[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45573-45575]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0305]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 35 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted May 27, 2015. The exemptions expire
on May 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 23, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (80 FR 22773). That notice listed 35 applicants' case histories.
The 35 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 35 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 35
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, macular scar, optic atrophy, enucleation,
optic nerve hypoplasia, corneal scar, aphakia, complete loss of vision,
deformed retina, retinal scar, refractive amblyopia, central macula
scar, light perception, retinal detachment, large choroidal scar over
macula, and chorioretinal scar. In most cases, their eye conditions
were not recently developed. Nineteen of the applicants were either
born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 16 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of two to 52 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 35 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from two to 52
years. In the past three years, one driver was involved in a crash, and
one was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 23, 2015
notice (80 FR 22773).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 35 applicants, one driver was involved in a crash, and one was
convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 35 applicants listed in the notice of April
23, 2015 (80 FR 22773).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 35 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments are
discussed below.
    Daniel Acosta stated that CDL holders should be able to remove
convictions on their CDL in one year, and that CMVs should have anti-
collision sensors, a radar system that allows drivers to see through
``blinding conditions'' (e.g. fog). Mr. Acosta also believes that CMV
drivers should be required to go through 2 DOT inspections per year,
and a different CSA system.
    An anonymous driver stated that drivers who can see shapes in
colors in a deficient eye and meet the qualifications in the other
should be allowed to operate a CMV in interstate commerce, especially
if they receive an evaluation from a doctor stating they are capable of
driving.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 35 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Donald A. Becker, Jr. (MI)
Ronald G. Bradley (IN)
Rober J. Bruce (AZ)
Mark A. Carter (OK)
William T. Costie (NY)
Donald W. Donaldson (GA)
Glenn E. Dowell (IN)
James L. Duck (NM)
Terrence R. Ervin (CA)
Douglas E. Hetrick (CO)
Arthur R. Hughson (AP)
Marc R. Johnston (OR)
Joseph M. Jones (ID)
Larry C. Kautz (PA)
Theodore J. Kenyon (VT)
Howard H. Key, Jr. (AR)
Bernard Khraich (CA)
Bradley R. King (IA)
David C. Leoffler (CO)
Melvin D. Moffett (KY)
Armando F. Pedroso (MN)
Quang M. Pham (TX)
William A. Ramirez Vazquez (CA)
Donald W. Randall (UT)
Glen E. Robbins (WY)
Enrique F. Rodriguez Gonzalez (NC)
Ronald P. Schoborg (AR)
Raymond Sherrill (PA)
Roger D. Simpson (AR)
Mehrzad Tavanaie (CA)
Steven M. Tewhill (AR)
Brett E. Thomas (TX)
Keith E. Thompson (MO)
Jeffrey W. Tucker (IN)
Thomas W. Workman (IL)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: July 20, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-18674 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 27496]
[DOCID:fr11my06-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

May 5, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Capacity Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 11068-006.
    c. Date Filed: April 19, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Orange Cove Irrigation District.
    e. Name of Project: Fishwater Release Project.
    f. Location: The project is located at the Bureau of Reclamation's
Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River in Fresno County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: John Roldan, District Manager, Orange Cove
Irrigation District, 1130 Park Boulevard, Orange Cove, California
93646, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Ms. Linda Stewart at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for Filing Comments and or Motions: June 5, 2006.
    k. Description of Request: Orange Cove Irrigation District proposes
to construct a new powerhouse to increase total generating capacity by
utilizing flow releases at the Friant Dam site. The proposed powerhouse
would contain a single turbine generator unit with an installed
capacity of 1.8 megawatts (MW) and hydraulic capacity of 130 cubic feet
per second (cfs). The total installed capacity of the project would
increase from 0.51 MW to 2.31 MW and the total hydraulic capacity of
the project would increase from 35 cfs to 165 cfs.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information about this filing
may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may
also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7195 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32697-32698]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14877]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-136-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Application of ITC Midwest LLC for Approval of
Acquisition of Assets Pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA.
    Filed Date: 7/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170706-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-137-000.
    Applicants: Luz Solar Partners Ltd., III, Luz Solar Partners Ltd.,
IV.
    Description: Application of Luz Solar Partners Ltd., III, et al.
for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and
Request for Waivers and Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 7/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20170706-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1838-009; ER10-1852-018; ER10-1857-008; ER10-
1899-009; ER10-1915-008; ER10-1932-008; ER10-1935-008; ER10-1951-011;
ER10-1963-008; ER10-1967-009; ER10-1968-009; ER10-1973-008; ER10-1974-
019; ER10-1975-020; ER10-1990-009; ER10-1993-009; ER11-4462-027; ER13-
752-008; ER14-1630-006; ER15-2601-002; ER15-2602-002; ER17-838-002.
    Applicants: Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC, Bayswater Peaking
Facility, LLC, Energy Storage Holdings, LLC, FPL Energy Cape, LLC, FPL
Energy Illinois Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman IV,
LLC, Florida Power & Light Company, Green Mountain Storage, LLC,
Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC, Manuta Creek Solar, LLC, Meyersdale
Storage, LLC, Meyersdale Windpower LLC, Mill Run Windpower, LLC, NEPM
II, LLC, NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC, NextEra Energy SeaBrook, LLC,
NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, North Jersey Energy
Associates, A Limited Partnership, Northeast Energy Associates, A
Limited Partnership, Somerset Windpower, LLC, Waymart Wind Farm, L.P.
    Description: Northeast Region Triennial Market Power Update of the
NextEra Companies.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5478.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2141-017; ER16-2187-002.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage
LLC.
    Description: Triennial Report of Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5453.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2739-015; ER10-1631-008; ER10-1854-008; ER10-
2743-010; ER10-2744-009; ER10-2751-010; ER10-2755-013; ER11-3320-008;
ER11-3321-007; ER13-2316-006; ER14-19-007; ER14-2548-005; ER16-1652-
003; ER16-1732-002; ER16-2405-002; ER16-2406-002; ER17-1946-001; ER17-
1947-001; ER17-1948-001; ER17-989-001; ER17-990-001; ER17-991-001;
ER17-992-001; ER17-993-001.
    Applicants: LS Power Marketing, LLC, Aurora Generation, LLC, Bath
County Energy, LLC, Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C., Chambersburg
Energy, LLC, Doswell Limited Partnership, Helix Ironwood, LLC, Helix
Maine Wind Development, LLC, Helix Ravenswood, LLC, Hunlock Energy,
LLC, Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, LifeEnergy, LLC, LSP University
Park, LLC, Ocean State Power LLC, Renaissance Power, L.L.C., Riverside
Generating Company, L.L.C., Rockford Power, LLC, Rockford Power II,
LLC, Seneca Generation, LLC, Springdale Energy, LLC, University Park
Energy, LLC, Wallingford Energy LLC, West Deptford Energy, LLC, Gans
Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the LS Northeast
MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5477.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2292-017; ER11-3942-016; ER11-2293-017; ER12-
2447-015
    Applicants: Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc., Brookfield Energy
Marketing LP, Brookfield Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Smoky
Mountain Hydropower LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southeast Region
of the Brookfiled Companies.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5474.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1622-001.
    Applicants: J. Aron & Company LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of J. Aron &
Company LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5476.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern

time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 7, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14877 Filed 7-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 14, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-16529

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Mesa Airlines, Inc.,  filed  11/13/03 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Phoenix, Arizona, and Mazatlan, Mexico.

