[Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20591-20592]
[DOCID:fr20ap10-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-15-000]

Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd.; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

April 13, 2010.
    Take notice that on April 8, 2010, Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd.
(Bay Gas)

filed a petition for rate approval pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of
the Commission's regulations. In addition to proposing increases to its
firm and interruptible transportation rates on its Mainline and
Whistler Spur facilities, Bay Gas proposes firm and interruptible
transportation rates on its newly constructed Transco Lateral.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time April 26, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8995 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20315-20316]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07796]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-110-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 5151
San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, filed a prior notice
request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.214 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to
increase the storage capacity at its Lanham, Terra Alta, Terra Alta
South, and Coco C Storage Fields in West Virginia. Columbia states
that, as a result of storage field tests, the overall capacity of these
fields can be increased. Columbia does not propose to expand the
boundaries, change the maximum pressure, or perform any construction to
increase the capacity of these four storage fields, all as more fully
set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web 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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
Fredric J. George, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, PO
Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273, by telephone at (304)
357-2359, or by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: March 29, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07796 Filed 4-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3948]
[DOCID:fr25ja10-87]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on January 27, 2010
at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    Item 1: The Commission will consider a recommendation to adopt new
rules, rule amendments, and a new form under the Investment Company Act
of 1940 governing money market funds, to increase the protection of
investors, improve fund operations, and enhance fund disclosures.
    Item 2: The Commission will consider a recommendation to publish an
interpretive release to provide guidance to public companies regarding
the Commission's current disclosure requirements concerning matters
relating to climate change.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1434 Filed 1-21-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71995-71998]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-555-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Lebanon West II Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Lebanon West II Project
(Project) involving construction, operation, and abandonment of
facilities by Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) in Armstrong,
Allegheny, and Beaver Counties, Pennsylvania, and Licking, Fayette,
Coshocton, Tuscarawas, Harrison, Carroll, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on December 26, 2014.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.

    DTI provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    DTI proposes to replace 11 segments of 26- and 30-inch-diameter
pipeline and install compressor station facilities to transport 130,000
dekatherms per day on behalf of R. E. Gas Development, LLC from DTI's
MarkWest Liberty Bluestone Interconnect in Butler County, Pennsylvania
to DTI's Lebanon-Texas Gas Interconnect in Warren County, Ohio. DTI
also proposes to increase the maximum allowable operating pressure of
these pipeline segments from 745 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to
848 psig.
    The Project would consist of the following facilities:
    1. Pipeline Facilities--DTI would undertake the following
activities on its existing TL-400 Pipeline:
     Segment 14--abandon in-place about 2,647 feet, abandon by
removal about 8,420 feet, and construct about 11,067 feet of 26-inch-
diameter replacement pipeline in Coshocton and Tuscarawas Counties,
Ohio.
     Segment 15--abandon in-place about 664 feet, abandon by
removal about 1,434 feet, and construct about 2,098 feet of 26-inch-
diameter replacement pipeline in Tuscarawas County.
     Segment 16--abandon in-place about 1,654 feet, abandon by
removal about 4,159 feet, and construct about 5,813 feet of 30-inch-
diameter replacement pipeline in Tuscarawas County.
     Segment 17--abandon in-place about 6,664 feet, abandon by
removal about 3,418 feet, and construction of about 10,082 feet of 30-
inch-diameter replacement pipeline in Harrison County, Ohio.
     Segment 19--abandon in-place about 1,805 feet, abandon by
removal about 6,243 feet, and construct about 8,048 feet of 30-inch-
diameter replacement pipeline in Carroll County.
     Segment 20--abandon in-place about 1,413 feet, abandon by
removal about 3,708 feet, and construct about 5,121 feet of 30-inch-
diameter replacement pipeline in Carroll County.
     Segment 21--abandon by removal about 1,709 feet, and
construct about 1,709 feet of 30-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in
Columbiana County, Ohio.
     Segment 22--abandon in-place about 920 feet, abandon by
removal about 3,277 feet, and construct about 4,197 feet of 30-inch-
diameter replacement pipeline in Columbiana County.
     Segment 24--abandon in-place about 897 feet, abandon by
removal about 2,714 feet, and construct about 3,611 feet of 30-inch-
diameter replacement pipeline in Columbiana County.
     Segment 25--abandon in-place about 151 feet, abandon by
removal about 951 feet, and construct about 1,102 feet of 30-inch-
diameter replacement pipeline in Columbiana County.
     Segment 27--abandon by removal about 986 feet, and
construct about 986 feet of 30-inch-diameter replacement pipeline in
Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
    2. Aboveground Facilities--DTI proposes to undertake the following
activities on its existing facilities as described below:
     Rural Valley Compressor Station--Install a new 10,915-
horsepower Solar Taurus 70S combustion turbine and a 3.5 million
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) boiler that would replace an
existing 2.1 MMBtu/hr boiler at the Rural Valley Compressor Station, in
Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. In addition, DTI would install one new
gas cooler, one new filter separator, a blowdown separator/silencer,
new suction/discharge tie-ins, and expand the existing compressor
building to accommodate the new compressor unit.
     Newark Compressor Station--Install additional regulation
at the existing Newark Compressor Station in Licking County, Ohio to
reduce the pressure in the TL-400 Pipeline as the gas flows west from
the compressor station.
     Beaver Compressor Station--Install additional regulation
at the existing Beaver Compressor Station in Beaver County,
Pennsylvania to allow additional gas to flow from the TL-400 Extension
1 Pipeline into the TL-400 Pipeline.
     Washington Compressor Station--Install four new valves and
30-inch diameter steel crossover piping at the existing Washington
Compressor Station in Fayette County, Ohio.
     Coxcomb Gate Assembly--Install a new relief valve on the
existing LN-25 Pipeline at the existing Coxcomb Gate Site in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    DTI's replacement activities would disturb a total of about 196.4
acres, including 128.6 acres for abandonment of existing pipeline
segments and installation of new pipeline, 10.9 acres for 63 additional
temporary work spaces, 14.6 acres for use of 28 access roads, 18.7
acres for 10 pipe storage and contractor yards, and 23.6 acres for
installation of aboveground facilities. Following construction DTI
would maintain a total of about 109.4 acres for permanent operation of
the projects facilities, and the remaining acreage would be restored
and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make

recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various
resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section beginning on page 6.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE)
in consultation with the SHPOs as the project develops. On natural gas
facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject
to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way,
contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads).
Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on
historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under
section 106.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by DTI. This preliminary list of
issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.

 Impacts on federally listed threatened and endangered species
 impacts on wetlands
 impacts on perennial waterbodies

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
December 26, 2014.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP14-555-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-
555). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the

texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: November 25, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28490 Filed 12-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


TSD-1g

Relative Response Factor (RRF)

and “Modeled Attainment Test”

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Albany, NY 12233

March 19, 2007

EPA guidance (EPA 2005) and the subsequent document (EPA 2006) require
the use of a modeled attainment test which is described as a procedure
in which an air quality model is used to simulate current and future air
quality. If future estimates of ozone concentrations are <= 84 ppb, then
this element of the attainment test is satisfied. A modeled attainment
demonstration that consists of (a) analyses which estimate whether
selected emissions reductions will result in ambient concentrations that
meet the NAAQS or progress goals and (b) an identified set of control
measures which will result in the required emissions reductions is
provided elsewhere.

For this modeled attainment test, model estimates are used in a
“relative” rather than “absolute” sense. That is, one calculates
the ratio of the model’s future to current (baseline) predictions at
ozone monitors. These ratios are called relative response factors (RRF).
Future ozone concentrations are estimated at existing monitoring sites
by multiplying modeled RRF at locations “near” each monitor by the
observation-based monitor-specific “baseline” ozone design value.
Therefore, the following equation describes approach as applied to a
monitoring site i:

 (DVF)i = (RRF)i x (DVC)i
(Equation 1)

Where (DVC)i is the baseline concentration monitored at site i; (RRF)i
is the relative response factor, calculated for site i, and (DVF)i is
the estimated future design value for site i. The RRF is the ratio of
the future 8-hour daily maximum concentration predicted at a monitor to
the baseline 8-hour daily maximum concentration predicted at the monitor
location averaged over multiple days determined from the base case.

The following sections describe the calculation of each of the elements
in Equation 1 as implemented by NYSDEC through an in-house computer
program (fortran). Note, the subscript “i” from equation is dropped
in the following description. However, all calculations are still
performed on a monitor-by-monitor basis.

Calculation of DVC

Design values (DV) at each monitoring site are calculated in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 50.10, Appendix I. The DV is calculated as the 3 year
average of the fourth highest monitored daily 8-hour maximum value at
each monitoring site. For example, the design value for the 2000-2002 is
the average of the fourth highest monitored daily 8-hour maximum values
in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Design values are labeled with the last year of
the design value period, i.e. the design value for the 2000 – 2002 is
labeled as “2002 design value”.

