1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) requests an extension of its approval for information collection activities associated with Conflicts of Interest ( COI), Rule no. 1. The collection of this information is essential to ensure that the Agency can effectively identify, prevent and mitigate conflicts of interest in its contracting program. EPA Control no. for this collection is 1550.05. OMB ICR no. is 2030 0023.

Conflict of interest requirements pertain to Agency contractors who are hired to perform efforts on behalf of the Superfund program. Because of the nature of these contracts, the Agency must be concerned with not only reviewing conflicts prior to award, but also with identifying ongoing and future conflicts of interest. EPA requires immediate notification of actual or potential conflicts of interest, and the submission of either annual or work assignment related certifications concerning disclosures of conflicts of interest. The Agency also imposes some limitations on a contractor's ability to enter into a contract for outside work which poses a high risk of conflict with work performed for EPA or that may endanger EPA enforcement action.

Superfund work may be performed at multiple sites under any given contract. All sites may not be known and/ or identified prior to contract award. Potentially responsible parties ( PRPs) may not have been identified at time of award either. Yet, it is important that the Agency ensure that Superfund contractors do not have a business relationship with PRPs which could endanger the Agency's standing. Once PRPs are identified for specific sites, the Agency attempts to recover costs expended for cleanup either through consent agreements or litigation. Conflicts of interests on the part of the Superfund contractor could jeopardize our litigation.

The information covered by this request is submitted to EPA contracting officers. The contracting officers and advisers will use such information to evaluate conflicts and to make determinations that will mitigate and prevent conflicts of interest in Agency contracts. The original submissions will be kept by contracting officers in the official contract files, and other information will be maintained by the Office of Acquisition Management ( OAM) conflict of interest staff.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION a) NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION Federal Acquisition Regulation ( FAR) Subpart 9.5 defines an organizational conflict of interest as existing when " because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person's objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage." FAR Subpart 9.5 further limits the award of 2 contracts to parties when organizational conflicts of interest exist, unless an agency head or designee determines such a contract may be in the Government's best interest. Our information collection is required no only to fulfill the requirements of FAR Subpart 9.5, but to protect the Agency and its mission from harm due to contractors' conflicts of interest. Our information collection request also includes provisions tailored to the special needs of the Superfund program.

EPA is responsible for leading the nation's efforts to protect and clean up the environment. This includes the development of environmental standards, control of toxic substances, the cleanup of hazardous wastes, as well as enforcement of applicable laws and regulations. The EPA is charged with implementing and enforcing the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA) ( 42 U. S. C. 9601 9657), commonly known as " Superfund," which consists of Public Law 96 510 ( Dec. 11, 1980) and the amendments made by subsequent enactments. CERCLA provides for liability, compensation, cleanup and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and the cleanup of hazardous waste disposal sites. Because EPA has the dual responsibility of cleanup and enforcement and because its contractors are often involved in both activities, it is imperative that EPA contractors are free of conflicts so as not to prejudice CERCLA response and enforcement/ cost recovery actions.

b) USE AND USERS OF THE DATA EPA contracting officers and advisers ( technical experts, legal advisors and conflict of interest staff) carefully review and analyze disclosures of actual or potential conflicts of interest and contractor requests to enter into future contracts that may prejudice our enforcement actions. Contracting officers make their determinations regarding these disclosures and requests, for the purpose of mitigating or preventing conflicts of interest in our contracting program and protecting our enforcement actions. EPA staff will use the conflict of interest plan and certifications as a means to ensure contractors are complying with EPA's requirements for detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Contracting officers document their determinations in the official contract files. This is also where they retain the original information collected. In addition, records of conflict of interest determinations are maintained by OAM's conflict of interest staff.

In general, the information collected and the determinations made will be used by the Agency to ensure that contractors and EPA are adequately addressing conflict of interest concerns, and that the Agency is making determinations consistent with the exercise of common sense, good judgment, and sound discretion, to protect its programs. 3 3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED a) RESPONDENTS/ SIC CODES Respondents to this information collection activity are Agency contractors and some of the subcontractors and consultants who work for our prime contractors on Superfund contracts. The number of EPA prime contractors, subcontractors and consultants who will be required to provide information under this collection is 165.

