2606 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

deviation, call or email Eric A. 

Washburn, Bridge Administrator, 

Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 

314–269–2378, email Eric.Washburn@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Cheryl F. 

Collins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Canadian Pacific Railroad requested a 

temporary deviation for the Sabula 

Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper 

Mississippi River, mile 535.0, at Sabula, 

Iowa to open on signal if at least 24 

hours advance notice is given for 51 

days from 4 p.m., January 9, 2015, to 9 

a.m., March 1, 2015 for scheduled 

maintenance on the bridge. The Sabula 

Railroad Drawbridge currently operates 

in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which 

states the general requirement that 

drawbridge shall open on signal. 

There are no alternate routes for 

vessels transiting this section of the 

Upper Mississippi River. 

Winter conditions on the Upper 

Mississippi River coupled with the 

closure of Army Corps of Engineer’s 

Lock No. 12 (Mile 556.7 UMR) and Lock 

No. 13 (Mile 522.5 UMR) from 7:30 a.m. 

December 15, 2015 until 11 a.m., March 

4, 2015 will preclude any significant 

navigation demands for the drawspan 

opening. 

The Sabula Railroad Drawbridge, in 

the closed-to-navigation position, 

provides a vertical clearance of 18.1 feet 

above normal pool. Navigation on the 

waterway consists primarily of 

commercial tows and recreational 

watercraft and will not be significantly 

impacted. This temporary deviation has 

been coordinated with waterway users. 

No objections were received. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: January 9, 2015. 

Eric A. Washburn, 

Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00712 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 75 and 77 

RIN 1855–AA10 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OII–0116] 

Direct Grant Programs and Definitions 

That Apply to Department Regulations 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: On August 13, 2013, the 

Department of Education (the 

Department) published final regulations 

in the Federal Register to amend the 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). 

On October 22, 2014, the Department 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to make additional 

amendments to EDGAR. In this 

document, the Department amends 

EDGAR to add a definition of ‘‘What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards’’ (WWC Evidence Standards) 

in our regulations to standardize 

references to this term. In addition, the 

Department amends the definition of 

‘‘large sample’’ in our regulation. We 

also make technical edits to our 

regulations to improve the consistency 

and clarity of the regulations. Finally, 

we redesignate a section of our 

regulations and include in that 

redesignated section an additional 

provision that allows the Secretary to 

give special consideration to projects 

supported by evidence of promise. 

DATES: These regulations are effective 

February 19, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Moss, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W319, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 205–7726 or by email: 

allison.moss@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this 

document, we amend EDGAR to 

standardize a term and improve the 

consistency and clarity of our 

regulations. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: The Department 

revises EDGAR to include a definition 

for ‘‘What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards,’’ provide the 

Secretary the flexibility to establish a 

separate competition for or award 

competitive preference to discretionary 

grant applications supported by 

evidence of promise, and revise certain 

definitions to improve clarity. 

References to the WWC Handbook 

The Department adds a definition of 

‘‘What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards’’ to 34 CFR part 77. This 

definition incorporates the most recent 

version of the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (WWC Handbook), 

Version 3.0, which was made public in 

March 2014. Instead of continuing to 

separately cite the WWC Handbook in 

various provisions of parts 75 and 77, 

we add, to part 77, a single definition 

of the WWC Evidence Standards that 

incorporates the current version of the 

WWC Handbook, and then include that 

defined term, as applicable, throughout 

parts 75 and 77. 

The WWC Handbook, first published 

in 2008, documents the systematic 

review process and the standards by 

which the WWC reviews studies. 

Version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook 

significantly expands the examples used 

to illustrate how the WWC Evidence 

Standards are applied in various 

contexts. Although previous versions of 

the WWC Handbook focused on only 

one WWC product—the intervention 

report—Version 3.0 includes 

information on several additional WWC 

products, including practice guides, 

single-study reviews, and quick reviews. 

By adding a definition of ‘‘WWC 

Evidence Standards’’ and updating the 

applicable references throughout 34 

CFR parts 75 and 77 to incorporate the 

most recent version of the WWC 

Handbook, the Department will provide 

more effective guidance to applicants 

and grantees as they design and 

implement rigorous evaluations of their 

projects. 

Special Consideration for Discretionary 

Grant Applications Demonstrating 

‘‘Evidence of Promise’’ 

These final regulations amend 

§ 75.266 and redesignate it as § 75.226. 