For the “modeled attainment test”, the guidance defines the DVC in
Equation 1 as the average of the design values, which straddle the
baseline inventory year. In our case, the baseline inventory year is
2002. Therefore, DVC is the average of the “2002 design value”
(determined from 2000-2002 observations), the “2003 design value”
(determined from 2001-2003 observations), and the “2004 design
value” (determined from 2002-2004 observations). Consequently, DVC is
derived from observations covering a five year period and is a weighted
average with 2002 observations “weighted” three times, 2001 and 2003
observations weighted twice, and 2000 and 2004 observations weighted
once.

The following criteria concerning missing DV were implemented in the
fortran code calculating DVC:

For monitors with only four years of consecutive data, the guidance
allows DVC to be computed as the average of two DV within that period.

For monitors with only three years of consecutive data, the DVC is equal
to the DV calculated for that three year period

For monitors with less than three years of consecutive data, no DVC can
be estimated

Calculation of RRF

The guidance requires the calculation of RRF with CMAQ output from grids
that are “near” a monitor. Because of the 12km grid spacing used in
the CMAQ simulations, model predictions in a 3*3 grid array centered on
the monitoring location are considered “near” that monitor. For each
day, the maximum base case and control case concentration within that
array is selected for RRF calculation as set forth in the guidance
document.

Because photochemical models were found to be less responsive to
emission reductions on days of lower simulated ozone concentrations, the
guidance recommends applying screening criteria to the daily model
predictions at individual monitors to determine whether that day’s
predictions are to be used to calculate the RRF or not. Only “high
ozone days” are to be selected:

RRF = (average control case over high ozone days selected based on base
case concentrations) / (average base case over selected high ozone days)

In addition, the guidance recommends that preferably ten or more “high
ozone days”, as identified below, be selected for RRF calculation. In
no case can the RRF be calculated with fewer than five “high ozone
days”.

The following describes the logic with which NYSDEC implemented these
screening criteria into its Fortran code for RRF calculation:

Selecting concentrations from grid cells surrounding the monitor

Determine the grid cell in which the monitor is located and include the
surrounding 8 grid cells to form a 3*3 grid cell array

Determine daily maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations for each day for each
of the 9 grid cells for both the base case and control case

For each day, pick the highest daily maximum 8-hr ozone value out of all
9 grid cells. This is the daily maximum 8-hr ozone concentration for
that monitor for that day to be used in RRF calculations (following the
screening criteria below).

This is done for both the base case and the control case. Note that the
grid cell selected on any given day for the base case need not be the
same as the grid cell selected for the same day in the control case.

Selecting modeling days to be used in the RRF computation (again, this
is done on a monitor-by-monitor basis)

Starting with a ozone threshold (TO3) of 85 ppb and a minimum required
number of days (Dmin) of 10, determine all days for which the simulated
base case concentration (as determined in step (a) is at or above the
threshold TO3.

If the number of such days is greater to or equal Dmin, identify these
days and proceed to step (c). Otherwise, continue to b(iii), below.

Lower the threshold (TO3) by 1ppb interval and go back to b(i) to
identify the days. If the minimum number of days is not reached then
reduce that requirement by 1 but no lower than 5 days and with TO3 > =70
ppb and go back to b(i). Otherwise proceed to b(iv) below.

Stop. No RRF can be calculated for this monitor because there were less
than 5 days with base case daily maximum concentration > =70 ppb.

RRF computation: Compute the RRF by averaging the daily maximum 8-hr
ozone concentrations for base case and control case determined in step
(a) over all of the days determined in step (b). The RRF is the ratio of
average control case concentrations over average base case
concentrations.

Computation of DVF

Compute DVF as the product of DVC from step (1) and RRF from step (2).
Note, the following conventions on numerical precision (truncation,
rounding) were applied:

DV are truncated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50.10, Appendix I. This
applies to the “2002 DV”, the “2003 DV”, and the “2004 DV”

DVC (averages of DV over multiple years) are calculated in ppb and
carried to 1 significant digit

RRF are calculated and carried to three significant digits

DVF is calculated by multiplying DVC with RRF, followed by truncation

References

EPA (2005) Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in
Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. EPA-454/R-05-002.

EPA (2006) Guidance on the use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and
Regional Haze. Draft 3.2-September 2006.