Note: we have excluded subcontractors and consultants that perform nondiscretionary technical or engineering services, such as well drilling, fence erecting, plumbing, utility hookups, security guard services, or electrical services, because the risk to the Agency of significant conflicts of interest with these types of work is minimal. We considered exempting additional non discretionary services, but we believe that categorically exempting other classes of work from flow down to subcontractor and consultants would pose an unacceptable risk of conflict of interest to the Agency. However, there may situations in which other activities can be excluded on a case by case basis and contracting officers may authorize such exemptions. In addition, to ensure contractors and consultants clearly understand they have the option to request a waiver when they are performing non discretionary technical or engineering services, instructions are provided in each of the limitation of future contracting clauses which are included in the solicitation.

The respondents represent a number of industries such as: air and water resource and solid waste management ( SIC # 9511); garbage and refuse collection and transportation ( SIC # 4953); engineering services ( SIC # 8711); computer related services ( SIC # 7379) and other services ( SIC # 8999)

b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) DATA ITEMS Data which will be collected from respondents includes the following reporting items: ( 1) disclosure of actual and potential personal or organizational conflicts of interest on a work assignment basis; ( 2) certification on either a work assignment or an annual basis that conflicts have been disclosed or that none exist; and ( 3) requirement for request for authorization to enter into a contract on certain future work, cited in " Limitation of Future Contracting Clauses", that would pose a high risk of conflict of interest with work performed for EPA and that may impair Superfund work or jeopardize enforcement actions.

The recordkeeping requirements associated with this request include corporate recordkeeping consistent with a contractor's system for identifying, mitigating, and preventing conflicts of interest as described in its conflict of interest plan submitted to EPA. This conflict of interest recordkeeping includes maintaining a data base of corporate clients and contracts in order 4 to identify potential conflicts and maintaining records of disclosures of conflicts to demonstrate compliance with a contractor's conflict of interest plan. NOTE: The term " data base" as used in this section includes any system which permits a contractor to search its records for conflicts of interest and may be either manual and/ or automated. The critical function of any data base is that it has the capability to be searched to identify any past, present, and future work which may be in conflict.

( ii) RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES Respondents will be required to be able to identify any actual or potential conflicts of interest so the Agency has an opportunity to prevent or mitigate the conflict before it occurs. A compilation of the information received from seven potential respondents, whom the Agency informally consulted, was used to develop this representative sample. In order for a respondent to be able to identify and report such conflicts of interest, it is anticipated each respondent would engage in activities which include:

1) Create information; ( a) the preparation of a conflict of interest plan ( CBP = 50%)

2) Gather information; ( CBP = 80%) ( a) the creation of a data base 3) Process, compile, and review information; ( a) searching data base and records ( CBP = 25%) ( b) and maintenance of appropriate records 4) Complete written forms or other paperwork; ( a) the preparation of annual certifications, or ( b) the preparation of work assignment certifications 5) Identify a potential conflict of interest; ( a) making decisions and notifying EPA ( CBP = 10%)

6) Record disclose, or display the information; and ( CBP = 10%)

7) Request approvals prior to entering into future contracts that may have an actual or potential conflict of interest;

The above identified " customary and usual business practice" ( CBP) efforts were estimated based on analysis of all responses received from the Superfund contractors ( potential respondents) who were interviewed, experience under EPA solicitations, and observations. 5 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES The Agency anticipates performing the information collection activities listed below, in conjunction with conflict of interest requirements. ( See 6( b) for calculations of the Agency's cost estimates.)

( 1) Develop conflict of interest rule or other collection instrument;

( 2) Develop a master database;

( 3) Answer respondent questions;

( 4) Audit or review data submissions;

( 5) Record or enter the submissions;

( 6) Analyze requests for confidentiality and provide appropriate protection;

( 7) Reformat and distribute the data; and ( 8) Store the data.

( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT The original information collected will go directly to the Contracting Officer who has responsibility for making conflict of interest determinations. The information and determinations will be filed in the specific contract files as the official record of the Agency decision. Many respondents will prepare their submissions utilizing a computer with specialized software. Submissions are accepted in any format so long as the required information is provided. The Agency will utilize various software programs to monitor contractor activity and compliance.

( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY Only the minimum information necessary to ensure that conflicts of interest do not exist is requested. Because the information requested is vital to monitoring contractor performance under Agency contracts, separate or simplified procedures cannot be developed for small businesses. 6 EPA considered alternatives to the information collection, such as establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or simplifying the requirements for small entities. EPA also considered exempting small entities from all or part of the rule. However separate or further simplified requirements are not practical, because the stated objectives cannot be met under such alternatives. An undisclosed conflict of interest poses the same risk to EPA whether it is a conflict involving a large or small business contractor. EPA believes the information collection, along with other established internal controls within the Agency, will prevent conflicts of interest that may jeopardize future actions.

Although the information collection requirements for small and large business are the same, we anticipate that the burden will be less for small businesses because they generally have less complex organizational structures and less data to maintain and search than large businesses.

It is estimated that, currently, approximately 75 small entities are performing contracts and subcontracts covered by this collection. It is impossible to estimate the number of small businesses that ultimately will receive EPA Superfund contracts or serve as subcontractors or consultants under these contracts, and thereby be affected by this rule.

( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE AND EFFECT OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION This information collection requires contractors to certify, either when work assignments are received or on an annual basis, that no conflicts of interest exist or that all such conflicts have been disclosed.

The annual certification provision requires contractors to certify that no conflicts of interest exist or that all have been reported. This is a minimal requirement necessary to ensure that contractors are complying with our disclosure requirements in order that we may protect the Superfund program from conflicts that may jeopardize our contract and enforcement actions.

Regarding work assignment certification, the collection does not require a set schedule for the notification of conflicts and certification regarding disclosure. Instead, the collection requires disclosure of conflicts and certification of no conflicts on a work assignment basis. Contractors are already required to report all conflicts.

This requirement for reporting on a work assignment basis is essential because most Superfund contracts are performed at multiple sites and there is little or no advance notice of where such work will be assigned because of our changing cleanup priorities. Therefore, a contractor is in a better position to identify his conflicts or potential contracts when a work assignment is placed compared to when the contract is awarded. We are unable to further reduce this requirement without handicapping our ability to ensure that the Superfund program is not vulnerable to conflicts of interest that may impair the objectivity of our contractors, hamper effective cost recovery from polluters, or prejudice enforcement actions. 7 There is also no set schedule for submission of requests for authorization to enter into a contract for non EPA work cited in the " Limitation of Future Contracting Clause". This clause identifies outside work that could pose a significant conflict of interest with work performed for EPA and may impair EPA contractor performance or harm enforcement actions. These requests are required to be submitted if and when a contractor wants to request authorization to enter into such high risk contracts. Such requests are essential in order that EPA has the opportunity to protect its enforcement actions from an unacceptable risk of prejudice before it occurs. This is essential to protecting the Superfund program.

5. NONDUPLICATION. CONSULTATIONS & OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ( a) NONDUPLICATION The collection of information is not duplicative of information otherwise accessible to the Agency. The data is unique to each contract assignment and is not available from any other source. EPA provisions have the same general objectives of identifying, mitigating and avoiding conflicts of interest as FAR Subpart 9.5. Note: The concept of potential conflicts is well established in acquisition regulations. It is included in FAR Subpart 9.5 which also provides examples of situations involving potential conflicts of interest.

However, unlike the FAR, the EPA provisions include reporting and certification requirements to ensure that actual and potential conflicts of interest are reviewed not only prior to contract award, but also during the period of contract performance and after contract performance to ensure enforcement actions are not prejudiced. It is only in this way that EPA can evaluate whether a contractor's work efforts, which may be initiated during the EPA contract performance period or in some cases, after contract completion, may present an unacceptable risk to the Agency.

( b) CONSULTATIONS For the establishment of this ICR in 1994, informal consultations were conducted with seven potential respondents who currently hold Superfund contracts. The firms contacted were:

Name Phone Affiliation M. Mathamel ( 703) 968 0900) Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., W. Hockersmith ( 303) 951 2336) Ecology and Environment, Inc. G. Galager ( 716) 684 8060) Roy F. Weston, Inc. T. Connery ( 202) 646 6889) NUS Corporation P. Clay ( 703) 522 8802) Ebasco Services, Inc. R. Fellman ( 703) 358 8946) ICF, Inc. 8 Each of the respondents recognized the Agency's need to collect the requested information and confirmed that the information collected is not generated solely to respond to this information collection activity, but rather, much of it is normally generated in customary and usual business practices.