Applicant rep:   Brian S. Gillman<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda
L. Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (See below).

The action above was effective when taken:  January 14, 2004,  through
January 14, 2006 .

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		        Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between
the United States and the Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Special Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is
subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of
Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy
notice period will begin April 1, 2004, Mesa’s proposed startup date
for these services.

Remarks:  United Air Lines, Inc. (United), filed an answer in Docket
OST-2003-16444, requesting that the Department take United’s position
in its answer in Docket OST-2003-16444 into account in ruling on
Mesa’s application here.  In that answer, United notes that Mesa is an
America West commuter and will operate services exclusively for America
West in the subject market.  United argues that, while the Department
has granted similar requests of affiliated carriers, such practice
pre-empts competing carriers from operating their own aircraft in
U.S.-Mexico markets.  We fully appreciate the concerns of United and
have sought Mexican aviation authorities acceptance of the services of
affiliated carriers without the need for separate designations.  Such an
arrangement, however, has not been forthcoming.  Under these
circumstances, we have granted a number of requests similar to the one
presented here.  We have taken such action only in cases where no other
party has expressed interest in serving the market and where no party
has opposed grant of such authority.  While United has opposed the
practice of using two designation opportunities for affiliated services
in the same city-pair market, it does not propose service in the subject
market with its own aircraft.  Given this background, we believe that
the public interest is best served by granting Mesa’s application for
the proposed services while we continue to work on this issue.
Notwithstanding this, however, should a competing U.S. carrier present a
proposal to provide regularly-scheduled service in the subject city-pair
market with its own aircraft, we would be prepared to reconsider
whether, in the circumstances presented, award of the authority granted
here continues to be in the public interest.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.asp

						APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

											8/2003

   Mesa states that, as part of this service, it will place the “HP”
code of America West on Mesa’s flights in the subject market.

   In the matter of the joint application of America West and Mesa for
exemption and code-share authorizations to serve the Phoenix-San Jose
del Cabo/Puerto Vallarta markets.

   Under the U.S.-Mexico aviation agreement, only two U.S. carriers may
be designated to provide direct carrier service (air transportation with
their own aircraft), on a given city-pair route.  America West currently
holds direct-carrier authority to serve the market (see Notice of Action
Taken dated October 29, 2002, in Docket OST-1995-736).  Thus, one
designation opportunity is available.


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Quality Policy Division

New Source Review Group

August, 2003

)

EPA # 1230.16

The EPA is revising the regulations governing the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment major New Source
Review (NA NSR) programs (collectively “major NSR”) mandated by
parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (the Act).  Specifically,
the major NSR regulations are being revised to add particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal
2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) and its precursors to the major NSR program.
This action is being taken as part of our efforts to implement the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5.

The major NSR program is a preconstruction review and permitting program
for new major sources of air pollutants and major modifications at
existing major sources.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The types of information
collection activities associated with the major NSR program are those
necessary for the preparation and submittal of construction permit
applications and the issuance of final permits.  The major NSR rule
changes addressed in this ICR add PM2.5 and its precursors to the list
of pollutants that must be addressed in a major NSR permit action, but
do not otherwise change the requirements of the program.

This Information Collection Request (ICR) (OMB Control Number 2060-0003;
EPA ICR Number 1230.21) is a revision of the existing ICR for the NSR
program   The purpose of this ICR is to show the change in burden and
cost associated with the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule.  Table E-1
summarizes the overall change in burden and cost for respondents –
sources who must obtain major NSR permits and State and local agencies
who issue the permits (called “reviewing authorities”).  The totals
in Table E-1 represent an increase of about 9 percent in average annual
burden and about 11 percent in average annual cost relative to the
major NSR totals in the currently approved ICR.  Relative to the entire
currently approved ICR (which includes minor NSR as well as major NSR),
the increase is about 1 percent in average annual burden and about 1.5
percent in average annual cost.

TABLE E-1

CHANGE IN BURDEN FOR RESPONDENTS RELATIVE TO JANUARY 2005 ICR

RESULTING FROM PM2.5 NSR IMPLEMENTATION RULE

Type of Entity	Change in Average Annual Burden (Hours)	Change in Average
Annual Burden per Entity (Hours)	Change in Average Annual Cost

($ 2004)c	Change in Average Annual Cost per Entity ($ 2004)

Sourcesa

Reviewing Authoritiesb	38,875

16,107	52

144	$4,268,991

$701,152	$5,669

$6,260

Total	54,982	N/A	$4,970,143	N/A

a   We estimate 753 major NSR permits each year (265 PSD permits and 488
NA NSR permits).

b   We assume that there are 112 State and local reviewing authorities.

c   The costs to sources include $1,722,678 in start-up costs for
pre-construction  monitoring.  The remaining $2,546,313 for sources and
all the costs for reviewing authorities are labor costs associated with
the increase in burden.

The EPA is the only Federal entity that will experience burden and cost
as a result of the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule.  We estimate the
average annual burden for EPA will be 1,916 hours, at a cost of $69,365
annually.

    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This document fulfills the Agency’s
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) with regard to
determining the regulatory burden associated with adding PM2.5 to the
PSD and NA NSR programs required under parts C and D of title I of the
Act.  It has been assigned EPA tracking number 1230.21.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The program called the “major NSR program”
under authority of parts C and D of Title I of the Act is a
preconstruction review and permitting program applicable to new or
modified major stationary sources of air pollutants.  In attainment
areas (areas meeting the NAAQS) or in areas where there is insufficient
information to determine whether they meet the NAAQS
(“unclassifiable” areas), the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program is implemented under the requirements of
part C of Title I of the Act.  In areas not meeting the NAAQS and in
ozone transport regions (OTR), the program is the “nonattainment”
major NSR (NA NSR) program, implemented under the requirements of part D
of title I of the Act.  Applicability of the major NSR program must be
determined in advance of construction and is pollutant-specific.  When a
source triggers major NSR in attainment areas (i.e., is subject to PSD),
it must install best available control technology (BACT) and conduct
modeling, monitoring, and other analyses as necessary.  If a source is
located in a nonattainment area for a particular pollutant (i.e., is
subject to NA NSR), it must, for that pollutant, install technology that
meets the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER), secure emission
reductions to offset any increases above baseline emission levels, and
perform other analyses.

In 1997, EPA promulgated NAAQS for PM2.5 to address fine particle
pollution, while retaining the NAAQS for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10) to address coarse particle pollution.  After delays associated
with litigation over the NAAQS and with building up technical capacity
to address PM2.5, we are proceeding with implementation of the PM2.5
program, including implementation of the PM2.5 NSR program.

