58423 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2002 / Notices EXEMPT Docket No. Date filed Presenter or requester 1. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................... 8– 19– 02 Steven D. Irvin 2 CP01– 415– 000 ..................................................................................................... 8– 22– 02 Sam Dickson/ Richard Slate. 3. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................... 8– 22– 02 Brenda R. Durham. 4. CP00– 415– 000 .................................................................................................... 8– 22– 02 Stephen B. Corcoran. 5. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................... 8– 24– 02 Donald L. Moss, Jr. 6. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................... 8– 24– 02 Phillip J. Kirk, Jr. 7. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................... 8– 29– 02 Andrew S. Hall. 8. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................... 8– 29– 02 Wayne Sexton. 9. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................... 8– 29– 02 Gregory R. Seibert. 10. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................. 8– 29– 02 Sharon J. Garner. 11. CP01– 415– 000 .................................................................................................. 9– 3– 02 John E. Grogan.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 02Ð 23445 Filed 9Ð 13Ð 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7377– 1]

Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) Meeting Date, and Agenda AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of teleconference meeting.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) will have a teleconference meeting on October 16, 2002, at 11 A. M. EDT to discuss the ideas, comments, and suggestions presented at the July 11 ELAB Meeting and the August 21 teleconference call, as well as new business. Items to be discussed include: (1) Restructuring of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) to allow it to better serve the future needs of EPA, the States, and the private sector, (2) discussion of ELAB recommendations to EPA, (3) recommendations for increasing small laboratory participation in NELAC, and (4) recommendations for increasing the number of States that are Accrediting Authorities, and the upcoming November ELAB meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. ELAB is soliciting input from the public on these and other issues related to the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) and the NELAC standards. Written comments on NELAP laboratory accreditation and the NELAC standards are encouraged and should be sent to Mr. Edward Kantor, DFO, P. O. Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193Ð 3478, faxed to (702) 798Ð 2261, or e mailed to kantor. edward@ epa. gov. Members of the public are invited to listen to the teleconference calls and, time permitting, will be allowed to comment on issues discussed during this and previous ELAB meetings. Those persons interested in attending should call Edward Kantor at 702Ð 798Ð 2690 to obtain teleconference information. The number of lines are limited and will be distributed on a first come, first serve basis. Preference will be given to a group wishing to attend over a request from an individual.

John G. Lyon, Director, Environmental Sciences Division, National Environmental Research Laboratory. [FR Doc. 02Ð 23472 Filed 9Ð 13Ð 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0258; FRL– 7274– 6]

Exposure Modeling Work Group (EMWG); Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Exposure Modeling Work Group (EMWG) will hold a 1Ð day meeting on September 24, 2002. This notice announces the location and time for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics. DATES: The meeting will be held on September 24, 2002, from 9 a. m. to 3 p. m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, Room 1110, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0258 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dirk F. Young, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C) Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 605Ð 0206; fax number: (703) 308Ð 6309; e mail address: young. dirk@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to Tribes with pesticide programs or pesticide interests. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations, '' `` Regulations and Proposed Rules, '' and then look up the entry for this docuent under the `` Federal RegisterÑ Environmental Documents. '' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0258. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 18: 23 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16SEN1. SGM 16SEN1 58424 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2002 / Notices in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305Ð 5805.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0258 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305Ð 5805. 3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e mail to: opp docket@ epa. gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket ID number OPPÐ 2002Ð 0258. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. D. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want to Submit to the Agency?

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Tentative Agenda:

This unit provides tentative agenda topics for the 1Ð day meeting. 1. Welcome and introductions. 2. Disseminate new EMWG charter. 3. Old action items. 4. Brief updates:   Pesticide Root Zone/ Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/ EXAMS) model.   Spray drift task force progress.   Rice modeling.   European union activities.   USDA Agricultural Research Service Activities.   Environmental fate data base.   New meteorological files.   Turf umbrella. 5. Environmental Fate and Effects Division priorities for FY 2003. 6. Refined risk assessment. 7. PRZM/ EXAMS scenarios: industry feedback. 8. Sci Grow and PGW data base. 9. Industry thoughts on ground water modeling. 10. Update on WARP. 11. Estuary model development. 12. Update on standard water body model, fast solution. 13. Curve number/ moisture relationship.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticide and pests.

