United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Superfund Division 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco, Ca. 94105 Technical Support Document for Agency Information Collection Activities Proposed Collection and Comments Request;

2001 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) and Risk Management Program ( RMP) Implementation Status Questionnaire for Tribal Emergency Response Commissions ( TERCs) and Their Duly Appointed Local Emergency Planning Committee( s)( LEPCs) EPA ICR No. 2004.01 March 5, 2001 Prepared by Sam Agpawa EPCRA Planning Superfund Division Reviewed by Mary Wesling CEPP Enforcement Superfund Division TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: 0 SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Title and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Regulatory Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Collection Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2: 0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Agency Functions and the GPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Utility of The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 Program Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3: 0 COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB. . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3.4 Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5 Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6 Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4: 0 THE RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1 Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2 Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5: 0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1 Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2 Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3 Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4 Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6: 0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1 Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2 Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6.3 Agency Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.4 Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.5 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.6 Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.7 Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 CHARTS AND TABLE 2.1 Key Areas of Information and Related Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 6.1 Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2 Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6.3 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ( Respondents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 6.4 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ( EPA/ Contractors) . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ATTACHMENT 2001 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) and Risk Management Program ( RMP) Implementation Status Questionnaire for Tribal Emergency Response Commissions ( TERCs) and Their Duly Appointed Local Emergency Planning Committee( s) ( LEPCs) EPA ICR No. 2004.01. 1 1: 0 SCOPE 1.1 Title and Identification 2001 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) and Risk Management Program ( RMP) Implementation Status Questionnaire for Tribal Emergency Response Commissions ( TERCs) and Their Duly Appointed Local Emergency Planning Committee( s)( LEPCs) EPA ICR No. 2004.01.

1.2 Regulatory Background ( a) In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C 3501 et seq.) and the Government Performance and Results Act 1993 ( GPRA), this document provides the rationale supporting U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's intent to submit the following proposed Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: 2001 EPCRA and RMP Implementation Status Questionnaire for Tribal Emergency Response Commissions, EPA ICR No. 2004.01. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA will solicit public comments during a sixty ( 60) day period on specific aspects of the proposed information collection.

( b) The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 ( EPCRA) and Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act, 1990, Section 112( r) and 40 CFR Part 68, June 20, 1996, introduced fundamental changes in the regulation of chemical facilities and the prevention of and preparedness for chemical accidents. These laws and rules seek to improve emergency preparedness and reduce the risk of chemical accidents by providing information to citizens about the chemicals in their community. EPCRA is premised on the concept that the more informed local citizens are about chemical hazards in their communities, the more involved they will be in prevention and preparedness activities. To be effective, the public must receive accurate and reliable information, which is easy to understand and practical to use. EPCRA, in conjunction with RMP requirements, sought to create partnerships between all levels of Federal, State, Tribal and Local governments and industry to identify, plan, and prepare for hazardous risks in all communities, including those on tribal lands, reservations, " rancherias" and colonies.

( c) Section 112( r) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 1990, also mandates that EPA promulgate a list of regulated substances. Coupled with that listing, Section 112( r) requires EPA to promulgate regulations and develop guidance to prevent, detect and respond to accidental releases. Stationary Sources ( petrochemical, power generating and other types of facilities) covered by these regulations must develop and implement a risk management program that includes a hazard assessment, a prevention program and an emergency response program. It is the development of the latter that is of vital importance to all tribal communities as well as the public at large.

1.3 Collection Abstract 1 . The resulting questionnaire, with minor modifications, is similar to an earlier EPA survey distributed to state SERCs and LEPCs within EPA Region IX ( as described in Federal Register Notice, FRL 6341 7, May 14, 1999, Page 26405).

2 The EPA Region IX Superfund Division proposes to conduct a Regional survey of the Tribal Emergency Response Commissions ( TERCs) and their duly appointed Local emergency Planning Committees ( LEPCs). The information collected in this survey will be used to assess the progress, status, resources and activity level of EPA Region IX Tribes' implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) and Risk Management Program ( RMP)( as required in the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as amended 1990, Section 112( r)).

The Commissions and Committees and other emergency planning organizations involved in this survey represent Federally recognized Indian tribes, reservations, " rancherias", and colonies, each of which may be considered a " small entity".

EPA will make every effort to minimize the " burden on persons who shall provide information." This will be accomplished by ensuring that the questionnaire is as concise as practicable, that the instructions clarify the respondent's burden, and that the survey questions are simple to answer. Agency and Respondents financial burdens are delineated in Section 6.0.

The intended survey questionnaire was initially designed by a voluntary Regional Tribal Operational Committee ( RTOC) workgroup ( whose members are representative of tribes in EPA Region 9 and the EPA). It is comprised of seven ( 7) members, five ( 5) members from Region IX Tribes and two ( 2) members from the EPA. 1 Although the survey's concept, content and format was reviewed and approved by the designers and conductors of the survey, the Regional Tribal Operational Committee reviewed the format and content on October 25, 2000 including:

( i) the purpose of the survey; the practicality of obtaining the information; and the usefulness of the information sought;

( ii) an evaluation of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to estimate the burden;

( iii) the potential success in minimizing the burden of collecting information from the respondents, including 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.