This ICR addresses changes to the major NSR program to add PM2.5 to both
PSD and NA NSR.  For some sources, this will add to the burden of
obtaining major NSR permits because it will add to the number of
pollutants that must be addressed in the application process.
Similarly, State and local reviewing authorities will incur increased
burden to review such permit applications and issue the permits.  In
addition, reviewing authorities will incur a one-time burden to revise
their implementation plans to incorporate the PSD and NA NSR changes.

Title I of the Act authorizes EPA to collect this information.  Through
the NSR program it requires owners or operators of emissions units that
emit air pollutants to submit an application for a permit to construct,
modify, or significantly alter the operations of each source of criteria
pollutants.

For EPA to carry out its required oversight function of reviewing
construction permits and assuring adequate implementation of the
program, it must have available to it information on proposed
construction and modifications.  The burden estimates included in this
ICR provide emissions, source, and control information for the major NSR
program.

The information in this ICR is based upon the best data available to the
Agency at this time.  However, inconsistencies in reviewing authority
reporting techniques, incomplete data sets, and sampling limitations
necessitated a certain amount of extrapolation and “best-guess”
estimations.  Consequently, the reader should not consider the
conclusions to be an exact representation of the level of burden or cost
that will occur.  Instead, this ICR should be considered a directionally
correct assessment of the impact the programmatic changes included in
this rulemaking may have over the next 3 years.

Throughout this ICR, the reader will observe estimated values that show
accuracy to the single hour or dollar.  However, reporting values at the
single unit level can be misleading.  In most situations, the proper way
to present estimated data would be to determine an appropriate level of
precision and truncate values accordingly, usually in terms of thousands
or millions of units.  For instance, a spreadsheet generated estimation
of $5,456,295 could be presented in the text as $5.5 (millions) or
$5,456 (thousands).  One problem with such an approach is the loss of
data richness when the report contains a mixture of very large and very
small numbers.  Such was the case with this ICR, where source values are
consistently in the millions and federal and State values in the tens of
thousands.  Consequently, to avoid the loss of information through
rounding, this ICR reports all values at the most meaningful unit level
for the range of values being presented and reminds the reader that
there is no implied precision inherent in this style of reporting.

For approval of a proposed ICR, the Agency must ensure that it has
taken every reasonable step to avoid duplication in its paperwork
requirements in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.9.  Although the reviewing
authorities will be required to revise a State’s SIP, this action
imposes no new paperwork requirements.

A notice soliciting public comment was published in the Federal Register
on May 18, 2007 (72 FR 28041).  A 60-day public comment period was
provided for this ICR, during which all affected parties were given the
opportunity to comment on the burden analysis.  No substantive comments
on the ICR were received.

This ICR is a revision to the renewal for the NSR program (ICR
#1230.17), completed in January 2005.  This ICR incorporates the base
elements of the overall program as they relate to these changes.  As
such, extensive consultation through public meetings and stakeholder
meetings with environmental groups; industry; and State, local, and
Federal agency representatives has been conducted for the permit
application and review elements affected in this ICR revision.

The Act defines the rate of reporting by sources, States, and local
entities.  Consequently, less frequent collection is not possible.

OMB’s general guidelines for information collections must be adhered
to by all Federal Agencies for approval of any rulemaking’s collection
methodology.  In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5, the
Agency believes:

1.	The NSR regulations do not require periodic reporting more frequently
than semi-annually.

2.	The NSR regulations do not require respondents to participate in any
statistical survey.

3.	Written responses to Agency inquiries are not required to be
submitted in less than 30 days.

4.	Special consideration has been given in the design of the NSR program
to ensure that the requirements are, to the greatest extent possible,
the same for Federal requirements and those reviewing authorities who
already have NSR construction permitting programs in place.

5.	Confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information necessary for
the completeness of the respondent’s permit are protected from
disclosure under the requirements of section 114(c) of the Act.

6.	The NSR regulations do not require more that one original and two
copies of the permit application, update, or revision to be submitted to
the Agency.

7.	Respondents do not receive remuneration for the preparation of
reports required by the Act or parts 51 or 52.

8.	To the greatest extent possible, the Agency has taken advantage of
automated methods of reporting.

9.	The Agency believes the impact of NSR regulations on small entities
to be insignificant and not disproportionate.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the current
NSR program and the changes in this rulemaking do not exceed any of the
Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5, except for
the guideline which limits retention of records by respondents to 3
years.  The Act requires both respondents and State or local agencies to
retain records for a period of 5 years.  The justification for this
exception is found in 28 U.S.C. 2462, which specifies 5 years as the
general statute of limitations for Federal claims in response to
violations by regulated entities.  The decision in U.S. v. Conoco, Inc.,
No.  83-1916-E (W.D.  Okla., January 23, 1984) found that the 5-year
general statute of limitations applies to the Clean Air Act.

Confidentiality is not an issue for this rulemaking.  In accordance with
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the monitoring information to be
submitted by sources as a part of their major NSR permit application is
a matter of public record.  To the extent that the information required
is proprietary, confidential, or of a nature that could impair the
ability of the source to maintain its market position, that information
is collected and handled subject to the requirements of section 114(c)
of the Act.  Information received and identified by owners or operators
as confidential business information (CBI) and approved as CBI by EPA,
in accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B, shall be
maintained appropriately (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976;
amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28,
1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

The consideration of sensitive questions, (i.e., sexual, religious,
personal, or other private matters), is not applicable to this
rulemaking.  The information gathered to establish a major NSR permit
does not include personal data on any owner or operator.

The President’s priorities in promoting environmental justice (EJ) are
contained in Executive Order 12898.  Because the NSR program operates
nationwide and across all industry classifications, the Agency does not
believe there is a disproportionate EJ effect in the NSR program.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 4-1 lists the
industrial groups that we expect will contain the majority of the
industrial respondents affected by the NSR program.  These categories
were chosen because of their historic relative incidence in seeking NSR
permits as established in prior ICRs and confirmed by a nationwide air
pollutant emission inventory developed by the EPA in 1986-87.  These
industries have been used as the basis for impact analysis since that
inventory.

Table 4-1.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Most Numerous Industrial Respondents
by Industrial Group

Industry Group		SIC	NAICS

Electric Services	491	221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122

Petroleum Refining	291	32411

Industrial Inorganic Chemicals	281	325181, 32512, 325131, 325182,
211112, 325998, 331311, 325188

Industrial Organic Chemicals	286	32511, 325132, 325192, 325188, 325193,
32512, 325199

Miscellaneous Chemical Products	289	32552, 32592, 32591, 325182, 32551

Natural Gas Liquids	132	211112

Natural Gas Transport	492	48621, 22121

Pulp Mills	261	32211, 322121, 322122, 32213

Paper Mills	262	322121, 322122

Automobile Manufacturing	371	336111, 336112, 336712, 336211, 336992,
336322, 336312, 33633, 33634, 33635, 336399, 336212, 336213

Pharmaceuticals	283	325411, 325412, 325413, 325414

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The respondents also include State and local air
regulatory agencies.  Because of the national scope of the NSR program,
these governmental respondents are in all 50 States.

This section discusses the data items that must be collected and
reported and the activities that respondents must carry out under the
major NSR program.

