[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7336-7341]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02602]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

RIN 2060-AS20
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0045; FRL-9922-54-OAR]

Revisions to the Clean Air Act Section 110 Submission
Requirements for State Implementation Plans and Notice of Availability
of an Option for Electronic Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule and notice of availability, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the requirements for
how state and tribal implementation plans (hereinafter, collectively
referred to as SIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) are required to be
submitted to the EPA. Specifically, we are providing state, local and
tribal air agencies (hereinafter, collectively referred to as states or
air agencies) an option to submit SIPs, including any necessary
supporting documents, using our new electronic SIP (eSIP) submission
system, which is web-based. We are providing notification that
electronic submission via the eSIP submission system is now our
preferred method for air agencies to make SIP submissions, and that if
a SIP submission is made through the eSIP submission system, all
documents transmitted through the system will be considered part of the
official SIP submission from the air agency. We are also simplifying
submission requirements for those air agencies that still wish to make
paper submissions by reducing the number of paper copies required, and
providing non-binding guidelines for SIP submissions that will aid in
SIP processing.

DATES: The effective date of this action is March 16, 2015, when the
eSIP submission system will be available to air agencies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mia South, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C504-2,
109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; (919) 541-
5550<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action affects state, local and tribal air agencies that
submit SIP revisions to meet the requirements of section 110 of the CAA
and the EPA rules contained in 40 CFR part 51, Requirements for
Preparation, Adoption, and Submisson of Implementation Plans. If you
have questions regarding applicability of this action to a SIP
submission, please use the contact information under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0045. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
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 Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the Office
of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

C. Where do I go if I have a state-specific question?

    For questions related to specific states, please contact the
appropriate EPA Regional Office SIP Contacts:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Region                States                   Contact             Contact info            Address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  Connecticut, Maine,       Donald Cooke...........<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Office of
                    Massachusetts, New                                                    Ecosystem Protection,
                    Hampshire, Rhode                                                      5 Post Office Square--
                    Island, Vermont.                                                      Suite 100, (Mail Code
                                                                                OEP05-2), Boston, MA
                                                                                02109-3912.
2................  New Jersey, New York,     Kirk Wieber............<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Air Programs
                    Puerto Rico, Virgin                                                   Branch, 290 Broadway,
                    Islands.                                                              New York, NY 10007-
                                                                                1866.
3................  Delaware, District of     Sharon McCauley........<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Air Protection
                    Columbia, Maryland,                                                   Division (3AP00), 1650
                    Pennsylvania, Virginia,                                               Arch Street,
                    West Virginia.                                                        Philadelphia, PA 19103-
                                                                                2029.
4................  Alabama, Florida,         Nacosta Ward...........<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Air Planning
                    Georgia, Kentucky,                                                    Branch, 61 Forsyth
                    Mississippi, North                                                    Street, SW, Atlanta,
                    Carolina, South                                                       GA 30303-3104.
                    Carolina, Tennessee.
5................  Illinois, Indiana,        Christos Panos.........<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Air and Radiation
                    Michigan, Minnesota,                                                  Division (AR-18J), 77
                    Ohio, Wisconsin.                                                      West Jackson
                                                                                Boulevard, Chicago, IL
                                                                                60604-3507.
6................  Arkansas, Louisiana, New  Bill Deese.............<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Multimedia
                    Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. Carl Young.............<PHONE_NUMBER>   Planning and
                                                                                Permitting Division,
                                                                                Air Planning Section
                                                                                (6PD-L), 1445 Ross
                                                                                Avenue, Suite 700,
                                                                                Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
7................  Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,   Jan Simpson............<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Air and Waste
                    Nebraska.                                                             Management Division,
                                                                                Air Planning and
                                                                                Development Branch,
                                                                                11201 Renner Blvd.,
                                                                                Lenexa, KS 66219.
8................  Colorado, Montana, North  Air Quality Planning<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Air Program,
                    Dakota, South Dakota,     Unit Chief.                                 Office of Partnership
                    Utah, Wyoming.                                                        and Regulatory
                                                                                Assistance, 1595
                                                                                Wynkoop Street,
                                                                                Denver, CO 80202-1129.
9................  Arizona, California,      Lisa Tharp.............<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Air Division,
                    Hawaii, Nevada,          Andy Steckel...........<PHONE_NUMBER>   Rules Office, (AIR-4),
                    American Samoa, Guam.                                                 75 Hawthorne Street,
                                                                                San Francisco, CA
                                                                                94105.
10...............  Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,    Claudia Vaupel.........<PHONE_NUMBER>  EPA, Office of Air
                    Washington.                                                           Waste and Toxics (AWT-
                                                                                150), 1200 Sixth
                                                                                Avenue, Suite 900,
                                                                                Seattle, WA 98101-3140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