EPCRA, in conjunction with RMP requirements, sought to create partnerships between all levels of Tribal, Federal, State and Local governments and industry to identify, plan, and prepare for 2 Within EPA, responsibility for local program implementation lies under EPCRA primarily with the State and local offices. Because tribes have the same responsibility under EPCRA , EPA must supply the tribes with the same support in implementation of their respective programs.

3 hazardous materials risks in the communities, including those on tribal lands, reservations, " rancherias" and colonies. Tribal Emergency Preparedness Commissions ( TERCs) were created which are responsible for establishing Local Emergency Planning Commissions ( LEPCs). These entities have the responsibility for informing the public ( under EPCRA) and managing preparedness plans ( RMP).

To determine the progress, status, resources and activity level of these partnerships, the EPA, Region IX, Superfund Division, proposes to conduct a Regional survey of the Tribal Emergency Response Commissions and their duly appointed Local Emergency Planning Committees and the level of EPA Region IX Tribes' actual implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) and Risk Management Programs ( RMP) ( as required in the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as amended 1990, Section 112( r)).

EPA's role is to provide guidance and assistance to the tribal communities, their Tribal Emergency Preparedness Commissions, and to emergency responders. In keeping with EPA's Tribal Trust Responsibility, EPA has provided technical, programmatic and legal support to various tribes. In particular, EPA Region IX has provided training to the Region's tribal emergency planning and response programs and continues to support a variety of EPCRA and RMP related projects initiated by several tribal communities as part of the General Assistance Programs ( GAP) and other grant programs.

The primary goals of the research effort described within this Notice are to: ( 1) canvas all the TERCs within EPA Region IX 2 representing one hundred and forty five tribes; ( 2) identify and measure the progress of the TERCs, the LEPCs and other tribal or cooperative emergency response parties with the development of their EPCRA programs; and ( 3) document and review current practices and preferences regarding important issues including accident prevention efforts, effectiveness of selected EPA Region IX services and sharing of information and practices between the tribes.

The survey focuses on key elements and measures that are indicators of program development and adequacy. These include information management, reporting, training, accessibility of information for " right to know" and participation in industry and community awareness programs. Respondents are urged to express their ideas for improving their programs. EPA will offer support in evaluating which ideas should be pursued based on practicality and economic feasibility.

Tribes will be cautioned that responses can be made only on documents which carry a current and valid Control Number issued by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB). OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations and notices are listed in the Code of Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 4 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2.1 Agency Functions and the GPRA A function of EPA is to serve as a clearinghouse for information regarding successes and assessments regarding the various programs among tribal agencies. This will facilitate the rapid dissemination of information and reduce duplication of effort.

The Government Performance and Results Act ( GPRA) stipulates that agencies focus on evaluating the outputs and outcomes of their program activities. The survey enables EPA Region IX to implement major GPRA goals. These goals, set out below, emphasize local program implementation rather than national level activities:

° Better emergency response; ° Expansion of the American right to know doctrine; ° Assured compliance with the law.

EPA implements these goals and objectives indirectly, by providing technical assistance, training, enforcement actions and grant monies. To better determine how to spend these resources, it is necessary for EPA to assess the conditions of the tribal programs, on an ongoing basis, through the use of surveys.

Targeting improvements in EPA's resource allocation to the most needy jurisdictions will enable EPA to achieve its goals and objectives under GPRA.

2.2 Utility of the Data EPA Region IX will be the primary user of the data proposed to be collected. EPA Region IX will use the data for three purposes:

° Determining the EPCRA program priorities of Region IX; ° Achieving EPA's goals and objectives under GPRA; and ° Facilitating the transfer of information among tribes, states and local agencies.

2.3 Program Priorities. EPA has five types of resources to offer to its EPCRA partners:

° Staff skills, knowledge and experiences ° Contractors ° Training ° Enforcement activities 5 ° Grants The survey covers six key areas of information regarding Tribal and local programs:

Subject Area Questions General Tribal and Program Vigor 1 19 Public Outreach Needs 20 24 Data Management Needs 25 30,31 37 Enforcement and Compliance Needs 38 43,57 68 Training and Resource Needs 44 51 Information Transfer 52 56 Chart 2.1 Key Areas of Information and Related Questions Based on the survey responses, EPA will be able to identify those tribes that have the greatest need for EPA support in the following areas:

° General program development ° Establishing and delivering training programs for tribal agencies, business and the public ° Data management systems and data quality verification ° Compliance assistance and enforcement programs ° Personnel, training and financial resources The survey results will be entered into a database, reported out by individual question, and classified according to tribes served by the EPA based on population. Each Tribe's answers will be reviewed by EPA program staff for the Agency's use.

Tribal contact information provided in response to the survey will be used to update Region IX's EPCRA contacts directory. All survey results will be summarized and distributed to all participants, without identifying individual responders.

The entire population of TERCs will be surveyed. Therefore, statistical inferences are not expected to be used to make generalizations. Reports derived from this information collection will include all tribes that respond to the survey.

3.0 COLLECTION CRITERIA 6 3.1 Nonduplication A primary goal of the survey is to measure program implementation. The proposed survey is unique. The information is not available from any other source; the tribal respondents are the only known source for the information. Because of EPA's role in supporting the Tribes in their EPCRA and RMP programs, and the working relationships that have been established , it is anticipated that the Agency can be relatively successful in conducting the proposed survey.

3.2 Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submissions to OMB In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( § 3501 et seq.), EPA solicited comments on this Information Collection Request. A Federal Register ( FR) notice for the 2001 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know ACT ( EPCRA) and Risk Management Program ( RMP) Implementation Status Questionnaire for Tribal Emergency Response Commissions ( TERCs) and their duly appointed Local Emergency Planning Committees ( LEPCs) was published on January 10, 2001 ( FR 66 1975).

3.3 The Questionnaire EPA employed the following process:

( a) Federal Register Announcement As mentioned above, EPA Region IX published a notice of the proposed information collection in the Federal Register and there were no comments received during the 60 day public comment period.

( b) Consultations EPA Region IX, Inter agency Staff, the Regional Tribal Operations Committee, and an agency contractor were consulted in the development of this project:

Tribal Survey Working Group: Robert Ulibarri, Hoopa Tribe, California Michael Duarte, Pyramid Lake Paiute, Nevada Bessie Lee, Yurok Tribe, California Usha Little, Native American Environmental Coalition Marshall Chung, Twenty Nine Palms, California Regional Tribal Operations Committee Kristin Stephens 3 The TERC is a Tribal President appointed emergency planning organization whose members are drawn from the emergency response, environmental, and health fields. The LEPC is a local emergency planning organization whose members are drawn from governmental and nongovernmental backgrounds, including elected tribal officials, law enforcement, civil defense, firefighters, public health personnel, the media, community groups, and regulated facilities.

7 Science Applications International Corp., Inc.

3.4 Effects of Less Frequent Collection Not applicable; this is a one time collection.

3.5 Confidentiality The nature of the data being gathered as part of this information collection is not confidential; however, the Status Report will not identify individual responders. Only the identities of the participating jurisdictions and a summary of the compiled responses will be released.

3.6 Sensitive Questions The survey does not include any questions regarding sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs and other matters usually considered " private," nor does it violate any constitutional rights.

4.0 THE RESPONDENTS 4.1 Respondents The proposed information collection is directed at individuals who hold leadership positions in Tribal Government or within Tribal Emergency Response Commissions. It is anticipated that the majority of respondents will have positions in governmental bodies. 3 4.2 Information Requested ( a) Data items, including record keeping requirements The proposed collection seeks information about the status and activity level of TERCs, and LEPCs and their satisfaction with products and services provided by EPA Region IX. Typically, respondents will be asked for information such as:

1) For the year 2001 reporting period, approximately how many facilities submitted chemical inventory forms to your Tribal Emergency Response Commission? 2) How many residents live in your tribal land? 3) Does your jurisdiction have a local hazardous materials advisory group or task force? 4) How has your Tribal Emergency Response Commission made inventory 8 information available to members of the public? 5) Does your Tribal Emergency Response Commission charge a fee for public requests? 6) Approximately how many requests did your Tribal Emergency Response Commission receive in the year 2001 from members of the public for access to or release of chemical or toxic inventory information?

( See attached questionnaire for the complete survey.)

EPA Region IX will retain on file the survey, responses, analyses, and reports. This survey seeks to gauge status and activity level. Therefore, the survey should not require respondents to search existing records extensively or reformat information to submit to the Agency. There will be no public record keeping activities under this ICR.

( b) Respondent Activities The majority of respondent activity will involve answering a series of survey questions via a written response.

( c) Written Response Survey Process:

° Read instructions; ° Complete a questionnaire; ° Submit responses via U. S. mail.

5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED 5.1 Agency Activities Information collection activities performed under this ICR will require EPA engagement ( See Table 6.4) including:

° Develop/ design survey questionnaires; ° Assemble data sources for approximately 30 days prior to the distribution of the surveys ( e. g., mailing lists); ° 30 day internal review and approval of questionnaires prior to submission to OMB; ° Review results and draft reports for approximately 15 30 days after receiving completed surveys from respondents; 9 ° Set up a master respondent database 60 days prior to receiving completed surveys from respondents; ° Answer any respondent questions to the surveys within an administratively practicable period; ° Audit and review data submissions for approximately 15 30 days after receiving completed surveys from respondents; ° Immediately analyze requests for confidentiality and provide appropriate protection; and ° Disseminate, as appropriate, results and reports to interested parties ( internal and external) within an administratively practicable time frame.

EPA Region IX staff and the RTOC tribal workgroup have developed the survey with the assistance of a contractor. The contractor will conduct the survey. The contractor will compile survey data and provide a summary report ( which excludes respondent names) to EPA Region IX. EPA Region IX staff will review and approve the summary reports. These results will be included in accomplishment reports and GPRA reporting. As appropriate, EPA Region IX will share the results with interested parties including survey participants.

5.2 Collection Methodology and Management EPA Region IX will distribute the questionnaires to the tribal participants by U. S. Mail. The participants may respond electronically or return a hard copy to EPA Region IX via U. S. Mail. The contractor will contact by telephone the participants who have not responded within fifteen ( 15) days. EPA Region IX will respond to any questions that the participants have about the survey immediately. EPA Region IX will monitor the progress of the survey through frequent contact with and periodic progress reports from the contractor.

