwhelmingly from
biogenic sources, which are uncontrollable; from mobile sources, which
are federally regulated; and from fires, which are also uncontrollable.
For NOX emissions sources, the 2016 Supplement relies on the
2011 National Emissions Inventory, and notes that on-road and off-road
mobile sources comprise 90% of mobile source NOX emissions,
which in turn comprise 75% of state-wide NOX emissions. As
mentioned for VOC emissions, on-road and off-road mobile sources are
primarily regulated at the federal level, though Nevada has several
programs that control mobile source emissions, including the Nevada
Department of Motor Vehicle annual Inspection and Maintenance program.
According to the 2016 Supplement, fuel combustion is the second largest
source of NOX in Nevada, and nearly half of that source
sector is comprised of the electric generation sub-sector, mostly from
facilities using coal for fuel. For Nevada's three coal-fired energy
generation units (EGU), the 2016 Supplement explains that the last
remaining boiler at the Reid Gardner Generating Station will shut down
by December 2017 while the two units at the North Valmy Generating
Station are planned to shut down in 2021 and 2025. Furthermore,
NOX emissions controls at the remaining EGU facility, the TS
Power Plant, include selective catalytic reduction system and low
NOX coal burners.\14\ The 2016 Supplement concludes by
reaffirming the 2013 submittal's conclusion that ``ozone and ozone
precursor emissions from Nevada do not contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in any
other state.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Emission limits for the TS Power Plant are contained in
Class I Air Quality Operation Permit AP4911-2502 in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Assessment

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Prong 1 and Prong 2

    The EPA proposes to approve Nevada's SIP submissions pertaining to
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2, with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. As explained below, the EPA's proposal is based on
the state's submission and the EPA's analysis of several factors and
available data.
    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1
and 2 requirement is satisfied, the EPA first must determine whether a
state's emissions will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in other states. If a state is
determined not to make such contribution or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS, then the EPA can conclude that the state's SIP complies
with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In several prior
federal rulemakings interpreting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), The EPA
has evaluated whether a state will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS by first
identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS.\15\ The EPA has then determined
which upwind states contribute to these identified air quality problems
in amounts sufficient to warrant further evaluation to determine if the
state can make emission reductions to reduce its contribution. CSAPR
and the CSAPR Update used a screening threshold (1% of the NAAQS) to
identify such contributing upwind states warranting further review and
analysis. The EPA believes contribution from an individual state equal
to or above 1% of the NAAQS could be considered significant where the
collective contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states is
responsible for a considerable portion of the downwind air quality
problem regardless of where the receptor is geographically located.\16\
The EPA's air quality modeling supporting the CSAPR Update evaluated
contributions from upwind states to downward receptors. The modeling
information indicates that emissions from Nevada contribute amounts
exceeding the 1% threshold at receptors in two projected downwind
nonattainment areas, Madera County and Fresno County, California.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NOX SIP Call, Final Rule, 63 FR 57371 (October
27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Final Rule, 70 FR 25172
(May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Final Rule,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update Rule, Proposed Rule, 80
FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015).
    \16\ The EPA notes that there may be additional criteria to
evaluate regarding collective contribution of transported air
pollution at certain locations in the West.
    \17\ Data file with 2017 Ozone Contributions included in docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although The EPA's modeling indicates that emissions from Nevada
contribute above the 1% threshold to two projected downwind air quality
problems, the EPA examined several