A. How is the EPA changing its rules regarding submission of SIPs and
why?

    Under the CAA, air agencies are responsible for developing and
submitting for approval SIPs that provide for attainment, maintenance
and enforcement of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and protection of visibility in certain national parks and other Class
I areas. Such SIP submissions may comprise ten or fewer pages, but
frequently may be comprised of multiple documents containing tens or
hundreds of pages. Under existing EPA regulations, air agencies are
required to submit paper copies of their SIP submissions--in some cases
up to five copies--and are only provided an option of providing
electronic versions in addition to paper copies. See 40 CFR 51.103(a)
(requiring five hard copies or an electronic copy with two hard copies)
and Appendix V to Part 51 (requiring a signed and stamped copy and also
providing for an electronic copy). Such requirements were considered
reasonable when these requirements were promulgated, especially when
there was no assurance that the courts' review of our actions on these
submissions would acknowledge electronic copies as official records.
However, as we explained in our general rules regarding electronic
reporting, there have since been significant advances in technology,
and electronic systems are now available with capability to provide
sufficient evidence of the authenticity of electronic submissions,
including for their use in the courts. See generally Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting, Final Rule (70 FR 59848, October 13, 2005, at
59855 and 59872). In light of these advances, we believe it is
unnecessary to continue to require paper submissions of SIPs now that
an appropriate electronic submission system, the EPA's eSIP submission
system, is available. Accordingly, we are revising our rules to allow
for electronic reporting through the eSIP submission system.
    We originally addressed reducing the burdens of SIP reporting in a
guidance memo issued in 2011.\1\ At that time, we acknowledged certain
constraints on our ability to rely solely on electronic copies of SIP
submissions, but we used some of the existing flexibility provided in
40 CFR 51.103 to reduce the number of paper copies that air agencies
would be required to submit. We subsequently initiated a pilot project
to develop and test a system for electronic web-based SIP submissions
through a new eSIP submission system. The eSIP submission system pilot
project involved personnel from various EPA offices and representatives
from a number of air agencies, and it allowed us to gain important
insight and ideas regarding the eSIP submission system. Having
completed that pilot project, we believe it is now appropriate to
expand the eSIP submission system to accommodate all states' SIP
submissions and to revise our underlying regulations to allow for
electronic submissions on a more widespread basis. Thus, we are making
revisions to the relevant regulations to provide all state, local

and tribal air agencies the option of using the eSIP submission system.
While this electronic submission method will be our preferred
submission method for SIPs, some air agencies may choose to continue to
provide paper submissions. Therefore, we are also revising our
regulations to reduce the number of hard copies required to be
submitted in an effort to reduce waste and burden on states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X, Regional Consistency for the
Administrative Requirements of State Implementation Plan Submittals
and Use of ``Letter Notices,'' dated April 6, 2011, page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The development of the eSIP submission system also fulfills
specific requests from our air agency partners. For example, the
National Association of Clean Air Agencies and the Environmental
Council of the States SIP Reform Workgroup is a cooperative initiative
of state representatives and the EPA focused on finding ways to improve
the SIP development and submission process, beginning from the time the
EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS through the time of formal
submission to Regional Offices for completeness determinations and EPA
actions on such submissions. One of the requests of the workgroup was
that we develop an electronic SIP submission system and make any
regulatory changes that might be needed to make it available for use as
an official submission mechanism.
    We recognize the important role of our air agency partners in
meeting all applicable requirements for implementing the NAAQS and
protecting visibility in Class I areas, and we wish to reduce the
burdens on those air agencies in carrying out their responsibilities.
To that end, the revisions in this final rule offer air agencies the
option of submitting SIPs and supporting technical documentation
electronically, instead of submitting them in multiple hard copies as
currently required. In addition, while electronic SIP submission is our
preferred method, we recognize that some air agencies may still wish to
make paper SIP submissions, so this rule also reduces the number of
paper copies that such agencies must provide. For paper submissions, we
would prefer one paper copy that is submitted with an accompanying
electronic copy that can be provided in a variety of formats (but
preferably as a word searchable portable document format (PDF), but we
also allow three paper copies without any electronic copy. Whether an
air agency decides to make an electronic or paper SIP submission, this
rule does not add any new requirements regarding the substance of any
SIP. Therefore, this action does not impose any new burdens on air
agencies, and instead provides for electronic submission and a reduced
number of copies for paper submissions, both of which should reduce
costs for the submitting entity.
    This rulemaking is also helping the EPA meet our goals for
improving regulations. For example, the final rule is consistent with
E-Enterprise for the Environment, a joint initiative between states and
the EPA to improve environmental outcomes and dramatically enhance
service to the regulated community and the public by maximizing the use
of advanced monitoring and information technologies, optimizing
operations and increasing transparency. This rule is also consistent
with our overall approach to improving regulations, as described in our
Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations
(August 2011).\2\ That plan was developed in response to President
Obama's charge in Executive Order 13563 for each federal agency to
develop a ``plan, consistent with law and its resources and regulatory
priorities, under which the agency will periodically review its
existing significant regulations to determine whether any such
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so
as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less
burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.'' \3\ As one key
element of our plan, we stated that the EPA intends to replace outdated
paper reporting with electronic reporting. This final rule represents
an important step in making the transition to electronic submission of
SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations. U.S. EPA. August
2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/documents/eparetroreviewplan-aug2011.pdf.
    \3\ Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (Executive Order
13563). 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to revising our rules to allow for submission through
the eSIP submission system and to reduce the number of paper copies
required for submissions that are not made through the eSIP submission
system, for the convenience of air agency personnel, we are amending 40
CFR 51.103 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V by incorporating other
provisions and changes relating to other aspects of SIP submissions,
drawn from our past experience with SIP submissions. Specifically, we
have added 40 CFR 51.103(c) to generally advise air agencies to consult
with the appropriate Regional Office for guidance regarding SIP
submissions. We have revised 40 CFR 51, Appendix V in three ways.
First, we have moved from Section 2.1(d) to Section 2.1(a) the existing
requirement that air agencies must verify that any electronic copy
provided with a paper submission is an exact duplicate of the paper
copy. We have also added Section 3.0, which repeats many of the
voluntary guidelines for SIP submissions previously provided in the
2011 guidance memo mentioned above. If SIP submissions are prepared
according to these recommendations, we should be able to process those
submissions more quickly.
    Finally, consistent with the changes explained above, we have also
included a minor amendment to 40 CFR 52.16 to clarify that any plan
submission that is made pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 and that conforms to
the requirements of Appendix V of that part will not also be required
to conform with the requirements of section 52.16.
    The changes in this final rule represent an agency general rule of
organization, procedure or practice that specifically amends 40 CFR
part 51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, to clarify and simplify the SIP submission
process to improve the SIP process by reducing federal and air agency
burden. As explained above, this final rule does not make substantive
changes to the required content of the SIP submissions required by the
remaining regulations in 40 CFR parts 51. Rather, it makes only minor
amendments to the existing SIP submission rules that will enable states
to submit and the EPA to process SIP revisions more efficiently.