The contractor will ensure the accuracy and completeness of collected information by reviewing each survey submitted. EPA Region IX, in conjunction with the contractor, will enter the information submitted by the respondents into a database and aggregate the data obtained from these surveys to monitor the progress of respondents in this project. The database will only be accessible to EPA Region IX staff and the contractor. However, with the information taken from the database, EPA Region IX hopes to facilitate the transfer of information between EPA Region IX and Tribal/ local organizations. The contractor has pre tested the database to ensure its viability.

The collection of information will require minimal labor. The database collection program used to process the data will act to increase collection efficiency while providing the least amount of burden to respondents and the Agency.

The contractor will incorporate quality assurance and quality control ( QA/ QC) techniques to ensure data quality throughout the collection process. The costs of the QA/ QC processes are included in the agency burden and cost estimates in Section 6.3. 4 Refer to Section 5.2 for a more thorough explanation regarding collection methodology and management, and Section 6.4 for estimates of the respondent universe and total burden costs.

10 5.3 Small Entity Flexibility The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) requires that the EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that has a " significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." The survey is a non rule related ICR; therefore, the requirements under the RFA do not apply to this ICR.

In addition, the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996 must also be considered. 13 CFR Part 121 codifies the Small Business Administration's size eligibility provisions and standards. The proposed survey is targeted at tribal emergency planning organizations, each of which does not meet the definition of a " small government jurisdiction" in accordance with Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA); therefore, establishing differing requirements and/ or exemptions from coverage are not practicable. EPA Region IX has worked closely with RTOC which includes membership from each Tribe, in the development of the survey questions. 4 The perception of burden is inherently reduced because participation in this information collection is voluntary, which will be clearly stated at the beginning of the survey.

5.4 Collection Schedule Participants will be asked to respond to the survey within twenty one ( 21) calendar days after receipt. During the following nine ( 9) day period, the contractor will call the participants that have not responded in order to encourage a response. The survey will conclude thirty ( 30) days after the survey is initially mailed.

6.0: ESTIMATING THE BURDEN 6.1 Respondent Burden The survey is the least burdensome means of collecting needed information, and EPA Region IX determined the mail in questionnaire would be the best approach following consideration of other options:

° Conference or workshop  time consuming and usually expensive for participants ° Telephone survey  expensive, time consuming for collecting agency and subject to delays because of failure to contact respondent on " first try" ° Teleconferencing  complex setup, time consuming and participants must have access to specialized equipment ° Electronic survey  many tribes do not have access to adequate computer hardware. 11 In accordance with Federal Law, EPA Region IX is required to estimate any burden incurred by the respondents to maintain records, transmit or disclose information to parties other than the implementing agency, including the burden and costs that these third parties incur to maintain files or reroute the information that they receive. This survey will not burden any third parties; therefore, the only identification and estimate of burden rely on the voluntary response by each respondent.

The burden imposed on the participants is inherently reduced because participation is voluntary. This is clearly stated within the contents of the survey questionnaire. Also, any communications, including those made at any introductory events, will emphasize that participation is voluntary.

It is estimated that there will be one hundred and forty five ( 145) respondents to the EPCRA and RMP Implementation Status Questionnaire for Tribal Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees. EPA Region IX estimates a total response burden of two ( 2) hours per participant. As shown in Table 6.1 below, EPA is allowing for e mail responses at tribal discretion. To account for responses in excess of the estimate ( 20%), burden time of two hours is used throughout the projection regardless of the method chosen for responding.

Survey type Estimated number of respondents Estimated time in hours Estimated total time in hours Via email 29 ( 20%) 2.0 58 Written 116 ( 80%) 2.0 232 Totals 145 2.0 290 Table 6.1 Respondent Burden 6.2 Respondent Costs ( a) Labor Costs This is a non rule related ICR. Therefore, the costs of labor to perform functions related to the collection of information reflect the opportunity costs of labor ( i. e., labor rates based on employer costs, including fringe benefits such as paid leave, insurance benefits, unemployment insurance, Social Security and minimal overhead costs). Labor costs for responding is estimated at $ 28.00 per hour, based on the " Employer Cost for Employment Compensation" ( Bureau of Labor and Statistics ( BLS), March 1999). The labor cost is based on BLS's employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation for tribal and local government officials, by selected characteristics, which includes wages, salaries and fringe benefits. The BLS information presents data for the two major occupational groups in tribal and local governments; white collar occupations, largely professional occupations, service occupations and one major industry group, services. The service industries, which include health and educational services, employ a large part of the tribal and local government workforce. The BLS data 12 incorporates pretax cash wages, the implicit hourly value of fringe benefits, and the cost of overhead/ miscellaneous support.

There is no need for the respondent to develop, acquire or utilize technology systems for collecting, validating or verifying information, " adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previous applicable instructions or requirements," " training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information," nor a need for respondents to keep records. Burden activities include only a few steps: Reading instructions, reading survey questions, responding to survey questions, and if needed, supporting materials photocopied and attached to the survey. The average cost per respondent is estimated at $ 56.00.