factors to determine whether emissions from Nevada should be considered
to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS at those sites, including the air quality and
contribution modeling, receptor data, and the statewide measures
reducing emissions of VOCs and NOX. The EPA notes that no
single piece of information is by itself dispositive of the issue for
purposes of this analysis. Instead, the EPA has considered the total
weight of all the evidence taken together to evaluate whether Nevada
significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in those areas.
    One such factor that the EPA considers relevant to determining the
nature of a projected receptor's interstate transport problem is the
magnitude of ozone attributable to transport from all upwind states
collectively contributing to the air quality problem. In CSAPR and the
CSAPR Update Rule, the EPA used the 1% air quality threshold to
identify linkages between upwind states and downwind maintenance
receptors. States whose contributions to a specific receptor meet or
exceed the threshold were considered to be linked to that receptor. The
linked states' emissions (and available emission reductions) were then
analyzed further as a second step to the EPA's contribution analysis.
States whose contributions to all receptors that were below the 1%
threshold did not require further evaluation to address interstate
transport and we therefore determined that those states made
insignificant contributions to downwind air quality. Therefore, the EPA
determined that the states below the threshold do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in other states. The EPA used the 1% threshold in the East because
prior analysis showed that, in general, nonattainment problems result
from a combined impact of relatively small individual contributions
from upwind states, along with contributions from in-state sources. The
EPA has observed that a relatively large portion of the air quality
problem at most ozone nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the
East is the result of the collective contribution from a number of
upwind states.
    Specifically, the EPA found the total upwind states' contribution
to ozone concentration (from linked and unlinked states) based on
modeling for 2017 ranges from 17% to 68% to identified downwind air
quality problems in the East, with between 4 and 11 states each
contributing above 1% to the downwind air quality
problem.18 19 Thus, irrespective of the 1% air quality
threshold in the East, the EPA has found that the collective
contributions from upwind states represent a large portion of the ozone
concentrations at projected air quality problems. Further, in the East,
the EPA found that the 1% threshold is appropriate to capture a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind
receptors. By comparison, the CSAPR Update modeling information
indicates the total upwind (linked or unlinked) states' contribution to
ozone concentration at the projected nonattainment site in Fresno,
California (Monitor ID 60190242) and Madera, California (Monitor ID
60390004), is comparatively small, with only one state contributing
above 1% to the downwind air quality problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The stated range is based on the highest nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in each area. All nonattainment and maintenance
receptors had upwind contributions of well over 17%, except for some
receptors in Dallas and Houston.
    \19\ Memo to Docket from the EPA, Air Quality Policy Division.
``Contribution Analysis of Receptors in the Updated CSAPR
Proposal.'' March 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevada is the only state that contributes greater than the 1%
threshold to the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone NAAQS to the
receptor in Fresno. The total contribution from all states to the
Fresno receptor is less than 2.6% of the ozone concentration at this
receptor. Nevada is also the only state that contributes greater than
1% to the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone NAAQS to a receptor
in Madera, and the total contribution from all states is less than 2.2%
of the ozone concentration at this receptor. The EPA believes that a
2.6% and 2.2% cumulative ozone contribution from all upwind states is
negligible, particularly when compared to the relatively large
contributions from upwind states in the East or in certain other areas
of the West. For these reasons, the EPA believes the emissions that
result in transported ozone from upwind states have limited impacts on
the projected air quality problems in Madera County, and Fresno County,
California, and therefore these receptors should not be treated as
receptors for purposes of determining the interstate transport
obligations of upwind states under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    This analysis is consistent with Nevada's determination that it
would not be appropriate to determine that the state is linked to air
quality problems in California. However, the EPA does not agree with
the rationale provided by the state in its 2016 Supplement.\20\ For
example, the EPA does not agree that upwind states should not be
required to reduce emissions to downwind air quality problems simply
because the downwind design values are significantly higher than the
NAAQS. Although upwind reductions might not bring such areas into
attainment, such reductions, where otherwise warranted, may still play
an important role in improving air quality in downwind states and,
therefore, improving public health and welfare. Moreover, the EPA does
not agree that high levels of background concentrations at a particular
monitor should necessarily excuse an upwind state from reducing
emissions where such emissions reductions may nonetheless improve
downwind air quality. Nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors in
different parts of the Country may experience differing amounts of
measured ozone from background sources (that are outside of the U.S.).
But in some cases, areas with high background ozone may still have a
relatively large amount of ozone from the collective contribution of
upwind U.S. emissions. Therefore, regardless of the level of background
ozone, emissions reductions from upwind states may be an important
component of solving the local nonattainment problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ To the extent that the 2013 Submittal relies on analysis
conducted for CAIR, the EPA notes that the modeling conducted for
that rulemaking did not include the western United States. The EPA's
more recent modeling does consider western states. Moreover, CAIR
only addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the record for CAIR
therefore contains no data evaluating the impact of emissions from
Nevada to other states relative to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Finally,
while the EPA suggested that 8-hour ozone nonattainment problems
were ``likely'' not affected by transported pollution in the west,
the EPA took no final action determining that western states do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. Rather, as the 2013
Submittal notes, the EPA did not further analyze those states. 69 FR
at 4581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, the modeling data conducted to support the CSAPR
Update show that Nevada contributes either less than 1% of the NAAQS to
projected air quality problems in other states, or where it contributes
above 1% of the NAAQS to a projected downwind air quality problem in
California, the EPA proposes to find, based on the overall weight of
evidence, that these particular receptors are not significantly
impacted by transported ozone from upwind states. Emissions reductions
from Nevada are not necessary to address interstate transport because
the total collective upwind state ozone contribution to these receptors
is

