[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24936-24937]
[DOCID:fr06my10-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. CP10-152-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, and D&B Resources; Notice of
Application

April 28, 2010.
    Take notice that on April 22, 2010, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia Gas) 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, and
D&B Resources (D&B), Rt. 4 Box 232, Cameron, West Virginia 26033, filed
with the Commission a joint application under section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization for Columbia Gas to abandon by
sale to D&B certain storage and pipeline facilities located in Greene
County, Pennsylvania. Applicants also request a determination that upon
abandonment, D&B's ownership and operation of the subject facilities
will be exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction under section 1(b) of
the NGA, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may 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. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the petition should be directed to Fredric
J. George, Senior Counsel Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, P.O. Box
1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(304) 357-3206, or Steven T. Taylor, Esquire or Eric M. Gordon,
Esquire, counsel for D&B Resources at 514 Seventh Street, Moundsville,
West Virginia 26041; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a

document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: May 19, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10640 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 146)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38143-38144]
[DOCID:fr31jy09-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0542; Airspace Docket No. 09-ACE-8]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Minden, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Minden, NE.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Pioneer Village Field
Airport, Minden, NE. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for
SIAPs at Pioneer Village Field Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before September 14,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2009-0542/Airspace Docket No. 09-
ACE-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2009-0542/
Airspace Docket No. 09-ACE-8.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by adding additional Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for SIAPs operations at Pioneer
Village Field Airport, Minden, NE. Controlled airspace is needed for
the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9S, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would add additional controlled airspace at Pioneer Village Field
Airport, Minden, NE.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE NE E5 Minden, NE [Amended]

Pioneer Village Field Airport, NE
    (Lat. 40[deg]30'54'' N., long. 98[deg]56'44'' W.)
Kearney VOR
    (Lat. 40[deg]43'32'' N., long. 99[deg]00'18'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Pioneer Village Field Airport and within
3.9 miles each side of the 346[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.3 miles north of the airport
and within 3.5 miles each side of the Kearney VOR 168[deg] radial
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.8 miles south of the
airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 22, 2009.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-18246 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 239 (Thursday, December 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 71515]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4607-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Michigan; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Michigan (FEMA-4607-DR), dated July 15, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Michigan is hereby amended to include Public
Assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of July 15, 2021.

    Ionia County for Public Assistance.
    Wayne County for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-27201 Filed 12-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


                           Air Facility System (AFS)

                             Response to Comments
Agency Information Collection Request: Source Compliance and State Action Reporting (Renewal)
                             EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0777

                    Comment Period  - July 5-August 4, 2011

Introduction	3
List of Comments	5
Comment Topics	7
Underestimation of Burden	7
AFS Action Codes for Source Tests	9
Timeframe for Reporting Source Tests Results	9
Reporting of a Pending Code to AFS	9
High Priority Violator (HPV) Issues	10
Reporting of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs)	10
Federally-Reportable Violation (FRV) Reporting Presents Challenges	11
NAICS Codes	12
Nonattainment Codes	13
AFS Should Track Major Sources, not Minor Sources	13
State Review Framework (SRF) Issues	14
Insufficient Need and Legal Authority to Require Submission of this Data	15
California Air Districts are Unique	15
Support for the Elimination for Compliance Status	16

Introduction
EPA submitted the renewal Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in January 2011 for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 18, 2011 (76 FR 2904), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received two (2) comments during the comment period, which are addressed in the Supporting Statement for the ICR. An additional thirty-day comment period ran from July 5, 2011 to August 4, 2011.  EPA received eleven comments.  On January 12, 2012, OMB approved the ICR as written.

Title:
Source Compliance and State Action Reporting (Renewal), EPA ICR No. 0107.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0096

ICR Status:
This ICR was scheduled to expire on July 31, 2011. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR Part 9.

ICR Abstract:
Source Compliance and State Action Reporting is an activity whereby State, District, Local, and Commonwealth governments (hereafter referred to as either ``states/locals'' or ``state and local agencies'') make air compliance and enforcement information available to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) on a cyclic basis via input to the Air Facility System (AFS). The information provided to EPA includes compliance activities and determinations, and enforcement activities. EPA uses this information to assess progress toward meeting emission requirements developed under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) to protect and maintain the atmospheric environment and the public health. The EPA and many of the state and local agencies access the data in AFS to assist them in the management of their air pollution control programs. This renewal information collection request (ICR) affects oversight of approximately 39,005 stationary sources by 99 state and local agencies and the Federal EPA. On average, the burden imposed by this collection amounts to approximately one-tenth of a full-time equivalent employee for each small state and local agency, one-fourth of a full-time equivalent employee for each medium sized state and local agency and one and one-tenth of a full-time equivalent employee for each large sized state and local agency for national reporting of compliance and enforcement related data under all of the applicable Clean Air Act programs.

Burden Statement:
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 92 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes:

   * the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
   * adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed;
   * 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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: State and Local Agencies
Estimated Number of Respondents: 99
Frequency of Response: Every 60 days
Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 54,384
Estimated Total Annual Cost:  $2,843,187 in labor costs.  There are no capital or O&M costs.
Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 18,689 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to a continuing decrease in the number of major sources in the reportable universe and a reported decrease of time and resources available for use in data management by small and medium sized agencies.