B. What is the EPA's authority for taking action?

    This final rule is issued under the EPA's general rulemaking
authority provided under CAA section 301(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1)).
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(A), provides that ``rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice'' are exempt from notice and comment requirements. As
explained above, the action we are taking today involves revisions to
the rules that we follow in determining when an air agency has made an
official SIP submission under the CAA and does not affect the required
content of those submissions as required by the remaining regulations
in 40 CFR parts 51. Accordingly, these revisions fall under the
exemption provided in APA section 553(b)(3)(A), and the EPA is not
taking comment on this action.

III. The Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR)--Notice
of Availability of Electronic Reporting

    As of March 16, 2015, air agencies may submit SIP revisions
addressing CAA requirements through the eSIP submission system. The
eSIP submission system, operated through the agency's Central Data
Exchange (CDX), is CROMERR compliant, which provides verification that
the electronic signature meets the EPA's regulatory electronic
signature requirements.
    How to Access the System: The eSIP submission system can be
accessed at https://cdx.epa.gov. New users will need to register. The
EPA intends to provide training to affected entities on how to access,
register and use the system. Please refer to http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/urbanair/sipstatus/efficiency.html Web site for the latest
information.
    How to Get Help for the System: The Regional Office SIP contacts
listed in Section I.C of this preamble will be able to assist their
respective air agencies with accessing, registering and using the eSIP
submission system. The EPA strongly recommends that users work directly
with their Regional Office as their primary point of contact; however,
the CDX Help Desk is available for technical support-related questions
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (ET) at 1-888-890-1995 or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General questions concerning this document should be addressed to
the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This action does not raise any environmental justice issues because
it makes only minor amendments to the rules regarding how air agencies
submit SIPs to the EPA, without affecting the required content of those
SIPs or their availability to communities that may wish to participate
in the EPA's review of the SIPs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in 40 CFR part 51. The EPA believes this action
does not impose an information collection burden because we are not
requiring any new information from states. Rather, we are making only
minor amendments to the existing SIP submission rules that will enable
states to submit and the EPA to process SIP revisions more efficiently.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector, but rather makes minor
amendments to the existing rules that will enable air agencies to
submit SIP revisions more efficiently.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule does not have federalism implications. As noted
previously, this action imposes no new enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments, but rather makes minor amendments to the
existing rules that will enable air agencies to submit and the EPA to
process SIP revisions more efficiently.
    The EPA believes, however, that this final rule may be of
significant interest to states. Consistent with the EPA's policy to
promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments,
the EPA consulted with representatives of states early in the process
of developing the final rule to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. We initiated a pilot during the
development of the eSIP submission system that included EPA personnel
from various offices and representatives from air agencies. The
objectives of the eSIP submission system pilot was to gain insight and
ideas regarding the data flow process within the eSIP submission
system.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It does not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes this action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations, as explained
in section IV above.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This rule is exempt from the Congressional Review Act because it is
a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice that does not
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.
This rule will be effective March 16, 2015.

L. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA indicates which federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by
the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions
for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable

regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    This final rule consisting of simplified SIP submission
requirements and an option for electronic web-based submission is
``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). In
addition, the rule addresses a common core of knowledge and analysis
involved in formulating the decision and a common interpretation of the
requirements of 40 CFR 51 Appendix V applied to determining the
completeness of SIPs in states across the country and thus is based on
a determination of nationwide scope or effect.
    This determination is appropriate because, in the 1977 CAA
Amendments that revised CAA section 307(b)(l), Congress noted that the
Administrator's determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope
or effect'' would be appropriate for any action that has ``scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit.'' H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-
324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. In these circumstances,
section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history authorize the
Administrator to find the rule to be of ``nationwide scope or effect''
and thus to indicate that venue for challenges lies in the D.C.
Circuit. Accordingly, the EPA is determining that this is a rule of
nationwide scope or effect. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days from the date this final action is published in the
Federal Register. Filing a petition for review by the Administrator of
this final action does not affect the finality of the action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Approval and promulgation of
implementation plans, Administrative practice and procedures, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Approval and promulgation of
implementation plans, Administrative practice and procedures, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Date: February 2, 2015.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 51 and 52
are amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--Procedural Requirements

0
2. Section 51.103 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  51.103  Submission of plans, preliminary review of plans.