relatively low compared to the air quality problems typically addressed
by the good neighbor provision. Additionally, Nevada has demonstrated
that both VOC and NOX emissions are decreasing and will
continue to go down. The EPA therefore believes that Nevada's impact on
downwind receptors in California are insignificant and will continue to
remain insignificant.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve Nevada's SIP as meeting the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is proposing this
approval based on the overall weight of evidence from information and
analysis provided by Nevada, as well as the recent air quality modeling
released in the EPA's August 4, 2015 NODA, and other data analysis that
confirms that emissions from Nevada will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in California or any other state.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Approval and promulgation of implementation
plans, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 22, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-29252 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


INFORMATION NEEDED TO PREPARE AN UPDATED INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( ICR) FOR THE PART 70 REGULATIONS The information needed to update the burden estimate of the ICR consists of the burden ( in terms of hours spent) of accomplishing all the activities associated with implementing the part 70 program. ( This does not include activities underway before title V such as ambient monitoring, NSR, enforcement, etc.) Please provide estimates of the hourly burden of accomplishing the activities listed below. Feel free to point out part 70 program activities not included on the list.

Include hours for all participants. For instance, if three 2 hour meetings are typically held on developing a permit with four people attending each meeting, the burden is 3 meetings times 2 hours each times 4 people for a total burden of 24 hours. For any activity, add in hours to account for management and clerical support.

The figure being sought is an average burden per permit for the various part 70 program activities. These values will be multiplied by the total number of part 70 sources to generate a nationwide burden for the whole program. Some activities are not permit specific, but are program specific, such as training, responding to public inquiries, attending conferences. In these cases, skip the individual permit burden and provide only an average burden ( the last column) by dividing the burden by your number of part 70 sources.

Some permits take longer than others and require more issue resolution, more gap filling monitoring determinations, more analysis of emissions units/ applicable requirements, etc. The first step is to estimate these burdens for the individual permits that are affected. However, I need an average per permit value to multiply times all permits to get a program estimate. Therefore, if some activities are carried out for only a portion of permits ( e. g., public hearing, flexible permit development, gap filling determination, alternative scenarios development), after estimating the burden for an activity for a single permit, pro rate the burden to obtain an average value for all permits. For instance, if an activity is performed for only a third of your permits, divide the burden value by three to obtain an average per permit value.

This analysis will be the burden of the part 70 program for the 3 years from October 2004 until October 2007. Do not include burden for activities that will be completed by that time, or that will not occur during that period, such as developing program guidance, training staff, determining completeness of permit applications, etc.

Thank you for your help. PERMITTING AUTHORITY ACTIVITIES BURDEN HOURS ACTIVITY BURDEN PER INDIVIDUAL PERMIT BURDEN AVERAGED OVER ALL PERMITS Responding to source inquires about part 70 program applicability and to public inquiries about the program.

Part 70 program specific: developing internal and external program guidance, attending program training, providing source training, attending EPA meetings and conferences, providing public education, and other program related activities.

Reviewing a permit application, including discussions with a source concerning the permit application.

Preparing a draft permit, including contact with the source.

Providing notice to the public, EPA, and affected States of the comment period on a draft permit.

Holding a public hearing on a permit.

Interaction with EPA on a proposed permit, including negotiations, re drafting, and formal EPA objections ( including those attributable to public petitions).

Issuing the permit, including web activities and source notification.

Revising a permit.

Renewing a permit.

Reviewing semiannual monitoring reports, including annual compliance certification. SOURCE ACTIVITIES BURDEN HOURS ACTIVITY BURDEN PER SOURCE BURDEN AVERAGED OVER ALL SOURCES Preparing a permit application, including internal meetings, management and legal department involvement, responsible official certification, contractor services.

Interaction with the permitting authority on the permit application and draft permit development.

Development of periodic monitoring gap filling.

Involvement with public comment analysis.

Public hearing participation.

Operation of gap filling periodic monitoring ( annual burden to operate monitors/ recordkeeping/ etc. plus one time and annual capital costs for any equipment).

Preparing semi annual monitoring data reports, including data analysis, responsible official certification, and report submission ( annual burden for both reports). Include preparing and submitting annual compliance certification.

Preparing application for permit revisions. Put in terms of number of and burden for each: N/ A N/ A ° Significant permit modification ° Minor permit modification ° Administrative amendment Preparing an application for permit renewal.

Other activities associated with permit renewal, including involvement with public comment analysis and public hearing participation.