List of Comments
DOCUMENT
COMMENTS FROM
SUMMARY
-0005
Matt Holmquist, Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (RCAA)
Reporting of minor sources should be excluded.  Requests further clarification on reporting requirements.
-0006
John Morrill, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Questions concerning the Automated Compliance Generation Utility and non-HPV pathways.
-0007 & -0008 (Duplicate)
Robert Kard, Director, Air Pollution Control Officer, County of San Diego Air Pollutant Control District (APCD)
The ICR has a lack of direct authority to require this collection.  The unique requirements of CA Air Pollutant Control Districts are not addressed within this ICR.  San Diego does not use NAICS codes nor Nonattainment Indicators.  FRV reporting is too onerous and the ICR does not adequately address reporting.  San Diego does not want to discuss HPVs with the Region and opposed the HPV Policy requirements.  The District is concerned about the privacy of confidential information, and is concerning that confidential electronic data will be released.  A discussion between CA locals and the SRF staff is needed.  The ICR does not estimate burden correctly.
-0009
Larry F. Greene, Executive Director, Air Pollution Control Officer, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
The majority of SMAQMD's sources are minor, and should not be monitored in a national database, the ICR does not indicate that Tier II reporting is optional.  The ICR does not appear to include costs for monitoring minor sources.
-0010
Steven Dietrich, Administrator, Air Quality Division, WY Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Ownership changes are onerous to report, request that PO Boxes become an acceptable facility address.  Wyoming does not track applicable air programs and cannot update the entire system.  WY cannot update the system every time a source shuts down.  WY does not enter subpart data, nor pollutant data. WY's data is not current and up to date and the ICR estimated burden is not sufficient.
-0011
Thomas Christofk, President, California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA)  [Note:  Thomas Christofk is the Director of the Placer County APCD)
ICR introduces too many new requirements, supports the elimination of compliance status, CA Air District rules are much different than Federal rules and to report all violation of state rules is onerous.  Indicates that EPA should contact CA regulators in helping EPA develop a more useful national reporting model.
-0012 & -0013 (Duplicate)
Michael Villegas, Air Pollution Control Officer, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
EPA needs to demonstrate a need for any new data fields added to AFS or its modernized counterpart. EPA has added violation reporting into the ICR without proper burden estimates.  Ventura Co estimates their burden at 15 times the EPA estimate in order to report minor source violations.  Ventura Co is concerned about how electronic reporting would work.
-0015
Lee Daniel, Chief, Technical Services Section, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Use of Action TS for Stack Test Receipt, timeframe for reporting stack test results is too short, use of pending codes, compliance status for HPVs unclear, PCEs would become meaningless.
-0016
Phil Perry, Compliance and Enforcement Branch, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
FRV issues, NAICS codes will place burden, Nonattainment Indicators will not accurately indicate status, 120 days not enough for reporting stack tests, EPA needs to prepare a conversion tool for ready-to-load XML equivalents, underestimation of FTE needed to provide data under the ICR.
-0017
Mohsen Nazemi, Deputy Executive Officer, Engineering and Compliance, South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
AFS should be the repository for major not minor sources, FRV Tier II violations will be too onerous to enter, SCAQMD provides NOVs on their website and should not have to report them to EPA, the ERT is too complex and requires too many fields for reporting.
-0018 and -0014 (duplicate)
Alice Edwards, Director, Division of Air Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Disagree with EPA's calculation of reporting burden.  ADEX estimates their reporting burden to be approximately $39K and 961 hours versus ICR estimate of $28,858 and 552 hours.  AK's estimates include quality assurance of OTIS/ECHO data.