    (a) The State makes an official plan submission to EPA only when
the submission conforms to the requirements of appendix V to this part
and the State delivers the submission to EPA through one of the three
following methods: An electronic submission through EPA's eSIP
submission system; one paper submission to the appropriate Regional
Office with an exact duplicate electronic version, preferably in a word
searchable format; or three paper submissions. Any State submission
under this part, whether through the eSIP submission system or in paper
copy form, will serve as the official submission.
    (b) Upon request by a State, the Administrator will work with the
State to provide preliminary review of a plan or portion thereof
submitted in advance of the date such plan is due. Such requests must
be made to the appropriate Regional Office, and must indicate changes
(such as redline/strikethrough) to the existing approved plan where
applicable, and be submitted using a format agreed upon by the State
and Regional Office. Requests for preliminary review do not relieve a
State of the responsibility of adopting and submitting plans in
accordance with prescribed due dates.
    (c) In addition to conforming to the requirements of appendix V to
this part for complete SIP submissions, the EPA requests that the state
consult with the appropriate Regional Office regarding any additional
guidance for submitting a plan to EPA.

0
3. In Appendix V to part 51:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (d) in section 2.1.
0
b. Add section 3.0.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

APPENDIX V TO PART 51--CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE COMPLETENESS OF
PLAN SUBMISSIONS

* * * * *

2.1 Administrative Materials

    (a) A formal signed, stamped, and dated letter of submittal from
the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or
revision thereof (hereafter ``the plan''). If electing to submit a
paper submission with a copy in electronic version, the submittal
letter must verify that the electronic copy provided is an exact
duplicate of the paper submission.
* * * * *
    (d) A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for
approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including
indication of the changes made (such as redline/strikethrough) to
the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submission shall
include a copy of the official State regulation/document, signed,
stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official indicating that
it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of any
regulation/document contained in the submission shall, whenever
possible, be indicated in the regulation/document itself; otherwise
the State should include a letter signed, stamped, and dated by the
appropriate State official indicating the effective date. If the
regulation/document provided by the State for approval and
incorporation by reference into the plan is a copy of an existing
publication, the State submission should, whenever possible, include
a copy of the publication cover page and table of contents.
* * * * *

3.0. GUIDELINES

    The EPA requests that the State adhere to the following
voluntary guidelines when making plan submissions.

3.1 All Submissions

    (a) The State should identify any copyrighted material in its
submission, as EPA does not place such material on the web when
creating the E-Docket for loading into the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS).
    (b) The State is advised not to include any material considered
Confidential Business Information (CBI) in their SIP submissions. In
rare instances where such information is necessary to justify the
control requirements and emissions limitations established in the
plan, the State should confer with its Regional Offices prior to
submission and must clearly identify such material as CBI in

the submission itself. EPA does not place such material in any paper
or web-based docket. However, where any such material is considered
emissions data within the meaning of Section 114 of the CAA, it
cannot be withheld as CBI and must be made publicly available.

3.2 Paper Plan Submissions

    (a) The EPA requires that the submission option of submitting
one paper plan must be accompanied by an electronic duplicate of the
entire paper submission, preferably as a word searchable portable
document format (PDF), at the same time the paper copy is submitted.
The electronic duplicate should be made available through email,
from a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site, from the State Web site,
on a Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drive, on a compact disk, or
using another format agreed upon by the State and Regional Office.
    (b) If a state prefers the submission option of submitting three
paper copies and has no means of making an electronic copy available
to EPA, EPA requests that the state confer with its EPA Regional
Office regarding additional guidelines for submitting the plan to
EPA.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
4. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
5. Section 52.16 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.16  Submission to Administrator.

    (a) All requests, reports, applications, submissions, and other
communications to the Administrator pursuant to this part shall be
submitted in duplicate and addressed to the appropriate Regional Office
of the Environmental Protection Agency. For any submission pursuant to
this part that is also a submission of a plan or plan revision pursuant
to 40 CFR part 51, the submission shall conform to the requirements of
appendix V to 40 CFR part 51, rather than the requirements of this
paragraph.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-02602 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 Department of Entomology

 To: U.S. EPA, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs Date: November 7, 2019
 RE: IPM Award Applications Process

 Thank you for permitting me to review your upcoming School IPM Awards process. As someone who was hired from one of the original School IPM grants, I'm excited to see this program move forward. Below is my review of each of the categories with some comments on implementation and time burdens.

 For each category the personnel mentioned could be one person or multiple depending on the location and award category. Times will vary based on size of school district as well, there is a huge difference between Houston ISD and Amarillo ISD, as such gathering of information will be different.

 I do have reservations regarding the "Model of Sustained Excellence" award category. Do not roll this one out until you have the first three school IPM awards worked out. Speaking from experience from the International IPM Symposium Awards committee and having a state school IPM award program these first three will take time for school districts to warm to and apply. I am also strongly suggesting EPA work within its own Agency and others like USDA NIFA and Cooperative Extension to make this a third-party type audit that would be submitted to headquarters for grading. Adopt an IPM Star, state audit (a way to engage SLAs), narrative type of submission that could garner some really good press.

 I hope you find my review adequate enough for submission. Trying to gauge how much time it will take people to compile is difficult, but I tried my best to give you my best estimates. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me via email or phone.

 Good luck with this program, I hope you can launch in 2020. Best regrds,

 Janet A. Hurley, ACE, MPA
 Extension Program Specialist III  -  School IPM Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

                                                 Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension Center
                                                        School IPM Program 17360 Coit Road | Dallas, Texas 7552

            Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER> | schoolipm.tamu.edu | AgriLifeExtension.tamu.edu

                                     Texas A&M AgriLife Extension is an equal opportunity employer and program provider.