 PAGE

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 231 (Monday, December 6, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68960-68961]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26406]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0031; FRL-9177-01-R10]

Air Plan Approval; AK; Removal of Excess Emissions Provision

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
State of Alaska, through the Alaska Department of Environment
Conservation, on January 9, 2017. The revision was submitted by Alaska
in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call
published on June 12, 2015, for a provision in the Alaska SIP related
to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
events. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision and proposing to
determine that such SIP revision corrects the deficiency identified in
the June 12, 2015, SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0031 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information, the disclosure of which 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. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Ruddick, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), Seattle, WA 98101,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'' or
``our'' is used, it refers to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background

    On February 22, 2013, a Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking was published outlining EPA's policy at the time with
respect to SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed
specific SSM SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or
did not comply with the CAA with regard to excess emission events.\1\
For each SIP provision that EPA determined to be inconsistent with the
CAA, EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to
issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014,
EPA issued a document supplementing and revising what the Agency had
previously proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit
decision that determined the CAA precludes authority of the EPA to
create affirmative defense provisions applicable to private civil
suits. EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative defense SIP
provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed in
the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised interpretation
of the CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed
SIP calls for those provisions where appropriate (79 FR 55920,
September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address
the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the
affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required
to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP
calls by November 22, 2016. The detailed rationale for issuing the SIP
call to Alaska can be found in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and preceding
proposed actions.
    EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Alaska in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if

contained in a SIP submission. The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the
prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review and
potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no
longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles
laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the agency takes action on SIP
submissions, including this SIP submittal provided in response to the
2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Alaska SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
determined that 18 AAC 50.240 was substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements (80 FR 33973, June 12, 2015). The provision provided:
``Excess emissions determined to be unavoidable under this section will
be excused and are not subject to penalty. This section does not limit
the department's power to enjoin the emission or require corrective
action.'' The rationale underlying EPA's determination that the
provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and
therefore to issue a SIP call to Alaska to remedy the provision, is
detailed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and the accompanying proposals.
    Alaska submitted a SIP revision on January 9, 2017, in response to
the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In its submission,
Alaska is requesting that EPA revise the Alaska SIP by removing 18 AAC
50.240 in its entirety, thereby removing this provision from the Alaska
SIP.

II. Analysis of SIP Submission

    EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's January 9, 2017, SIP
submission, which would remove the provision identified as inconsistent
with CAA requirements from the Alaska SIP. Alaska is retaining 18 AAC
50.240 for state law purposes only, with revisions to clarify that (1)
all excess emissions are violations and (2) the provision applies only
to Alaska in exercising its enforcement authority and therefore does
not preclude citizens or EPA from seeking injunctive relief or civil
penalties for excess emissions. Alaska submitted the revised state-only
version of 18 AAC 50.240 solely for informational purposes to show a
complete record of the clarifications. Based on the revisions to 18 AAC
50.240 made by Alaska and Alaska's request to remove it from the Alaska
SIP, EPA proposes to find that Alaska's January 9, 2017, SIP revision
is consistent with CAA requirements and adequately addresses the
specific deficiencies that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action
with respect to the Alaska SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). EPA is
proposing to approve Alaska's January 9, 2017, SIP submission
requesting removal of 18 AAC 50.240 ``Excess Emissions'' from the
Alaska SIP. We are proposing approval of the SIP revision because we
have determined that it is consistent with the requirements for SIP
provisions under the CAA. EPA is further proposing to determine that
such SIP revision corrects the deficiency identified in the June 12,
2015, SIP call. EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is
only taking comment on whether this SIP revision is consistent with CAA
requirements and whether it addresses the substantial inadequacy in the
specific Alaska SIP provision (18 AAC 50.240) identified in the 2015
SSM SIP Action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to remove in a final rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to remove the
incorporation by reference of ``18 AAC 50.240'' in 40 CFR 52.70, as
described in Section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves removal of State law not meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those already imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The Alaska SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this
rulemaking does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: November 30, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2021-26406 Filed 12-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 115)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33751-33754]
[DOCID:fr13jn08-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0215]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones: Festival of Sail San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary safety zones
in support of the scheduled Festival of Sail Events from July 23, 2008,
through July 27, 2008. The event will include a parade and mock cannon
battles. The temporary safety zones are necessary to provide for the
safety of spectators, participating vessels and crews.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket

number USCG-2008-0215 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0215), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0215)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays; or the Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena
Island, San Francisco, California, 94130 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The American Sail Training Association, in coordination with the
local sponsor, Festival of Sail San Francisco, is sponsoring the 2008
Festival of Sail Event. This event is a part of the Tall Ships[supreg]
Challenge race series transiting the Pacific Ocean along the west coast
of North America. Between the races, the participating vessels will
visit several ports, including San Francisco. Vessels will be docked
along the waterfront offering the public the opportunity to tour
vessels, sail, and learn. There are many activities on the water
scheduled to take place; such as mock cannon battles and the parade.
Safety zones will be established along with the issuance of marine
event permits for this event. The temporary safety zones are necessary
to provide for the safety of the crews, spectators, and participants of
the Festival of Sail and are also necessary to protect other vessels
and users of waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a moving safety zone
extending 100 yards around each vessel participating in the Festival of
Sail--Parade of Ships as each vessel transits through San Francisco
Bay. The safety zones surrounding the participant vessels will be
enforced on July 23, 2008. The parade route is as follows, it will
commence at the Golden Gate Bridge, extend east to Alcatraz Island and
then south to Pier 40, and will be bounded by a line connecting the
following points: 37[deg]48'40'' N and 122[deg]28'38'' W,
37[deg]49'10'' N and 122[deg]28'41'' W, 37[deg]49'31'' N and
122[deg]25'18'' W, 37[deg]49'06'' N and 122[deg]24'08'' W,
37[deg]47'53'' N and 122[deg]22'42'' W, and 37[deg] 46'54'' N and
122[deg]23'09'' W.
    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for
the mock cannon battles taking place west of Alcatraz Island. This
location will be called location ``alpha''. The safety zone will be
bounded by a line connecting the following points: 37[deg]49'18'' N and
122[deg]25'40'' W, 37[deg]49'24'' N and 122[deg]25'18'' W,
37[deg]49'45'' N and 122[deg]25'42'' W, and lastly 37[deg]49'37'' N and
122[deg]26'05'' W; and will include all navigable waters from the
surface to the seafloor. This safety zone will be in effect on July 25,
2008 and July 26, 2008.
    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for
the mock cannon battles taking place west of Treasure Island in
Anchorage 7. This location will be called location ``bravo''. The
safety zone will be bounded by a line connecting the following points:
37[deg]48'55'' N and 122[deg]23'03'' W, 37[deg]49'07'' N and
122[deg]22'32'' W, 37[deg]49'28'' N and 122[deg]22'53'' W, and lastly
37[deg]49'18'' N and 122[deg]23'28'' W; and will include all navigable
waters from the surface to the seafloor. This safety zone will be in
effect on July 24, 2008 and July 27, 2008.
    These proposed safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety
of the crews, spectators, and participants of the Festival of Sail.
Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering into,

transiting through, or anchoring within these safety zones unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of
pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic can
pass safely around the area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected
portion of San Francisco Bay to engage in these activities, (iii) this
rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited
period of time, and (iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance
of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question
or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is not likely to have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis
Check List'' supporting this preliminary determination is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

    2. Add temporary Sec.  165-T11-025 to read as follows:

Sec.  165-T11-025  Safety Zones; Festival of Sail, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. These temporary safety zones are established for the
Festival of Sail Events taking place in the following locations:
    (1) For the Festival of Sail-Parade of Ships the moving safety zone
extends 100 yards around each vessel participating in the Parade of
Ships as each vessel transits through San Francisco Bay to its
respective mooring site.
    (2) For the mock cannon battles, the safety zone for location
``alpha'' will take place west of Alcatraz Island. The safety zone will
be bounded by a line connecting the following points: 37[deg]49'18'' N
and 122[deg]25'40'' W, 37[deg]49'24'' N and 122[deg]25'18'' W,
37[deg]49'45'' N and 122[deg]25'42'' W, and lastly 37[deg]49'37'' N and
122[deg]26'05'' W; and will include all navigable waters from the
surface to the seafloor.
    (3) For the mock cannon battles, the safety zone for location
``bravo'' will take place west of Treasure Island in Anchorage 7. The
safety zone will be bounded by a line connecting the following points:
37[deg]48'55'' N and 122[deg]23'03'' W, 37[deg]49'07'' N and
122[deg]22'32'' W, 37[deg]49'28'' N and 122[deg]22'53'' W and lastly
37[deg]49'18'' N and 122[deg]23'28'' W; and will include all navigable
waters from the surface to the seafloor. This safety zone will be in
effect on July 24, 2008, and July 27, 2008.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be effective from July
23, 2008, to July 27, 2008. If the events conclude prior to their
scheduled termination times, the Coast Guard will cease enforcement of
these safety zones and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within these
safety zones by all vessels and persons is prohibited, unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco, or
his designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, San Francisco, or the designated
representative.
    (3) Designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, and
petty officer of the Coast Guard onboard a Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, local, state, or federal law enforcement vessel who is
authorized to act on behalf of the Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed. Person and vessels may request permission to
enter the safety zones on VHF-16 or the 24-hour Command Center via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of these safety zones by local law enforcement as
necessary.