The data required by sources for a complete major NSR permit application
can be found in the various parts of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR).  Section 51.166 specifies the minimum requirements
that a PSD permit program under part C of the Act must contain to
warrant approval as a revision to a SIP.  Section 52.21 delineates the
Federal PSD permit program which applies to all Federally controlled
areas, such as Tribal lands, outer continental shelf sources, and States
that have not submitted a PSD program meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.166.  Section 51.165 specifies the elements of an approvable State
permit program for preconstruction review in nonattainment areas under
part D of the Act.  Part 51, Appendix S (Offset Ruling) and 40 CFR 52.24
(statutory restriction on new sources) apply when a nonattainment area
SIP has not been fully approved by EPA as having met the requirements of
part D of the Act.  These citations can be found on the EPA website at:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/chi-toc.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/chi-toc.htm

Respondent data and information requirements can be found in the
Supporting Statement for the 2005 ICR renewal for the major NSR program
(ICR #1230.17), including appropriate references in 40 CFR part 51 for
the data and information requirements that govern the way States
implement NSR programs.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Tables 6-1 and 6-2 list (for source and reviewing
authority respondents, respectively) the activities and associated
burden for major NSR permitting.  For each activity, the tables give the
baseline burden (based on the 2005 ICR renewal), the estimated burden
upon implementation of the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule, and the
incremental burden due to the rule.

For source respondents, the activities are divided into three broad
categories:  (1) preparation and planning, (2) d  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
ata collection and analysis, and (3) permit application.  Each of these
categories is further subdivided into individual activities.

Reviewing authority respondents’ activities involve interacting with
the source during its preparation of an application, reviewing the
application and making a determination, implementing the public notice
and comment process, issuing the permit, and transmitting information to
EPA.  In addition to the activities associated with reviewing and
issuing major NSR permits under the revised regulations, reviewing
authority respondents will have to revise their SIPs to add PM2.5 and
its precursors to their major NSR programs.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 6-3 lists EPA’s
activities associated with major NSR permitting.  These activities
generally involve oversight review of major NSR permitting actions to
verify that the requirements of the Act and the implementing part 51 and
52 regulations are being met.  In addition, EPA will have to review the
SIP revisions submitted by the reviewing authorities.

The owners or operators of new or modified major stationary sources
affected by the major NSR regulations must submit construction permit
applications to the reviewing authority, who logs in the permit
applications, stores applications in a central filing location, notifies
the Federal Land Manager (FLM) of the permit, and provides a copy of the
application (if applicable) to the FLM and transmits copies of each
application to EPA.  Upon permit approval, the reviewing authority
submits control technology information to EPA’s reasonably available
control technology (RACT)/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) database.

The reviewing authority reviews the permit application and checks the
quality of data submitted by the applicant on a case-by-case basis.  The
applicant will be required to submit information on how the data were
obtained (e.g., indicate whether emissions data were obtained through
the use of emissions factors or test data) and how the calculations were
performed.  The reviewing authority personnel will check data quality by
reviewing test data and checking engineering calculations, and by
reviewing control technology determinations for similar sources.  The
RBLC and other sources will be reviewed for information on control
technology determinations made for sources similar to the sources
included in the permit application.  Confidential information submitted
by the applicant will be handled by the reviewing authority’s
confidential information handling procedures.  The public will be
provided the opportunity to review a permit application and other
materials relevant to the reviewing authority’s decision on issuing
the permit, including FLM findings, by obtaining a copy from the permit
reviewing authority or by attending the public hearing.  The NSR
regulations will not require information through any type of survey.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires regulatory agencies, upon
regulatory action, to assess that action’s potential impact on small
entities (businesses, governments, and small non-governmental
organizations) and report the results of the assessments in (1) an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), (2) a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and (3) a Certification.  For ICR approval,
the Agency must demonstrate that it “has taken all practicable steps
to develop separate and simplified requirements for small businesses and
other small entities” (5 CFR 1320.6(h)).  In addition, the agencies
must assure through various mechanisms that small entities are given an
opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.

A Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis (RFASA) developed as
part of a 1994 draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and incorporated
into the September 1995 ICR renewal analysis reported an initial
regulatory flexibility screening analysis showed that the changes to the
NSR program due to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments would not have an
adverse impact on small entities.  This analysis encompassed the entire
universe of applicable major sources that were likely to also be small
businesses.  The Agency estimates there are approximately 50 “small
business” major sources.  Because the administrative burden of the NSR
program are the primary source of the NSR program’s regulatory costs,
the analysis estimated a negligible “cost to sales” (regulatory cost
divided by the business category mean revenue) ratio for this source
group.  Currently, there is no economic basis for a different conclusion
at this time.

The Agency may not,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 under any circumstances,
exempt a major source of air pollution from the requirements of major
NSR.  Since the impacts of major NSR regulations which may impact small
entities occur predominantly at major sources, little room exists for
regulatory flexibility to avert the impact of the proposed rulemaking on
small entities through exemption.

Respondents are not subjected to a collection schedule per se under the
major NSR regulations of parts 51 and 52.  In general, each major
stationary source is required to submit an application as a prerequisite
to receiving a construction permit.  Preparation of a major source
construction permit application is a one-time-only activity for each
project involving construction of a new major stationary source or major
modification of an existing major stationary source.  The applicable SIP
typically states the time period that is necessary to process a permit
application and issue a permit.  Consequently, a prospective source
would be obliged to work backward from the desired commencement date for
construction to determine the optimum submittal date for the
application.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  In addition to the
labor hours expended by the respondents, the burden estimate should
include:  (1) total capital and start-up costs annualized over the
useful life of the purchased equipment, and (2) total costs for
operation, maintenance, and purchases of services.  Each component
should be divided into burden borne directly by the respondent and any
services that are contracted out.

This section discusses the development of burden estimates and their
conversion into costs, which are separated into burden costs and capital
and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.  According to the latest
guidance for ICRs (EPA 2005), capital and O&M costs display the cost of
any new capital equipment the source or reviewing authority may have to
purchase solely for information collection, assimilation, and storage
purposes.  For example, if a source had to purchase a new mini-computer
to store and manipulate data, that computer would be a cost of
administration subject to reporting in the ICR.  In addition, the latest
guidance instructs the Agency to differentiate the burden associated
with a source’s labor and that which it hires through outside
contractors.  To the extent a source contracts out for administrative
purposes (e.g., employing consultants to perform monitoring functions),
the burden associated with those contracted tasks are not a burden to
the source - but they still remain a cost.  The reader should read this
section with the following considerations in mind:

•		The Agency believes the time necessary to perform a task is
independent of the origins of its labor.  In other words, if a source
would employ 20 hours of burden to fully perform a function, then a
contractor hired by the source would also take 20 hours to perform that
same task.  Furthermore, the Agency assumes no economies or diseconomies
of scale.  The linear combination of any amount of contractor and source
effort will also sum to 20.  Therefore, the burden estimates in this ICR
act as an accurate assessment of the total burden to affected sources
and reviewing authorities, given the affected entity does not employ
contracted labor.

