Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 1 EPA Conference Call With Industry Representatives About Possible LBP Activities Framework ( May 29, 2003)

1. Summary Discussion, Qs & As, and Comments Introduction & Background In response to questions that EPA received following the May 9 conference call, Mike Wilson ( EPA) opened the discussion by clarifying that EPA is considering two tracks for implementation of lead safe work practices ( LSWP) by renovation and remodeling ( R& R) contractors:

1. A regulatory track, which we are discussing today. Since this approach involves significant effort and is specified by statute, EPA needs to carefully examine how this track could be implemented and its likely impact. Work on this track has been somewhat delayed due to the extent of the rule's scope and the fact that the regulatory process is generally lengthy.

2. A voluntary program, which EPA has discussed externally at other meetings ( e. g., PDCA conference). Because the regulatory track takes time to finalize, EPA is pursuing a voluntary approach as a more timely way to get contractors to integrate LSWP in their daily work practices. It will be a membership program, with a logo, marketing to homeowners to seek out member contractors, etc. EPA plans to launch the voluntary program in summer 2003 and sees the experience and success of the voluntary program as helping to frame any ultimate regulatory framework.

Eric Oetjen from ICF Consulting served as the facilitator. He asked participants to focus their comments on the following five overarching topics of primary interest to EPA:

1. Expanding Capacity. Will the updated framework, as currently described, increase the number of firms that perform hazard reduction, including interim controls ( ICs)? Increase the use of lead safe work practices ( LSWP) during renovation and remodeling ( R& R) activities in target housing?

2. Unintended Impacts on ICs and/ or Use of LSWP. Are there aspects of the framework which, in their opinion, will hinder or discourage use of firms performing ICs or using LSWP during R& R?

3. Other Impacts on Industry. What's the overall impact on the abatement industry? On the R& R industry?

4. Cost and Quality of Lead based Paint ( LBP) Services. What are the cost implications of the possible framework changes? Are there any quality implications?

5. Other Implementation Issues. What other implementation issues do they foresee? Are there things that EPA should be thinking about that impact practical implementation of the framework? Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 2 Preliminary Qs and As, and Comments Before discussing these five topics, participants had some general questions and comments regarding the regulatory and voluntary tracks:

Q: It seems that the voluntary initiative could save all parties a lot of headaches. So instead of focusing today's discussion on the regulatory approach, could we focus instead on the voluntary approach? ( Jeff) A: Today, it is important for EPA to focus on the regulatory approach. We have received good feedback on the voluntary track from the organizations that EPA has approached, and the Agency hopes to kick off the program later this year. Group members can provide specific suggestions on the voluntary approach along with any written comments on the possible framework for the regulatory approach. ( Mike)

Q: How will EPA define " usually successful" in terms of showing success under a voluntary approach  specifically, success that might preclude the need for EPA to go forward with regulations? ( Kevin) A: The regulatory program will affect 250,000+ contractors nationwide, most of whom are small ( e. g., single employee), unlicenced entities. So the question becomes, what is the best way to reach them? The voluntary initiative can readily target larger contractors through trade associations, i. e., firms with employees, that are licensed, bonded and insured, etc. If the voluntary initiative can get these large contractors to join and branch out to smaller contractors, EPA may reconsider the need for a regulatory program. ( Mike)

Q: How would you measure success? ( Brandt) A: The voluntary program is building reporting mechanisms to receive feedback from national organizations and individual contractors. So, EPA will have information on which to make decisions re. next steps with any regulatory program. ( Mike)

Q: If EPA's voluntary initiative is hugely successful, it may not be necessary to pursue a regulatory track at all. Is there really the need for both tracks to run at once? ( Brandt) A: Yes. Most contractors do not use LSWP ( one example is data from previous studies in Philadelphia). If the voluntary program can get more or most contractors to use LSWP, then that might minimize the need for a regulatory program. ( Mike)

Q: How does EPA arrive at the conclusion that " most" contractors are not using LSWP? ( Kevin) A: EPA does not have systematic national data, but the studies that have been done offer evidence that contractor use common work practices that can create lead dust hazards when used on surfaces where LBP is present. The contractors on this call are the " cream of the crop"  the ones that use best methods. EPA believes that typical contractors use general use more traditional methods. For example, shop vac, dry broom sweeping, etc., which are good for general cleanup, but not effective at getting floors clean to the lead standard. ( Mike) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 3 Comments ° Echoed Kevin's concern over EPA's statement regarding lack of use of LSWP by contractors. She does not see the numbers EPA is talking about in terms of widespread non compliance. Wants to see the data. ( Amy) Acknowledges her request for data. ( Mike)

° I didn't think the regulatory framework went beyond R& R. ( Jeff) Confirmed that the framework addresses hazard reduction ( abatement and ICs) and LSWP during R& R. ( Mike) Then there's a huge enforcement issue. Contractors will not comply, and there will not be enough enforcement staff to enforce the requirements. Education is the answer, not regulation. ( Jeff)

Topic 1: Expanding Capacity Question Posed by EPA: Will the updated framework, as currently described, increase the number of firms that perform hazard reduction, including ICs? Increase the use of LSWP during R& R activities in target housing?