Survey Type Total burden hours Cost per hour Total cost Number of respondents Cost per respondent via email 58 $ 28.00 $ 1,624.00 29 ( 20%) $ 56.00 Written 232 $ 28.00 $ 6,496.00 116 ( 80%) $ 56.00 Totals 290 $ 8,120.00 145 ( 100%) $ 56.00 Table 6.2 Respondent Costs ( b) Capital, Operations and Maintenance Costs The respondent needs no capital expenditures to complete the survey. Operating and maintenance ( O& M) costs are those costs associated with a paperwork requirement incurred continuously over the life of the ICR. The GPRA defines them as " the recurring dollar amount of cost associated with O& M or purchasing services." Because these surveys will not involve record keeping or annual responses recurring over the life of the ICR, there will be no annual O& M costs other than initial photocopying costs to provide Region IX with the minimal attachments asked for in the survey. It is estimated that clerical staff will be able to perform this function and the costs would not be more than a one time $ 5.00 O& M cost.

( c) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs No operating and maintenance costs ( ongoing non wage expenditures) are needed to complete the survey. In addition, there is not a requirement for any respondent to expend any start up capital to complete the survey.

( d) Annualizing Capital Costs Not applicable. There are no capital costs for the Tribal respondents.

6.3 Agency Burden and Cost 13 To perform EPA's activities for the survey, EPA Region IX estimates that 80 hours of one federal employee at the GS 13, Step 4 level will be needed, at an hourly wage of $ 52.85. This estimate is based on the 1999 General Services Annual Pay Schedule ( taken from the U. S. Office of Personnel Management, Locality Hourly Pay Table) divided by 2,080 hours per year and multiplied by 1.6 ( the standard government benefits multiplication factor). EPA Region IX estimates that the federal employee will work 4.6% of the employee's time on this project during the life of the survey ( 48 weeks) or approximately 88 hours ( 1,920 hours x .046), for an estimated cost to manage this project of $ 4,650.80.

A contractor will assist EPA in the survey. The budget period is for 12 months. Funding covers: Survey design and planning; development of sampling plans; data collection and processing; quality control of data; analyzing; reporting; and any additional miscellaneous/ overhead costs. EPA estimates that the contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, will require an estimated total of 183 hours at a fixed cost of $ 10,000.00 in order to perform these activities.

The total agency burden is $ 14,650.00.

6.4 Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Region IX estimates that 145 respondents will voluntarily respond to the survey at a total burden of 290 hours and a total cost of $ 8,120.00. EPA Region IX estimates 20% of the respondents will respond to the survey via electronic mail, and 80% are anticipated to respond via regular mail.

6.5 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ( a) Respondents Hours and Costs:

Survey Type Number of respondents Total burden hours Total cost via email ( 20%) 58 $ 1,624.00 Written ( 80%) 232 $ 6,496.00 Totals ( 100%) 380 $ 8,120.00 Table 6.3 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ( Respondents) 14 ( b) Agency's Hours and Costs:

Totals Labor Type Total Amount Labor Cost GS 13, Step 4 $ 4,650.80 Contractor 10,000.00 Totals $ 14,650.80 Table 6.4 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ( EPA/ Contractor)

6.6 Reasons for Change in Burden Not applicable.

6.7 Burden Statement Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average two ( 2) hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering information, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This estimate includes time to gather information, complete the survey and photocopy any attachments indicated in writing on the survey by the respondent.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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.

Send comments regarding the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden including the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 401 M St., S. W., 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 Information Collection Request ( ICR) number in any correspondence.


AU Walker, Joan Hustace

AT Harmony sought on global hazards communications.

CT Modern Paint and Coatings

DP Jul 1, 1997

DB General Reference Center Gold

   NPCA supports 'sorely needed' effort

   Harmonization among hazards communications, labels and Material Safety

   and Data Sheets (MSDS) "is sorely needed," according to a recent

   four-page letter from the National Paint and Coatings Association

   (NPCA) to the State Department's Office of Environmental Policy.

   NPCA's letter was in response to the State request for comments on its

   report of government activities involving international harmonization

   of chemical safety and health information.

   In its letter the NPCA stressed that, before global consistency could

   be attained, harmonization must begin on the domestic level. The

   letter, submitted June 2, was a "consolidation and harmonization" of

   NPCA members' comments, says Skip Edwards, NPCA manager of Safety and

   Health Affairs. Industry respondents are current members of one of the

   following NPCA committees: Hazardous Materials Transportation

   Compliance, Industrial Hygiene, Product Safety/Stewardship, and Hazard

   Communication.

   A Great Idea

   The State Department notice, published April 3 in the Federal

   Register, was filed by the Bureau of Oceans and International

   Environment and Scientific Affairs (OES) on behalf of an interagency

   work group. The group includes the EPA, OSHA, Consumer Product Safety

   Commission, Department of Transportation (DOT), Food and Drug

   Administration, and the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and

   Inspection Service.

   In general, industry respondents feel that improving international

   communication on the subject is "a great idea and they support it,"

   says Edwards. The respondents describe the current global regulatory

   state as "a difficult, if not impossible, compliance nightmare," he

   adds. The letter states that industry importers frequently have to

   "redo Asian or European labels and MSDS to meet U.S. regulations." It

   states that exporters often find it "difficult to obtain the laws and

   regulations of other countries, especially [those] involving chemical

   labeling and or required warning schemes."

   The NPCA's letter cited a recent final international harmonization

   rule, developed by DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration

   (RSPA), as "an example of what can and should be done." Patricia

   Klinger, RSPA spokesperson, says the rule, which became final May 6,

   closely follows the United Nations' recommendations for transportation

   of hazardous materials.