    Dated: June 5, 2008.
P.M. Gugg.
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. E8-13268 Filed 6-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


                             Supporting Statement

                                      for

                        Information Collection Request

           Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulations
             and Voluntary Aftermarket Part Certification Program
                                   (Renewal)

                                  ICR 0116.12
                                 OMB 2060-0060

                                  42 USC 7521
                                40 CFR Part 85

                             Compliance  Division
                   Office of Transportation and Air Quality
                          Office of Air and Radiation
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

PART A

1.     Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title and Number of the Information Collection

	Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulations and Voluntary Aftermarket Part Certification Program (Renewal), EPA Number 0116.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0060.

1(b) Short Characterization

	Under Section 206(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, 42 USC 7521), on-highway engine and vehicle manufacturers may not legally introduce their products into US commerce unless EPA has certified that their production complies with applicable emission standards. Under section 207(a), original vehicle manufacturers must warrant that vehicles are free from defects in materials and workmanship that would cause the vehicle not to comply with emission regulations during its useful life.  Section 207(a) directs EPA to provide certification to those manufacturers or builders of automotive aftermarket parts who demonstrate that the installation and use of their products will not cause failure of the engine or vehicle to comply with emission standards.  An aftermarket part is any part offered for sale for installation in or on a motor vehicle after such vehicle has left the vehicle manufacturer's production line (40 CFR 85.2113(b)).  Participation in the aftermarket certification program is voluntary.

	Aftermarket part manufacturers electing to participate in the certification program conduct emission and durability testing as described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart V, and submit data about their products and testing procedures.

	This information is collected by the Compliance  Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Besides CD, this information could be used by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance and the Department of Justice for enforcement purposes.  Non-confidential portions of the information submitted to EPA could be disclosed to the public upon request.  This information could be used by trade associations, environmental groups, and the public.

	Due to the fact that EPA has received only two aftermarket part certification applications since 1989, the Agency does not expect to receive any applications in the next three years.  The purpose of this ICR renewal is to preserve EPA's authority to receive such an application in the event that one is submitted. Consequently, for the purposes of this information collection request, EPA has assumed that one manufacturer will apply for aftermarket part certification during the three-year period covered by this collection.

2.  	Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	EPA's emission certification programs, including aftermarket part certification, are statutorily mandated; the agency does not have discretion to discontinue these functions. Section 207(a) of the CAA mandates EPA to provide emissions compliance certification for manufacturers of automotive aftermarket parts that wish to certify their products.  Regulations implementing this requirement are found at 40 CFR part 85, subpart V.

	The information collected under this request is needed to insure that aftermarket parts do not cause vehicles to exceed emission standards and to enforce the CAA's warranty requirements.  Original vehicle manufacturers are required to honor warranty claims when a malfunction was caused by a certified aftermarket part.  If the aftermarket part had not been certified, the original vehicle manufacturer can deny the claim.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	EPA would use the information to investigate warranty claim denials and possible tampering violations and to inform the public about what parts are certified.

 	The information would be received and used by CD/OTAQ/OAR.  Non-confidential portions of the information submitted would be available to be used by importers, environmental groups, members of the public and local, state and federal government organizations.

3.	Nonduplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria

3(a)	Nonduplication

	The information requested under this ICR is required by statute.  Because of its specialized nature, the information collected is not available from any other source.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	A notice of the docket and public comment period for this ICR renewal was published in the Federal Register.  A copy of the ICR was placed in the docket.  No comments were received.

3(c)	Consultations

	Since no aftermarket part certification applications have been received during the last several years, burden estimates are based on estimates developed in 1986.  These estimates were developed using information obtained during informal conversations with Mr. Robert Burch from the Specialty Equipment Marketing Associations (SEMA) and Mr. Joseph Dougherty from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturing Association (MEMA).

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The information requested is only collected on occasion, when a manufacturer elects to submit an application for aftermarket part certification.

3(e)	General Guidelines

	According to 40 CFR 85.2120(a), the information gathered by the manufacturer to compile aftermarket part applications must be kept for five years unless the part has been certified for use exclusively in vehicles with less than five years of emission warranty coverage remaining (see section 4(b)(i)(B) for details).  The five-year recordkeeping requirement stems from the CAA mandate that manufacturers recall engines failing to meet emission standards throughout their useful lives.

	Under this information collection, manufacturers may submit certain sensitive technical and proprietary information related to part design.  This information is kept confidential in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel.

	No other general guideline is exceeded by this information collection.

3(f)	Confidentiality

	Manufacturers are allowed to assert a claim of  confidentiality over information provided to EPA.  Confidentiality is provided in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	No sensitive questions are asked.