Comment Topics
Underestimation of Burden
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  AK DEC -0018, -0014; San Diego APCD  -0007, -0008;  Ventura County APCD -0012, -0013; IN DEM -0016; WY DEQ -0010.  [Note:  Comments were actually from five agencies, but were submitted multiple times.]
COMMENT:  (AK DEC -0018, -0014) ADEC respectfully disagrees with EPA's estimates for frequency of responses, total annual cost, and total estimated hours of burden.  Based on EPA's calculations, the reporting burden for an individual respondent each year would be an estimated cost of $28,858 and a time requirement of 552 hours.  ADEC ran reports from our time tracking database and found Alaska's actual reporting burden to be approximately $39,000 and 961 hours.
COMMENT:  (San Diego APCD -0007, -0008) Any real burden analysis must be more inclusive and represent the actual real costs (not just data entry) for all agencies not just a select few.
COMMENT:  (Ventura County APCD -0012, 0013) The current ICR does not account for the added burden from reporting enforcement activities at minor sources.  EPA acknowledges in the Supporting Statement that their current estimate of burden is "based on the Major facilities in the state/local areas."  We believe this burden should be addressed before requiring states/ locals to report any formal enforcement action.
The increased burden for Ventura County would be at least 15 times EPA's estimate.  This is based on the last five years of data that shows for every NOV (with penalties) issued to a major source, 14 NOV's (with penalties) were issued to minor sources.
COMMENT: IN DEM: On Page 29 EPA states "There are no capital and maintenance costs associated with this reporting activity".  EPA makes an assumption that even though we have our own tracking mechanisms that there will be no cost to give them information that they request.  EPA notes that use of the Universal Interface (UI) tool to reduce State reporting burdens and that users of the UI program will have no time spent in maintaining an existing conversion program.  EPA seems to ignore any consideration of the time and effort to complete data mapping of current State databases to the UI or future modernized UI; this should be addressed.  Unless a conversion tool is provided by the EPA to allow converting batch transactions into ready-to-load XML equivalents required by the modernized version of AFS, we would need to reprogram our data systems (or fund further development of new systems) to meet the ICR requirements this would be a financial burden for states that is being overlooked throughout this ICR notice.
COMMENT:  WY DEQ:  The estimated burden in the ICR is a drastically understated personnel commitment for a state like WY.  First of all, this 20% of an FTE assumes that the database is current and up to date, no lacking any of the MDRs.  This is not the case for WY.
EPA RESPONSE:  The comments received actually cover multiple issues:  The definition of burden for ICR computations, how burden is computed, the introduction of additional data quality requirements from other programs at EPA (State Review Framework), the reporting of formal enforcement actions and conversion of data for reporting to AFS.
The estimation of burden for the AFS ICRs is a serious undertaking.  The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 limits the number of interviews that can be completed in the generation of an ICR.  EPA is limited to nine interviewees when compiling information for an ICR.  EPA selects the nine agencies very carefully to ensure representative coverage of the different types of users in the AFS community:  Direct entry agencies, agencies submitting batch files, large, medium or small state or local agencies.  The burden that is estimated by these nine agencies is then multiplied by the number of agencies in each category from our reporting universe to compute a national total.  It is important to separate the data entry requirements, validation processes, and other requirements in maintaining information from program requirements and responsibilities, otherwise the AFS ICR would reflect the entire burden associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act program.
We use a standard format for burden estimation which has been approved by OMB in previous ICR processes.  This Supporting Statement indicated a decrease in time spent by agencies in reporting to AFS.  The fact is that the major source universe has diminished by over 32% in the last ten years.  Agencies interviewed in this ICR cycle reported spending less time in data quality and review than in previous years, due to the reduction of available staff and other priorities.  Our efforts to collect time and burden estimates indicate that the level of effort from agency to agency is not consistent.  Different procedures in place with different priorities will result in different levels of effort undertaken for AFS data entry.
Burden is defined as "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."  Respondents must not confuse program requirements with data reporting requirements.  EPA can understand why respondents might consider requirements for additional review and analysis of AFS data for the State Review Framework project as part of the reporting burden for AFS.  In actuality, these two reporting projects have separate Information Collect Requests on file with OMB.  The AFS ICR does not include time spent for the review and validation of data for other data projects.
The current AFS ICR requires the reporting of all formal enforcement actions, regardless of source classification.  A Notice of Violation is an informal enforcement action that does not assess a penalty.  Misunderstandings about the definition of formal enforcement actions are distorting the issue.  Notices of Violations from minor sources would not be reportable.  The formal enforcement action completed at a minor source (whether administrative or judicial) would be reportable to AFS, as well as any assessed cash penalty.  The Federally-Reportable Violation Memorandum of March 22, 2010 provides a tiered-approach to enforcement reporting, giving agencies the option of NOT reporting violations from Tier II sources (normally minor sources) if their resources are not sufficient to do so.
AFS provides the use of a free software program (the Universal Interface or UI) that will compile an upload file in AFS format for agencies that use their own systems and would like an automated format for satisfying reporting to EPA.  Use of the UI program does require an initial investment of time to map unique state data to the federal format. Even the advent of ready-to-load XML equivalent programs will require mapping of schema components.  EPA has not changed the structure of AFS reporting and has made very few field changes to AFS format in the last ten years, so we do not think that agencies will need to retool or develop new systems for reporting in this ICR period.   Modernization of AFS will not be completed within this ICR period.
The instances described by WY require ongoing dialogue between EPA Regions and delegated agencies to know the situation of reporting issues and problems.  We are in contact with Region 8 to work with the WY DEQ to correct the current reporting problems and ensure WY can meet its commitments for reporting.
AFS Action Codes for Source Tests
ALL RELATED COMMENTS: NC DAQ -0015
COMMENT:  NC DAQ:  The revised ICR provides a list of action codes associated with source tests.  The use of action code TS-R/TS-N State Receipt of Stack Test Report was mentioned in a conference call with Mark Fite of EPA Region 4 to track when stack test resports are received by the governing agency.  However, this code is not included in the revised ICR.  Will TS-R/TS-N State Receipt of Stack Test Report be used in AFS reporting?
EPA RESPONSE:  The action codes TS-R and TS-N are not considered as part of the Minimum Data Requirements (MDRs).  If these actions are reported and used in conjunction with High Priority Violator (HPV) reporting, they are used as the Discovery Action instead of the regularly used source test action types.  This procedure was adopted in order to deal with situations where the stack test report was not received by the delegated agency in a timely manner, causing a disruption in the timeliness and appropriateness of activity for addressing the violation.  Any agency can use the TS action types, now and in the future, but is not required to do so.
Timeframe for Reporting Source Tests Results
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  NC DAQ -0015; IN DEM -0016