   "We did several things with [the new rule] but the bottom line is that

   it improves the safety of hazardous materials transportation for

   carriers, shippers and emergency response teams," says Klinger. She

   adds that the rule takes a "common sense approach" to materials

   handling. RSPA says the response to the new rule has been "very

   supportive."

   Domestic Issue

   The NPCA letter states that for international harmonization to work,

   the U.S. must first harmonize its rules and regulations domestically.

   The letter cites as problematic the lack of harmonization between the

   U.S. Hazard Communication Standard and state requirements, especially

   those of New Jersey, California and Pennsylvania as well as

   California's Proposition 65.

   "What hope of harmony do we have internationally with such countries

   as Mexico, the Asian Rim, Canada and Europe, if we can't harmonize

   domestically?" Edwards says. "I personally feel this effort is doomed

   to failure unless we can achieve a consistent interagency approach."

   In addition to the issues of domestic harmony, the NPCA letter

   highlighted several other concerns. These include:

   * Implementation of an international hazardous materials rule in the

   U.S. is estimated to take as long as seven to 10 years;

   * When developing appropriate hazard warnings for raw material

   components, industry needs to be able to maintain confidentiality for

   proprietary ingredients;

   * Changes to current systems of hazards communication could cost in

   the millions of dollars for some paint companies, with more

   significant changes such as converting to the 16-part MSDS, being even

   higher.

   RELATED ARTICLE: OSHA Approves California's Hazards Communication

   Standard

   Subject to certain conditions, OSHA approved California's hazards

   communication standard last month. The key conditions conform with the

   National Paint and Coatings Association's (NPCA) comments on the

   issue, and should help clarify much of the current ambiguity in

   Proposition 65, says NPCA.

   The organization says one condition for approval is that the hazards

   communication standard may not be enforced against out-of-state

   manufacturers. This is because state plans cannot be used to regulate

   out-of-state conduct.

   NPCA General Counsel Tom Graves says the federal ruling will

   "virtually eliminate the threat of bounty-hunter extortion suits

   against our out-of-state manufacturers for workplace warnings under

   OSHA law, and helps those operating plants in California to choose

   viable options for state and federal compliance." Other conditions

   are:

   * Employers in California can fulfill their obligations under

   Proposition 65 by complying with the federal or the OSHA hazard

   communication standard.

   * Cal/OSHA must assure that the California standard continues to

   provide worker protection "at least as effective" as the federal

   standard and remains consistent with the approval conditions.

   - J.H.W.

ZZ


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35027-35029]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0036]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 49 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on June 27, 2017. The exemptions
expire on June 27, 2019.

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 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/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., E.T., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    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.

II. Background

    On May 26, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 49 individuals and requested
comments from the public (82 FR 24438). The public comment period
closed on June 26, 2017, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 49 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 49 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 33 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two
or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each
case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the May 26, 2017, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within two business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 49 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3):

Craig L. Ambrose (GA)
Manuel R. Arciniega (NM)
Timothy D. Beardain (MS)
Tyler A. Benjamin (AL)
George Bonilla, Jr. (NY)
Stevenson Y. Brooks (GA)
Kevin J. Brown (WI)
Todd C. Burk (AK)
Roy L. Clark, Jr. (NJ)
Scott A. Conwell (IN)
Charles T. Dwyer (MI)
James C. Engle, Jr. (GA)
Adam T. Fitzgerald (LA)
Kevin R. Fowler (WA)
Michael L. Frutiger (OR)
Charles E. Hill (TN)
Galen L. Hoodenpyl (OR)
Robert J. Hughes (PA)
Michael A. Hunt (IA)
Travis P. James (KY)

Vincent K. Johnson (DC)
Christopher A. King (NY)
Norman L. King (CA)
Harlan E. Kizer (OK)
Peter J. Klepp (ID)
Walter Kube, Jr. (NJ)
Brian J. Lascko (CT)
Samuel B. Layton (DE)
Lance J. Magnuson (NE)
Nicholas A. Marmolejo (NJ)
Lawrence F. McCarthy (MA)
Richard E. McGlashan (FL)
Bryan J. Meyer (WI)
Craig S. Meyer (MO)
Michael J. Miller (IL)
Elwin D. Ness (MN)
Perry L. Ofstad (WI)
Eddie L. Parsons (NC)
Joseph B. Patsch (CA)
Guillermo Ponce (IN)
David G. Reppert (PA)
Timothy L. Salter (AL)
David B. Sanders (MO)
Brandon J. Smith (NY)
Cody J. Swift (NJ)
Geoffrey K. Tarr (TN)
Jonathan L. Trieloff (WI)
Mark A. Williams (LA)
William E. Yoder (PA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: July 21, 2017.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-15838 Filed 7-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47195]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Adoption of the Missile Defense Agency's Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) Operations,
Clear Air Force Station, Alaska (CAFS), and Record of Decision for
Federal Aviation Administration Actions To Accommodate Testing and
Operation of the LRDR at CAFS Under the Missile Defense Agency's
Modified Operational Concept