•		For some burden categories, the Agency believes the hours assigned
to them will be divided between the source and outside contractors.  For
these categories, the Agency established a composite cost per hour by
developing a weighted average of the source and contractor wages, with
the weight defined by the percentage of total effort each burden source
applied.  Consequently, the cost developed in this ICR should be
interpreted as an upper bound on the actual cost of administration by
the source or reviewing authority.  The methodology for determining cost
per hour can be found in greater detail in section 6.2, below.

Although there have been regulatory changes to the NSR program since the
2005 renewal, we believe that they have not changed the regulatory
burden on a source that is subject to major NSR and must obtain a
permit.  Similarly, we believe that the burden on a State or local
reviewing authority to review and issue a major NSR permit has not
changed.  Thus, we have retained the per-permit hourly burden estimates
from the 2005 ICR renewal (ICR #1230.17) as the baseline for the current
regulatory action for both source respondents and State and local
reviewing authority respondents.

The PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule adds PM2.5 and its precursors to the
major NSR program, but does not otherwise change the requirements of the
program.  Thus, the rule does not change the activities that a source
must carry out to obtain a permit, but may increase the number of
pollutants that the source must address in its permit application.  This
is because major NSR applies to a new or modified source on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis.  That is, a source must meet the
requirements of the program for each pollutant that it will emit in
amounts greater than the applicable threshold, and must address each
such pollutant in its permit application.  Major NSR permitting actions
very often involve more than one pollutant.  As a result of the PM2.5
NSR Implementation rule, we expect the number of pollutants involved to
increase for some sources, with a concomitant increase in the burden to
obtain a permit.  In addition, we expect the burden for reviewing
authority respondents to review permit applications and issue permits to
increase accordingly.

To estimate the increase in permitting burden that will result from the
PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule, we considered two factors:  (1) which
activities are likely to be affected by an increase in the number of
pollutants addressed, and (2) the increase in burden for the affected
activities.  These factors are discussed further below.

The activities that source and reviewing authority respondents carry out
for permitting under the major NSR program are listed below in Tables
6-1 and 6-2, respectively.  The burden for some of these activities
(such as control technology and impact analyses) will depend on the
number of pollutants involved, while others are primarily administrative
in nature (such as public hearings) and will be largely unaffected by
the number of pollutants.  In Tables 6-1 and 6-2, those activities that
are affected by the number of pollutants show an incremental increase in
burden in the right-most column, while the unaffected activities have an
incremental burden of zero.

To determine the likely increase in burden for affected activities under
the major NSR program, we assumed that PSD permits currently address an
average of three pollutants and that NA NSR permits currently address an
average of two pollutants.  We estimated that the PM2.5 NSR
Implementation rule will have the effect of increasing these numbers by
one pollutant per permit, for those sources that become subject to PM2.5
permitting.  (We estimate one pollutant, specifically direct emissions
of PM2.5, because the precursors of PM2.5 are already regulated under
major NSR.)  Thus, for sources subject to PM2.5 permitting, the burden
associated with the affected activities will increase by 33 percent for
PSD permitting and 50 percent for NA NSR permitting.  We assumed the
same percent increase for reviewing authorities where permits must
address PM2.5.

However, not all sources that must obtain a major NSR permit will be
subject for PM2.5.  To estimate the percentage of permits that will have
to address PM2.5, we consulted the RBLC to determine what percentage has
historically been subject to major NSR for particulate matter.  We found
that over the last 10 years, approximately 60 percent of facilities that
obtained control technology determinations obtained a determination for
particulate matter.  We used this percentage as a weighting factor to
determine the weighted average increase in burden for the affected
activities across all major NSR permits (i.e., those that address PM2.5
and those that do not).  For PSD the weighted average is 20 percent
(0.60 x 0.33 = 0.20), and for NA NSR the weighted average is 30
percent (0.60 x 0.50 = 0.30).  We applied these weighted average burden
increases to the affected activities for both source respondents and
reviewing authority respondents.

Table 6-1 shows the average incremental increase in burden hours per
permit for source respondents that we estimate will result from the
PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule.  As the table shows, we estimate an
average incremental increase of 27 hours for PSD permits, or about
3 percent.  For NA NSR permits, we estimate an average incremental
increase of 65 hours, or about 11 percent.

Table 6-2 gives the average incremental increase in burden hours per
permit for reviewing authority respondents.  We estimate an average
incremental increase of 22 hours for PSD permits, or about 8 percent.
For NA NSR permits, we estimate an average incremental increase of 18
hours, or about 17 percent.

In addition to issuing permits, the reviewing authorities must ensure
that their NSR programs meet the requirements that EPA specifies for
such programs pursuant to parts C and D.  The PM2.5 NSR Implementation
rule revises these requirements.  Therefore, each reviewing authority
must submit changes to its existing SIP program or demonstrate that its
existing programs are at least equivalent to EPA’s new requirements.
Because the changes needed for updating SIPs are small and the State
requirements for SIP development differ from State to State, the EPA
assumed it would take no more than 40 hours for each reviewing authority
to fully incorporate this rulemaking into its plan.  This assumption
includes legislative review, public comment, and all legal and
legislative processes necessary for all of the above components.  This
is a one-time burden that will occur during the 3-year period covered by
this ICR.

  Table 6-1.  Source Respondent Burden Increase, Hours per Permit

Activity	Baseline Hours

per Permita	Hours per Permit with PM2.5 Rule Revisions 	Incremental
Increase in Hours per Permit

I.     PSD permits (Part C)

A.     Preparation and Planning

        Determination of Compliance Requirements	170	170	0

	        Obtain guidance on Data Needs	120	120	0

	        Preparation of BACT Engineering Analysis	85	102	17

	B.     Data Collection and Analysis

        Air Quality Modeling	200	200	0

	        Determination of Impact on Air Quality Related Values	100	100	0

	        Post-construction Air Quality Monitoring	50	50	0

	C.     Permit Application

        Preparation and Submittal of Permit Application	50	60	10

	        Public Hearings	24	24	0

	        Revisions to Permit	40	40	0

	D.     Total 	839	866	27

II.    NA NSR permits (Part D)

A.     Preparation and Planning

        Determination of Compliance Requirements	150	150	0

	        Obtain Guidance on Data Needs	100	100	0

	B.     Data Collection and Analysis

        Preparation of LAER Engineering Analysis	40	52	12

	        Demonstrate Offsets	40	52	12

	        Prepare Analysis of Alternative Sites, Processes, etc.	60	60	0

	        Air Quality Modeling	100	130	30

	C.     Permit Application

        Preparation and Submittal of Permit Application	38	49	11

	        Public Hearings	25	25	0

	        Revisions to Permit	24	24	0

	D.     Total	577	642	65

a  Source:  A. Rios and J. Santiago.  Information Collection Request for
40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.  October 2004.  Page 17.