September 10, 2002, Steven Bradbury, Acting Division Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 02Ð 23580 Filed 9Ð 12Ð 02; 1: 25 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7376– 9]

Proposed Administrative Settlement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; Amchem CERCLA Removal Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122( i)( 1) of CERCLA, 42 U. S. C. 9622( i)( 1), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement concerning the Amchem CERCLA Removal Site, Ambler, Pennsylvania. The administrative settlement was signed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III's Regional Administrator on August 28, 2002, and is subject to review by the public pursuant to this document. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to enter into a settlement pursuant to section 122( h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, (CERCLA), 42 U. S. C. 9622( h). The proposed settlement resolves EPA's claim for past response costs under section 107 of CERCLA, 42 VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 18: 23 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16SEN1. SGM 16SEN1


[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 63636-63637]
[DOCID:fr09no07-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56740; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Exchange's Transaction Fees

November 5, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 31, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NYSE proposes to amend its equity transaction fees effective
November 1, 2007. Member Organizations will no longer be charged a fee
for at the opening and at the opening only orders in equity securities
(excluding exchange traded fund or ``ETF'' securities). The text of the
proposed rule change is available at NYSE, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its equity transaction fees
effective November 1, 2007. Member Organizations are currently charged
a transaction fee of $.0004 per share on at the opening and at the
opening only orders \3\ in equity securities (excluding ETFs) whether
they are providing or taking liquidity. Under the proposed amendment,
Member Organizations will no longer be charged this fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NYSE Rule 13 defines an at the opening or at the opening
only order as a market or limited price order which is to be
executed on the opening trade of the stock on the Exchange or, if
the Exchange opens the stock on a quote, the opening trade in the
stock on another market center to which such order or part thereof
has been routed in compliance with Regulation NMS, and any such
order or portion thereof not so executed is to be treated as
cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of section 6 of the Act \4\ in general and furthers
the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written
comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\
thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-100 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-100. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will
be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-100 and should be submitted on
or before November 30, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21983 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 193)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56974]
[DOCID:fr05oc07-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0423-200743(b); FRL-8475-5]

Approval of Implementation Plans; North Carolina: Clean Air
Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the North Carolina
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of North
Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources on August 7, 2006. These revisions will incorporate
provisions related to the implementation of EPA's Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on
April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006, and the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) concerning sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX) annual, and NOX ozone
season emissions for the State of North Carolina, promulgated on April
28, 2006, and subsequently revised December 13, 2006. EPA is not
proposing to make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is proposing to
amend, to the extent EPA approves North Carolina's SIP revisions, the
appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note
that approval.
    On July 3, 2007, North Carolina requested that EPA only act on a
portion of the August 7, 2006, submittal as an abbreviated SIP.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to approve the abbreviated SIP revisions
that address the methodology to be used to allocate annual and ozone
season NOX allowances to existing and new units under the
CAIR FIPs and CAIR FIP opt-in provisions.
    This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act. The intended effect of these revisions is to clarify certain
provisions and to ensure consistency with the requirements of the CAA.
In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is
approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments
are received in response to this rule, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0423, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0423, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: September 21, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-19318 Filed 10-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


______________________________________________________________________________________________

Science for Solutions ______________________________________________________________________________________________

NOAA'S COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM Decision Analysis Series No. 12 Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters Mark S. Fonseca, W. Judson Kenworthy, and Gordon W. Thayer November 1998 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Office Cover photographs ( clockwise from top right): Propeller scarring in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ( courtesy C. Kruer); 250  day old eelgrass ( Zostera marina) plantings on a wave swept shoal near Beaufort, NC ( M. Fonseca); Alaskan eelgrass bed adjacent to a restoration site ( courtesy US Army Corps of Engineers); eelgrass planting in San Diego Bay, California ( courtesy G. Robilliard). DECISION ANALYSIS SERIES The Decision Analysis Series has been established by NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program ( COP) to present documents for coastal decision makers which contain analytical treatments of major issues or topics. The issues, topics, and principle investigators have been selected through an extensive peer review process. To learn more about the COP or the Decision Analysis Series, please write:

NOAA Coastal Ocean Office 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 phone: 301 713 3338 fax: 301 713 4044 web: http:// www. cop. noaa. gov OTHER TITLES IN THE DECISION ANALYSIS SERIES No. 1. Able, Kenneth W. and Susan C. Kaiser. 1994. Synthesis of Summer Flouder Habitat Parameters.