Answers, Comments, and Other Qs and As Number of firms may increase:

° Initial information does suggest that the framework will increase the number of firms doing IC and using LSWPs. However, training expenses are going to increase with the rule ( see Topic 2 below). ( Patrick)

° Agrees with Patrick   framework may expand capacity to do hazard reduction and IC, but creates problems, too ( see Topic 2 below). ( Amy)

Number of firms may decrease:

° Concerned about a decrease in capacity. Homeowners in pre 1978 are essentially being penalized by having to have contractors do additional things. Working on pre 1978 homes is already tough; it's harder to make money on some of these jobs. So may see contractors pull out of R& R market for older homes. Has specific concerns with two elements of the framework   prohibited practices and any type of clearance testing. With respect to prohibited practices  feels that even those things listed may be done successfully by other skilled contractors. So, prohibiting anything that may be done successfully is a problem. ( Kevin)

° Agrees  some contractors may decide not to do work in pre 1978 homes. So, older homes that are not maintained may become more dilapidated. ( Jeff) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 4 ° For R& R, the good players may leave the field   there's not enough money in it, and the insurance issues are too great ( see Topic 2 below). So, the " underground" ( i. e., noncompliant contractors may remain and pick up more of the work. Since there are fewer contractors in the market, they may charge consumers more, even if they are doing noncompliant work that is possibly increasing the lead hazards. ( Brandt)

Topic 2: Unintended Impacts on ICs and/ or Use of LSWP Question Posed by EPA: Are there aspects of the framework which, in their opinion, will hinder or discourage use of firms performing ICs or using LSWP during R& R?

Answers, Comments, and Other Qs and As State reciprocity:

Q: How can we get states to work together, so federal program will be adopted nationwide ( e. g., so states will not tack on their own, more stringent requirements)? He's looking at 40+ individual licenses to do LBP and inspection work, each costing an estimated $ 200 annually or biannually. He has 40 inspectors and 2 people full time who do nothing but licensing to keep the inspectors up to spec. Under the HUD Section 1012 Federal assisted housing program, property owners have to send employees to 3 separate courses to cross MD VA DC lines. The average contractor may have to pay $ 125/ employee in multiple states, and may experience a 50 percent employee turnover rate. The average contractor will not be able to keep up with the training certification paperwork. Anything EPA can do to promote reciprocity in multi state training would go a long way to increasing the use LSWP. ( Patrick) A: R& R falls in the same statutory section as abatement, so it is delegated to the states. Under TSCA, the state program must be at least as stringent as the federal program and be enforceable. It's hard to say exactly what EPA's role could be in this issue of reciprocity. EPA has heard from larger, multi state abatement contractors regarding problems with having to receive accredited training from multiple states. ( Mike)

Insurance:

° The possible framework will create problems with state requirements re. licensing and insurance coverage   concerned that R& R contractors will lose their general liability coverage. She would not want to see R& R contractors certified to do lead hazard reduction work, since that's not the focus of their work. ( Amy)

° Agrees with Amy   R& R contractors are not in the world of lead hazard reduction, yet the framework puts them in that world. Concerned that later regulatory changes may put them into even a tighter bind. ( Brandt)

° To enable contractors to get insurance cvoerage, EPA may need to increase work Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 5 practices since insurers may not see the practices as protective enough. Too often, nothing seems to be good enough for the insurance industry once a risk is identified. Insurers are now focusing on mold, just like they previously focused on asbestos hazards. EPA needs to address the concerns of insurance carriers. Contractors may lose their pollution liability coverage and general liability coverage, and small businesses may lose their " umbrella" coverage. It's hard for electrical contractors now even to get general liability coverage for work in institutional settings; how do insurance carriers already view the residential market? R& R contractors would face 2 very hard tasks : ( 1) performing work to restrictive work practices, and ( 2) maintaining insurance. ( Dave) EPA has been approached by the insurance industry regarding these issues. So, the Agency is beginning to work on it. ( Mike)

Topic 3: Other Impacts on Industry Question Posed by EPA: What's the overall impact on the abatement industry? On the R& R industry?

Answers, Comments, and Other Qs and As ° I design and oversee abatement jobs, and provides cost estimates for owners. I think the framework for R& R will completely replace abatement industry. No longer will we use word " abatement." We are already seeing that in Maryland with IC regulations. ( Patrick)

Q: Has there been an increase in use of LSWP in MD? ( Mike) A: Yes. ( Patrick)

Q: Where is the unsafe work being done? In homes? Apartment buildings? ( Fred) A: Looking at target housing ( pre 1978) and child occupied facilities ( e. g., homes, day cares, schools). Primarily in residential units. ( Mike)

Q: What adds to the cost of abatement? Is it regulatory? Demand for the job? ( Amy) A: Historically, costs have been driven by ( 1) the limited number of contractors who did abatement; and ( 2) the regulations themselves ( e. g., building plastic enclosures, doing preand post tests, wearing suits and respirators, etc.). A lot of owners were charged a lot of money for jobs that might not have been that good. This experience has changed a bit over time. ( Patrick) Labor is a big variable; it's the most difficult number to put a figure to when proposing a project. The human element is not an exact science. ( Jeff) In the past, the asbestos industry transitioned to lead when the regulations were first passed. That brought in expertise, but also brought on the high cost and scale of asbestos projects. Philosophically, the Agency has moved from a " lead poisoned child = abate everything" position, to one of " controlling paint hazards " ( i. e., a combination of abatement and ICs). That combination is less expensive than the old " tear it out and replace it" philosophy. ( Mike) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 6 Lead Sampling Technician ( LST):

Q: What was the reason behind the creation of LST? Is that in line with achieving EPA's goals of trying to reduce the cost of abatement? ( Amy) A: LST started with Congress, which gave HUD money under the lead safe housing rule to develop a course and recognize the discipline. LSTs can work in federally assisted housing. ( Mike)

Q: Is LST a full time job, or could an LST also do testing and clearance? A: An LST can work for the firm doing the job and perform clearance at the end of the job. Please submit any comments you might have re. this approach and any potential conflict of interest ( COI). ( Mike) Note that at least 10 states prohibit allowing anyone who did the work on the job from performing clearance at the end of the job. ( Patrick) Yes, and even with HUD's lead safe housing rule there are COI issues. ( Mike)

Q: How well has the LST concept worked for federally assisted housing? ( Patrick) A: It's worked  short course, no pre requisites. Has built capacity for people to support the lead safe housing rule. ( Mike)