Great Start:
Respondent Paperwork Activity Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this Task
 Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee on this
 Task
Read instructions
Read Application Guide and application
for relevant Tier.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities
Manager
 15 minutes
Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Administrative
Assistant
 30 to 60 minutes
Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information for
application.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Pesticide Applicator/Administrative Assistant
 1 to 3 hours
Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and
completeness.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Administrative
Assistant
 1 to 3 hours
Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send
to EPA.
School IPM Coordinator/Administrative Assistant
 1 hour
Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials
submitted to EPA.
School IPM Coordinator/Administrative
Assistant
 10 minutes

 Comments:
 Overall this is a fairly easy application for a school district employee to complete. They will need cooperation of the district to submit the application, but the burden of gathering the information needed for this award process is minimal. Depending on the size of the district 1  -  3 campuses or more than 300 campuses will depend on length of time to complete. But overall should be easy to do in less than a week with everyday workload.

Stakeholder Response by: Dawn H. Gouge,  University of Arizona

Leadership Award:
Respondent Paperwork Activity Category

Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this Task
             Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee on this
                                      Task
1. Read
   instructions
Read Application Guide and application for
relevant Tier.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities
Manager

                                30 to 60 minutes
2. Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Administrative
Assistant
                   1 to 3 hours depending on size of district
   3. Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information for
application.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Pesticide Applicator/Administrative
Assistant

                               5 hours per campus
   4. Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and
completeness.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Administrative
Assistant

                                    5 hours
   5. Complete and submit
   paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and
send to EPA.
School IPM Coordinator/Administrative
Assistant
                        3 to 5 hours depending on size of
                                    district
   6. Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials submitted to
EPA.
School IPM Coordinator/Administrative
Assistant

                                   30 minutes

 Comments:
 Some of the information requested of schools is a burden and needs mentioning here. To focus on the overall IPM program which is what is mentioned in the criteria, ask the District to submit their School Board Approved IPM Policy, along with their written IPM action plans with thresholds, plus the roles of the key players within the program. This will tie in the committee question and get you the documents you need to assess their level of IPM adoption.

 Inspections are great but asking this question might not result in the answer you can measure. However, if you ask for them to submit scenarios in which they had a problem and they solved using IPM that can help you see how well they are following IPM.
 Trash areas, door sweeps and vegetation questions  -  this will be considered a burden by some districts.

 This is also something you really cannot measure uniformly. A dry, arid climate will have a very different outdoor area, rather than a residential area with lots of tress and people. You can fake this in an application like this. Make the district get letters of support from the school staff  -  vary that depending on leadership versus excellence.

 Something else to consider pesticide usage can also be skewed  -  schools in the south will have fire ant baits and termites; whereas, northern schools may not.

Excellence:
Respondent Paperwork Activity Category
 Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this Task
Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee on
this Task
Read instructions
 Read Application Guide and application for
 relevant Tier.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities
Manager/School Administrator
30 minutes
Plan activities
 Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/School Administrator/Risk Manager/Pest Management
Professional
2 to 4 hours depending on size of district and if IPM Star or not
Gather information
 Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information for application.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Administrative Assistant (s)/School Administrator/Risk Manager/Pest Management Professional/Third Party Auditor (Cooperative
Extension)
Less than 5
 campuses  -  16 hours
5 to 40 campuses  -
24 hours
40 to 80 campuses
48 hours
Compile and review
 Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and completeness.
School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Administrative Assistant (s)/School Administrator/Risk Manager/Pest Management Professional/Third Party Auditor (Cooperative
Extension)
 5 to 10 hours
Complete and submit paperwork
 Complete all appropriate application documents and send to
 EPA.
School IPM Coordinator Administrative Assistant
2 hours
Store/Maintain data
 File and maintain copies of materials
 submitted to EPA.
School IPM Coordinator Administrative Assistant
30 minutes
 Comments:
 If the school district has been through IPM Star then this will not be that huge of a burden; however, if they have not gone through IPM Star this is going to be very difficult for EPA to measure. The areas of difficulty that I mentioned in Leadership Award are here as well. For this category I strongly suggest that EPA consider working with the regional offices and cooperative extension to conduct an on-site audit.
 As a person who has conducted IPM Star and what you are asking schools to compile this is a multiple day event for someone of my level of expertise, I do not see schools taking this on without support.

Model of Sustained Excellence:

Respondent Paperwork Activity Category

Description of Category (Specific task performed)

 Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this Task
 Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee on
 this Task
Read instructions
Read Application Guide and application for
relevant Tier.
 School IPM Coordinator/Facilities
 Manager/School Administrator

Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
 School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/School Administrator/Risk Manager/Pest Management
 Professional

Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information for application.
 School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Administrative Assistant (s)/School Administrator/Risk Manager/Pest Management Professional/Third Party Auditor (Cooperative
 Extension)

Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and completeness.
 School IPM Coordinator/Facilities Manager/Administrative Assistant (s)/School Administrator/Risk Manager/Pest Management Professional/Third Party Auditor (Cooperative
 Extension)

Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to
EPA.
 School IPM Coordinator Administrative Assistant

Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials
submitted to EPA.
 School IPM Coordinator Administrative Assistant

 Comments:
 For this award giving a time estimate is difficult. As it is currently written this should be an award category that a school system would apply for after receiving the "Excellence" category. Truly for this type of recognition the application should be written so that a third-party auditor like Extension or a Regional IPM Center, or EPA Office could prepare and nominate. If that is the case something like that  -  hands on approach would take at least 3 days and several days afterwards to complete a packet. But if

 done correctly could have a LASTING impact on school IPM. The trouble with IPM Star is schools are reluctant to pay for the audit, since no one thinks what they do is real or important. An award like this that myself, Dawn Gouge, Kathy Murray (Maine), EPA regional folks, northcentral IPM Center or others could conduct and then submit for grading would be really cool. I would be willing to invest time to give schools this type of recognition.

