[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19191-19193]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09319]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0745; FRL-9977-43--Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Alaska; Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On March
10, 2016, the State of Alaska made a submission to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is
proposing to approve the submission as meeting the requirement that
each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0745 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For

additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206)
553-0256; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary
information section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?
III. EPA's review
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), describing its infrastructure SIP
for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, submitted March 10, 2016.
Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the portion of the submission
dealing with interstate pollution transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises
from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must submit ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' a
plan that provides for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other
than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a
list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must
address. The EPA commonly refers to such state plans as
``infrastructure SIPs.''

II. What guidance is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

    The EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit
infrastructure SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an
October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
guidance). The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published
on March 17, 2016, titled ``Information on the Interstate Transport
``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (memorandum). The memorandum describes the EPA's
past approach to addressing interstate transport, and provides the
EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality
projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The memorandum provides information relevant to the EPA Regional office
review of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor''
provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided
in that memorandum.
    The memorandum also provides states and the EPA Regional offices
with future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in
the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient
monitoring data and air quality modeling. The memorandum further
describes how these projected potential design values can be used to
help determine which monitors should be further evaluated to
potentially address whether emissions from other states significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The memorandum explains
that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality for purposes of
addressing interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is
2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate.
    Based on this approach, the potential receptors are outlined in the
memorandum. Most of the potential receptors are in California, located
in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. However,
there is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one
potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The memorandum
also indicates that for certain states with incomplete ambient
monitoring data, additional information including the latest available
data, should be analyzed to determine whether there are potential
downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported
emissions.
    This rulemaking considers analysis in Alaska's submission, as well
as additional analysis conducted by the EPA during review of its
submission. For more information on how we conducted our analysis,
please see the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket
for this action.

III. EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of Alaska's March
10, 2016, SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). State plans must
address specific requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly
referred to as ``prongs''), including:

--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (prong one); and
--Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(prong two).

    The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the
prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining
the relevant NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to
these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further
review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to
downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions
necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS
downwind; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the relevant NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind
emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This
framework was most recently applied with respect to PM2.5 in
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),

designed to address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards,
as well as the 1997 ozone standard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alaska was not part of the CSAPR rulemaking. The EPA
approved the Alaska SIP as meeting the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60955) and the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEC's submission focused mainly on emissions inventories,
geographic factors, and prevailing meteorological conditions to
demonstrate that sources in Alaska are unlikely to significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in other states. ADEC evaluated emissions inventories by source
category for direct PM2.5, as well as the precursors
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
ADEC noted that emissions of NOX in Alaska are small in
comparison to national levels. Data from the 2011 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) presented in the submission show that total
NOX emissions in Alaska are approximately 0.9 percent of
national emissions. Similarly, data from the 2011 NEI show that total
SO2 emissions in Alaska are approximately 0.4 percent of
national emissions. With respect to direct PM2.5, ADEC noted
that anthropogenic sources account for only 9 percent of Alaskan
emissions, with the majority of PM2.5 emissions occurring
due to natural wildfires. ADEC also highlighted the fact that
approximately 600 miles of mountainous terrain in Canada's Province of
British Columbia separate the southeastern border of Alaska from the
nearest state, Washington. The highest emissions of regulated air
pollutants occur even further away from the contiguous 48 states in the
Municipality of Anchorage (1,435 miles from Seattle, WA) and the
Fairbanks North Star Borough (2,244 miles from Seattle, WA). Lastly,
ADEC stated that weather patterns make long range transport of air
pollutants from Alaska to the 48 contiguous states, and Hawaii,
unlikely. Wind patterns emanate from the western Gulf of Alaska and
travel inland towards the east into Northern Canada. For these reasons,
ADEC concluded that Alaska does not contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state.
    Alaska developed and submitted its technical analysis before March
17, 2016, when, as discussed earlier, the EPA released a memorandum
with updated modeling projections for 2017 and 2025 annual
PM2.5 design values meant to assist states in development of
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS interstate transport SIPs. As discussed in
the TSD for this action, we used the information in the 2016 memorandum
and supplemental information, as discussed below, and came to the same
conclusion as the state. It is reasonable to conclude that emissions
from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state.
    In our evaluation, potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors were identified in other states. EPA evaluated these
potential receptors to determine first if, based on review of relevant
data and other information, there would be downwind nonattainment or
maintenance problems, and if so, whether Alaska is likely to contribute
to such problems in these areas. After reviewing air quality reports,
modeling results, designation letters, designation technical support
documents, attainment plans and other information for these areas, we
are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a portion of Alaska's March 10,
2016, submission certifying that the current Alaska SIP is sufficient
to meet the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth
above. The EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 23, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-09319 Filed 5-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 55322]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4451-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 5 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 Missouri (FEMA-4451-DR), dated July 9, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 30, 2019.

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 Missouri is hereby amended to include 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 9, 2019.

    Benton, Clay, Cooper, Dunklin, Gasconade, Howard, Scott, and St.
Clair Counties and the Independent City of St. Louis for Public
Assistance.
    Boone, Callaway, Lafayette, Lincoln, Pulaski, and St. Charles
Counties 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.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-22462 Filed 10-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 26731]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11868]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80852; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 7017

June 2, 2017.
    On February 17, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
adopt Rule 7017 to increase the level of information provided to a
member acting as the stabilizing agent for a follow-on offering of
additional shares of a security that is listed on Nasdaq. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March
6, 2017.\3\ On April 17, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission received no comment letters on
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80120 (February 28,
2017), 82 FR 12649.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80465, 82 FR 18784
(April 21, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 2017, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-NASDAQ-2017-015).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11868 Filed 6-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0037 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS for the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts T, U, V, W, and X)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1061.09 9. Keywords Phosphate fertilizer, phosphoric acid, fluorides, NSPS 10. Abstract This standard applies to owners and operators of phosphate fertilizer production and storage facilities. The provisions of this subpart apply to wetprocess phosphoric acid plant having a design capacity of more than 15 tons of equivalent P2O5 feed for calendar day. The affected facility includes any combinations of: reactors, filters, evaporators, and hot wells. Any facility that commences construction or modification after October 22, 1974, is subject to the requirements. Owners and operators must conduct an initial performance test, record amounts of feed material and storage, record pressure drop across control devices, and comply with a total fluoride emission standard. In addition to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements listed in the General Provisions ( 40 CFR Part 60), the phosphate fertilizer industry is required to meet the specific requirements at 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts T, U, V, W, and X, to determine if compliance has been achieved.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 13 b. Total annual responses 26 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 20 ______% c. Total hours requested 1,194 d. Current OMB inventory 963 e. Difference 231 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 231 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 320 c. Total annualized cost requested 320 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 320 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 320 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initial 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Learia A. Williams Phone: ( 202) 564 4113 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

"( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95