Previously, this section provided that 

the Secretary may give special 

consideration, through establishing a 

separate competition or awarding 

competitive preference, to discretionary 

grant applications supported by strong 

evidence of effectiveness or moderate 

evidence of effectiveness. In our 

experience using evidence in 

discretionary grant competitions, we 

have learned it is beneficial to also 

include in 34 CFR 75.266 (which we 

have redesignated as 34 CFR 75.226) a 

provision for giving special 

consideration to applications supported 

by evidence of promise, which is a less 

rigorous standard, because evidence of 

effectiveness in the education field 

continues to develop. By including 

evidence of promise in newly 

redesignated 34 CFR 75.226, we allow 

more flexibility to discretionary grant 

programs oriented towards supporting 

evidence-based projects. 

Definition of ‘‘Evidence of Promise’’ 

We amend the definition of ‘‘evidence 

of promise’’ to replace the reference to 

‘‘quasi-experimental study’’ with 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2607 

‘‘quasi-experimental design study,’’ to 

clarify that the term used in the 

definition of ‘‘evidence of promise’’ is 

‘‘quasi-experimental design study,’’ 

which is defined later in 34 CFR 77.1(c). 

We also change the paragraph 

designations in this definition for 

internal consistency. We make these 

changes in order to align the definition 

of ‘‘evidence of promise’’ so it is 

consistent with the other defined terms 

to which it makes reference and to 

ensure that applicants and grantees 

receive consistent and clear information 

when referencing that definition. 

Definition of ‘‘Large Sample’’ 

The Department modifies the 

definition of ‘‘large sample’’ in 34 CFR 

part 77 to remove the requirement that 

analysis units be randomly assigned to 

treatment or control groups. In 

implementing our discretionary grant 

programs, we discovered a discrepancy 

between the existing definition, 

specifically its references to random 

assignment of students, teachers, 

classrooms, schools, or other single 

analysis units to treatment or control 

groups, and the definition of ‘‘moderate 

evidence of effectiveness’’ in 34 CFR 

77.1. Under the definition of ‘‘moderate 

evidence of effectiveness,’’ a quasiexperimental design study (as defined 

in 34 CFR 77.1) that includes a large 

sample could meet the standard, but 

many such studies do not randomly 

assign units of analysis to treatment or 

control groups. We revise the definition 

of ‘‘large sample’’ to eliminate the 

random assignment of analysis units 

into treatment or control groups as a 

mandatory element. Therefore, for 

instance, a quasi-experimental design 

study with a sample of 350 or more 

students (or other single analysis units), 

or 50 or more groups (such as 

classrooms or schools) that contains 10 

or more students, could meet the 

definition of ‘‘moderate evidence of 

effectiveness’’ in 34 CFR 77.1. 

There are no differences between the 

NPRM and these final regulations. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPRM, we did not 

receive any comments on the proposed 

regulations. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final regulations 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that these final 

regulations are consistent with the 

principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, or tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These regulations do not contain any 

information collection requirements. 

Intergovernmental Review 

These regulations affect direct grant 

programs of the Department, some of 

which are subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for these programs. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In the NPRM we requested comments 

on whether the proposed regulations 

would require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Based on the response to the NPRM 

and on our review, we have determined 

that these final regulations do not 

require transmission of information that 

any other agency or authority of the 

United States gathers or makes 

available. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. (Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance Number does not 

apply.) 

List of Subjects 

34 CFR Part 75 

Accounting, Copyright, Education, 

Grant programs—education, Inventions 

and patents, Private schools, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

34 CFR Part 77 

Education, Grant programs— 

education. 

Dated: January 9, 2015. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary amends parts 75 

and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 75—DIRECT GRANT 

PROGRAMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 75 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 75.210 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (h)(2)(viii) and (ix), 

and removing footnotes 1 and 2, to read 

as follows. 

§ 75.210 General selection criteria. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(viii) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will, if well-implemented, 

produce evidence about the project’s 

effectiveness that would meet the What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards without reservations. 

(ix) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will, if well-implemented, 

produce evidence about the project’s 

effectiveness that would meet the What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards with reservations. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 75.266 is redesignated as 

§ 75.226 and newly redesignated 

§ 75.226 is revised to read as follows: 

75.226 What procedures does the 

Secretary use if the Secretary decides to 

give special consideration to applications 

supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness, moderate evidence of 

effectiveness, or evidence of promise? 