( c) CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS Some of the information submitted in response to our information request may be considered confidential. Confidential Business Information will be protected from release, and will be disclosed only to the extent consistent with prudent business practices, confidentiality regulation 40 CFR 2.201, and other current regulations.

This information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1978 and 0MB Circular A 108, as revised and incorporated into 0MB Circular A 130. We have identified no sensitive questions.

( d) Public notice required prior to ICR Submission to OMB: The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments in this collection of information was published on May 1, 2000. No comments were received.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ( a) ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COSTS ( i) General Notes Respondent burden in complying with the COI information collection is broken down into the following five tasks. Each task will be separately addressed in the narrative, and the all tasks will be summarized in table at the end of this section:

1. Prepare Conflict of Interest Plan ( one time burden) 2. Create Data Base ( one time burden) 3. Storage and Maintenance of Records ( recurring burden) 4. Search Data Base Records for Possible COI ( recurring burden) 5. Identify Potential COI, Record Decision, and Notify EPA of the Decision. ( recurring burden)

As indicated, tasks 1 and 2 above represent one time efforts on the part of respondents. Tasks 3, 4, and 5 are ongoing and represent the continuing burden to respondents under this collection.

Inasmuch as this is the second renewal of the information collection request on conflict of interest data, and EPA has collected COI information for the past 6 years, most 9 EPA contractors have already implemented system changes and developed a conflict of interest plan. Many of the one time costs/ burdens discussed in previous clearance requests have been allocated to earlier time periods and are no longer relevant to this renewal. Still other one time costs, such as COI plan development ( task 1), and creation of a database ( task 2), were discussed in prior requests and continue to apply to year one of this request. EPA's initial request for information collection clearance, which was submitted six years ago, utilized a seven year period to allocate one time, non recurring costs associated with COI plan development and database creation. The seven year period was chosen because most Agency Superfund contracts average seven years. Now that six years out of the seven have passed, and burden hours for the first six years were covered in EPA's initial clearance and first renewal, only one year of the original allocation of one time costs remains and is applicable to this request. After one year, any burden associated with tasks 1 and 2 will only be incurred by new contractors and subcontractors who have not had a prior contract with EPA.

The customary and usual business practices ( CBP) in this ICR are based on knowledge of the business practices of anticipated respondents and from a review of information received from Superfund contractors ( potential respondents) who provided data in response to our consultations. In our burden calculations, the CBP is subtracted from the overall total burden to show the new estimated burden anticipated for this requirement. The calculations for CBP are described below for each category of effort.

EPA anticipates that any cost incurred in complying with this information collection request will be chargeable to Government contracts under the provisions of FAR Part 31.

( ii) Labor Costs ( I) Prepare Conflict of Interest ( COI) Plan. ( Non recurring one time effort) In it's intimal request, EPA estimated 1,170 hours per plan as a non recurring one time cost, because once contractors have prepared a COI Plan, it will only be necessary to update and/ or modify it. As previously discussed, these 1170 hours were allocated over a seven year period, six of which were covered under previous clearances. Therefore, a total 168 hours remain from the original estimate. We applied a CPB factor of 50%, resulting in 84 burden hours directly attributable to this collection. The 84 hours are allocated among labor categories in the same manner as the original hours: 25% Management, 50% Technical, and 25% Clerical.

Additionally, we continue to utilize the estimate of 1,170 hours per plan for any new contractors and subcontractors who have not previously done business with EPA, and the original CBP of 50%. This results in an estimate of 585 hours for 15 10 respondents, or a total of 8775 hours. In order to allocate the 8775 hours across the original 150 respondents plus the projected 15 new respondents, we have divided the 8775 hours by 165 to arrive at an average 53 hours per respondent.

BURDEN: 84 hours + 53 hours = 137 hours ( 2) Create Data Base. ( Non recurring one time effort) Our estimate of 700 hours reflects EPA's best estimate based on information received from respondents. The CPB for this line item is 80%, resulting in total hours of 140. This line item is also a non recurring one time burden, and as with task one above, six of the original seven burden years have elapsed, and of the original 140 hours attributable to this task, 20 remain chargeable to this collection request.