Q: His company never went to any of these trainings, since the state did not recognize LST discipline. How many states are going to recognize it? ( Patrick) A: Could try to get information about states where LST discipline is recognized. New England is one area where some states have definitely recognized this discipline. EPA will try to provide more information about these states; see Section 2 of this document. ( Mike)

Clearance testing:

° Clearance testing is a big concern. Even though the framework " recommends" clearance for R& R, the use of this term in a regulatory context is misleading. Saying " recommended" is the same as saying " required." All reference to clearance testing needs to be removed. ( Amy) Seconds this comment. ( Brandt)

Q: Interior clearance: Under EPA's possible framework, what area( s) in homes will need to be tested? Areas worked in? Stored in? Walked through? ( Patrick) A: 1 to 2 dust wipes from contained work area ( e. g., a window sill and floor). For exterior clearance it's just visual clearance ( e. g., making sure no paint chips/ debris are lying around). ( Mike)

Q: Could people avoid the requirement by working from the outside   that is, instead of " containing" it from the interior ( e. g., when replacing a window), sealing off the window on the inside with plastic and removing it from the outside? ( Patrick) A: Remember, under the framework clearance in voluntary for R& R. ( Mike) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 7 Topic 4: Cost and Quality of LBP Services Question Posed by EPA: What are the cost implications of the possible framework changes? Are there any quality implications?

Answers, Comments, and Other Qs and As ° If the good R& R contractors stop working on pre 1978 housing, then lower grade firms will remain and do more of the work on these properties. Their work will not stand the test of time, since such non compliant firms will not perform quality work. The results is that there work may actually generate more hazards, and work will have to b e performed more often because of the lower quality. ( Brandt)

Supervisor requirements:

Q: What is EPA's intention in increasing supervisor oversight? To what extent is that necessary? ( Dave) A: Currently, abatement supervisors have to be on site at key times ( e. g., during set up) and within a 2 hour driving distance. EPA is looking for comments regarding the need for greater supervisory oversight of workers, who would only receive on the job training, etc. ( Mike)

Q: That's a cost issue   more supervisors and more time on individual projects. ( Patrick) A: Note that EPA is revising supervisor training to make it more focused on LSWP. ( Mike)

Q: Who is a supervisor? Anyone who has gone through formal training? ( Amy) A: Yes  trained and certified as a supervisor. ( Mike)

Q: Could a supervisor direct work on site? ( Amy) A: Perhaps. Supervisors bring expertise in bringing LSWP to the job. But whether they are the job overseer depends on how the firm is organized. ( Mike) Note: if a worker violates a work practice standard, enforcement action would be taken against the firm that employs them, and perhaps the supervisor. ( Mark) Right, EPA could take away their certification so that bad supervisors would not move on to another firm and continue to cause problems. ( Mike)

Topic 5: Other Implementation Issues Question Posed by EPA: What other implementation issues do you foresee? Are there things that EPA should be thinking about that impact practical implementation of the framework?

Answers, Comments, and Other Qs and As ° It's hard to look at the regulation as practical for R& R, so it's hard to look at practical implementation of its elements. ( Brandt) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 8 ° A voluntary program is best, since it educates the consumer, not just the contractor. Problems with the regulatory approach include: conflicts with state regulations, insurance, enforcement, training, costs of clearance testing, and supervisor costs. ( Amy)

° Agrees with Amy. There is very little consumer awareness re. pre 1978 lead issue. In surveys, only 1 out 100 people say it's an issue. So a big problem with the two track approach is that contractors trying to comply with the law will encounter higher costs, while consumers not seeing the value of that incremental cost. Contractors who do the right thing will be caught in the middle. If consumers don't value LSWPs, contractors will be forced to ignore the requirements if they are to stay in business. If they don't, they will lose business to less scrupulous contractors. The requirements will be very difficult for EPA and States to effectively enforce. It is important that EPA recognize this reality if it proceeds with the regulatory approach. ( Kevin)

° Implementation and cost issues are affected by the definition of de minimis. Two sq. feet of surface area does not equal a two foot cut by saw!!. Electrical contractors cut into walls to put in new electrical panels, switch boxes, etc. Changing the de minimis so as to consider linear saw feet different from surface area would greatly reduce implementation burdens on electrical contractors and others that do not routine disturb extensive amounts of paint. ( Dave)

Q: Will there be online Internet courses? ( Amy) A: EPA will look at different ways to present courses. EPA has considered using the OSHA online training as a model. Perhaps on line training can be developed for workers. For supervisors, the testing/ certification requirement may preclude the use of online training. ( Mike)

Q: Re. cleaning in general   will the rule restrict cleanup technologies, e. g., allow use only of HEPA vacuums and lead detergent? Or can firms do whatever they want? ( Patrick) A: There is some flexibility, but OSHA standards say that vacuuming done when disturbing lead must be done with a HEPA vacuum. EPA is looking at other things, like electrostatic cleaning cloths ( ECCs) as a cleaning and clearance tool. HEPA vacuum costs have declined over time, but they are still relatively expensive. ( Mike)

Q: Can EPA and OSHA coordinate to amend these requirement, subject to research? ( Patrick) A: Please submit your written comments on this issue. ( Mike) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 9 2. Information from HUD Regarding States With Differing R& R Requirements, and Where LST can Be Used B. Information About States Where the Lead Sampling Technician Discipline is Recognized.

A national lead safety organization reported that the following states recognize the LST discipline. If EPA receives additional information, it will advise the group.