COMMENT:  NC DAQ: The DAQ appreciates EPA providing additional time for States and Local Agencies to report stack test actions.  However, the DAQ believes that the proposed timeframe is still insufficient to report source test results to AFS.  Some federal regulations allow facilities 60 days from test completion to submit source test reports.  In these situations, agencies would only have the remaining 60 days to review and report the test results to AFS.  This amount of time is not practicable given the competing priorities and limited resources that States and Local Agencies face today.
COMMENT: IN DEM: This ICR includes expectation to report stack tests/results within 120 days.  The National Emission Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) allow for 60 days for sources to submit a report, but the NESHAPs also allow for an indefinite amount of time if requested.  The ICR should reflect test reports that can be submitted beyond the 120 days if sources are granted an extension under the NESHAP.
EPA RESPONSE:  EPA believes that the 120-day period for receipt and review is reasonable.  EPA reviewed FY10 data and the vast majority of reporters did report stack test results within 120 days.  Furthermore, in revising the reporting time frame, the Agency worked to balance the current processes states have in place for reporting stack tests with the need for timely reporting as well as the need to timely identify violations.  Also additional reporting burden relief has been provided by allowing states to report the stack test date and results at the same time rather than performing "double" data entry in order to meet different data entry timelines.  Stack Test Review actions are the only action provided with more time (120 days versus the standard 60 days to report an action) to enter and report.  Additionally, NESHAP extensions are rare and instances where extensions have been granted can be documented and provided should the lack of timely data be questioned.
Reporting of a Pending Code to AFS
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  NC DAQ -0015
COMMENT:  NC DAQ: The revised ICR is unclear in how pending codes are to be handled.  It appears that the only requirement under the revised ICR is that a PP/FF/99 code be entered with 120 days of the test date.
EPA RESPONSE:  The Pending Code can continue to be used, however, EPA believes that the Pending Code will prove to be unnecessary as the majority of tests should be reported within 120 days.  In a review of FY10 Stack Test Reviews, the national average of days to report was 94, with approximately 32% of reporters not able to comply with 120 days.  The use of the Pending Code is only valid 120 days from the date of the stack test.
High Priority Violator (HPV) Issues
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  NC DAQ -0015; San Diego APCD -0007, -0008
COMMENT:  NC DAQ: The ability to generate compliance status values for high priority violations (HPV) cases is an option specified in the revised ICR.  As stated in the ICR, when an HPV is addressed, the compliance status of the air program pollutants reported in the HPV pathway will be appended to "Meeting Schedule".  Does "Meeting Schedule" correspond to a compliance status value of "05" in AFS?  If so, it should be noted that EPA's March 22, 2010 memorandum on clarifying federally- reportable violations redefines the compliance status value of "05 Meeting Compliance Schedule" as `in physical' compliance with emission or significant procedural requirements."  A facility may not have returned to `physical' compliance at the time the HPV is addressed...The DAQ requests clarification on the definition and compliance status value of "Meeting Schedule".
COMMENT: The San Diego Air Pollutant Control Board questions the need for and feasibility of monthly calls with EPA regions to discuss HPV cases, as well as protecting the confidentiality of the enforcement activity associated with HPVs.
EPA RESPONSE:  The Automatic Generation of Compliance Status from HPV Pathways in AFS uses Compliance Status 5-Meeting Schedule, when addressing an HPV.  The software is written to allow the correction of compliance status for a more stringent value, for example, in violation.  Should a source not be in "physical" compliance at the time of addressing, the delegated agency can change the compliance status to one reflecting a more stringent value of in violation.
The requirement for monthly consultations with an EPA Region concerning HPV cases is part of the HPV Policy, Implementation of the Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations, December 1998, and that requirement is not part of this ICR.   AFS closely safeguards all enforcement sensitive data using a variety of security controls.
Reporting of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs)
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  NC DAQ -0015
COMMENT:  NC DAQ: Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) are listed in the ICR among the optional and discretionary data.  A PCE is defined by EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy as "a documented compliance evaluation focusing on a subset of regulated pollutants, regulatory requirements, or emission units at a given facility."  Under this definition almost any compliance activity completed by a State or Local Agency can be considered a PCE.  For instance, a review of an Annual Compliance Certification, an inspection of a MACT source at a facility, a source test review, or a review of a quarterly emission report are all PCEs.  Reporting such activities as PCEs would be inappropriate and meaningless when a more specific AFS action type (e.g. source test action code) is available.  Additionally, the sheer number of PCEs would burdensome for agencies to report and would clutter up State and Local Agency records in AFS.  For these reasons, the DAQ objects to including PCEs as optional and discretionary data and further opposes any report of generic PCE codes to AFS.
EPA RESPONSE:  The Agency recognizes that the definition of PCEs is a broad definition.  However, in developing this category of compliance monitoring, the Agency worked with our regional offices and state/local agencies who indicated their preference for such a definition so as not to preclude activities from being reported and to allow for flexibility in the formulation of compliance monitoring plans.  The definition of a PCE requires that a compliance determination has been made.  Just the receipt of a report does not qualify as a compliance determination.  If a report is reviewed and provided sufficient information to determine compliance, then it can be defined as a PCE.  EPA has found much value in the reporting of these types of activities, as many of the HPV cases are discovered through the completion of a PCE.  PCEs are an activity that many agencies can complete when they are unable to complete an entire Full Compliance Evaluation.  We have been reluctant in the past to create many more specific PCE actions, in order to keep reporting streamlined and simple.  We agree that not every compliance monitoring task should be reported as a PCE, especially when specific action types (such as Title V Annual Compliance Certification Review and Stack Test Review) are available.  Many agencies are now using PCEs when negotiating their Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plans.  We are, however, open to any suggestions you may have to lend more value to the descriptions of these activities.  Your thoughts to make these data more valuable for use in managing the program would be most appreciated.  Please contact Betsy Metcalf at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with ideas in managing partial compliance evaluation activities.
Federally-Reportable Violation (FRV) Reporting Presents Challenges
ALL RELATED COMMENTS: Spokane RCAA -0005; San Diego APCD -0007 & -0008; Sacramento AQMD -0009; CAPCOA -0011; Ventura County APCD -0012 & -0013; South Coast AQMD -0017
COMMENT: Spokane RCAA:  There are references in the document to facilities with a "minor classification" and to "any facility with a formal enforcement action".  It would be helpful if EPA could clarify if minimum data reporting requirements in AFS include or exclude natural minor sources such as surface coating operations, gasoline dispensing stations, etc. where the local or statement requirements only become federally enforceable via EPA-approved SIPs.
COMMENT: San Diego APCD:  The FRV memo specifies that all notices of violations (NOVs) which result in a penalty are reportable.  In the San Diego District alone, approximately 1000 NOVs are written each year.  We estimate that the burden to the agency to report and track each of these violations would require the addition (or diversion) of four full-time employees.  Many of our violations, which could fall into EPA's definition of an FRV, are very small emission sources of only local concern.