Also, as described in task 1 above, the Agency anticipates approximately 15 new contractors or subcontractors to fall under the COI rules in any given year. Therefore, our estimate includes 140 hours per response for new respondents. This equates to 140 hours times 15 respondents or 2100 hours. In order to allocate the 2100 hours across all 165 respondents, we have divided 2100 by 165 to arrive at 13 hours per response.

BURDEN: 20 hours + 13 hours = 33 hours ( 3) Storage and Maintenance of Records. The estimate of 1,100 hours reflects EPA's best estimate based on information received from respondents. The CBP for this line item is 80% and reflects the observation that contractors maintain records pertaining to conflict of interest in conjunction with their private work. Therefore, a total of 220 hours of storage and maintenance of records activity is associated with this collection request.

BURDEN: 220 hours ( 4) Search Data Base Records for Possible COI This total burden estimate is based on the assumptions that an average EPA contractor will process approximately 75 work assignments per year, and contractors who do not have three years of records to search will require less effort than those who do have three years of records to search. It is also estimated that of the 75 work assignments issued, approximately 16% will be for the same site in which a previous work assignment has been issued under the contract. Therefore, the total burden estimate for searching data base records is based on an average of 63 work assignments ( 75 less 16% = 63). The average time required to perform each search is estimated to be 14 hours. The estimate of 14 hours covers data base 11 search time, including querying of contractor project staff as well as records. This search time estimate is based upon information received from respondents, observations of contractors' conflict of interest systems and other observations.

The CBP for this line item is 25% and reflects the ratio of work from private clients versus work assignments received from EPA, based on information from respondents and other observations and is unchanged from the original estimate. Therefore, the hours associated with this collection request for data base searches is 10.5 hours ( 14 25%).

BURDEN: 10.5 x 63 = 662 hours ( 5) Identify Potential COI, Record Decision. Execute Work Assignment or the Annual Certification. and Notify the EPA of the Decision. This category reflects the management and technical activity in the search and certification effort that a contractor must perform. At the direction of the contracting officer, the contractor is required to submit either a one time certification or individual work assignment certifications. Additionally, as discussed earlier, after the initial certification, work assignments to be performed at the same site do not require further certification.

As discussed directly above, each contractor receives approximately 75 work assignments per year. We estimate that in 17.5% of cases, or 13 of the 75 work assignments, only an annual certification is required. We estimate that completion of an annual certification will take 40 hours. Second, in 69.1% of cases, or 52 of the work assignments, work assignment certifications are required. We estimate that completion of a work assignment certification will take 6.39 hours Finally, in the remaining 13.4%, or 10 work assignments, no certification is required, because these work assignments will be for work at sites where there has been a previous certification.

The CBP factor for this task is very low because most of this effort is associated solely with EPA requirements. The estimate of 10% for CBP is associated with an identification of a conflict of interest on a private contract which requires management attention but may not require the documentation and certification process required by EPA.

BURDEN: 13 x 40 = 520 52 x 6.39 = 332.28 852.28 hours x .90 = 767.05 hours ( 6) Approval to Contract. The estimate utilized is identical to that provided in the ICR for the proposed rule and for previous renewals. It is based upon an average estimate of five requests per respondent per year with an associated effort of 30 12 hours per request, or 150 hours per respondent. This review and approval time has remained fairly constant over the years, and is not expected to change during the three year period covered by this renewal. This is exclusively a requirement for the EPA and therefore no CBP is assigned.

BURDEN: 150 hours The Annual Respondent Burden is summarized as follows:

Collection Activity Burden Hours Mgmt. Tech. Cler. Hrs. Cost 25% 50% 25% $ 87.50 $ 43.70 $ 24.00 Task I  Prepare COI Plan 34.25 68.5 34.25 137 $ 2,975 $ 2,993 $ 822 $ 6,790 Task 2  Create Data Base 8.25 16.5 8.25 33 $ 722 $ 721 $ 198 $ 1,641 Task 3  Storage and Maintenance 55 110 55 220 of Records $ 4,813 $ 4,807 $ 1,320 $ 10,940 Task 4  Search Data Base Records 165.5 331 165.5 662 for possible COI $ 14,481 $ 14,465 $ 3,972 $ 32,918 Task 5  Identify Potential COI, 192 383 192 767 Record Decision, Certify, Notify $ 16,800 $ 16,737 $ 4,608 $ 38,145 Task 6  Approval to Contract 37.5 75 37.5 150 $ 3,281 $ 3,278 $ 900 $ 7,459 TOTAL 1969 $ 97,893 Total annual respondent burden: 1969 hours X 165 responses = 324, 885 hours ii) Capital/ Start up Costs Because it will not be necessary for respondents to acquire any capital goods to provide the requested information, EPA has estimated no incurred capital/ start up costs.