° Maine ° New Hampshire ° Wisconsin ° Minnesota ° Indiana ° Ohio ° Kentucky ° Iowa ° Vermont Note: Additional state have discussed taking action to recognize the discipline. Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 10 3. Industry Representative Stakeholder Group List [ An (*) denotes participants in May 29, 2003, conference call]

Richard Baker Baker Environmental Consulting 7941 Westgate Street Lexana, KS 66215 2636 ph: 913 541 0220; fax: 913 541 0457 Patrick Connor (*) CONNOR Environmental Services & Engineering Assessments Bare Hills Business Center 1421 Clarkview Road, Suite 100 Baltimore, MD 21209 2188 ph: 410 296 7971; fax: 410 296 3419 Paul Corey Paul J. Corey Painting and Decorating 769 East Street Dedham, MA 02026 ph: 781 326 4225; fax: 781 320 9062 Lake Coulson (*) National Association of Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors 180 S. Washington St. Falls Church, VA 22046 ph: 1 800 533 7694; fax: 703 273 7442 Brandt Domas (*) Domas & Associates, Inc. 2330 South Kalamath Street, Unit B Denver, CO 80233 ph: 303 733 7186; fax: 303 733 2802 Amy Erickson (*) National Association of Home Builders 1201 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 ph: 202 266 8662; fax: 202 266 8559 Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 11 Keith Farnham K& R Christopher, Inc. 216 Prairie Street Elgin, Illinois 60120 ph: 847 741 0437; fax: 847 741 9695 Pat Fink Mechanical Contractors Association of America 1385 Piccard Drive Rockville, MD 20850 ph: 301 869 5800; fax: 301 990 9690 Claudia Harris National Association of Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors 180 S. Washington St. Falls Church, VA 22046 ph: 1 800 533 7694; fax: 703 273 7442 Bob Hanbury House of Hanbury Builders 109 Stamm Road Newington, CT 06111 ph: 860 666 1537; fax: 860 665 7815 Jeff Hurst (*) Hurst Total Home, Inc. 2852 Haig Avenue Kettering, OH 45419 ph: 937 296 1133; fax: 937 296 1134 Eileen Lee (*) National Multi Housing Council 1850 M Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20036 ph: 202 974 2326; fax: 202 775 0112 Andy Moelk JEFFCO Painting and Coating, Inc. 1260 Railroad Ave., Bldg. 750 Vallejo, CA 94592 ph: 707 556 1900; fax: 707 556 1907 Kevin Nolan (*) Nolan Painting, Inc. 181 West Hillcrest Avenue Havertown, PA 19083 Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   June 9, 2003   Page 12 ph: 610 642 1415; fax: 610 642 7856 Frank Pietranton Peir Associates Real Estate 2132 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20007 ph: 202 337 8500; fax: 202 337 1129 Dave Potts (*) National Electrical Contractors Association 3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1100 Bethesda, MD 20814 ph: 301 657 3110; fax: 301 215 4500 Fred Quercetti (*) Delaware Apartment Association 799 Montclair Drive Claymont, DE 19703 ph: ( 302) 798 0635; fquercettisr. naamans. com Chris Wallis Peir Associates Real Estate 2132 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20007 ph: 202 337 8500; fax: 202 337 1129


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53556-53558]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-16]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its

implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below. Before submitting these
ICRs to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified below.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
December 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICRs activities by mail to
either: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA
to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a
self-addressed stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB Control
Number 2130-XXXX,'' (the relevant OMB control number for each ICR is
listed below) and should also include the title of the ICR.
Alternatively, comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or emailed to Ms. Wells at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ms. Toone at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in
any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in
response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its
information collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Ms. Kim
Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICRs
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Remotely Controlled Switch Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0516.
    Abstract: Sections 49 CFR 218.30 and 218.77 require remotely
controlled switches be properly lined to protect workers who are
vulnerable to being struck by moving cars as they inspect or service
rolling equipment on track or occupy camp cars. Creating required
notifications promotes safety by minimizing the mental lapses of
workers who are simultaneously handling several tasks. These sections
require the operator of remotely controlled switches to maintain a
record of each blue signal protection request for 15 days. Operators of
remotely controlled switches use the information as a record
documenting blue signal protection of workers or camp cars.
    This record also serves as a valuable resource for railroad
supervisors and FRA and State inspectors monitoring regulatory
compliance.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 53 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average time
         CFR Section              Respondent       Total annual    per responses   Total annual     Total cost
                                   universe         responses        (minutes)     burden hours   equivalent \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
218.30(c)--Remotely            53 railroads....  1,934,500            45 seconds          24,181      $1,378,317
 controlled switches-                             notifications.
 notification recordkeeping
 requirement (Blue Signal
 Protection of Workers).
218.77(c)--Remotely            1 railroad......  150                  45 seconds               2            $114
 controlled switches-                             notifications.
 notification recordkeeping
 requirement (Protection of
 Occupied Camp Cars).
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    Total....................  53 railroads....  1,934,650                   N/A          24,183      $1,378,431
                                                  responses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Throughout the tables in this document, the dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface
  Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group hourly wage rate
  that includes 75-percent overhead charges.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 1,934,650.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 24,183 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$1,378,431.
    Title: Bad Order, Home Shop Card, and Stenciling Reporting Mark.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0519.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 215, railroads are required to inspect
freight cars placed in service and take remedial action when defects
are identified. A railroad freight car with a part 215 defect may be
moved to another location for repair only after the railroad has
complied with the process under 49 CFR 215.9. Section 215.9 requires