Table 6-2.  Reviewing Authority Respondent Burden Increase, Hours per
Permit

Activity	Baseline Hours

per Permita	Hours per Permit with PM2.5 Rule Revisions	Incremental
Increase in Hours per Permit

I.	PART C (PSD)

A.     Attend Pre-application Meetings	36	36	0

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	20	20	0

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	16	16	0

	D.     Request Additional Information 	8	8	0

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	24	24	0

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	32	38	6

	G.     File and Transmit Copies 	8	8	0

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	24	29	5

	I.      Prepare Notices for and Attend Public Hearings	40	40	0

	J.     Application Approval	40	48	8

	K.     Notification of Applicant of RA Determination	8	8	0

	L.     Submittal  of Information  on BACT to RBLC	16	19	3

	M.     Total	  =SUM(ABOVE)  272 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  294 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  22

II.	Part D (Nonattainment)

A.     Attend Pre-application Meetings	7	7	0

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	10	10	0

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	8	10	2

	D.     Request Additional Information	4	4	0

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	4	4	0

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	12	16	4

	G.     File and Transmit Copies	4	4	0

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	8	10	2

	I.      Prepare notices for and Attend Public Hearings	18	18	0

	J.     Application Approval	16	21	5

	K.     Notification of Applicant Determination	2	2	0

	L.     Submittal of Information on LAER to RBLC	16	21	5

	M.     Total	  =SUM(ABOVE)  109 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  127 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  18

a  Source:  A. Rios and J. Santiago.  Information Collection Request for
40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.  October 2004.  Page 18.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In order to allow a direct cost comparison with
the existing approved ICR for the major NSR program (i.e., the January
2005 renewal, ICR #1230.17), we use the same cost factors in this ICR
revision.  These cost factors are laid out below.

As in the January 2005 ICR renewal for the major NSR program, the hourly
labor rate for source respondents used for this analysis is $65.50 per
hour (in 2004 dollars).  This   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 labor rate was
calculated by taking 70% of the 2004 in-house labor rate, which was
derived using fully loaded but weighted technical, clerical, and
managerial staff wages, and adding the resulting labor rate to 30% of
the 2004 fully loaded weighted consultant rate for technical, clerical,
and managerial staff.

Similarly, the labor rate used in this analysis for reviewing authority
respondents is $43.53 per hour.  This rate was derived for the 2005 ICR
renewal by inserting 2004 Federal government pay schedule wage rates for
clerical, technical, and managerial staff into the weighting system
developed in the 1997 renewal ICR and described in the November 2002 ICR
revision.

Capital/start-up and O&M costs are non-labor related costs.  One-time
capital/start-up costs are incurred with the purchase of durable goods
needed to provide information.  According to the Paperwork Reduction
Act, capital/start-up cost should include among other items,
preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and
software, monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment.

Even if an applicant is a brand new company and the prospective source
is a “greenfield” source (the EPA estimates less than 1 percent of
source respondents fit that description) most, and perhaps all, of the
equipment needed to prepare permit applications (for example, the
computers and basic software) will be part of the source’s business
operation inventory.  Furthermore, much of the data and regulatory and
policy information for making technology determinations and even models
for performing ambient air impact analyses are available in electronic
form from several different EPA bulletin boards for just the
communication charges, which are typically absorbed in routine business
overhead expenses.  Thus, the capital costs for the major NSR program
are negligible.  In any case, the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule, which
is the subject of this ICR revision, will not cause any new capital
costs to be incurred by any respondents.

The EPA has conservatively estimated that 13 percent of PSD permit
applicants have to conduct pre-construction ambient monitoring for the
impacts analyses and that monitoring is conducted for approximately
4 months.  As a practical matter, sources would probably contract this
type of activity since it would generally be a one-time exercise.
Consequently, EPA believes this cost is most often a direct cost
associated with preparing permit applications.  Based on this
assumption, cost of capital equipment for pre-construction monitoring is
negligible.  To account for this cost in the 2005 ICR renewal, EPA added
a line item direct cost to the total annual cost based on a contracted
service cost of $  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 253,337 per permit where
pre-construction monitoring is required.  This cost, although not a
fixed-capital cost, is nonetheless considered a start-up cost and is
reported as such in the OMB form for the 2005 ICR renewal.  For purposes
of this ICR revision, we estimate that the average cost per PSD permit
for those sources who must conduct pre-construction monitoring will
increase by 20 percent, or $50,667, to $304,004.  This estimate of a 20
percent incremental increase was derived as discussed above in section
6.1 for other permitting activities that will be affected by the
increase in the number of pollutants addressed in PSD permits.

Since the purchase of capital equipment is believed to be an
insignificant factor in permit application preparation, we assume that
the O&M and services for same are negligible.  Further, once a permit is
issued, there is no O&M cost associated with it.  It remains unaltered
unless the source or the reviewing authority discovers specific reasons
to reexamine it and change any conditions or specifications.  If purely
administrative, the changes are handled exclusively by the reviewing
authority.  If changes have the potential for environmental
consequences, the action may be significant enough to be counted as a
separate and new application, to which a new burden and cost may be
ascribed.

Typically, annualized capital cost would be derived from a discounted
net present value of the stream of costs that would occur over the life
of the permit, or the ICR, whichever is shorter.  However, in the case
of NSR, there are only up-front costs.  The burden and cost of applying
for and issuing each permit is unique, and since the cost of NSR
permitting is incurred “up front,” it is a sunk cost to the source
and does not require amortization over the life of the source.
Therefore, the capital costs for the ICR to industry respondents after
the first year of each permit are zero.

Staff in EPA’s Regional Offices typically reviews major NSR permits.
We expect our review of NSR permits to comprise the tasks listed below
in Table 6-3.  The table gives the baseline estimated average per-permit
burden hours, which reflect the values from the 2005 ICR renewal (ICR
#1230.17), as well as the estimated increase in burden resulting from
the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule.  The burden increase estimates were
derived as discussed above in section 6.1 for the source and reviewing
authority burden increases.  That is, for those activities that will be
affected by the number of pollutants addressed by a major NSR permit,
the burden will increase by 20 percent for PSD permits and by
30 percent for NA NSR permits.  As shown in Table 6-3, we estimate that
the average incremental increase in EPA burden will be 1 hour (about 7
percent) for PSD permits and 3 hours for NA NSR permits (about 23
percent).

To facilitate cost comparisons between this ICR revision and the 2005
ICR renewal, we have used the Federal labor rate from the 2005 ICR of
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 $36.21 per hour.  The rate reflects the assumption,
made in the July 10, 1997 renewal ICR and the February 2001 renewal ICR,
that the staff reviewing permits are classified as Grade 11 Step 3.  The
corresponding salary is loaded with benefits at the rate of 60%.

In addition, there will be Agency burden to review the revised SIPs
submitted by the reviewing authorities to verify that the revisions
fully meet the requirements of the program, as changed by the PM2.5 NSR
Implementation rule.  Due to the nature of the SIP revisions needed, the
Agency expects that each SIP revisions will require about 5 hours of
review.  We expect this one-time burden to occur during the period
covered by this ICR.