No. 2. Matthews, Geoffrey A. and Thomas J. Minello. 1994. Technology and Success in Restoration, Creation and Enhancement of Spartina Alterniflora Marshes in the United States. 2 vols.

No. 3. Collins, Elaine V., Maureen Woods, Isobel Sheifer, and Janice Beattie. 1994. Bibliography of Synthesis Documents on Selected Coastal Topics.

No. 4. Hinga, Kenneth R., Heeseon Jeon, and Noelle F. Lewis. 1995. Marine Eutrophication Review.

No. 5. Lipton, Douglas W., Katherine Wellman, Isobel C. Sheifer, and Rodney F. Weiher. 1995. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: A Handbook for Coastal Policymakers.

No. 6. Vestal, Barbara, Alison Reiser, et al. 1995. Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal Environmental Impacts. Part I   Synthesis with Annotated Bibliography, Part II   Development and Application of a Cumulative Impacts Assessment Protocol.

No. 7. Murphy, Michael L. 1995. Forestry Impacts on Freshwater Habitat of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska   Requirements for Protection and Restoration.

No. 8. William F. Kier Associates. 1995. Watershed Restoration   A Guide for Citizen Involvement in California.

No. 9. Valigura, Richard A., Winston T. Luke, Richard S. Artz, and Bruce B. Hicks. 1996. Atmospheric Nutrient Inputs to Coastal Areas   Reducing the Uncertainties.

No. 10. Boesch, Donald F., et al. 1997. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control and Mitigation.

No. 11. McMurray, Gregory R., and Robert J. Bailey, editors. 1998. Change in Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems. U. S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Office 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40637]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0504]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Newtown Creek, New York City, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the operation of the Pulaski Bridge
across Newtown Creek, mile 0.6, at New York City, New York. The
deviation is necessary to accommodate additional commuter bus traffic
passing over the Pulaski Bridge as a result of the closure of the
Newtown MTA G-Line Tunnel for repairs. This deviation allows the
Pulaski Bridge to remain in the closed position intermittently for
thirty-four days.

DATES: This deviation is effective from July 30, 2014 through September
1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0504] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or (212) 668-
7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pulaski Bridge has a vertical clearance
of 39 feet at mean high water and 43 feet at mean low water. The
existing drawbridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR
117.801(g)(1).
    The owner of the bridge, New York City Department of
Transportation, requested a thirty-four day bridge closure to
facilitate additional commuter bus traffic resulting from the closure
of the Newtown MTA G-Line Tunnel.
    The Newtown MTA G-Line Tunnel is closed for scheduled repairs
resulting from hurricane Sandy.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Pulaski Bridge may remain in
the closed position for up to six consecutive days followed by four
consecutive days when the bridge will provide normal bridge openings.
The Pulaski Bridge shall operate, from July 30, 2014 through September
1, 2014, as follows:
    July 30 through August 4, bridge closed.
    August 5 through August 8, bridge opens normally.
    August 9 through August 14, bridge closed.
    August 15 through August 18, bridge opens normally.
    August 19 through August 24, bridge closed.
    August 25 through August 28, bridge opens normally.
    August 29 through September 1, bridge closed.
    Notice of each bridge closure will be provided two weeks in advance
in the Local Notice to Mariners.
    The waterway users are commercial oil barge vessels. The Coast
Guard contacted the oil facilities and no objections were received to
this bridge closure schedule. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in
the closed position may do so at all times. There are no alternative
routes but the bridge can be opened in the event of an emergency.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 26, 2014.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-16326 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14319-14321]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0082]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval: Drivers' Use
of Camera-Based Rear Visibility Systems Versus Traditional Mirrors