railroads to affix a ``bad order'' tag describing each defect to each
side of the freight car. It is imperative that a defective freight car
be tagged ``bad order'' so it can be readily identified and moved to
another location for repair purposes only, and so that the maximum
speed and other restrictions necessary for safely conducting the
movement are known. At the repair location, the ``bad order'' tag
serves as a notification of the defective condition of the freight car.
Railroads must retain each tag for 90 days to verify that proper
repairs were made at the designated location. When inspecting a freight
car, FRA and State inspectors review all pertinent records to determine
railroads' compliance with the movement restrictions of 49 CFR 215.9.
    Additionally, section 215.301 requires railroads and private car
owners to stencil or otherwise display identification marks on freight
cars. FRA uses the identification marks to determine the railroads
affected, the number and type of cars involved, the commodities being
carried, and the territorial and speed limits within which the cars
will be operated. FRA reviews this information to determine if the
freight car is safe to operate and if the operation qualifies for
dedicated service and is excluded from the requirements of part 215.
Railroads use the required information to provide identification and
control so that dedicated cars remain in the prescribed service.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 752 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average time
         CFR Section              Respondent       Total annual    per responses   Total annual     Total cost
                                   universe         responses        (minutes)     burden hours     equivalent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
215.9(a)--Movement of          752 railroads...  150,000 tags...               5          12,500        $715,000
 Defective Cars for Repair--
 Tagging.
215.9(b)--Notifications of     752 railroads...  75,000                        2           2,500         143,000
 Removal of Defective Car                         notifications.
 Tags.
215.11(c)--Designated          752 railroads...  45,000 records.               1             750          42,900
 Inspectors--Records.
215.301--Stenciling--General.  752 railroads...  30,000                       45          22,500       1,287,000
                                                  repainted/
                                                  stenciled.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    Total....................  752 railroads...  300,000                     N/A         38,2500       2,187,900
                                                  responses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 300,000.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 38,250 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$2,187,900.
    Title: Bridge Worker Safety Rules.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0535.
    Abstract: Subpart B of 49 CFR part 214 establishes minimum
workplace safety standards for railroad employees as they apply to
railroad bridges. Specifically, 49 CFR 214.105(c) establishes standards
and practices for safety net systems. Safety nets and net installations
must be drop-tested at the job site after initial installation and
before being used as a fall-protection system, after major repairs, and
at 6-month intervals if left at one site. If a drop-test is not
feasible and is not performed, then the railroad or railroad
contractor, or a designated certified person, must provide written
certification the net complies with the safety standards of 49 CFR
214.105. FRA and State inspectors use the information to enforce
Federal regulations. The information maintained at the job site
promotes safe bridge worker practices.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 746 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average time
         CFR Section              Respondent       Total annual    per responses   Total annual     Total cost
                                   universe         responses        (minutes)     burden hours     equivalent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
214.105(c)(4)-- Fall           746 railroads...  3 written                     5         .25 (15             $19
 protection systems standards                     certification                         minutes)
 and practices- Safety net                        records.
 systems certification
 records.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 3.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 15 minutes.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $19.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-21814 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48212-48214]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19037]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70091; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-073]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Change the Expiration Date For Most Option
Contracts to the Third Friday of the Expiration Month Instead of the
Saturday Following the Third Friday

 August 1, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 19, 2013, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange rules to change the
expiration date for most option contracts to the third Friday of the
expiration month instead of the Saturday following the third Friday.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to change the expiration date for most
option contracts to the third Friday of the expiration month instead of
the Saturday following the third Friday. More specifically, the
Exchange is proposing to amend rule text referencing Saturday
expirations. The Exchange notes, however, that this change will apply
to all standard expiration contracts including those in which the rules
are silent on the expiration date. The Exchange is making this filing
to harmonize its rules in connection with a recently approved rule
filing made by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which made
substantially similar changes.\3\ The Exchange believes that the
industry must remain consistent in expiration dates, and, thus, is
proposing to update its rules to remain consistent with those of OCC.
In addition, the Exchange understands that other exchanges will be
filing similar rules to effect this industry-wide initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69772 (June 17,
2013), 78 FR 37645 (June 21, 2013) (order approving SR-OCC-2013-
004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most option contracts (``standard expiration contracts'') currently
expire at the ``expiration time'' (11:59 p.m. Eastern Time) on the
Saturday following the third Friday of the specified expiration month
(the ``expiration date'').\4\ With this filing, the Exchange is
proposing to give advance notice to its Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') that the expiration date for standard expiration contracts
is changing to the third Friday of the expiration month.\5\ (The
expiration time would continue to be 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the
expiration date.) The change would apply only to standard expiration
contracts expiring after February 1, 2015, and the Exchange, similar to
OCC, does not propose to change the expiration date for any outstanding
option contracts. The change will apply only to series of option
contracts opened for trading after the effective date of the OCC rule
change and having expiration dates later than February 1, 2015. Option
contracts having non-standard expiration dates (``non-standard
expiration contracts'') will be unaffected by this proposed rule
change, except that FLEX options having expiration dates later than
February 1, 2015 cannot expire on a Saturday unless they are specified
by OCC as grandfathered.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Examples of options with non-standard expiration contracts
include: Volatility Index options (Rule 24.9(a)(5)), FLEX options
(Rules 24A.4(a)(2)(iv) and 24B.4(a)(iv)), Quarterly Index
expirations (Rule 24.9(c)), End of Week and End of Month expirations
(Rule 24.9(e)), Quarterly Option Series (Rules 5.5(e) and
24.9(a)(2)(B)) and Short Term Option Series (Rules 5.5(d) and
24.9(a)(2)(A)).
    \5\ The Exchange has already given notice to TPHs regarding the
anticipated change. See Exchange Regulatory Circular RG12-135
released on October 5, 2012.
    \6\ See note 4 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide a smooth transition to the Friday expiration
OCC has begun to move the expiration exercise procedures to Friday for
all standard expiration contracts even though the contracts would
continue to expire on Saturday.\7\ After February 1, 2015, virtually
all standard expiration contracts will actually expire on Friday. The
only standard expiration contracts that will expire on a Saturday after
February 1, 2015 are certain options that were listed prior to the
effectiveness of the OCC rule change, and a limited number of options
that may be listed prior to necessary systems changes of the options
exchanges, which are expected to be completed in August 2013. After
these systems changes are made, CBOE will not list any additional
options with Saturday expiration dates falling after February 1, 2015.
CBOE understands that the other exchanges are committed to the same
listing schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SR-OCC-2013-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that OCC, industry groups, clearing members and
the other exchanges have been active participants in planning for the
transition to the Friday expiration.\8\ In March, 2012, OCC began to
discuss moving standard contract expirations to Friday expiration dates
with industry groups, including two Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA'') committees, the Operations and
Technology Steering Committee and the Options Committee, and at two
major industry conferences, the SIFMA Operations Conference and the
Options Industry Conference.\9\ OCC also discussed the project with the
Intermarket Surveillance Group and at an OCC Operations Roundtable. In
each case, there was broad support for the initiative.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain option contracts have already been listed with Saturday
expiration dates as distant as December 2016 (which is the furthest out
expiration as of the date of this filing). Additionally, until CBOE
completes certain systems enhancements in August 2013, it