(a) As used in this section, ‘‘strong 

evidence of effectiveness’’ is defined in 

34 CFR 77.1(c); 

(b) As used in this section, ‘‘moderate 

evidence of effectiveness’’ is defined in 

34 CFR 77.1(c); 

(c) As used in this section, ‘‘evidence 

of promise’’ is defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c); and 

(d) If the Secretary determines that 

special consideration of applications 

supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness, moderate evidence of 

effectiveness, or evidence of promise is 

appropriate, the Secretary may establish 

a separate competition under the 

procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), or 

provide competitive preference under 

the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), 

for applications supported by: 

(1) Evidence of effectiveness that 

meets the conditions set out in 

paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘‘strong 

evidence of effectiveness’’ in 34 CFR 

77.1(c); 

(2) Evidence of effectiveness that 

meets the conditions set out in either 

paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of 

‘‘strong evidence of effectiveness’’ in 34 

CFR 77.1(c); 

(3) Evidence of effectiveness that 

meets the conditions set out in the 

definition of ‘‘moderate evidence of 

effectiveness;’’ or 

(4) Evidence of effectiveness that 

meets the conditions set out in the 

definition of ‘‘evidence of promise.’’ 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474. 

PART 77—DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY 

TO DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 77 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 5. In § 77.1 paragraph (c) is amended 

by: 

■ A. Revising the definitions of 

Evidence of promise, Large sample, 

Moderate evidence of effectiveness, 

Quasi-experimental design study, 

Randomized controlled trial, and Strong 

evidence of effectiveness. 

■ B. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition of What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards. 

■ C. Removing footnotes 1 through 8. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 77.1 Definitions that apply to all 

Department programs. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * 

Evidence of promise means there is 

empirical evidence to support the 

theoretical linkage(s) between at least 

one critical component and at least one 

relevant outcome presented in the logic 

model for the proposed process, 

product, strategy, or practice. 

Specifically, evidence of promise means 

the conditions in both paragraphs (i) 

and (ii) of this definition are met: 

(i) There is at least one study that is 

a— 

(A) Correlational study with statistical 

controls for selection bias; 

(B) Quasi-experimental design study 

that meets the What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations; or 

(C) Randomized controlled trial that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards with or without 

reservations. 

(ii) The study referenced in paragraph 

(i) of this definition found a statistically 

significant or substantively important 

(defined as a difference of 0.25 standard 

deviations or larger) favorable 

association between at least one critical 

component and one relevant outcome 

presented in the logic model for the 

proposed process, product, strategy, or 

practice. 

* * * * * 

Large sample means an analytic 

sample of 350 or more students (or other 

single analysis units), or 50 or more 

groups (such as classrooms or schools) 

that contain 10 or more students (or 

other single analysis units). 

* * * * * 

Moderate evidence of effectiveness 

means one of the following conditions 

is met: 

(i) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards without 

reservations, found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2609 

relevant outcome (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the study or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse), and includes a sample 

that overlaps with the populations or 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice. 

(ii) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards with reservations, 

found a statistically significant favorable 

impact on a relevant outcome (with no 

statistically significant and overriding 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the study or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

What Works Clearinghouse), includes a 

sample that overlaps with the 

populations or settings proposed to 

receive the process, product, strategy, or 

practice, and includes a large sample 

and a multi-site sample. 

Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively 

meet the large and multi-site sample 

requirements as long as each study meets the 

other requirements in this paragraph. 

* * * * * 

Quasi-experimental design study 

means a study using a design that 

attempts to approximate an 

experimental design by identifying a 

comparison group that is similar to the 

treatment group in important respects. 

These studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations (but not What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards 

without reservations). 

* * * * * 

Randomized controlled trial means a 

study that employs random assignment 

of, for example, students, teachers, 

classrooms, schools, or districts to 

receive the intervention being evaluated 

(the treatment group) or not to receive 

the intervention (the control group). The 

estimated effectiveness of the 

intervention is the difference between 

the average outcomes for the treatment 

group and for the control group. These 

studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards 

without reservations. 

* * * * * 

Strong evidence of effectiveness 

means one of the following conditions 

is met: 

(i) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards without 

reservations, found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the study or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse), includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations and 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice, and 

includes a large sample and a multi-site 

sample. 

Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively 

meet the large and multi-site sample 

requirements as long as each study meets the 

other requirements in this paragraph. 

(ii) There are at least two studies of 

the effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed, 

each of which: Meets the What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations, found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the studies or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse), includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations and 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice, and 

includes a large sample and a multi-site 

sample. 

* * * * * 

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards means the standards set forth 

in the What Works Clearinghouse 

Procedures and Standards Handbook 

(Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be 

found at the following link: http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–00463 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0781; FRL–9920–52– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District and 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions respectively concern volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from petroleum refinery coking 

operations, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

primary emissions from stationary 

combustion sources. We are approving 

local rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

23, 2015 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

February 19, 2015. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0781, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES