[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76499-76500]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0056; OMB No. 1660-0017]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Public Assistance Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60 Day Notice of Revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
with change, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning information collected for the Public Assistance
(PA) program eligibility determinations, grants management, and
compliance with Federal laws and regulations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit
comments at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2022-0056.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Hildebrand, Acting Chief,
Public Assistance Program Delivery Branch,
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the
Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (Stafford Act),
authorizes grants to assist State, local, and Tribal governments and
certain private non-profit entities with the response to and recovery
from disasters, following Presidentially-declared major disasters and
emergencies. 44 CFR part 206 specifies the information collections
necessary to facilitate the provision of assistance under the Public
Assistance (PA) Program. 44 CFR 206.202 describes the general
application procedures for the PA Program.

Collection of Information

    Title: Public Assistance Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, with change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0017.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-233 Organization Profile, FEMA
Form FF-104-FY-22-234, Recipient Incident Information; FEMA Form FF-
104-FY-21-131 (formerly FF 009-0-49), Request for Public Assistance;
FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-235, Applicant Impact Survey; FEMA Form FF-104-
FY-22-238, Pre-Approval Request; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-236, Impact
List; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-239; Project Application for Debris
Removal; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-240, Project Application for Emergency
Protective Measures; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-242, Project Application
for Infrastructure Restoration; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-243, Project
Application for Building Code and Floodplain Administration and
Enforcement; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-244, Project Application for
Management Costs; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-245, Damage Information; FEMA
Form FF-104-FY-22-241, Project Application for COVID-19; FEMA Form FF-
104-FY-21-137 (formerly FF 009-0-123), Force Account Labor Summary
Record; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-135 (formerly FF 009-0-128), Applicant's
Benefits Calculation Worksheet; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-141 (formerly FF
009-0-127), Force Account Equipment Summary Record; FEMA Form FF-104-
FY-21-138 (formerly FF 009-0-124), Materials Summary Record; FEMA Form
FF-104-FY-21-139 (formerly FF 009-0-125), Rented Equipment Summary
Record; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-140 (formerly FF 009-0-126), Contract
Work Summary Record; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-237, Donated Labor Sign-in;
FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-132 (formerly FF 009-0-111), Quarterly Progress
Reports; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-248, Time Extension; FEMA Form FF-104-
FY-22-249, State Administrative Plan; FEMA Form FF-

104-FY-21-250, Tribal Administrative Plan; Request for Appeals or
Arbitrations; Request for Arbitration resulting from Hurricanes Katrina
or Rita; FEMA Template 104-FY-21-100, Equitable COVID-19 Response and
Recovery: Vaccine Administration Information; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-
246, Environmental and Historic Preservation Addendum; FEMA Form FF-
104-FY-22-247, Hazard Mitigation Addendum; and FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-
145 (formerly FF 009-0-141), FAC-TRAX System.
    Abstract: The information collected is required for the Public
Assistance (PA) Program eligibility determinations, grants management,
and compliance with other Federal laws and regulations. The Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-
5207 (the Stafford Act), authorizes grants to assist State, Tribal, and
local governments and certain private non-profit entities with the
response to and recovery from disasters following Presidentially
declared major disasters and emergencies.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government and certain
private non-profit entities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,505.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 635,269.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 341,635.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $19,801,167.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $1,957,204.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-27082 Filed 12-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-24-P


June 3, 2004 MEMORANDUM From: William H. Maxwell CG/ ESD ( C439 01)

To: Utility MACT Project Files Subject: Meeting with Clean Energy Group ( CEG), June 3, 2004 Attendees Clean Energy Group ( CEG) Ann Berwick, M. J. Bradley & Associates Ron Drewnowski, PSEG Chris Van Atten, M. J. Bradley & Associates Bruce Alexander, Exelon Daniel Cunningham, ConEdison Gary Helm, Conectiv Bob Teetz, KeySpan EPA: Jeff Holmstead, OAR/ OD Bill Wehrum, OAR/ OD Jason Burnett, OAR/ OD Ellen Brown, OAR/ OPAR Bob Meyers, OAR/ OD Robert J. Wayland, OAR/ OAQPS/ ESD/ CG ( by telephone) Bill Maxwell, OAR/ OAQPS/ ESD/ CG ( by telephone) Rick Vetter, OGC ( by telephone)

Discussion At the meeting, the comments submitted by CEG to the docket ( OAR 2002 0056 2046,  2432,  2433, and  2502) were discussed. The attached materials were provided.

Attachments KeySpan Northport Unit 3 B 385MW Combustion Engineering Oil/ Gas Fired Unit Background _ In Service date 1977  Tangentially fired originally 100% oil fired ( never coal) B gas capability added in 2002 _ Built with an ESP designed for 3% sulfur oil firing _ Cycling operation _ Dual exhaust ducts Electrostatic Precipitator ( ESP)

_ Standard plate and wire full exhaust flow design _ Dual ducted ( North/ South) design exiting into single stack _ 16 modules B 8 per half 2002 3 Maintenance Project  $ 4 million _ Replaced emitter wires with rigid electrode design _ Improved vibrators _ Upgraded voltage control system _ New Collector plates _ Other maintenance Nickel testing Feb. 10 11, 2004 North Half ESP l Concentration rth ESP inlet rth ESP Outlet ESP Removal Nickel ( lbs/ TBTU) 1423 605.8 389.5 36%

South Half ESP l Concentration uth ESP Inlet uth ESP Outlet ESP Removal Nickel ( lbs/ TBTU) 1423 561 864.3 Anomalous ( 1)

( 6) 4 ESP south side modules O/ S on test day ! Significant retention of Nickel in bottom ash B 60% reduction prior to ESP inlet ! Ni concentration in oil = 26ppm ! Average outlet PM = 0.028 B 0.034 lbs/ mmBTU  ( limit is 0.1 lbs/ mmbtu)

! North side PM removal efficiency approx. 50%

Conclusion Disregarding South side equipment problems, North side removal of Nickel significantly above proposed 210 lb/ TBTU standard. Proposed limit not achievable.


Natural Resources Defense Council Meeting with Office of Wastewater Management August 3, 2004 Attendees Deborah Nagle, Water Permits Division, OWM Jan Pickrel, Water Permits Division, OWM Greg Schaner, Water Permits Division, OWM Amy Pickering, Water Permits Division, OWM Jennifer Chan, Water Permits Division, OWM Ken Munis, Office of Policy Economics & Innovation Mindy Gampel, Office of Policy Economics & Innovation Fran Dubrowski, Attorney for NRDC Nancy Stoner, NRDC Lauren Doerr, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Laurie Dubriel, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Carey Johnston, Office of Science & Technology Jim Hanlon, OWM Purpose and Summary of Meeting NRDC met with OWM to outline its concerns about the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule. The following summarizes the discussion:

  NRDC indicated that data suggests that pretreatment program requires a serious level of effort to protect the early pollutant reduction gains of the program. NRDC expressed concern that it seems like less has been done in this program compared to others.

  NRDC finds it difficult to determine how the Streamlining Rule benefits the program without having updated data on how the program is doing. It seems like this Rule should not be the highest priority of the Pretreatment Program. Instead, NRDC indicated that maybe EPA needs to focus on how program is working and how it could be improved.

  pH   NRDC believes the proposal weakens the federal rules considerably, and that low pH discharges corrode sewer pipes. They also reminded OWM that EPA has not responded to NRDC's petition for rulemaking to raise the pH limits.

  Equivalent Mass Limits   This proposed provision has the potential to allow less treatment. Although not intended, there will be some real harms from this provision. EPA has not done sufficient studies of the impacts of mass limits on the wastestream, sludge, and water quality. This provision asks POTW to be expert in making complex decisions when the Industrial User approaches it to give them mass limits. EPA also has not factored in the resource burden of accurately determining mass limits. Administrative record is extraordinarily weak on this issue, and they indicated that there could be problems with OMB's Data Quality Act, depending on how much weight we place on the scant amount of data that supports this provision. NRDC believes this is a good idea that is being brought up in a bad way. NRDC suggested that better ideas would include looking at water conservation more broadly as an Agency ( e. g., PIRT), looking at each categorical Pretreatment Standard and its relationship to water conservation, and developing case studies. NRDC observed that the Agency does not know how to identify water conservation, and suggested that the primary driver behind water conservation is the price of water, not the concerns about water pollution control compliance. NRDC indicated that it is not clear that water conservation has any relationship whatsoever with compliance with concentration based limits. They critiqued the AMSA data as only showing that three facilities are facing this issue.

  Non Significant CIU   NRDC indicated that the majority of States were opposed to this change. They were not sure that this could be considered streamlining, since EPA is taking requirements that impose minimal burden and making a dramatic alteration. NRDC also mentioned that there is insufficient data to support this provision. They are concerned that CIUs will be taken out of system when information they provide could be useful. NRDC is concerned that some programs have a high concentration of these de minimis dischargers; basing this provision on flow alone disregards the real impacts of these discharges that may be concentrated in one geographic area. Also, NRDC mentioned that if EPA removes the annual inspection, then the Control Authority does not have an ability to catch some bad practices. They also argued that it is not fair to the larger Industrial Users to exempt the small facilities from the program.

Attachment NRDC Talking Points on Pretreatment Standards