( iii) Operating and Maintenance Costs operating and maintenance costs, which include such items as file storage, photo copying, and postage, are negligible. 13 ( b) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST The Agency based it burden estimates on actual experience in collecting, reviewing, approving, and storing this data over the past 6 years. Hours are annual hours, and are not presented on a per response basis. Although the number of respondents is expected to increase by 15 from 150 to 165, the Agency burden hours should remain constant as improvements in the automated database, and efficiencies in reviewing the information are expected to compensate for the increased number of respondents.

The table below indicates the allocation of Agency burden hours to various labor categories/ grades. Hourly rates were calculated as follows:

 for Grade 14 contracting personnel, an hourly rate of $ 35.85 ( midpoint on GS 14 schedule) multiplied by a factor of 1.16 to account for benefits, was utilized for estimating purposes. This results in a loaded hourly rate of $ 41.59.

 for Grade 12 contracting personnel, an hourly rate of $ 25.50 ( midpoint on GS 12 schedule) multiplied by a factor of 1.16 to account for benefits, was utilized for estimating purposes. This results in a loaded hourly rate of $ 29.58.

 for Grade 05 clerical personnel, an hourly rate of $ 11.60 ( midpoint on GS 05 schedule) multiplied by a factor of 1.16 to account for benefits, was utilized for estimating purposes. This results in a loaded hourly rate of $ 13.46.

ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES Collection Activity Burden Hours/ yr Hrs. Costs GS 14 GS 12 GS 05 $ 41.59 $ 29.58 $ 13.46 1. Answer Respondent Questions 100 400 0 500 $ 4,159 $ 11,832 $ 15,991 2. Audit Review Data 20 1000 0 1,020 $ 832 $ 29,580 $ 30,412 3. Record/ Enter Respondent Submissions 0 50 1,000 1,050 $ 1,479 $ 13,460 $ 14,939 4. Analyze Requests for Confidentiality 5 25 5 35 Provide Appropriate Protection $ 208 $ 740 $ 67 $ 1,015 5. Reformat and Distribute the Data 0 100 5 105 $ 2,958 $ 67 $ 3,025 14 6. Store the Data 0 100 1,000 1,100 $ 2,958 $ 13,460 $ 16,418 TOTAL: 125 1,675 2,010 3,810 $ 5,199 $ 49,547 $ 27,054 $ 81,800 c) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN The last information collection clearance request approved by OMB contained 207,450 hours for 150 responses. This request estimates 324,885 burden hours for 165 responses. Overall, the respondent burden has increased by 117,435 hours. This increase is due to changes in the methodology for calculation of burden. There are also smaller adjustments in the time required to complete and review each submission. There are no program changes or increases in the quantity of information requested.

d) BURDEN STATEMENT Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average1969 hours per respondent based on total projected burden hours ( 324,885) divided by the number of anticipated respondents ( 165).

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1550.05 and OMB control number 2030 0023 in any correspondence.

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


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27548]
[DOCID:fr16my07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-438-000]

Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC
(DOMAC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1, Twenty-Third Revised Sheet No. 94 and Fourth
Revised Sheet No. 94A, to become effective as of June 1, 2007.
    DOMAC states that the purpose of this filing is to record
semiannual changes in DOMAC's Index of Customers.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not 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 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9318 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63228-63229]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-P-0503]