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the FAA's Adoption
of the Missile Defense Agency's Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) Operations, Clear Air Force
Station, Alaska (CAFS), and Record of Decision for Federal Aviation
Administration Actions to Accommodate Testing and Operation of the LRDR
at CAFS under the Missile Defense Agency's Modified Operational Concept
(``the Adoption/ROD''). The Adoption/ROD documents: (1) The FAA's
adoption of the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) Operations,
Clear Air Force Station (CAFS), Alaska; and (2) the FAA's decision to
establish additional restricted areas to protect aviation from high-
intensity radiated fields (HIRF) generated during the LRDR testing and
operation, implement temporary flight restrictions (TFR) until the
restricted areas are in effect, and make changes to federal airways and
instrument flight procedures to accommodate the new restricted areas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Miller, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The MDA prepared an EIS to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts associated with the MDA's proposed modification of operational
requirements and procedures for the LRDR located at CAFS, Alaska.\1\
The change in the LRDR operation procedures would create a hazard in
areas of the National Airspace System where the HIRF from the LRDR
operations would exceed FAA certification standards for aircraft
electrical and electronic systems. The EIS also evaluated the potential
environmental impacts of the following actions proposed by the FAA to
address this hazard: (1) Establishment of six additional restricted
areas in the vicinity of CAFS; (2) implementation of TFRs until the
restricted areas are in effect; and (3) changes to federal airways and
instrument flight procedures to accommodate the new restricted areas.
As a cooperating agency on the EIS, the FAA coordinated closely with
the MDA and actively participated in the preparation of the EIS. In
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, and regulations and guidance of the Council on
Environmental Quality, the FAA conducted an independent evaluation and
analysis of the EIS and adopted it for the purpose of making a decision
on its proposed actions. The FAA's adoption and decision are documented
in the Adoption/ROD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Draft EIS and the Final EIS are available on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's EIS database at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search/search#results and on MDA's website at https://www.mda.mil/system/lrdr (accessed June 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of Availability

    The Adoption/ROD is available on the FAA's website at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/environmental_issues/media/alaska_eis.pdf and
upon request by contacting Paula Miller at: Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Right of Appeal

    The FAA's Adoption/ROD constitutes a final order of the FAA
Administrator and is subject to exclusive judicial review under 49
U.S.C. 46110 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which
the person contesting the decision resides or has its principal place
of business. Any party having substantial interest in this order may
apply for review of the decision by filing a petition for review in the
appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals no later than 60 days after the order
is issued in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110. Any
party seeking to stay implementation of the Adoption/ROD must file an
application with the FAA prior to seeking judicial relief as provided
in Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 17, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-17962 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 68151-68152]
[DOCID:fr04de07-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12907-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

November 26, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12907-000.
    c. Date filed: July 30, 2007.
    d. Applicant: BPUS Generation Development, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Jonesville Lock & Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Black River in Catahoula County, Louisiana. It would
use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Jonesville Lock & Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, P.E., BPUS Generation
Development, LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY
13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12907-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Jonesville Lock & Dam and operated in a run-of-
river mode would consist of: (1) A new 90-foot-long, 110-foot-wide, 40-
foot-high concrete powerhouse; (2) a new intake channel and tailrace
channel on the left bank of the river opposite the existing lock
structure; (3) three turbine/generator units with a combined installed
capacity of 6 megawatts; (4) a new 49,200-foot-long above ground
transmission line extending from the switchyard near the powerhouse to
an interconnection point with an existing transmission line located
north-northeast of the powerhouse; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Jonesville Lock & Dam Project would have an average annual
generation of 47 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23438 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61560-61563]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24323]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0353; FRL-10001-80-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. This revision addresses the interstate transport
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the good
neighbor provision, for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action approves
Massachusetts's certification that air emissions in the Commonwealth
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0353. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office

Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Townsend, Air Quality
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.
(617) 918-1614, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On August 8, 2019 (84 FR 38898), the EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to approve the February 9, 2018 submittal
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS, commonly referred to as the good neighbor
provision. Other specific requirements and the rationale for the EPA's
proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated
here. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before
September 9, 2019.