 As for the school districts smaller ones less than 30 campuses will have interest, but the bigger the district the less likely they will participate. Keeping up with day to day operations is the best they can do.

Connector:

Respondent Paperwork Activity Category

 Description of Category (Specific task performed)

 Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this Task
 Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee on
 this Task
Read instructions
 Read Application Guide and application
 for relevant Tier.
 Administrator/Extension Professional/Regional IPM
 Implementor
 10 minutes
Plan activities
 Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
 Administrator/Extension Professional/Regional IPM Implementor/Steering
 Committee
 1 hour
Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from school districts to gather information for application. Compile measurable data for review and placement
 into application.
 Administrator/Extension Professional/Regional IPM Implementor/Administrative assistant/Program Coordinator
 18 hours
Compile and review
 Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and
 completeness.
 Administrator/Extension Professional/Regional IPM Implementor/Administrative
 assistant/Program Coordinator
 18 hours
Complete and submit paperwork
 Complete all appropriate application documents
 and send to EPA.
 Administrator/Extension Professional/Regional IPM Implementor/Administrative
 assistant/Program Coordinator
 2 hours
Store/Maintain data
 File and maintain copies of materials
 submitted to EPA.
 Administrative assistant
 10 minutes

 Comments:
 I based my estimates on what I would personally submit for this award for the work we have done for AgriLife Extension. This too could vary depending on how you have been keeping data.

 Great Start Award

Respondent Paperwork Activity
Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                 Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee
                                   on this Task
Example: Gather
information
Request information from
schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                        1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                        5.0
1. Read instructions
Read Application Guide and application for relevant Tier.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                     5 minutes
2. Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                      1 hour
3. Gather
   information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                      1 hour
   4. Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and completeness.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                    30 minutes
   5. Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, and/or Superintendent, 2-4.

                                      1 hour
   6. Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials submitted to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, or
Superintendent, 1.

                                     5 minutes

 Leadership Award

Respondent Paperwork Activity
Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                 Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee
                                   on this Task
Example: Gather
information
Request information from
schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                        1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                        5.0
       1.	Read instructions
Read Application Guide and application for relevant Tier.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                    10 minutes
2. Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
Accounts Manager, 2-5.

      1.5 hours
3. Gather
   information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.

IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, 2.
        2 hours/school site unless all information and data are centrally
                                      stored
   4. Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and completeness.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, 2.

                                      2 hours
   5. Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and
send to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager,
and/or Superintendent, 2-4.
                  2 hours depending upon how many campuses are
                                  being included
   6. Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials submitted to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, or
Superintendent, 1.

                                     5 minutes

 Excellence Award

Respondent Paperwork Activity
Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                 Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee
                                   on this Task
Example: Gather
information
Request information from
schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                        1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                        5.0
       1.	Read instructions
Read Application Guide and application for relevant Tier.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                    30 minutes
2. Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                      5 hours
3. Gather
   information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.

IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, 2.
        2 hours/school site unless all information and data are centrally
                                      stored
   4. Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and completeness.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, 2.

                                      5 hours
   5. Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and
send to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager,
and/or Superintendent, 2-4.
                  5 hours depending upon how many campuses are
                                  being included
   6. Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials submitted to EPA.
IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, or
Superintendent, 1.

                                     5 minutes

 Model of Sustained Excellence Award

Respondent Paperwork Activity Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
 Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
 Task
                      Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each
                             Employee on this Task
Example: Gather
information
Request information from
schools
 IPM Coordinator, 1
                                      1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
 Administrative assistant, 4
                                      5.0
       7.	Read instructions
Read Application Guide and application for relevant Tier.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
 Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                   30 minutes
    8.	Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or
 Accounts Manager, 2-5.

                                    8 hours
       9.	Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, and/or Superintendent, 2-4.

                                    8 hours
       10. Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and completeness.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or IPM/sustainability committee
 2-X.

                                    8 hours
       11. Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to EPA.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or IPM/sustainability committee
 2-X.

                                    5 hours
    12. Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials submitted to EPA.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, or
 Superintendent, 1.

                                   5 minutes

 Connector Award

Respondent Paperwork Activity Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
 Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
 Task
                      Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each
                             Employee on this Task
Example: Gather
information
Request information from
schools
 IPM Coordinator, 1
                                      1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
 Administrative assistant, 4
                                      5.0
       1.	Read instructions
Read Application Guide and application for relevant Tier.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager,
 and/or Superintendent, 2-4.

                                   10 minutes
    2.	Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, and/or Superintendent, 2-4.

                                     1 hour
       3.	Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, and/or Superintendent, 2-4.

                                    8 hours
       4.	Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness, and completeness.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or IPM/sustainability committee
 2-X.

                                    8 hours
       5.	Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to EPA.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, Superintendent, and/or IPM/sustainability committee
 2-X.

                                    5 hours
       6.	Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials submitted to EPA.
 IPM Coordinator, Facilities, Manager, Risk Manager, or Superintendent, 1.

                                   5 minutes

  Presented by Dr. John A. Bailey, Chesapeake Public Schools

  All calculations of time were based on the staff and resources I have available in my school division.

  Scroll down for all 5 tiers.
  Tier 1 Great Start Award Application

Respondent Paperwork Activity
Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                 Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee
                                    on this Task
Example: Gather information
Request information from schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                        1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                        5.0
1. Read instructions
Read Application Guide and
application for relevant Tier.
School Plants Administrator
                                     5 minutes
2. Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
School Plants Administrator
                                     15 minutes
3. Gather
   information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.
School Plants Administrator Most data stored electronically for easy
retrieval

                                     30 minutes
   4. Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness,
and completeness.