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a
new information collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
this notice announces the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of
the information collection and its expected burden. The proposed new
collection of information supports research addressing safety-related
aspects of drivers' use of camera-based rear visibility systems
intended to serve as a replacement for traditional outside rearview
mirrors.
    A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on
August 28, 2019. NHTSA received 22 public comments submitted online and
one additional comment submitted via email. A second Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following information collection was published on May 24, 2021. NHTSA
received 1,891 unique public comments. A summary of the comments and
the changes NHTSA made in response to those comments is provided below.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before April 13,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden,
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information
collection, select ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public
Comment'' or use the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Elizabeth Mazzae, Applied Crash
Avoidance Research Division, Vehicle Research and Test Center, NHTSA,
10820 State Route 347--Bldg. 60, East Liberty, Ohio 43319; Telephone
(937) 666-4511; Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a
Federal agency must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from the public and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a
Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control
number. In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces
the following information collection request will be submitted to OMB.
    Title: Drivers' Use of Camera-Based Rear Visibility Systems Versus
Traditional Mirrors.
    OMB Control Number: To be issued at time of approval.
    Form Numbers: NHTSA forms 1553, 1554, 1556, 1557, 1558.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Length of Approval Requested: Three years from the date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: NHTSA has proposed to
perform research involving the collection of information from the
public as part of a multi-year effort to learn about drivers' use of
passive camera-based rear visibility systems intended to perform the
same function as traditional vehicle outside mirrors: Displaying areas
surrounding the vehicle. Performing detection of objects within the
system's field of view and providing visual or other alerts to the
driver is not a technology function being examined in this research.
    The research will involve human subjects testing in which
instrumented vehicles are stationary or driven on a test track and
public roads. Study participants will be members of the general public
and participation will be voluntary. The goal is to characterize
drivers' eye glance behavior and other driving behaviors while
operating a vehicle equipped with traditional outside mirrors versus
while operating a vehicle equipped with a camera-based visibility
system in place of vehicle outside mirrors. This research will support
NHTSA decisions relating to safe implementation of electronic
visibility technologies that may be considered for use as alternatives
to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111 mirror
requirements.
    This research will involve information collection through
participant screening questions and post-drive questionnaires.
Questions addressed to individuals will serve to assess individuals'
suitability for study participation, to obtain feedback regarding
participants' use of the visibility systems involved in the study, and
to evaluate individuals' level of comfort with use of the technology.
    Since qualitative feedback or self-reported data is not
sufficiently robust for the purpose of investigating driver performance
and interaction issues with advanced vehicle technologies, the primary
type of information to be collected in this research is objective data
consisting of video and engineering data recorded as participants
experience a camera-based rear visibility system in an instrumented
study vehicle. Recorded objective data will include driver eye glance
behavior, lane change performance, and other driving performance
metrics. Eye glance behavior will reveal how drivers' visual behavior
in a vehicle equipped with a camera-based rear visibility system
differs from drivers' visual behavior in a vehicle equipped with
traditional outside mirrors. Lane change performance will be
characterized based on vehicle speed, inter-vehicle distances during
lane changes, and time to complete lane changes. Driving performance
and eye glance behavior in a vehicle equipped with a camera-based rear
visibility system will be compared to lane change performance observed
in

a vehicle equipped with traditional outside mirrors.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs
associated with motor vehicle crashes. As new vehicle technologies are
developed, it is prudent to ensure they do not create any unintended
decrease in safety. The safety of passive visibility-related
technologies depends on both the performance of the systems and on
drivers' ability to effectively and comfortably use the systems. This
work seeks to examine and compare drivers' eye glance behavior and
aspects of driving behavior and lane change maneuver execution for
traditional mirrors and camera-based systems intended to replace
outside rearview mirrors.
    The collection of information will consist of: (1) Question Set 1,
Driving Research Study Interest Response Form, (2) Question Set 2,
Candidate Screening, (3) passive observation of driving behavior, (4)
Question Set 3, Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with Camera-Monitoring
System, (5) Question Set 4, Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with
Traditional Mirrors, (6) Question Set 5, Post-Drive Questionnaire Final
Opinions.
    Affected Public (Respondents): Research participants will be
licensed drivers aged 25 to 65 years of age who drive at least an
average number of 11,000 miles annually, are in good health, and do not
require assistive devices to safely operate a vehicle and drive
continuously for a period of 3 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: The data collections described will be
performed once to obtain the target number of 128 valid test
participants. Assuming typical data loss rates for instrumented vehicle
testing with human subjects, it is anticipated that 200 participants
will need to be run in order to obtain 128 valid participant datasets.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The data collection will have two
parts: one involving light vehicles that will begin immediately upon
receipt of PRA clearance and a second, subsequent part will involve
heavy trucks. The second part of the data collection will have the same
general approach involving assessment of eye glance behavior and lane
change performance as a function of visibility technology (i.e.,
camera-based system or traditional outside mirrors).
    Information for both parts of the data collection will be obtained
in an incremental fashion to determine which individuals have the
necessary characteristics for study participation. All interested
candidates will complete Question Set 1, Driving Research Study
Interest Response Form. A subset of individuals meeting the criteria
for Question Set 1 will be asked to complete Question Set 2, Candidate
Screening Questions. From the individuals found to meet the criteria
for both Questions Sets 1 and 2, a subset will be chosen with the goal
of achieving a balance of age and sex to be scheduled for study
participation. Both data collection parts together will involve
approximately 750 respondents for Question Set 1 and 375 for Question
Set 2. Question Sets 3, 4, and 5 will each have 200 respondents of
which 150 will be assigned to the light vehicle category and 50 to the
heavy vehicle category. A summary of the estimated numbers of
individuals that will complete the noted question sets across both the
first and second data collection parts is provided in the following
table.

                                        Estimated Numbers of Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Participants (i.e.,
            Question Set No.             NHTSA Form No.              Questions                  respondents)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................            1553  Interest Response Form...........                   750
2......................................            1554  Candidate Screening Questions....                   375
3......................................            1556  Post-drive Questionnaire: Drive                     200
                                                          with Camera-Monitoring System.
4......................................            1557  Post-drive Questionnaire: Drive                     200
                                                          with Traditional Mirrors.
5......................................            1558  Post-Drive Questionnaire Final                      200
                                                          Opinions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: For both parts of the data
collection, completion of Question Set 1, Driving Research Study
Interest Response Form, is estimated to take approximately 5 minutes
and completion is estimated to take approximately 7 minutes for
Question Set 2, Candidate Screening Questions. Completion of Question
Sets 3 and 4, Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with Camera Monitoring
System and Post-Drive Questionnaire: Drive with Traditional Mirrors for
light or heavy vehicles, is estimated to take 10 minutes for each
survey for a combined total of 20 minutes, and 5 minutes is estimated
for completion of the final opinions questions for both parts of data
collection.
    The estimated annual time and opportunity cost burdens across both
the first and second data collection parts are summarized in the table
below. The number of respondents and time to complete each question set
are estimated as shown in the table. The time per question set is
calculated by multiplying the number of respondents by the time per
respondent and then converting from minutes to hours. The hour value
for each question set is multiplied by the average hour earning
estimate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics \1\ to obtain an estimated
burden cost per question set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ *Cost per hour based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Dec. 2019
Average Hourly Earnings data for ``Total Private,'' $28.32 (Accessed
Jan. 28, 2020 at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm)

                                                       Estimated Hour Burden and Opportunity Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Participants       Time per                   Total                         Opportunity
    Question Set No.      NHTSA Form    Question set titles         (i.e.,          response    Total time  burden time  Total  opportunity    cost per
                             No.                                 respondents)      (minutes)    (minutes)     (hours)           cost         participant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................         1553  Interest Response Form                 750            5        3,750           63           $1,784.16        $2.38
2......................         1554  Candidate Screening                    375            7        2,625           44            1,246.08         3.32
                                       Questions.