II. Response to Comments

    The EPA received one adverse comment from an anonymous commenter.
This comment is included in the docket for this final action. The EPA
has summarized the comment and provided a response below.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the EPA should evaluate all
sources of SO2 emissions in Massachusetts located near the
border of the SO2 nonattainment area in New Hampshire,
rather than focus our analysis on large SO2 sources located
farther from the nonattainment area in New Hampshire. The commenter
expressed concern about the 100 tons per year (tpy) SO2
emissions threshold by stating that the EPA arbitrarily picked 100 tpy
as a threshold, and that smaller sources of annual emissions can
violate a 1-hour standard. The commenter asserted that ``EPA must
perform modeling to affirmatively rule out any stationary source of
SO2 emissions don't contribute to the SO2 non-
attainment area in the neighboring state of New Hampshire,'' not just
those emitting over 100 tpy of SO2.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that
modeling must be performed to rule out significant contribution to
SO2 nonattainment in New Hampshire from any stationary
source of SO2 emissions and that the use of a 100 tpy
threshold was inappropriate. The EPA continues to believe that a weight
of evidence (WOE) approach is sufficient to determine if a state has
satisfied the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, and there is no legal requirement in the CAA
suggesting that dispersion modeling must be used to evaluate good
neighbor SIPs.
    Regarding the statement about modeling, EPA notes that it did not
independently model any sources as part of its evaluation of
Massachusetts's good neighbor SIP submission, including sources
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km from the
Massachusetts border. However, when reliable and relevant modeling
information is available, the EPA may utilize this information to
inform its determination of whether a state has satisfied the good
neighbor provision. As further discussed in the NPRM, Massachusetts
reviewed potential SO2 impacts on the Central New Hampshire
nonattainment area. New Hampshire submitted an attainment plan for the
Central New Hampshire nonattainment area on January 31, 2017, which
relied mainly on the emissions limits and other conditions established
for the Merrimack Generating Station, and the EPA approved that plan on
June 5, 2018.\1\ New Hampshire's attainment plan and demonstration for
the central New Hampshire nonattainment area relied on air dispersion
modeling of the 1-hour critical emission value shown to be equivalent
to the federally-enforceable 7-boiler operating day allowable emissions
limit for the Merrimack Generating Station. This modeling analysis
included the addition of monitored background SO2
concentrations. These measured background concentrations account for
potential contributions from all Massachusetts sources, not just those
emitting greater than 100 tpy. The New Hampshire modeling analysis
demonstrated that allowable emissions from Merrimack Generating
Station, in addition to the background levels, will not cause a
violation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The attainment plan did
not require any reductions from Massachusetts sources, and relied
solely on controls and limits at Merrimack Generating Station to
address the nonattainment. On September 20, 2019, the EPA took final
action to approve New Hampshire's maintenance plan, submitted to ensure
the area will continue to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, for
the Central New Hampshire area.\2\ This final action also formally
redesignated the Central New Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment
Area to Attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, the
EPA still concludes that sources in Massachusetts do not contribute
significantly to SO2 nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in the Central New Hampshire area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the EPA's final action on the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 83 FR
25922 (June 5, 2018).
    \2\ See 84 FR 49467 (September 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the
NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from
Massachusetts to neighboring states. The EPA's analysis includes the
following factors: (1) Ambient air quality data for active
SO2 monitors in Massachusetts or in a neighboring or
downwind state within 50 km of the Massachusetts border, (2) emissions
information for SO2 sources in Massachusetts emitting
greater than 100 tpy and located within 50 km of the Massachusetts
border, (3) emissions information for SO2 sources in
neighboring or downwind states emitting more than 100 tpy and located
within 50 km of the Massachusetts border, (4) available modeling and
monitoring information for any area within 50 km of the Massachusetts
border, including for Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and (5) SO2
emissions trends in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states.
    Regarding the commenter's concern with the focus on individual
facilities which emitted above 100 tpy (using the most recent year for
which point source emission data was available, i.e., 2017); the EPA
disagrees that this focus on such sources is arbitrary. The EPA noted
in the NPRM to this final action that Massachusetts limited its
analysis to sources emitting greater than 100 tpy of SO2.
These emissions account for 96 percent of Massachusetts's statewide
SO2 emissions from point sources, and thus are appropriate
to evaluate for purposes of determining whether there is any emissions
activity within the state that is in violation of the good neighbor
provision. The EPA independently assessed which sources emitting over
100 tpy could have the most potential impact on downwind

and neighboring states. Based on the assessment contained in the NPRM,
the EPA stated ``we agree with Massachusetts's choice to limit its
analysis in this way, because in the absence of special factors, for
example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual factors,
Massachusetts sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be
assumed to not be causing or contributing to SO2
concentrations above the NAAQS. The EPA recognizes that in 2017 Ardagh
Glass Inc. emitted 92 tpy SO2, with the next highest source
(Wheelabrator Saugus Inc) emitting 54 tpy SO2. Ardagh Glass
Inc. has permanently ceased operations as of September 26, 2018. Given
these facts, the EPA finds Massachusetts's analysis of SO2
sources above 100 tpy adequate for analysis of SO2 transport
impacts to neighboring and downwind states.'' \3\ The EPA continues to
find this statement accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 84 FR 38898 (August 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that the commenter did not provide a technical
analysis or additional information indicating that sources emitting 100
tpy or less within 50 km of the border may have downwind impacts that
violate the good neighbor provision. For these reasons, the EPA finds
that our analysis of the Massachusetts sources in the proposal,
considered alongside other WOE factors described in that document,
support the EPA's conclusion that Massachusetts has satisfied the good
neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Massachusetts's February 9, 2018 interstate
transport SIP for the 2010 SO2 1-hour NAAQS as a revision to
the Massachusetts SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
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 regulatory action because
this action is not significant 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 Clean Air Act; 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 13, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 1, 2019.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
2. In Sec.  52.1120(e), amend the table by adding the entry
``Certification of Adequacy of Massachusetts 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
Infrastructure SIP to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean
Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' to the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

                                          Massachusetts Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal
    Name of non regulatory SIP         geographic or        date/       EPA approved date       Explanations
            provision               nonattainment area    effective            \3\
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Certification of Adequacy of       Statewide...........     2/9/2018  10/13/2019 [Insert
 Massachusetts 2010 Sulfur                                             Federal Register
 Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure SIP                                      citation].
 to Address the Good Neighbor
 Requirements of Clean Air Act
 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal
  Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2019-24323 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P