remains possible that additional option contracts may be listed with
Saturday expiration dates beyond February 1, 2015. For these contracts,
transitioning to a Friday expiration for newly listed option contracts
expiring after February 1, 2015 would create a situation under which
certain options with open interest would expire on a Saturday while
other options with open interest would expire on a Friday in the same
expiration month.
    Clearing members have expressed a clear preference to not have a
mix of options with open interest that expire on different days in a
single month.\11\ Accordingly, OCC represented in its recently approved
filing that it will not issue and clear any new option contract with a
Friday expiration if existing option contracts of the same options
class expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the same
month. However, Friday expiration processing will be in effect for
these Saturday expiration contracts. As with standard expiration
options during the transition period, exercise requests received after
Friday expiration processing is complete but before the Saturday
contract expiration time will continue to be processed without fines or
penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Exchange is proposing to update its rules to reflect the
above discussed change. More specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
add Rule 1.1(mmm) to define ``Expiration Date'' to be consistent with
the revised OCC definition.\12\ The Exchange is also proposing to
update Exchange Rules 23.5 and 24.9 which reference Saturday expiration
dates (which are the only two Exchange rules that identify Saturday as
the expiration date). Thus, consistent with the OCC filing, the
Exchange is proposing to add language to these rules stating that any
series expiring prior to February 1, 2015 will have a Saturday
expiration date while any series expiring on or after February 1, 2015
will have a Friday expiration date.\13\ The Exchange is also proposing,
with this filing, to replace any reference in the purpose section of
any past Exchange rule filings or previously released circulars to any
expiration date other than Friday for a standard options contract with
the new Friday standard. Essentially, the Exchange is now proposing to
replace any historic references to expiration dates to be replaced with
the proposed Friday expiration. As stated above, the Exchange believes
the proposed change will keep the Exchange consistent with the
processing at OCC and will enable the Exchange to give effect to the
industry-wide initiative. In addition, the Exchange understands that
other exchanges will be filing similar rules, thus creating a uniform
expiration date for standard options on listed classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ With the exception of expirations that were listed prior to
the effective date of the OCC filing and have open interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange plans to release another circular to TPHs to put TPHs
on notice of this change prior to the implementation of the rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that keeping its rules
consistent with those of the industry will protect all participants in
the market by eliminating confusion. The proposed changes thus allow
for a more orderly market by allowing all options markets, including
the clearing agencies, to have the same expiration date for standard
options. In addition, the proposed changes will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities by aligning a pivotal part of the options processing to
be consistent industry wide. If the industry were to differ, investors
would suffer from confusion and be more vulnerable to violate different
exchange rules. The proposed changes do not permit unfair
discrimination between any TPHs because they are applied to all TPHs
equally. In the alternative, the Exchange believes that it helps all
TPHs by keeping the Exchange consistent with OCC practices and those of
other Exchanges.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe the proposed rule change will impose a burden on
intramarket competition because it will be applied to all TPHs equally.
In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change
will impose any burden to intermarket competition because it will be
applied industry wide and apply to all market participants. The
proposed rule change is structured to enhance competition because the
shift from an expiration date of the Saturday following the third
Friday to the third Friday is anticipated to be adopted industry-wide
and will apply to all multiply listed classes. This in turn will allow
CBOE to compete more effectively with other exchanges making similar
rule changes.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change. The Exchange notes, however, that a favorable
comment was submitted to the OCC filing.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \18\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the

public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-073 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-073. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-073 and should be
submitted on or before August 28, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19037 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 216 (Friday, November 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62763-62766]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23832]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 16

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2021-0552; FRL-8948-01-OMS]

Privacy Act Regulations for EPA-79

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
proposing to revise the Agency's Privacy Act regulations to exempt a
new system of records, EPA-79, the National Enforcement Investigations
Center (NEIC) Master Tracking System, from certain requirements of the
Privacy Act because the records in EPA's NEIC Master Tracking System
are maintained for use in civil and criminal actions. A notice has been
published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2021 for the creation
of this new system of records that will contain information collected
by NEIC when supporting enforcement investigations. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is simultaneously
publishing the revision of the Agency's Privacy Act Regulations for
EPA-79 as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If the
Agency receives no adverse comment, it will not take further action on
this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2021-0552, at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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: Michael Roach, Chief, Infrastructure
and Project Support Branch, National Enforcement Investigations Center,
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Building 25--Box 25227, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO 80225; [email protected];<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA published a Privacy Act system of
records notice for information collected using the NEIC Master Tracking
System (86 FR 60033, October 29, 2021).