Table 6-3.  Federal Burden Increase, Hours per Permit

Activity	Baseline Hours

per Permita	Hours per Permit with PM2.5 Rule Revisions	Incremental
Increase in Hours per Permit

I.	PART C (PSD)

A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	2	2	0

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	3	4	1

	C.    Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	4	4	0

	D.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	2	2	0

	E.    Evaluate Class I Area Analysis	2	2	0

	F.    Administrative Tasks	1	1	0

	G.   Total	14	  =SUM(ABOVE)  15 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  1

II.	Part D (nonattainment)

A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	2	2	0

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	3	4	1

	C.     Evaluate Offsets	1	1	0

	D.     Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	4	5	1

	E.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	2	3	1

	F.     Administrative Tasks	1	1	0

	G.    Total	13	  =SUM(ABOVE)  16 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  3

a  Source:  A. Rios and J. Santiago.  Information Collection Request for
40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.  October 2004.  Page 19.

For the purpose of estimating the total burden in this ICR, the
respondent universe is defined by the annual number of permit
applications prepared by sources and the number of reviewing authorities
that must process such permit applications.  It also includes the number
of reviewing authorities that will have to revise their SIPs.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 As discussed above in
section 6.1, we believe that the average burden per major NSR permit
will increase as a result of the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule.
However, we do not believe that the number of permits will be affected.
We expect that PM2.5 will very seldom, if ever, be the only PSD
pollutant or the only NA NSR pollutant subject to permitting for a
particular new major source or major modification.  For this reason,
this analysis uses the same number of PSD permits (265 per year) and NA
NSR permits (488 per year) used in the 2005 ICR renewal (ICR #1230.17).
The total number of source respondents is the sum of PSD and NA NSR
permits, or 753 per year.  For purposes of this ICR revision, we carried
out the analysis as if the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule would be fully
implemented immediately upon promulgation.  That is, we have allowed for
no lag time for reviewing authorities to submit SIP revisions and for
EPA to review and approve the revisions.  This results in a
“worst-case” analysis for the 3-year period covered by this ICR, but
more accurately reflects the long-term impacts of the rule.

For the number of respondent reviewing authorities associated with major
NSR permitting and SIP revisions, we used the 112 reviewing authority
count used by other permitting ICRs.  Again, we carried out this
“worst-case” analysis as if all reviewing authorities would begin
issuing major NSR permits for PM2.5 immediately, with no lag time for
SIP revisions.  We also included the reviewing authorities’ burden for
revising the SIPs in this ICR.

Based on the estimates presented above for the incremental increase in
burden for PSD and NA NSR permits, the labor rates for source and
reviewing authority respondents, and the number of respondents, we have
estimated the total incremental burden and costs that will result from
the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule.  Table 6-4 presents the totals for
source respondents for each year of the 3 years covered by this ICR.
Table 6-5 shows the average annual totals for reviewing authority
respondents.

Table 6-4.  Incremental Annual Burden and Costs for Source Respondents

Activity	Number of Permits per Year	Incremental Burden per Permit
Incremental Annual Burden	Labor Rate	Incremental Annual Cost ($ 2004)

PSD Permitting

Permitting labor	265	27 hours	7,155 hours	$65.50/hr	$468,653

	Pre-construction monitoringa	34	$50,667

	$1,722,678

	PSD Permitting Subtotal	265

7,155 hours

$2,191,331

NA NSR Permitting

Permitting labor	488	65 hours	31,720 hours	$65.50/hr	$2,077,660

	NA NSR Permitting Subtotal

	31,720 hours

$2,077,660

TOTAL	753

38,875 hours

$4,268,991

a The 34 permits per year for which pre-construction monitoring must be
carried out are a subset of the 265 PSD permits per year.

Table 6-5.  Incremental Annual Burden and Costs for Reviewing Authority
(RA) Respondents

Major NSR Permitting

Activity	Number of Permits per Year	Incremental Burden per Permit
(Hours)	Incremental Annual Burden (Hours)	Labor Rate	Incremental Annual
Cost ($ 2004)

PSD Permitting	265	22	5,830	$43.53/hr	$253,780

NA NSR Permitting	488	18	8,784	$43.53/hr	$382,367

Major NSR Subtotal	753

14,614

$636,147

SIP Revisions

Activity	Number of SIP Revisions per Yeara	Burden per Revision (Hours)
Average Annual Burdenb (Hours)	Labor Rate	Average Annual Costc ($ 2004)

Revision of SIP	37.33	40	1,493	$43.53/hr	$65,005

Reviewing Authority Totals

TOTAL

	16,107

$701,152

a   Each of the 112 reviewing authorities must submit one SIP revision
to conform their major NSR programs to the revised rules over the 3-year
period covered by this ICR.  Thus, the average annual number of such
revisions is 112 / 3 = 37.33 per year.

b   Each reviewing authority will revise its SIP once for a 3-year total
burden of 4,480 hours.  Average annual burden is 4,480 / 3 = 1,493
hours.

c  Total 3-year cost is 4,480 hours x $43.53 = $195,014.  Average annual
cost is $195,014 / 3 = $65,005.

Based on the estimates presented above for the Federal burden hours for
each activity, the Federal labor rate, and the number of permits and SIP
revisions, we have estimated the total average annual Federal burden and
costs that will result from the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule.  All of
the Federal burden and costs are incurred by EPA.  Table 6-6 presents
the estimated burden and costs.

Table 6-6.  Incremental Federal Annual Burden and Costs

Major NSR Permitting

Activity	Number of Permits per Year	Incremental Burden per Permit
(Hours)	Incremental Annual Burden (Hours)	Labor Rate	Incremental Annual
Cost ($ 2004)

PSD Permitting	265	1	265	$36.21/hr	$9,596

NA NSR Permitting	488	3	1,464	$36.21/hr	$53,010

Major NSR Subtotal

	1,729

$62,606

SIP Revisions

Activity	Number of SIPs to Review per Yeara	Burden per SIP Review
(Hours)	Average Annual Burdenb (Hours)	Labor Rate	Average Annual Costc
($ 2004)

Revision of SIP	37.33	5	187	$36.21/hr	$6,759

Federal Totals

TOTAL

	1,916

$69,365

a   The EPA will review one SIP revision submitted by each of the 112
reviewing authorities over the 3-year period covered by this ICR.  Thus,
the average annual number of SIP reviews is 112 / 3 = 37.33 per year.

b   The EPA will review a total of 112 SIP revisions for a 3-year total
burden of 560 hours.  Average annual burden is 560 / 3 = 187 hours.

b  Total 3-year cost is 560 hours x $36.21 = $20,278.  Average annual
cost is $20,278 / 3 = $6,759.

Table 6-7 displays the incremental change in annual burden and costs for
source and reviewing authority respondents that we estimate will result
from the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule, as well as the total across all
respondents.  Table 6-8 shows the incremental change in annual burden
and costs for the EPA that we estimate will result from the PM2.5 NSR
Implementation rule.