4.	Respondents and Information Requested

4(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

	Respondents are manufacturers of on-highway vehicles within the following:

Category
NAICS Codes (1)
SIC Codes (2)
Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities
Industry
336312
3714
Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing

(1) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
(2) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system

4(b)	Information Requested

	(i)	Data Items

	Tables A and B list the data items requested under this information collection.

 Notification of intent to certify

 	Manufacturers of automotive aftermarket parts who wish to get their product certified need to submit, at least 45 days prior to the sale of the part, a `Notification of Intent' or application with the following information:

                                     Table A
                       Notification of Intent to Certify

 Identification of each part to be certified
 85.2115(a)(1)(i)
 Identification of the vehicle or engine configurations for which the part is being certified
 85.2115(a)(1)(ii)
 Technical information requested in 85.2114
 85.2115(a)(1)(iii)
 Any waivers previously obtained and all correspondence with EPA regarding certification of the part
 85.2115(a)(1)(iv)
 A description of all tests, techniques, procedures, statistical analysis, etc. used to demonstrate compliance
 85.2115(a)(1)(v)
 All results and documentation pertaining to durability and emissions tests per 85.2114
 85.2115(a)(1)(vi)
 A justification for forgoing any part of the Federal Test Procedure, if applicable
 85.2115(a)(1)(vii)
 A description of the criteria used to select the test part and a statement that the test part is representative of production parts
 85.2115(a)(1)(viii)
 A description of the vehicle in which the part was tested and an explanation of why it represents the worst emissions case of all configurations for which this part is being certified
 85.2115(a)(1)(ix)
 The service intervals, including maintenance and replacement intervals, and a statement indicating whether it is different for the original part intervals
 85.2115(a)(1)(x)
 A description of the label and whether it complies with EPA requirements
 85.2115(a)(1)(xi)
 Acceptance of the warranty and dispute resolution requirements in 85.2117
 85.2115(a)(1)(xii)
 A statement of commitment to comply with all terms and conditions of 85.2115
 85.2115(a)(1)(xiii)
 A statement that the replacement part will not cause a substantial increase in emissions in any normal driving mode not represented during testing
 85.2115(a)(1)(xiv)
 Contact information
 85.2115(a)(1)(xv)

 	EPA may deny certification if the Agency finds that the manufacturer did not prove compliance or that the documentation submitted was not adequate (85.2116).  The Agency may also de-certify a part if it has reason to believe that the manufacturer did not comply with the regulations (85.2121).  In both cases, the affected manufacturer may appeal the decision, in writing, within 20 days of receipt of the decision.

 	If a part is modified after certification has been granted, the manufacturer must re-certify the part if the modification could affect vehicle emissions and/or the durability of the part or other components of the vehicle (85.2118).  There are also labeling requirements (85.2119).

 	Manufacturers are also required to warrant their products "for the remaining performance warranty period of any vehicle on which the part is installed, or for the warranty period specified for an equivalent original equipment component, if this period is shorter than the remaining warranty period of the vehicle" (85.2117).  Manufacturers must also reimburse original vehicle manufacturers for any reasonable expenses incurred by the original vehicle manufacturer as a result of honoring a warranty claim where a certified aftermarket part was found to have caused the problem.  40 CFR 85.2117 and Appendix II to 85 CFR Subpart V contain the procedures an original vehicle manufacturer must follow when pursuing reimbursement from an aftermarket part manufacturer.

B.  Recordkeeping

 	For each certified part, manufacturers must maintain, for five years (85.2120(a)), the following records:

                                    Table B
                           Recordkeeping Requirements

 Detailed production drawings
 85.2120(a)(1)
 A description of the testing program
 85.2120(a)(2)
 All test data and subsequent analyses
 85.2120(a)(3)
 Information used to determine equivalency with original parts
 85.2120(a)(4)
 A description of quality control plans and compliance assurance
 85.2120(a)(5)
 All data taken during quality control and subsequent analyses
 85.2120(a)(6)
 A description of all techniques used to determine emission critical parameter specifications
 85.2120(a)(7)
 Any data, documents, correspondence with vendors and consumers, etc. related to problems found in 25 certified parts or more
 85.2120(a)(8)

 	Records must be made available to EPA upon request.  For parts certified only for vehicles with less than five years of emissions warranty remaining, records must be maintain for three years or until 80% of applicable vehicles are outside the warranty period, whichever occurs later.