School Plants Administrator

                                     30 minutes
   5. Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to EPA.

School Plants Administrator

                                     30 minutes
6. Store/Maintain
   data
File and maintain copies of
materials submitted to EPA.
School Plants Administrator
                                     10 minutes

  Tier 2: Leadership Award

Respondent Paperwork Activity Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                      Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each
                             Employee on this Task
Example: Gather information
Request information from schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                      1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                      5.0
7. Read instructions
Read Application Guide and
application for relevant Tier.
School Plants Administrator
                                   30 minutes
8. Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
School Plants Administrator
                                     1 hour
9. Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.

School Plants Administrator

                                    3 hours
   10.	Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness,
and completeness.

School Plants Administrator

                                    3 hours
   11.	Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to EPA.
School Plants Administrator: I have advantage because of electronic access saves time

                                    3 hours
12.	Store/Maintain
   data
File and maintain copies of
materials submitted to EPA.
School Plants Administrator
                                     1 hour

  Tier 3: Excellence Award Application

Respondent Paperwork Activity Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                      Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each
                             Employee on this Task
Example: Gather information
Request information from schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                      1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                      5.0
                                                                       13.	Read
                                                                   instructions
Read Application Guide and
application for relevant Tier.
Safety Coordinator or Risk
Management
      0.5 hours
14.	Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
Safety Coordinator, Risk Management, certified pest technician, custodian, nurse

                                    3 hours
   15.	Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.
Safety Coordinator, Risk Management, certified pest technician, custodian, nurse,
food services

                                    10 hours
   16.	Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness,
and completeness.
Executive Director or Chief of Operations and certified 7A/B
or higher technician,

                                    2 hours
   17.	Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and
send to EPA.
Executive Director or Chief of Operations and certified 7A/B
or higher technician

                                    2 hours
   18.	Store/Maintain data
File and maintain copies of materials submitted to EPA.
Executive Director or Chief of Operations
                                     1 hour

  Tier 4 Sustained Excellence Award

Respondent Paperwork Activity Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                      Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each
                             Employee on this Task
Example: Gather information
Request information from schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                      1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                      5.0
                                                                       19.	Read
                                                                   instructions
Read Application Guide and
application for relevant Tier.
Executive Director 1, Director
                                     1 hour
20.	Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
Executive Director 1, Director
                                    7 hours
   21.	Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.

Executive Director 1, Director Certified Pest technicians 2

                                    7 hours
   22.	Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness,
and completeness.
Executive Director 1, Director Certified Pest technicians 2

                                    7 hours
   23.	Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to EPA.
Executive Director 1, Director Certified Pest technicians 2

                                    2 hours
24.	Store/Maintain
   data
File and maintain copies of
materials submitted to EPA.
Executive Director 1, Director
                                     1 hour

  Tier 5 Connector Award

Respondent Paperwork Activity Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                      Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each
                             Employee on this Task
Example: Gather information
Request information from schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                      1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                      5.0
                                                                       25.	Read
                                                                   instructions
Read Application Guide and
application for relevant Tier.
Director
      0.5 hours
26.	Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.
Director
      0.5 hours
   27.	Gather information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.

Director

      1.5 hours
   28.	Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness,
and completeness.

Director

                                    4 hours
   29.	Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to EPA.

Director

                                    3 hours
30.	Store/Maintain
   data
File and maintain copies of
materials submitted to EPA.
Director
      0.5 hours

Stakeholder Response by: Peggy Caruso: Assistant Director of Maintenance and Environmental Services, Katy Independent School District

Respondent Paperwork Activity
Category
Description of Category (Specific task performed)
Job Title and Number of Employees Performing this
Task
                 Average Time (in hours) Spent by Each Employee
                                 on this Task
Example: Gather information
Request information from schools
IPM Coordinator, 1
                                      1.5
Example: Gather information
Gather requested information and submit to district
Administrative assistant, 4
                                      5.0
1. Read instructions
Read Application Guide and
application for relevant Tier.

2. Plan activities
Plan gathering of information that will be submitted to EPA.

3. Gather
   information
Canvass / Contact personnel from schools within the district to gather information
for application.

   4. Compile and review
Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy, appropriateness,
and completeness.

   5. Complete and submit paperwork
Complete all appropriate application documents and send to EPA.

6. Store/Maintain
   data
File and maintain copies of
materials submitted to EPA.

Great Start:

 Leadership Award:

 Excellence:

 Model of Sustained Excellence:

 Connector:


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 47166]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RA16-2-000]

Fluke Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that, on July 8, 2016, Fluke Corporation (Fluke) filed
a Petition for Review of Denial of Adjustment Request, pursuant to
section 504(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C.
7194(b), and section 385.1004 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR 385.1004. Fluke's
petition requests review of the June 8, 2016 Decision and Order issued
in Case Number EXC-16-0006 by the Department of Energy's Office of
Hearings and Appeals. In addition, Fluke is concurrently requesting a
hearing in accordance with section 385.1006 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.1006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 4, 2016.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17120 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