COMMENT: Sacramento AQMD: This data reporting requirement does not appear to be optional.  The March 22, 2010 EPA Clarification Memo states:  "Thus, while it is important to report Tier II violations and enforcement actions, EPA's highest national need is for complete, timely and accurate reporting of Tier I data from states and local agencies."  The ICR increases the expectation that Tier II violations will be entered into AFS.
COMMENT:  CAPCOA:  The details now shown in the ICR Supplemental Statement portray a vastly expanded complexity, scope and universe of "reportable required data" that is far beyond what is necessary, reasonable or even useful.  The burden of such unduly massive reporting is, most assuredly, beyond the abilities of California's air districts with the resources currently available to them.  Quite simply, they cannot accommodate the workload the ICR would impose on them if it is implemented as outlined in the referenced Supplement Statement.
COMMENT:  Ventura County APCD:  The current ICR does not account for the added burden from reporting enforcement activities at minor sources.  EPA acknowledges in the Supporting Statement that their current estimate of burden is "based on the Major facilities in the state/local areas." We believe this burden should be addressed before requiring state/locals to report any formal enforcement action.
COMMENT:  IN DEM:  EPA has not detailed what constitutes accurate reporting (i.e. what specific data elements will need to be reported); these details affect the ability of States to provide timely data and assess projected impacts of this ICR.
FRVs are defined in part by a duration >7 days at a major or synthetic minor source.
COMMENT:  South Coast AQMD:  The proposed requirement to enter information on Tier II violations into AFS would place undue burden on this agency and also impact the AFS, as there are over 26,000 minors sources in SC AQMD that potentially would be affected.  The SC AQMD has estimated that the present cost of data collection and entry into the AFS is about $350,000 for the approximately 500 major source facilities.  The SC AQMD issues approximately 1,500 Notices of Violations (NOVs) annually of which about 200 are for major sources.  To add all minor violations in AFS would significantly impact the agency's resources and would require additional funding and resources for data entry and increase the time spent by compliance staff in gathering the additional data for data entry into AFS and will take them away from performing other critical duties to inspect and enforce air quality rules and regulations.
EPA RESPONSE:  EPA is concerned that agencies think that reporting of formal enforcement regardless of source classification was something that EPA added to the MDRs without proper notice.  Since the inception of the MDRs in the 1990s, reporting of violations at any source, regardless of classification, that has a formal enforcement action, until the resolution of the violation.  We have found throughout the years that many agencies were only reporting High Priority Violations (HPVs).  As HPVs are considered to be a small subset of the violation universe, EPA wanted to provide some relief to agencies by prioritizing what violations should be reported and what violations would be considered as secondary reporting.
EPA's intention with the March 22, 2010 Clarification Memorandum was to simplify and streamline violation reporting.  We have heard from discussions during the State Review Framework that inclusion of all minor sources and resulting activity was too onerous for agencies.  Therefore, the Clarification Memorandum provides the opportunity for agencies to report top priority violations and drop lower priority reporting if they cannot support the effort.  The tiered-approach to violation reporting should ease burden for the delegated agency.
San Diego APCB is incorrect in noting that the Clarification Memorandum specifies that all notices of violations (NOVs) which result in a penalty are reportable.  Formal enforcement actions, regardless of assessed penalties, have been reportable to AFS since the MDRs were established in 1995.
The proposed AFS ICR notes the distinctions between the tiers of violations, but leaves the level of reporting up to the delegated agency.
NAICS Codes
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  San Diego APCD -0007 &-0008, IN DEM -0016
COMMENT:  San Diego APCD:  With regard to the specific data requests in this ICR, the District, like many other districts in California, does not use North American Industrial Code System (NAICS) codes nor are they relevant to our day-to-day operations.
COMMENT: IN DEM:  The requirement to have valid NAICS codes in AFS is noted as not being expected to require any new burden on States; however, EPA seems intent on relying on States to provide information for any NAICS codes that do not directly map to an SIC code.  Obtaining and/or verifying NAICS codes will present some level of effort and places some burden on the States.
EPA RESPONSE:  Conversion to NAICS codes for the historic SIC codes meets a Federal requirement and standard.  As defined by the US Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC) the codes are used in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy.  Use of NAICS codes was established in 1997 and is a US standard and an EPA data standard.  The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and National Emissions Inventory require reporting of NAICS codes, so these codes are in use somewhere within all agencies with delegated air programs from EPA.  We are offering assistance to agencies through the use of the Facility Registry System (FRS) to isolate NAICS codes used by other media for the same source.  In the instance where the air facility is the only reporter to FRS, then the reporting agency must validate the appropriate NAICS code.
Nonattainment Codes
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  WY DEQ -0010, IN DEM -0016
COMMENT:  WY DEQ:  WY DEQ currently enters this information when a facility is created within AFS.  We anticipate that parts of the state will be designated as non-attainment for ozone at some point in the future -- when this happens, all the facilities in such areas will have to be updated, creating another significant burden to the state.
COMMENT:  IN DEM:  EPA indicates that nonattainment indicators will only be accommodated at a county level in AFS.  This means for a county with an area in non-attainment, the entire county will be designated such.  This presents potential problems in accuracy when it comes to data pulled from AFS, some of which is publicly viewable via ECHO or Envirofacts.  In some instances, nonattainment is only designated at the township level.
EPA RESPONSE:  EPA `s desire is to streamline reporting of attainment indicators in AFS.  It is our goal to remove this data from the list of required data through the use of technology and geographic applications.  AFS is not able to maintain all levels of information for this topic without expensive reprogramming.  Rather than require additional information, we have streamlined this reporting while we work toward its removal from the data stream. Additionally, EPA has offered to populate all values for any agency interested in our assistance.   Please contact Betsy Metcalf at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>should you need this assistance.
AFS Should Track Major Sources, not Minor Sources
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  Ventura County APCD -0012& -0013; WY DEQ -0010; Sacramento AQMD -0009; IN DEM -0016
COMMENT:  Ventura County APCD:  The current ICR does not account for the added burden from reporting enforcement activities at minor sources.  The increased burden for Ventura County would be at least 15 times EPA's estimate.  This is based on the last five years of data that shows for every NOV (with penalties) issued to a major source, 14 NOVs (with penalties) were issued to minor sources.
COMMENT:  We have not estimated the resources need to enter the additional ~20,000 other facilities and associated data into AFS, but they would be significantly more than the 2 FTEs needed to deal with 1,600.