 	(ii)	Respondent Activities

       The activities manufacturers need to perform to comply with the requirements of each type of report are as follows:

 Review instructions and regulations
 Compile data
 Test aftermarket parts according to regulations
 Prepare and submit report
 Maintain records

 5.	The Information Collected--Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

 5(a)	Agency Activities

 	EPA officials carry out the following activities:

 Review regulations
 Answer respondents' questions
 Review and analyze applications for completeness and compliance with regulations
 Analyze applications
 Request additional information, if needed
 Address requests for confidentiality

 5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

 	The information requested under this collection would be submitted by manufacturers on occasion, when a manufacturer chooses to seek certification for its products.  EPA has not received applications for aftermarket part certification in the last several years.  In fact, only two applications have been received since 1989. Due to the lack of participation in this program, there is no need to develop electronic forms or databases.  Therefore, should EPA receive an application in the next three years, the information will most likely be collected on paper.

 5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

 	The information requested is considered to be the minimum needed to effectively maintain the emission control program's integrity and comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.  Further measures to simplify reporting requirements for small businesses do not appear prudent or necessary.

 5(d)	Collection Schedule

 	Applications for aftermarket part certification are collected on occasion only, when a manufacturer chooses to seek certification for its products.

 6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

 6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

 	Burden estimates are based on a 1985 burden assessment, updated to incorporate the most recent testing cost estimates and methodology in the certification ICR, EPA ICR number 0783.54, and the Greenhouse Gases rulemaking, EPA ICR numbers 0783.56/.58 (OMB control number 2060-0104).  Since only two applications have been submitted since 1989, EPA continues to rely on these estimates.

 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

 	(i)	Estimating Labor Costs

	Testing labor costs are based on the EPA average of $55.82 per hour from ICR 0783.54 adjusted from late 2008 to 2019 using the CPI Inflation Calculator (https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) to 2019 as $67.74 per hour.  Other non-testing labor costs are considered to be approximated by the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, NAICS 336100.  Rates for managers, mechanical engineers, and secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive) are from the May 2011 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm, accessed March 12, 2019). With a 160% overhead multiplier, these are $88.55, $69.26, and $30.94, respectively.

 	(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

 	Operation and Maintenance costs (O&M Costs) associated with this information collection are those for conducting city emissions tests (FTPs). They also may include CDs and DVDs, as well as photocopying, postage and other shipping expenses and phone calls.  CDs and DVDs may be used by manufacturers to submit data electronically and to keep records.

      (iii) Capital/Start Up Operations

	This ICR estimates an undepreciated capital cost of $7,467.  There are no start-up costs associated with the renewal of this ICR.

      (iv)  Annualizing Capital Costs

 	Consistent with OMB Control Number 2060-0104, for uniformity of treatment, we are assuming a capital cost for facilities to conduct FTP tests on a per-test basis, assuming no prior capacity, and without regard to whether the testing services are contracted or done in house. On this basis, we estimate an annualized (over ten years) and depreciated (7%) capital cost of $1,063 for one application under this program.

 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

 	Government labor cost is based on a GS-12 general schedule salary of  $81,780 per year for a reviewer based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, obtained from the Office of Personal Management 2019 Salary Table. Adjusted by a factor of 1.6 to account for benefits and overhead, the total is $130,848 for a year.   Only 4 hours will be used for this collection for a total of $252 per year.

 6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and 	Costs

 	Based on the 1985 assessment mentioned earlier and comments from the industry, EPA estimates that a manufacturer applying for aftermarket part certification will spend 1,640 hours for an aftermarket part certification application covering one part. This estimate included 1,460 hours for the five percent of all parts requiring durability tests, rounded up to one part;  20 hours conducting emissions tests; 30 hours conducting the Federal Test Procedure (FTP); 122 hours of reporting burdens; and 8 hours for recordkeeping. These numbers reflect current burden estimates for testing and cover one part only, for a total of 1,640 hours for one application in the three year period, annualized to 547 hours per year, the majority of which is a very generous allowance for durability testing, which, in fact, would not apply to most applications.

 	EPA does not expect to receive any application in the next three years.  However for the purpose of this ICR, EPA is assuming that one application will be received during that period and annualized the burden estimates.

 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

 	(i) Respondent Tally (annualized)

 		Number of Respondents: 1
 		Total Hours per year: 547
 		Total Labor Cost per year: $17,108
 		Total Capital Costs per year: $1,063
 		Total O&M Costs per year: $892
 		Total Costs:  $19,063

 	(ii) The Agency Tally (annualized)
 		Number of Respondents: 1
 		Total Hours per year: 4
 		Total Labor Cost per year: $184
 		Total Capital Costs per year: $0
 		Total O&M Costs per year: $5
 		Total Costs:  $189

 6(f) Reasons for change in burden

 	There is no change in burden.

 6(g) Burden Statement

 	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to average 547 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0437, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0437 and OMB Control Number 2060-0060 in any correspondence.