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    The EPA proposes to revise the Agency's Privacy Act regulations in
order to exempt a new system of

records, EPA-79, the NEIC Master Tracking System, from certain
requirements of the Privacy Act. The EPA has published a direct final
rule exempting this system of records in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of this Federal Register because it views this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comment. EPA
explains its reasons for the direct final rule in the preamble to that
rule.
    If EPA receives no adverse comment, it will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comment, it will
withdraw the direct final rule and the rule will not take effect. EPA
will address public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA does not intend to institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information, please see the information provided in
the ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. General Information

    The EPA published a Privacy Act system of records notice for
information collected using the NEIC Master Tracking System (66 FR
49947, Oct. 2, 2001; 84 FR 37866, Aug. 2, 2019). The system supports
and documents investigations of persons or organizations alleged to
have violated any Federal environmental statute or regulation or,
pursuant to a cooperative agreement with a state, local, or tribal
authority, an environmental statute or regulation of such authority.
NEIC maintains information related to such investigative efforts,
including the nature of work, investigation outcomes, required
resources, and information about the supporting staff.
    The EPA compiles and maintains the records in the NEIC Master
Tracking System for use in criminal and civil investigations and
actions. This system of records, EPA-79, is maintained by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training, National Enforcement Investigations Center.
This component of EPA performs as its principal function, activities
pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws.
    Pursuant to the Privacy Act, when information is maintained for the
purpose of civil actions, the relevant provision of the Privacy Act is
5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5) which states ``nothing in this [Act] shall allow an
individual access to any information compiled in reasonable
anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.'' 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5).
    In addition, section (j)(2) of the Privacy Act provides that the
head of an agency may promulgate regulations to exempt a Privacy Act
system of records from certain provisions of the Act if the system is
maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its
principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of
criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce
crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors,
courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and
which consists of: (A) Information compiled for the purpose of
identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and
consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the
nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement,
release, and parole and probation status; (B) information compiled for
the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of
informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable
individual; or (C) reports identifiable to an individual compiled at
any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from
arrest or indictment through release from supervision. 5 U.S.C.
552a(j)(2). Accordingly the EPA proposes to exempt such records in the
NEIC Master Tracking System, EPA-79, from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4),
(d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5), (e)(8) and
(f)(2)-(f)(5) and (g) for the following reasons:
    (1) From subsection (c)(3), because making available to a named
individual an accounting of disclosures of records concerning him/her/
them could reveal investigative interest on the part of EPA and/or the
Department of Justice. This could allow record subjects to impede the
investigation, e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate potential witnesses,
or flee the area to avoid inquiries or apprehension by law enforcement
personnel. Further, such a disclosure could reveal the identity of a
confidential source and hamper the Agency's investigation.
    (2) From subsection (c)(4), which concerns providing notice to
others regarding corrections or disputed information in accordance with
subsection (d) of the Privacy Act, because no access to these records
is available under subsection (d) of the Act.
    (3) From subsection (d), which requires an agency to permit an
individual to access, contest or request amendment of records
pertaining to him/her/them, because the records contained in this
system relate to official Federal investigations. Individual access to
these records could compromise ongoing investigations, reveal
confidential informants and/or sensitive investigative techniques used
in particular investigations, or constitute unwarranted invasions of
the personal privacy of third parties who are involved in a certain
investigation.
    (4) From subsections (e)(1) and (e)(5), which require an agency to
collect/maintain only accurate and relevant information about an
individual, because the accuracy or relevance of information obtained
in the course of a law enforcement investigation is not always known
when collected. Material that may seem unrelated, irrelevant, or
incomplete when collected may take on added meaning or significance as
the investigation progresses. Also, in the interest of effective law
enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid
in establishing patterns of criminal activity. Therefore, it would
impede the investigative process if it were necessary to assure the
relevance, accuracy, timeliness and completeness of all information
obtained.
    (5) From subsection (e)(2), which requires an agency to collect
information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the
subject individual when the information may result in adverse
determinations about the individual's rights, benefits, or privileges
under Federal programs. Application of this provision could impair
investigations and law enforcement by alerting the subject of the
investigation to the existence of the investigation. Further,
compliance with the requirements of this subsection during the course
of an investigation could impede the information gathering process or
cause the destruction of evidence, thus hampering the investigation.
    (6) From subsection (e)(3), which requires an agency to inform
those supplying information of its authority to collect the
information, its plans for using or sharing that information, and the
effects of not providing the requested information. The application of
this provision could provide the subject of the investigation with
substantial information about the nature of the investigation, which
could interfere with the investigation. To comply with the requirements
of this subsection during the course of an investigation could impede
the information gathering process especially when undercover operations
or confidential sources are used, thus hampering the investigation.
    (7) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), which require an agency to
publish--in the Federal Register--procedures