3......................         1556  Post-Drive                             200           10        2,000           33              934.56         4.67
                                       Questionnaire: Drive
                                       with Camera
                                       Monitoring System.
4......................         1557  Post-Drive                             200           10        2,000           33              934.56         4.67
                                       Questionnaire: Drive
                                       with Traditional
                                       Mirrors.
5......................         1558  Post-Drive                             200            5        1,000           17              481.44         2.41
                                       Questionnaire Final
                                       Opinions.
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         ...........     Total Estimated      ..................  ...........       11,375          190       5,380.80 [ap]       $17.45
                                          Burden:.                                                                                $5,381
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: The only cost burdens
respondents will incur are costs related to travel to and from the
study location for those that participate in the research study. The
costs are minimal and are expected to be offset by the monetary
compensation that will be provided to all research participants.
    60-Day Notices: On August 28, 2019, NHTSA published a 60-day notice
requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information.\2\
We received comments from 23 entities, including 8 organizations and 15
individuals. Organizations submitting comments included American Bus
Association (ABA), Automotive Safety Council, Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA), Lotus Cars Ltd., Greyhound Lines, Inc., Stoneridge
Inc., Volvo Group, and ZF North America, Inc. Of the 23 commenters, 17
were supportive of the research. No comments addressed the specific
questions to be asked of participants. On May 24, 2021, NHTSA published
a second 60-day.\3\ A summary of the comments received on the first 60-
day notice and NHTSA's responses to those comments was provided in the
second 60-day notice NHTSA published on May 24, 2021. NHTSA received
comments from 1,891 entities, including 2 organizations on the second
60-day notice. 1887 individuals, and input from social media-based
Tesla owners enthusiast community group. Organizations submitting
comments included the Automotive Safety Council and Alliance for
Automotive Innovation. There were 35 duplicate entries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 84 FR 45209 (August 28, 2019).
    \3\ 86 FR 27952 (May 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments from the Automotive Safety Council (ASC) did not address
the topic of PRA clearance, but did include some recommendations
related to the proposed research. The comments included acknowledgement
of NHTSA's evaluation of the previous comments made by ASC to the
original 60-Day Notice, NHTSA- 2019-0082-0001, and expressed support
for conducting additional research subsequent to the proposed work that
would address previous ASC suggestions. A new comment from ASC
requested that study participants be provided an opportunity to
familiarize themselves with conventional mirror technology in the test
track environment in the same vehicle type as the test vehicle. This
may help to reduce variability from ``normal'' mirror usage and driving
behaviors due to the unfamiliar test environment and vehicle type and
help isolate the participant response to just the camera technology in
the test of the camera equipped system vehicle. ASC also commented that
the research should ensure sufficient time for the drivers to get
acquainted with the system. NHTSA notes that familiarization time with
the new technology is part of the research design.
    Two comments from the Alliance of Automotive Innovators did not
address the topic of PRA clearance, but offered support for the
Agency's research. The comments noted that some of the organization's
members ``currently have CMS already deployed in other markets that
comply with established international standards, namely ECE R46 and ISO
16505.'' Auto Innovators' comments expressed strong supports for
harmonization with existing international standards and ``that NHTSA
prioritize its CMS research and rulemaking processes . . . .''
    Of the individuals who submitted comments, 30 indicated support for
PRA clearance being given for this work. Another 81 commenters voiced
support for the research. The remaining commenters' input contained
opinions regarding whether CMS should be permitted under FMVSS No. 111
and did not address the specific points on which comments were actually
requested.
    In summary, the proposed research is intended to gather information
to address the question of whether camera-based rear visibility system
use is as safe as that of traditional mirrors through examination of
drivers' eye glance behavior and driving performance. NHTSA appreciates
the feedback and many relevant suggestions offered regarding additional
experimental conditions to consider. NHTSA will consider the provided
suggestions as input for follow-on research programs.