P-21-0176 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-21-0176 Sanitized Premanufacture Notice (linked)
 P-21-0176 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-21-0176 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-21-0176 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-21-0176 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-21-0176 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-21-0176 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-21-0176 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4762-4764]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0022; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-004-AD;
Amendment 39-17322; AD 2013-02-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
(Bell) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell
Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4 helicopters. This AD requires
inspecting certain hydraulic servo actuator assemblies (servo) for a
loose nut, shaft, and clevis assembly, modifying or replacing the servo
as necessary, and reidentifying the servo. This AD is prompted by an
investigation after an accident and the determination that there was a
loose connection due to improper lock washer installation. These
actions are intended to detect loose or misaligned parts of the servo
to prevent failure of the servo and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 7, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document February 7, 2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel,
Quebec J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (450)
433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) has issued AD No. CF-2011-
19R1, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2011, to correct an unsafe
condition for the Bell Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3 helicopters, all
serial numbers (S/N), and Model 206L-4 helicopters, S/Ns 52001 through
52430, with servo, part number (P/N) 206-076-062-103, installed. TCCA
advises that a ``quality escape'' by a supplier occurred, and a number
of Bell servos may have a loose nut, shaft, and clevis assembly.
According to TCCA, the loose connection is due to improper lock washer
installation. TCAA advises that this discrepancy is not traceable or
identifiable except by inspection and that a ``disconnect'' of the
affected components may lead to loss of control of the helicopter. TCAA
states Revision 1 of its AD retains the mandated inspections and
corrective action in the original issue of its AD but expands the
applicability to include all serial-numbered servos.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopter models are manufactured in Canada and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the
bilateral agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation
described above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by TCCA and determined the unsafe condition is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    Bell has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-11-169,
Revision B, dated August 29, 2011 (ASB), which specifies, before next
flight, unless previously accomplished, a one-time inspection for loose
or misaligned parts of the servos, P/N 206-076-062-103, installed on
Bell Model 206L, 206L-1, and 206L-3 helicopters, all S/Ns, and Model
206L-4 helicopters, S/Ns 52001 through 52430. TCCA classified this ASB
as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2011-19R1 to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

Differences Between This AD and the TCAA AD

    The TCCA AD requires you to return the parts removed from service
to the manufacturer. This AD does not.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires for each servo, before further flight, retracting
the boot

and determining whether the nut, shaft, or clevis assembly turns
independently from each other. If the shaft turns independently this AD
requires replacing the servo with an airworthy servo. If the shaft does
not turn independently, this AD requires inspecting the servo to
determine the tab alignment. If at least one tab is not aligned with
and bent flush against a nut flat surface and at least one tab is not
aligned with and bent flush against a flat surface of the clevis
assembly, this AD requires replacing the servo with an airworthy servo.
If any tab of the lock washer is not bent flush against either a flat
surface of the nut or clevis assembly, this AD requires bending the tab
flush against a flat surface. This AD also requires re-identifying the
servo on the identification plate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 695 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. It will take about .5 work hour to
inspect and re-identify a servo at $85 per work hour for a total cost
per helicopter of about $43, and a total cost to the U.S. operator
fleet of $29,538. Replacing a servo will take about 2 work hours and
parts costing $33,000, for a total cost per helicopter of $33,170.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective
actions must be accomplished before further flight.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice an opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest and that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-02-01 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell): Amendment
39-17322; Docket No. FAA-2013-0022; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-
004-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Model 206L, 206L-1, and 206L-3
helicopters, all serial numbers (S/N), and Model 206L-4 helicopters,
S/Ns 52001 through 52430, with a hydraulic servo actuator assembly
(servo), part number (P/N) 206-076-062-103, installed, certificated
in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as loose or misaligned
parts of the servo. This condition could result in failure of the
servo and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 7, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before further flight, for each servo:
    (1) Retract the boot as depicted in Figure 1 of Bell Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-11-169, Revision B, dated August 29,
2011 (ASB).
    (2) Applying only hand pressure, determine whether the nut,
shaft, and clevis assembly turn independently from each other.
    (i) If the shaft turns independently of the nut or the clevis
assembly, before further flight, replace the servo with an airworthy
servo.
    (ii) If the shaft does not turn independently of the nut or the
clevis assembly, inspect to determine whether at least one tab of
the lock washer (tab) is aligned with and bent flush against a flat
surface of the nut and whether at least one tab is aligned with and
bent flush against a flat surface of the clevis assembly.
    (A) If at least one tab is aligned with and bent flush against a
nut flat surface and at least one tab is aligned with and bent flush
against a flat surface of the clevis assembly, for any tab that is
not bent flush against either a flat surface of the nut or clevis
assembly, bend it flush against a flat surface.
    (B) If at least one tab is not aligned with and bent flush
against a nut flat surface and at least one tab is not aligned with
and bent flush against a flat surface of the clevis assembly, before
further flight, replace the servo with an airworthy servo.
    (3) Re-identify the servo by metal-impression stamping or by
vibro-etching the letter ``V'' at the end of P/N 206-076-062-103V on
the identification plate.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil
Aviation AD CF-2011-19R1, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2011.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bell ASB No. 206L-11-169, Revision B, dated August 29, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6730 Rotorcraft
Servo System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 9, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-01008 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8186]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-
2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2003-15892;
FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2007-27897]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 27 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    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. The comment
period ended on January 6, 2010 (74 FR 64124).

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 27 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Grady L. Black, Jr., Anthony Brandano, Stanley E.
Elliott, Elmer E. Gockley, Glenn T. Hehner, Wayne H. Holt, Edward E.
Hooker, Vladimir M. Kats, Alfred Keehn, Martin D. Keough, Randall B.
Laminack, Norman R. Lamy, Robert W. Lantis, James A. Lenhart, Jerry J.
Lord, Raymond P. Madron, Ronald S. Mallory, Eldon Miles, Jack E. Potts,
Jr., Neal A. Richard, John E. Rogstad, Robert E. Sanders, Steven R.
Smith, Robert L. Thies, Rene R. Trachsel, Kendle F. Waggle, Jr. and
DeWayne Washington.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
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.

    Issued on: February 5, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-3566 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P