COMMENT:  Sacramento AQMD:  SMAQMD has 16 major sources and 6 synthetic minor sources and is classified as a small agency by the ICR.  However, SMAQMD has approximately 2500 permitted facilities and over 4000 permits to operate.  Annually, SMAQMD issues approximately 10 HPVs or FRVs at major and synthetic minor sources and approximately 500 formal enforcement actions at minor sources.  Annual tracking of 500 extra enforcement actions at minor facilities that currently are not entered in AFS is beyond the resources of the SMAQMD.
COMMENT:  IN DEM: This is a known issue, EPA should provide classification of the Note at the bottom of page 17 regarding the difference between required reporting of NESHAP at minor sources vs. optional but recommended reporting of Minor sources with MACT subparts.  States may not be able to arbitrarily differentiate this kind of data in their systems in order to separate it for reporting purposes.
COMMENT:  South Coast AQMD:  SCAWMD strongly believes that the emphasis for data provided into the AFS should be mainly for major sources and not for minor sources.
EPA RESPONSE:  The actual universe of minor sources across the country for Clean Air Act applicability is unknown.  AFS has had a requirement for the reporting of all formal enforcement actions regardless of the classification of the source since the MDRs were first defined in 1995.  It has been impossible to enforce that requirement due to the fact that the number of sources in this universe is unknown.
EPA does not require data on all minor sources due to the fact that burden cannot be adequately estimated.
Agencies should be aware that the Clarification Memorandum of March 22, 2010 provides the opportunity to report only violations that EPA has identified as of priority.  Tier II violations (mostly defined as violations at minor sources) are not a priority for agencies that do not have the ability to report all of this activity.  Although this violation data could improve nationwide implementation of the CAA, EPA realizes that not all agencies can provide information at this level of detail.
State Review Framework (SRF) Issues
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  San Diego APCD -0007 & -0008; Ventura County APCD -0012 & -0013;
COMMENT:  San Diego APCD:  It appears EPA expects us to do our own SRF data reviews as well as have the regional EPA offices do SRF audits of our data in order to compare against national standards developed for other media, e.g., waste and water.
Furthermore, local implementing agencies had little input into the development of SRF.  An open discussion with districts and states must occur so that EPA fully understands the local issues.  This discussion must occur with more than just NACAA, ECOS, or a select few representatives.  SRF needs to be revisited by a much large group of stakeholders.
COMMENT:  Ventura County APCD:  EPA's State Review Framework (SRF) pulls individual air agency data from AFS and compares that data to benchmarks and mandatory timeframes.  At times we have difficulty meeting EPA's timeframes.  Additional data elements will make those timeframes more difficult to meet.  EPA uses the SRF to gauge air agencies timeliness and accuracy in AFS reporting.  As more data elements are added, there is more opportunity for an air agency to miss EPA's deadlines or to be determined as not meeting benchmarks.
EPA RESPONSE:  The State Review Framework project is separate and distinct from AFS reporting and from this ICR.  The time and effort of meeting SRF requirements are actually contained within a separate ICR: EPA ICR No. 2185.04, IMB Control No. 2020-0031.  EPA will provide appropriate SRF staff with these comments.
Insufficient Need and Legal Authority to Require Submission of this Data
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  San Diego APCD -0007 & -0008
COMMENT:  San Diego APCD:  As a preliminary matter, the ICR Supporting Statement reveals the lack of direct authority to require state and local agencies to collect, analyze, and report the data required under this and previous ICRs.
Moreover, EPA has not demonstrated an adequate need for the data requested in this or previous ICRs.  While EPA claims that the data is needed to draw national comparisons among programs, national comparisons based on this data can be confusing and misleading because air programs and their administration differ so greatly among state and local agencies.
EPA RESPONSE:  We have used the ICR process to help ensure collaboration and acceptance of our reporting partners to all suggested changes in reporting requirements.  We respectfully disagree with your assessment of the value of this data.  The reported activities of our delegated partners are used on a daily basis and are essential for the review, evaluation, oversight and analysis of the effectiveness of those programs.
The AFS ICR has undergone numerous updates and reviews by the Office of Management and Budget, with the referenced authorities for the collection accepted each time.  The most recent renewal of the collection indicates the acceptance of our referenced authorities.
California Air Districts are Unique
ALL RELATED COMMENTS: San Diego APCD -0007 & -0008; CAPCOA -0011
COMMENT:  San Diego APCD -0007 & -0008: California represents more than one-third (36 of the 99) of AFS reporting agencies.  Region 9 as a whole represents nearly one half (45 of 99) of the reporting agencies and Region 9 also has been under represented.  The California air program predates the creation of the US EPA by decades.  The authority to directly regulate air pollution in California does not come from US EPA, but from state law and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA).
These unique features of the California air programs need to be reflected in the development of data requirements and policies. One size (program approach) does not fit all.
COMMENT:  CAPCOA:  Generally, when a violation is cited by an air district, it is due to a source's violation of state law, a local rule or regulation, or permit conditions.  That law may or may not have any federal equivalent and the EPA likely has no jurisdiction in most cases.  In addition, even where there is some similarity between federal law and local/state laws, such violations may not even reach the level of being a violation under federal law because the local/state rules are oftentimes far more restrictive than federal requirements.
EPA RESPONSE:  We agree that data from California district agencies has proven to be unique, however, all states in the nation have been delegated with Clean Air Act authority.  California district agencies have the added burden of separating out federally-reportable activities from that of state-required activities.  All reporting partners are required to follow the same compliance monitoring and enforcement requirements, regardless of existing rules and regulations and in this requirement there is no difference in the implementation for California districts.
Currently there are approximately 350 users of AFS across the country, with 53 users from Region 9 and 24 users in California.  Region 9 users represent 13% of our community, which is a significant percentage.  Whenever new data reporting strategies are proposed, EPA considers how this would be implemented in California.  Region 9 major sources (1,518) reflect 10% of the national universe of 14,513 major sources.  Although the data we receive from California is substantial and valuable, it should be as comparable as any other compliance monitoring or enforcement data collected across the nation.
We value the knowledge and experience of our California district agency users, and acknowledge that reporting to AFS is particularly challenging due to the fact that the dividing line between federal and state requirements is hard to define.  We will continue to work closely with California district agency users to enable the efficient reporting of timely and accurate data to AFS.
Support for the Elimination for Compliance Status
ALL RELATED COMMENTS:  CAPCOA -0011,
COMMENT:  CAPCOA:  In particular, CAPCOA strongly supports the elimination of compliance status reporting and reducing the number of data fields and reporting requirements, where possible.  Compliance status is very dynamic and difficult to determine on a routine basis (whether a facility is "in compliance" or "in violation"), and there seems to be no added value or practical reason to report this parameter.
EPA RESPONSE:  EPA has removed the concept of reported compliance status from AFS modernization plans and is studying the possibility of removal from the current application.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66773-66775]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No: PHMSA-2022-0009]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities: Natural Gas
Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization Grant Program