Determination That Potassium Citrate, 10 Milliequivalents/Packet
and 20 Milliequivalents/Packet, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons
of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that
Potassium Citrate, 10 milliequivalents/packet (mEq/packet) and 20 mEq/
packet, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated
new drug applications (ANDAs) for Potassium Citrate, 10 mEq/packet and
20 mEq/packet, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Jong, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, rm. 6224, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate

versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    Potassium Citrate, 10 mEq/packet and 20 mEq/packet, is the subject
of NDA 19-647, held by Nova-K LLC, and initially approved on October
13, 1988. Potassium Citrate is indicated for the management of renal
tubular acidosis with calcium stones, hypocitraturic calcium oxalate
nephrolithiasis of any etiology, and uric acid lithiasis with or
without calcium stones.
    Potassium Citrate, 10 mEq/packet and 20 mEq/packet, is currently
listed in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange
Book. Nomax, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated April 18, 2013
(Docket No. FDA-2013-P-0503), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the
Agency determine whether Potassium Citrate, 10 mEq/packet and 20 mEq/
packet, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency
records, and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has
determined under Sec.  314.161 that Potassium Citrate, 10 mEq/packet
and 20 mEq/packet, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other
information suggesting that Potassium Citrate, 10 mEq/packet and 20
mEq/packet, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We
have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal
of Potassium Citrate, 10 mEq/packet and 20 mEq/packet, from sale. We
have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for
possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information
that would indicate that this product was withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list Potassium Citrate, 10
mEq/packet and 20 mEq/packet, in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List''
section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List''
delineates, among other items, drug products that have been
discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to Potassium Citrate, 10 mEq/packet and
20 mEq/packet, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all
other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If
FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to
meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to
submit such labeling.

    Dated: October 3, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-24780 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70253-70256]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0208]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 20 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 10, 2016. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0208 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting

material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 20 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Randal D. Aukes

    Mr. Aukes, 57, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400.
Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``In my
professional medical opinion I believe Randal Aukes has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Aukes reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35
years, accumulating 35,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
35 years, accumulating 3.85 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Joseph A. Baker

    Mr. Baker, 37, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016,
his optometrist stated, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Baker has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Baker reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 13 years, accumulating 650 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 13 years, accumulating 1.95 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Keith D. Blackwell

    Mr. Blackwell, 59, has had glaucoma in his right eye due to a
retinal detachment since 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``I certify that in my medical
opinion, Mr [sic] Blackwell has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Blackwell
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating
20,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years,
accumulating 3.36 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Gerald D. Bowser

    Mr. Bowser, 62, has had a macular scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1966. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated, ``I feel Gerald is more than capable to drive a
commercial vehicle efficiently concerning his visual capability.'' Mr.
Bowser reported that he has driven straight trucks for 43 years,
accumulating 645,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10
years, accumulating 250,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Kathy J. Brown

    Ms. Brown, 55, has had amblyopia in her right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in her right eye is 20/300, and in her left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2016, her optometrist stated,
``Visually evaluated I feel that this patient is able to perform the
tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle due to the full
visual field in each eye and ability to achieve 20/20-1 in the left
eye'' Ms. Brown reported that she has driven straight trucks for 4
years, accumulating 50,000 miles. She holds an operator's license from
Ohio. Her driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Louis J. Cullen, Jr.

    Mr. Cullen, 71, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in 1968. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
25, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``I believe Mr. Cullen has sufficient
vision to perform his job and driving tasks required to drive a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Cullen reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 50 years, accumulating 15,000 miles, buses for 10 years,
accumulating 15,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Edwin P. Davis

    Mr. Davis, 49, has corneal scarring in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2016, his optometrist stated, ``Based on these test results, it is my
opinion that Mr. Davis possesses sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Davis
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating
429,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years,
accumulating 660,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, to which he did
not contribute and for which he was not cited, and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Timothy J. Dougherty

    Mr. Dougherty, 55, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``Based on this it is my professional opinion that Mr. Dougherty has
adequate activities to visually perform the driving tasks to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Dougherty reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 40,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating 52,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Stephen R. Ehlenburg

    Mr. Ehlenburg, 54, has complete loss of vision in his left eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``He has sufficient vision to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Ehlenburg reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 300,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 1.05 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from

Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Stanley W. Goble, Jr.

