### 21917 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Notices

nonroad equipment manufacturers are allowed to delay compliance with Tier 4 standards for up to seven years as long as they comply with certain limitations. The program seeks to ease the impact of new emission standards on equipment manufacturers. This is achieved by allowing additional time for equipment manufacturers to redesign their products as needed in response to changes in engine designs. Participation in the program is voluntary. Participating equipment manufacturers and the engine manufacturers who provide TPEM engines are required to keep records and submit annual reports.

The information requested is collected by the Diesel Engine Compliance Center (DECC), Compliance Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA. DECC uses this information to ensure that manufacturers are in compliance with applicable regulations and the CAA. The information may also be used by EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Department of Justice for enforcement purposes. Most of the information is collected in electronic format and stored in CD’s databases.

Manufacturers are allowed to assert a claim of confidentiality over information provided to EPA. Confidentiality is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2. Non-confidential information may be disclosed on OTAQ’s Web site or upon request under the Freedom of Information Act to trade associations, environmental groups, and the public.

Form Numbers: See Table 1 below.



### TABLE 

### 1—L IST OF 

### F ORMS 

### U SED 

### TO 

### C OLLECT 

### I NFORMATION 

### U NDER 

### ICR 1684.18

Form No.

HD/NR Engine Manufacturer Annual Production Report ............................................................................. ............................... 5900–90. AB&T Report for Heavy-duty On-highway Engines .................................................................................. .................................. 5900–134. AB&T Report for Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines ........................................................................... .............................. 5900–125. AB&T Report for Marine Compression-ignition Engines ............................................................................................................ Number in process. PLT Report for Marine CI CumSum ................................................................................................ ........................................... 5900–297. PLT Report for Marine CI Non-CumSum ............................................................................................ ........................................ 5900–298. TPEM Equipment Manufacturer Notification ....................................................................................... ........................................ 5900–242. TPEM Equipment Manufacturer Report ............................................................................................. ......................................... 5900–240. TPEM Engine Manufacturer Report ................................................................................................ ............................................ 5900–241. TPEM Bond Worksheet ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 5900–239. Marine CI Application for Certification ........................................................................................ ................................................ 5900–124.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are manufacturers of nonroad compression ignition (CI) engines, marine CI engines and on-highway heavy-duty engines; owners of heavy-duty truck fleets, and manufacturers of nonroad compression ignition equipment.

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Engine manufacturers must respond to this collection if they wish to sell their products in the U.S., as prescribed by Section 206(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521). Participation in ABT is voluntary, but once a manufacturer has elected to participate, it must submit the required information. Likewise, participation in TPEM is voluntary, but once an engine or equipment manufacturer chooses to participate, it must submit the required notifications and annual reports (40 CFR 1039.625 and 1039.626). If applicable to a particular engine family, compliance programs reporting is mandatory.

Estimated number of respondents: 2,350 (total).

Frequency of response: Annual, quarterly, on occasion.

Total estimated burden: 244,287 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $34,470,029 (per year), includes $13,752,082 annualized capital or operation & maintenance
costs. Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 70,101 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to (1) the merger of ICRs 1684.18 and 1826.05, and (2) an increase in the number of respondents. Please note that these are preliminary estimates. EPA is still evaluating information that could lead to a change, likely an increase, in these estimates.

Dated: April 11, 2014. Byron J. Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014–08918 Filed 4–17–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[ER–FRL–9014–5]**

**Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability** 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202)
564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/

. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements Filed 04/07/2014 through 04/11/2014 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal gencies. EPA’s comment letters on EISs are available at: http:// www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ eisdata.html

. EIS No. 20140113, Draft EIS, USFWS,

MA, Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 06/09/2014, Contact: Libby Herland 978–443–4661. EIS No. 20140114, Draft EIS, BLM, CA,

Tylerhorse Wind Project Draft Plan Amendment, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2014, Contact: Cedric Perry
951–697–5388. EIS No. 20140115, Draft EIS, USACE,

TX, Dallas Floodway Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/02/2014, Contact: Marcia Hackett 817–886–
1373. EIS No. 20140116, Draft EIS, USACE,

PA, Upper Ohio Navigation Study, Comment Period Ends: 06/02/2014, Contact: Conrad Weiser 412–395–
7220. EIS No. 20140117, Final EIS, BIA, CA,

Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians Fee-To-Trust and Resort Casino Project, Review Period Ends: 05/19/ 2014, Contact: John Rydzik 916–978–
6051.


### 21918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 75 / Friday, April 18, 2014 / Notices

EIS No. 20140118, Draft Supplement,

USN, GU, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation (2012 Roadmap Adjustments), Comment Period Ends: 06/16/2014, Contact: CDR Curtis Duncan 703–602–3825. EIS No. 20140119, Final EIS, USCG, FL,

Proposed New Bridge across the Manatee River, Review Period Ends: 05/19/2014, Contact: Randall Overton
305–415–6736. EIS No. 20140120, Draft EIS, USACE,

CA, Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study, Comment Period Ends: 06/02/2014, Contact: Brad Johnson 916–557–7812. EIS No. 20140121, Draft EIS, DOE, HI,

PROGRAMMATIC—Hawaii Clean Energy, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/ 2014, Contact: Dr. Jane Summerson
505–845–4091. EIS No. 20140122, Draft EIS, USFS, MT,

Greater Red Lodge Area Vegetation and Habitat Management Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/02/2014, Contact: Amy Waring 406–255–1451. EIS No. 20140123, Final EIS, BIA, CA,

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians Fee-To-Trust and Casino-Hotel Project, Review Period Ends: 05/19/2014, Contact: John Rydzik 916–978–6051. EIS No. 20140124, Final EIS, USACE,

CA , Westbrook Project, Review Period Ends: 05/19/2014, Contact: Kathy Norton 916–557–5260.

Amended Notices EIS No. 20140069, Draft EIS, USFS, MT,

Divide Travel Plan, Helena National Forest, Comment Period Ends: 06/12/ 2014, Contact: Heather DeGeest 406–
449–5201. Revision to the FR Notice Published 03/14/2014; Extending Comment Period from 04/28/2014 to 06/12/2014.

Dated: April 15, 2014. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014–08890 Filed 4–17–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[FRL–9909–75–OW]**

**Stakeholder Input; Experts Forum on Public Health Impacts of Blending at**  **Publicly Owned Treatment Plants**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency is announcing plans to hold a forum of public health experts in June 2014 to discuss the public health implications of discharges of ‘blended’ effluent from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) served by separate sanitary sewers into waterways. The discussion will include public health implications of such discharges.

Today’s notice asks for recommendations of public health experts who would be interested and qualified to participate in the forum. In addition, today’s notice seeks recommendations of wastewater treatment plant design and operation experts to serve as advisors to the public health forum participants. Today’s notice also provides the public with an opportunity to submit data regarding the performance of municipal wastewater treatment plants during wet weather conditions.

Blending is a practice used by some POTWs to manage wastewater when flows to the plant exceed the capacity of the secondary treatment units, which happens most often during wet weather conditions. POTWs engaged in the practice of blending divert excess flow around secondary treatment units and subsequently blend the diverted flows to the portion of flow that received secondary treatment. In some cases the diverted flows receive some additional treatment before blending. The Agency is interested in evaluating the public health implications of different blending scenarios, including scenarios where the diverted flow is subject to supplemental physical/chemical treatment prior to blending and where the diverted flows do not receive any additional treatment prior to blending.

The Agency is undertaking this outreach to help advance the Clean Water Act (CWA) objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (CWA, Section 101(a)).

**DATES :**  Suggestions on experts should be made on or before May 4, 2014. Other technical information requested in this notice should be provided on or before May 19, 2014. We expect to hold the public health forum during June of
2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your recommendations for experts or other input by one of the following methods:

• Email to weiss.kevin@epa.gov.

• Mail: Kevin Weiss, Water Permits Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 7421J EPA East, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  EPA will post the date and location of the public health experts’ forum at: www.epa.gov/npdes/peakflowsforum

.

For further information about this notice, contact Kevin Weiss, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at tel.: 202– 564–0742 or email: weiss.kevin@
epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

Wastewater collection systems collect wastewater from homes and other buildings and convey it to wastewater treatment plants for proper treatment and disposal. The collection and proper treatment of municipal wastewater is vital to the public health in our cities and towns and to the viability of our receiving waters.

During and immediately after wet weather events, flows to wastewater collection systems and to treatment facilities typically increase. Significant flow increases in a wastewater collection system can cause overflows of untreated wastewater and sewage backups into buildings. For some municipalities, an important component of their strategy to reduce collection system overflows and backups into buildings is to increase the conveyance of wet weather flows to a treatment plant. Significant increases in flow at the treatment facility can cause operational challenges, especially for biological-based secondary treatment units. Activated sludge systems are particularly vulnerable to high volume peak flows. Peak flows that approach or exceed design capacity of an activated sludge unit can shift the solids inventory from the aeration basin to the clarifier(s), and can result in excessive solids losses from the clarifier(s). If a clarifier experiences excessive loss of solids, treatment efficiencies can be lowered for weeks or months until the biological mass in the aeration basins is reestablished. In addition to these hydraulic concerns, wastewater associated with peak flows may havelow concentrations of oxygendemanding pollutants, which can also decrease treatment efficiencies. Biological nutrient removal processes typically have an increased sensitivity to the hydraulic and loading fluctuations associated with wet weather flows.

Design and operational options that are routinely employed to maintain the effective capacity of biological-based secondary treatment units include:

• Providing alternative feed patterns in the aeration basin(s);

• Increasing the returned activated sludge rate relative to those needed for steady flow;