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the information collection request abstracted
below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and comment. A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the information collections was published
on June 16, 2022.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
December 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The public is invited to submit comments regarding these
information collection requests, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted electronically at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hill by telephone at 202-680-
2034 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 1320.8(d),
requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) to provide interested members of the public and

affected agencies the opportunity to comment on information collection
and recordkeeping requests before they are submitted to OMB for
approval. In accordance with this regulation, on June 16, 2022, PHMSA
published a Federal Register notice (87 FR 36374) with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on its intent to request OMB's three-year
approval of an information collection titled: ``The Natural Gas
Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization Grant Program''
under OMB Control No. 2137-0641.
    During the 60-day comment period, PHMSA received comments from the
American Public Gas Association (APGA), the Distribution Contractors
Association (DCA), and the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI). Both DCA and
PPI submitted comments in general support of the information
collection. APGA likewise expressed support for this information
collection request in that it facilitates the distribution of allocated
grant dollars. APGA also provided comments on various aspects of the
information collection request. The comments, organized by topic, are
summarized and addressed below.

II. Comment Summary

    A summary of comments and PHMSA responses are detailed below.

A. Estimated Burden

    APGA commented that due to the highly technical and granular data
required to complete the grant application, the actual burden hours
exceeded PHMSA's 82-hours' estimate. Specifically, APGA stated ``[d]ue
to the quantity of highly technical and granular data required in this
application, it has been the experience of APGA members that the
application takes more than 82 hours to complete. This is especially
true during the first iteration of the application. The application
expands beyond routine pipeline safety, design, construction, and
integrity management questions to include areas of less familiarity
with the average applicant. Many have had to rely upon subject matter
experts in the areas of grant writing, environmental mitigation
strategies, and cyber security guidelines.'' APGA estimated that the
average initial application required nearly 200 hours to complete.
PHMSA agrees that the application requires a variety of meticulous
details that may take additional time to collect in order to properly
prepare an application that complies with the Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO). PHMSA also believes that future rounds of NGDISM
NOFOs will require less time given the number of frequently asked
questions (FAQs) that are now available as well as PHMSA's intention to
incorporate many of APGA's suggested edits in future NOFO iterations.
As such, PHMSA has agreed to increase the estimated burden to 32,000
hours, for an average of 160 hours per applicant.

B. Technical Issues With Unique Entity Identifier and Grants.gov

    APGA commented that their members experienced frustration during
the process of obtaining a Unique Entity Identifier through SAM.gov and
with changing the settings in Grants.gov to complete the application.
APGA acknowledged that these areas are outside of PHMSA's control.
PHMSA acknowledges that many applicants experienced technical issues
with these two government sites and recommends applicants utilize the
Grants.gov and SAM.gov helpdesks to resolve any future technical
issues. For issues with Grants.gov, applicants can call 1-800-518-4726
or email [email protected]. For issues with SAM.gov, applicants can
call<PHONE_NUMBER> or create an incident ticket with the Federal Service
Desk at the following website: www.fsd.gov. Although PHMSA stands ready
to provide any assistance it can, all applicants are ultimately
responsible for working directly with both SAM.gov and Grants.gov to
resolve technical issues.

C. Suggestions To Enhance the Quality, Utility, and Clarity of the
Collected Information

    APGA provided PHMSA with specific comments on various aspects of
the NOFO's Project Narrative requirements. In response to APGA, PHMSA
will take their comments into consideration when drafting future NOFOs
for this grant program. Summaries of the APGA comments, per section of
the NOFO, are detailed below.
1. Explanation of Evaluation and Select Criteria Equivalence
    APGA suggested that Section 8 of the Project Narrative either be
removed or modified as it is largely duplicative of other sections,
adds unnecessary burden on applicants, and further constrains
applicants' ability to provide complete answers given the page
requirements. APGA suggested if PHMSA chooses to keep this section,
PHMSA should clarify whether applicants are expected to go through each
of the 23 elements in Section E.1 and reiterate their responses, or
whether other content is being requested.
2. Project Narrative Cover Letter
    APGA commented that the ``Organization Name'' section of the cover
letter section requested information that is confusing given the goal
of the NGDISM Grant Program. APGA suggested PHMSA modify the language
for clarity.
3. Project Location
    APGA commented that not all projects are geospatially specific and
that this element should be broadened to include the replacement of
assets throughout a service area or the purchase of equipment.
4. Project Schedule
    APGA commented that many applicants were in the early stages of
project design when applying for a grant and exact project schedules
and milestones may not have been available at the time of application.
APGA suggested that PHMSA edit the language in this section for
clarity. APGA also suggested generally referring to the period-of-
performance to ensure consistency during future application years
should the period-of-performance change.
5. Environmental Outputs and Objectives
    APGA commented that applicants may find it helpful for PHMSA to
provide examples of how applicants should describe methane mitigation
for their projects, whether in the form of application instructions or
in an FAQ document.
6. Buy America
    APGA commented that there are many commonly used materials
throughout natural gas distribution systems that are known to be non-
compliant with the Buy America requirements in Section 70914 of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, such as large steel fittings
and piping. APGA encourages PHMSA to explore creating a specific waiver
for those materials for all NGDISM grant recipients.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the IIJA's Buy America requirements apply to this
program, the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 8301, et seq.) does not
apply to this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience
    APGA suggested referencing the Transportation Security
Administration's Pipeline Security Guidelines in lieu of the
Presidential Policy Directive. APGA believes these guidelines are more
specific to the

pipeline industry and are more practical for implementation.
8. Environmental Analysis
    APGA commented that it is unclear if PHMSA is requesting applicants
provide information concerning the nine sections of the Tier 2
Questionnaire in their initial applications. The information appears to
be provided for information and planning purposes only. Therefore, for
clarity, APGA recommended that it is moved to a separate section of the
instructions.