Table 6-7.  Total Estimated Incremental Change in Annual Respondent
Burden and Costs

Type of Respondent	Number of Responses	Total Incremental Burden
(Hours/Year)	Total Incremental Labor Costs ($/Year)	Total Incremental
Capital Costs ($/Year)	Total Incremental Costs ($/Year)

Sources	753	38,875	$2,546,313	$1,722,678	$4,268,991

Reviewing Authoritiesa	790.33	16,107	701,152	0	701,152

TOTAL	  =SUM(ABOVE) \# "#,##0.00"  1,543.33 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  54,982
=SUM(ABOVE) \# "$#,##0;($#,##0)"  $3,247,465 	  =SUM(ABOVE) \#
"$#,##0;($#,##0.00)"  $1,722,678 	  =SUM(ABOVE) \# "$#,##0"  $4,970,143

a  During the 3-year period of this ICR, the 112 reviewing authorities
will review 753 major NSR permits each year and submit an average of
37.33 SIP revisions per year (112 / 3 = 37.33), for a total of 790.33
responses per year.

Table 6-8.  Total Estimated Incremental Change in Annual Federal Burden
and Costs

Type of Entity	Number of Entities	Total Incremental Burden (Hours/Year)
Total Incremental Labor Costs ($/Year)	Total Incremental Capital Costs
($/Year)	Total Incremental Costs ($/Year)

Federal Agency	1	1,916	$69,365	$0	$69,365

As discussed in the previous sections, the burden for the major NSR
program will increase as a result of the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule.
This change in the major NSR regulations is necessary under the Clean
Air Act because EPA has, in other rulemakings, promulgated NAAQS for
PM2.5 to protect the public health and welfare.  The rule is a program
change to add PM2.5 and its precursors to the major NSR program, but it
does not otherwise change the requirements of the program.  We expect
the rule change to increase the burden associated with applying for and
issuing those permits that will now have to address PM2.5 in addition to
other pollutants, but we do not expect any change in the number of major
NSR permits that must be issued (i.e., no change in the number of source
respondents).  In addition, reviewing authorities will incur a one-time
burden to revise their SIPs to incorporate the major NSR rule changes.
The magnitude of the change in burden is presented above in Tables 6-7
and 6-8.

We estimate that the PM2.5 NSR Implementation rule will increase the
total annual burden of the major NSR program on 753 source respondents
by nearly 39,000 hours and $4.3 million per year (see Tables 6-4 and
6-7), for an average burden increase of about 52 hours and $5,700 per
source.  For the 112 reviewing authority respondents, we estimate that
the total annual burden will increase by about 16,000 hours and $700,000
(see Tables 6-5 and 6-7), for an average burden increase of about 140
hours and $6,300 per reviewing authority.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0281, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or
in-person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0281 and OMB Control Number 2060-0003 in any
correspondence.

	The term “reviewing authority” is synonymous with the term
“permitting authority” used in previous permit-related analyses.
The reader should consider these terms interchangeable for comparison
purposes.

 	A. Rios and J. Santiago.  Information Collection Request for 40 CFR
Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment
New Source Review.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.  October 2004.  Appendix A.

	“Economic Assessment of the Impacts of Part C and D Regulatory
Changes,” June 2, 1994.

	The definition for “small business” employed for all SIC categories
in this analysis was any business employing fewer than 500 employees.

     	U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Draft Information Collection Request For Changes
To The 40 CFR Part 51 And 52 Prevention Of Significant Deterioration And
New Source Review Applicability Requirements For Modifications To
Existing Sources, November 2002, p. 29.

	A. Rios and J. Santiago.  Information Collection Request for 40 CFR
Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment
New Source Review.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.  October 2004.  Page 13.

E-  PAGE  1

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO THE 40 CFR PARTS 51 and 52
PSD AND NONATTAINMENT NSR: DEBOTTLENECKING, AGGREGATION, AND PROJECT
NETTING

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 51 AND 52
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION AND NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE
REVIEW:  Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR)
Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)

Page   PAGE  24

EPA

Executive Summary

1.2	Description

1	Identification of the Information Collection

1.1	Title

TRACKING NUMBER: 1230.19

formation Collection

1.1	Title

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA TRACKING NUMBER:

1713.05

OMB TRACKING NUMBER:

2060-0336

formation Collection

1.1	Title

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA TRACKING NUMBER:

1713.05

OMB TRACKING NUMBER:

2060-0336

formation Collection

1.1	Title

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA TRACKING NUMBER:

1713.05

OMB TRACKING NUMBER:

2060-0336

OMD1.2	Description

OMD1.2	Description

OMD1.2	Description

2

2  	Need For and Use of Collection

isfice of Air and Radiationfor the entire NSR program includes  and
minor) is about 3.5 million hours for sources and about 2.4

2.1	Need / Authority for the Collection

2.2	Practical Utility / Users of the Data

2.3	Caveats and Considerations

3	Non-Duplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria

3.1	Non-Duplication

3.2	Public Notice Requirements

3.3	Consultations

3.4	Less Frequent

	Collection

3.5	General

	Guidelines

3.6	Confidentiality

3.7	Sensitive

	Questions

4	The Respondents and the Information Requested

4.1	Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes

5.4	Collection

	Schedule

4.2.1	Data items, including recordkeeping requirements

6.2.3	Annualized capital costs

5.3.2	Measures to mitigate impacts on small entities

5.3.1	Measures to avert impacts on small entities

5.3	Small Entity

	Flexibility

5.1	Agency Activities

5	The Information Collected -   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Agency Activities,
Collection Methodologies, and Information Management

1.1	Title

5.2	Collection

	Methodology

	and

	Management

6	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6.1	Estimating Respondent Burden

6.2	Estimating Respondent Costs

6.2.2	Estimating capital/start-up and O&M costs, including purchase of
services

6.2.1	Estimating labor costs

6.3	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

6.7	Burden Statement

CONCLUSION:

This rulemaking represents a POTENTIAL INCREASE IN BURDEN to sources and
Reviewing Authorities related to permit actions.

This rulemaking represents a ONE-TIME INCREASE IN BURDEN to States and
other Reviewing Authorities to revise SIPs.

Because the major NSR program rarely affects small entities, the Agency
determined this rulemaking represents

NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES.

6.6	Reasons for Change in Burden

October 2007

EPA # 1230.21

3.8	Environmental Justice Considerations

6.4	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost

6.5	Bottom Line Burden and Cost

6.4.1	Estimating the number of respondents

6.4.2	Estimating total respondent burden and cost

6.4.3	Estimating total Federal burden and cost

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA TRACKING NUMBER:

1230.21

OMB CONTROL NUMBER:

2060-0003

4.2	Information Requested

4.2.2	Respondent activities


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35632-35633]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-523-000]

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

    Take notice that on July 13, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700,
filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant
to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in
Docket No. CP83-76-000, for authorization to (1) plug and abandon four
injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells (Benton Well 9507 and Laurel Wells
9097, 9239, and 9285), (2) abandon and convert one I/W well to an
observation well (Benton Well 7612), and (3) abandon associated
pipelines and appurtenances located at Benton and Laurel Storage Fields
in Hocking County, Ohio, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Linda
Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration,
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700,
Houston, Texas 77002-2700, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.

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

    Dated: July 23, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16107 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P