    Mr. Goble, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
60. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``I
certify that it is my medical opinion that Mr. Goble has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Goble reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 22 years, accumulating 1.43 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

William R. Guida

    Mr. Guida, 60, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/15.
Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``I believe
that William has sufficient vision to perform any driving task required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Guida reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 7,500 miles. He holds
an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Thomas H. Gysbers

    Mr. Gysbers, 63, has had central vision loss in his left eye due to
glaucoma in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated, ``I believe he is well adapted to his vision
condition and has sufficient vision to safely operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Gysbers reported that he has driven straight trucks for
40 years, accumulating 600,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 40 years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCDM CDL
from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jerry L. Hayden, Jr.

    Mr. Hayden, Jr., 46, had optic neuritis in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2016,
his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion Jerry has stable and sufficient
vision that is unchanged over the past 11 years to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Hayden reported that he has driven straight trucks for
22 years, accumulating 220,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Iowa.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

John T. Mabry

    Mr. Mabry, 45, has had chronic microcystic edema and aphakia in his
left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20,
and in his left eye, count fingers. Following an examination in 2016,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``Mr. Mabry meets the visual requirements
for operation of a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Mabry reported that he has
driven buses for 3 years, accumulating 312,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Peter E. McDonnell

    Mr. McDonnell, 52, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to a traumatic incident in 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``This letter certifies
that Peter meets or exceeds the visual requirements needed to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McDonnell reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 480,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Massachusetts. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

George P. Mendiola

    Mr. Mendiola, 49, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left
eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``In my medical opinion, George has sufficient vision to perform
driving tasks needed to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Mendiola
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating
270,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years,
accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Norman D. Mosely

    Mr. Mosely, 57, has had a central retinal vein occlusion in his
right eye since 2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and
in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2016, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical opinion his visual acuity and
field of vision qualifies him to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Mosely reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years,
accumulating 110,000 miles, buses for 19 years, accumulating 320,000
miles. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Joe W. Restine

    Mr. Restine, 53, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in 1945. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``I, Ed Jones O.D., certify that in my
medical opinion, Joe Restine, has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Restine
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 34 years, accumulating
850,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 32 years, accumulating
160,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Oklahoma. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and 1 conviction
for a moving violation in a CMV; he failed to yield to a traffic
control device.

Greg D. Schneckloth

    Mr. Schneckloth, 24, has complete loss of vision in his right eye
since 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception,
and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Scneckloth has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a motorized
vehicle, including commercial vehicles, as long as the current laws
state that he may do so considering the loss of vision in his right eye
(if the vision loss does not cause any exclusion of operating
rights).'' Mr. Schneckloth reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 3 years, accumulating 31,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Allen J. Stolz

    Mr. Stolz, 48, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``His
main problem is amblyopia in the right eye. . .In my opinion, Mr.

Stolz should be able to get his commercial license.'' Mr. Stolz
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 1 year, accumulating
1,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years,
accumulating 216,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCDM CDL from Wisconsin.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2016-0208 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search. When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2016-0208 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

     Issued on: September 29, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-24447 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 86 (Friday, May 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 21223]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-178-000; PF14-21-000]

Alaska Gasline Development Corporation; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 17, 2017, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), Suite 200, 3201 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99503,
filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section
3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for its proposed Alaska LNG Project.
Specifically, AGDC proposes: (i) A liquefaction facility designed to
produce up to 20 million metric tons per annum of liquefied natural
gas; (ii) an approximately 807-mile, 42-inch-diameter pipeline with a
peak day capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet per day; (iii) a gas
treatment plant; (iv) an approximately one-mile, 60-inch-diameter
pipeline; (v) an approximately 63-mile, 32-inch-diameter pipeline; and
(vi) eight compressor stations, all within the State of Alaska, all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Frank
T. Richards, P.E., Senior V.P., Program Management, Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation, Suite 200, 3201 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska
99503, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Howard L. Nelson and Kenneth M. Minesinger, Greenberg Traurig, 2001
L Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20037 by telephone at (202)
331-3163 and<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    On September 12, 2014, Commission staff granted AGDC's request to
utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-21-000 to
staff activities involved in the Alaska LNG Project. Now, as of April
17, 2017 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has
ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in
Docket No. CP17-178-000, as noted in the caption of the Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will issue a Notice
of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for this proposal. The
issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to
notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of
all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 22, 2017.

    Dated: May 1, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09118 Filed 5-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P