III. Summary of Impacted Collections

    The following information is provided for the information
collection request: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB
control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5)
Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of
affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection.
    PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for this
information collection. PHMSA requests comments on the following
information:
    Title: Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and
Modernization Grant Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0641.
    Current Expiration Date: 11/30/2022.
    Type of Request: Extension of an approved information collection.
    Abstract: This information collection covers the collection of
applicant data from municipality- and community-owned utilities that
are interested in applying to receive funds from the NGDISM Grant
Program. Solicitation for grants under the NGDISM Grant Program is
voluntary. No eligible entity is required to apply. To be eligible,
however, municipality- and community-owned utilities must meet all the
requirements set forth in the law. Therefore, PHMSA must collect
certain information from applicants to determine eligibility and
evaluate applications. PHMSA must also verify the accuracy of grant
requests from approved applicants, in accordance with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and other laws and regulations governing Federal financial
assistance programs, including (but not limited to) the Anti-Deficiency
Act, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA),
the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, and 2 CFR part 200,
among others. This information collection also covers the collection of
data from grant recipients. PHMSA expects to receive approximately 200
applications from potential grantees annually over the next four years.
PHMSA estimates that it will take the 200 applicants approximately 160
hours per applicant to compile and submit the forms required to
complete the application process for an annual burden of 32,000 hours.
PHMSA estimates that 100 grant recipients will, on eight occasions over
the course of one year, spend 2.5 hours, or 20 hours annually,
submitting post-award reports for an annual burden of 2,000 hours.
Therefore, PHMSA estimates that there will be a total of 1,000
responses (200 applications plus 800 post-award reports) for an
aggregate total annual burden for the information collection of 34,000
hours (32,000 hours for applications plus 2,000 hours for post-award
reports).
    Affected Public: Municipality- and Community-owned Utilities.
    Annual Burden:
    Estimated number of responses: 1,000.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 34,000.
    Frequency of Collection: One-time application, grant reports no
more than quarterly, to be followed by disbursement requests and
closeout.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for this information collection for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques;
and,
    (e) Additional information that would be appropriate to collect to
inform the reduction in risk to people, property, and the environment
due to excavation damages.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 31, 2022, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2022-24068 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 23750]
[DOCID:fr20my09-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Correction

    In FR Doc. E9-11077 for Monday, May 11, 2009, (73 FR 21839) in the
second column of the Sunshine Act Notice make the following correction:
    Revise the sixth line of the third paragraph to read: ``The
proposed amendments are designed to''.

    Dated: May 14, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11701 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21848-21849]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010]
RIN 1218-AC80

Record Requirements in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: On November 20, 2013, OSHA published in the Federal Register a
direct final rule that revised records contained in the Mechanical
Power Press Standard. OSHA stated in that document that it would
withdraw the companion proposed rule and confirm the effective date of
the final rule if the Agency received no significant adverse comments
on the direct final rule or the proposal. Since OSHA received no such
significant adverse comments on the direct final rule or the proposal,
the Agency now confirms that the direct final rule became effective as
a final rule on February 18, 2013.

DATES: The direct final rule published on November 20, 2013 (78 FR
69543), became effective as a final rule on February 18, 2014. For the
purposes of judicial review, OSHA considers April 18, 2014, the date of
issuance of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), OSHA designates the
Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health as the
recipient of petitions for review of the final standard. Contact Joseph
M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor, at the Office of the Solicitor, Room
S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press
inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical information: Contact Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
2260; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of this Federal Register notice:
Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at
http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice, as well as
news releases and other relevant information, also are available at
OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.
    Confirmation of the effective date: On November 20, 2014, OSHA
published a direct final rule (DFR) in the Federal Register revising
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of OSHA's Mechanical Power Presses
Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217. The DFR revised paragraph (e)(1)(i) of
OSHA's Mechanical Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217 to require
that employers perform and complete necessary maintenance and repair on
their mechanical power presses, and to develop and maintain
certification records of these tasks. The DFR also removed requirements
from paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this standard to develop and maintain
certification records for weekly inspections and tests performed on
mechanical power presses. The revisions made in this final rule
maintain the safety previously afforded to employees by these
provisions, while substantially reducing paperwork burden hours and
cost to employers.
    In the DFR, OSHA stated that it would confirm the effective date of
the DFR as a final rule if it received no significant adverse comments
on the direct final rule or the proposal. OSHA received two comments,
neither of which was a significant adverse comment (see ID: OSHA-2013-
0010-0003 and OSHA-2013-0010-004 in the docket for this rulemaking).
Accordingly, OSHA is confirming the effective date of the final rule.
    The first commenter, Ms. Teresa Brown of University of Memphis,
expressed concern that the proposed revisions would prevent employers
from ascertaining whether employees who operate mechanical power
presses received adequate training for these operations. In addition,
Ms. Brown believed that the proposed revisions would require employers
to use only computers to develop and maintain training records (ID:
OSHA-2013-0010-0003). OSHA notes that the final rule does not revise
the training requirements or the recordkeeping requirements for
training specified in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard. In
addition, the final rule does not revise the means that employers can
use to meet the information-collection requirements specified by this
standard. For recordkeeping purposes, the recordkeeping requirements
specified by the final rule are still written in performance-oriented
language, i.e., in terms of what information to collect rather than how
to collect the information.
    Mr. Tim Hutchison submitted the second comment. Mr. Hutchison asked
how would OSHA ``know if [a] repair was not performed when noted'' and
``[h]ow will [OSHA] determine a `willful' violation'' (ID: OSHA-2013-
0010-0004). In response to these questions, OSHA notes that paragraph
(e)(1)(i) previously required employers to inspect all parts, auxiliary
equipment, and safeguards of mechanical power presses on a periodic and
regular basis, and to maintain certification records showing that they
conducted the inspections; this provision did not require employers to
perform any maintenance or repair tasks found necessary during the
inspections, much less document such tasks. This final rule revises
paragraph (e)(1)(i) to require that employers conduct periodic and
regular inspections of each press and, before operating the press,
perform and complete any maintenance or repair task found necessary
during the inspections. In addition, employers must maintain
certification records of inspections conducted and any maintenance and
repairs performed during the inspections. These maintenance and repair
records, supplemented by employee interviews, will permit OSHA to
determine if an employer performed necessary maintenance and repairs on
a press before operating it. The Agency will determine whether a
violation of these requirements is willful based on OSHA's Field
Operations Manual (FOM).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the FOM, CPL 02-00-150, Ch. 4, Sec.  V, pp. 4-28 to 4-29
(Apr. 22, 2011), available on OSHA's Web page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910

    Mechanical power presses, Occupational safety and health, Safety.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the
preparation of this final rule. OSHA is issuing this final rule
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of
Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part 1911.

     Signed at Washington, DC, on April 14, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-08864 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P