concerning access to records, because no access to these records is
available under subsection (d) of the Privacy Act, for the reasons
explained above in the discussion of subsection (d).
    (8) From subsection (e)(8), which requires notice to an individual
whenever a record on such individual is made available to others under
compulsory legal process, because complying with this provision could
prematurely reveal an ongoing criminal investigation to the subject of
the investigation.
    (9) From subsections (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4) and (f)(5), concerning
agency rules for obtaining access to records under subsection d,
because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions
of subsection (d). Since EPA is claiming that this system of records is
exempt from subsection (d) of the Act, concerning access to records,
the requirements of subsections (f)(2) through (5) of the Act,
concerning agency rules for obtaining access to such records, are
inapplicable and are exempted to the extent that this system of records
is exempted from subsection (d) of the Act.
    (10) From subsection (g), which provides for civil remedies if an
agency fails to comply with certain requirements of the Act applicable
to a nonexempt system of records, because EPA is claiming that this
system of records is exempt from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d);
(e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G) and (H), (5), and (8); and (f)(2), through (5)
of the Act. The provisions of subsection (g) of the Act are
inapplicable to the extent that this system of records is exempted from
those subsections of the Act.
    The EPA also compiles and maintains the records in the NEIC Master
Tracking System for use in civil investigations and actions. In those
cases, the system again is maintained by the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and
Training, National Enforcement Investigations Center. 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2) states that the head of an agency may promulgate regulations
to exempt the system from certain provisions of the Act if the system
``is investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes,
other than material within the scope of subsection (j)(2)'' of 5 U.S.C.
552a. Accordingly all such records in the NEIC Master Tracking System,
EPA-79, are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G),
(e)(4)(H) and (f)(2) through (f)(5):
    (1) From subsection (c)(3) because making available to named
individual an accounting of disclosures of records concerning him/her/
them could reveal investigative interest on the part of EPA and/or the
Department of Justice. This could allow record subjects to impede the
investigation, e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate potential witnesses,
or flee the area to avoid inquiries or apprehension by law enforcement
personnel. Further, such a disclosure could reveal the identity of a
confidential source, and hamper the Agency's investigation.
    (2) From subsection (d), which requires an agency to permit an
individual to access, contest or request amendment of records
pertaining to him/her/them, because the records contained in this
system relate to official Federal investigations. Individual access to
these records could compromise ongoing investigations, reveal
confidential informants and/or sensitive investigative techniques used
in particular investigations, or constitute unwarranted invasions of
the personal privacy of third parties who are involved in a certain
investigation.
    (3) From subsection (e)(1), which requires each agency to maintain
only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary
to accomplish a purpose of the agency, because in the course of law
enforcement investigations information may occasionally be obtained or
introduced the accuracy of which is unclear or which is not strictly
relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of
effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information
that may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity. Moreover,
it would impede any investigative process, whether civil or criminal,
if it were necessary to assure the relevance, accuracy, timeliness and
completeness of all information obtained.
    (4) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), which require an agency to
publish--in the Federal Register-- procedures concerning access to
records, because no access to these records is available under
subsection (d) of the Privacy Act, for the reasons explained above in
the discussion of subsection (d).
    (5) From subsection (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4) and (f)(5), concerning
agency rules for obtaining access to records under subsection (d),
because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions
of subsection (d). Since EPA is proposing to determine that this system
of records is exempt from subsection (d) of the Act, concerning access
to records, the requirements of subsections (f)(2) through (5) of the
Act, concerning agency rules for obtaining access to such records, are
inapplicable and are exempted to the extent that this system of records
is exempted from subsection (d) of the Act.
    Finally, EPA is making conforming edits to the regulations to
remove references to the prior EPA-46 OCEFT/NEIC Master Tracking
System, which EPA-79 replaces.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and reviewed without comment.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This action contains no provisions constituting a collection
of information under the PRA.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

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

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

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 16

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Government employees, Privacy.

Lynnann Hitchens,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
16 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 16--IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

0
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552a (as revised).

0
2. Amend Sec.  16.11 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(3);
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
0
d. Revising the heading and first two sentences of paragraph (d); and
0
e. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  16.11  General exemptions.

    (a) Systems of records affected. (1) EPA-17 OCEFT Criminal
Investigative Index and Files.
    (2) EPA-40 Inspector General's Operation and Reporting (IGOR)
System Investigative Files.
    (3) EPA-63 eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite.
    (4) EPA-79 NEIC Master Tracking System.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) The Agency's system of records, EPA-79 system of records is
maintained by the National Enforcement and Investigations Center,
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, a component of
EPA which performs as its principal function activities pertaining to
the enforcement of criminal laws. Authority for the criminal law
enforcement activities comes from Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (5
U.S.C. app. 1), effective December 2, 1970; Powers of Environmental
Protection Agency, 18 U.S.C. 3063; Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9603; Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6928; Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319, 1321; Toxic Substances Control Act, 15
U.S.C. 2614, 2615; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136j, 136l; Safe Drinking Water
Act, 42 U.S.C. 300h-2, 300i-1; Emergency Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 11045; and the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1415.
    (d) Scope of exemption. EPA systems of records 17, 40, 63, and 79
are exempted from the following provisions of the PA: 5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), and (H), (5), and
(8); (f)(2) through (5); and (g). To the extent that the exemption for
EPA systems of records 17, 40, 63 and 79 claimed under 5 U.S.C.
552a(j)(2) of the Act is held to be invalid, then an exemption under 5
U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) is claimed for these systems of records from (c)(3),
(d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f)(2) through (5). * * *
    (e) Reasons for exemption. EPA systems of records 17, 40, 63, and
79 are exempted from the provisions of the PA in paragraph (d) of this
section for the following reasons:
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  16.12 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a)(4)(i);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(4)(iii); and
0
d. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(5).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  16.12  Specific exemptions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Systems of records affected. (i) EPA-17 OCEFT Criminal
Investigative Index and Files.
    (ii) EPA-21 External Compliance Program Discrimination Complaint
Files.
    (iii) EPA-30 OIG Hotline Allegation System.
    (iv) EPA-40 Inspector General's Operation and Reporting (IGOR)
System Investigative Files.
    (v) EPA-41 Inspector General's Operation and Reporting (IGOR)
System Personnel Security Files.
    (vi) EPA-63 eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite.
    (vii) EPA-79 NEIC Master Tracking System.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) EPA systems of records 17, 30, 40, 41, 63, and 79 are exempted
from the following provisions of the PA, subject to the limitations set
forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2): 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (4)(G)
and (4)(H); and (f)(2) through (5). * * *
* * * * *
    (iii) EPA-17 OCEFT Criminal Investigative Index and Files, EPA-40
Inspector General's Operation and Reporting (IGOR) System Investigative
Files, and EPA-79 NEIC Master Tracking System are exempted under 5
U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and these systems are exempted under 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2) only to the extent that the (j)(2) exemption is held to be
invalid.
    (5) Reasons for exemption. EPA systems of records 17, 21, 30, 40,
41, 63, and 79 are exempted from the provisions of the PA in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section for the following reasons:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-23832 Filed 11-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P