Public Comments Invited

    You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information
collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways for the department to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on 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 without reducing the quality of the collected
information.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Cem Hatipoglu,
Associate Administrator, Office of Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2022-05237 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10670-10671]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. Ic20-6-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-725a(1b);
Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-725A(1B), (Mandatory Reliability Standards
for the Bulk Power System)

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due April 27,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC20-6-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725A(1B), (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk
Power System).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0292.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725A(1B)
information collection requirements with no changes to the current
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract: The FERC-725A(1B) Under section 215 of the Federal Power
Act (FPA),1the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standards
TOP-010-1 (Real-time Reliability Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities)
submitted by North American Electric Corporation (NERC). In this order,
the Reliability Standards build on monitoring, real-time assessments
and support effective situational awareness. The Reliability Standards
accomplish this by requiring applicable entities to: (1) Provide
notification to operators of real-time monitoring alarm failures; (2)
provide operators with indications of the quality of information being
provided by their monitoring and analysis capabilities; and (3) address
deficiencies in the quality of information being provided by their
monitoring and analysis capabilities. FERC-725A(1B) address situational
awareness objectives by providing for operator awareness when key
alarming tools are not performing as intended. These collections will
improve real-time situational awareness capabilities and enhance
reliable operations by requiring reliability coordinators, transmission
operators, and balancing authorities to provide operators with an
improved awareness of system conditions analysis capabilities,
including alarm availability, so that operators may take appropriate
steps to ensure reliability. These functions include planning,
operations, data sharing, monitoring, and analysis.
    Type of Respondent: Balancing Authority (BA),Transmission
Operations (TOP) and Reliability Coordinators (RC).
    Estimate of Annual Burden:\1\ The Commission estimates the total
annual burden and cost \2\ for this information collection in the table
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Burden'' is 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. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \2\ Costs (for wages and benefits) are based on wage figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for May 2019 (at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits information (at
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).
    \3\ Our estimates are based on the NERC Compliance Registry
Summary of Entities and Functions as of January 31, 2019, which
indicates there are registered as BA and TOP.
    \4\ The number of respondents is the number of entities in which
a change in burden from the current standards to the proposed
exists, not the total number of entities from the current or
proposed standards that are applicable.
    \5\ The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based
on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information, as of May 2019 (at
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm, with updated benefits
information for March 2019 at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm), for an electrical engineer (code 17-2071, $68.17/
hour), and for information and record clerks record keeper (code 43-
4199, $40.84/hour). The hourly figure for engineers is used for
reporting; the hourly figure for information and record clerks is
used for document retention.

                                          FERC-725A(1B), Changes Due to TOP-010-1 in Docket No. IC20-6-000 \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Number of     Annual number                   Average burden &     Total annual
             Entity                Requirements &     respondents    of responses    Total number        cost per        burden hours &      Cost per
                                       period             \4\       per respondent   of responses      response \5\    total annual cost  respondent ($)
                                 .................             (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)..............  (3) * (4) = (5)..       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA \6\.........................  Year 1                         98               1              98  70 hrs.;           6,860 hrs.;             $4,494.00
                                  Implementation                                                     $4,494.00.         $440,412.00.
                                  (one-time
                                  reporting).
                                 Starting in Year               98               1              98  42 hrs.;           4,116 hrs.;             $2,696.40
                                  2 (annual                                                          $2,696.40.         $264,247.20.
                                  reporting).
TOP \7\........................  Year 1                        169               1             169  70 hrs.;           11,830 hrs.;            $4,494.00
                                  Implementation                                                     $4,494.00.         $759,486.00.
                                  (one-time
                                  reporting).

                                 Starting in Year              169               1             169  40 hrs.;           6,760 hrs.;             $2,568.00
                                  2 (annual                                                          $2,568.00.         $433,992.00.
                                  reporting).
BA/TOP.........................  Annual Record                 267               1             267  2 hrs.; $75.38...  534 hrs.;                  $75.38
                                  Retention.                                                                            $20,126.46.
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Burden Hours Per Year  .................  ..............  ..............  ..............  .................  19,224 hrs.
                                                                                $1,220,024.46
                                                                                (Year 1); 11,410
                                                                                hrs. $718,365.66
                                                                                per year,
                                                                                (starting in
                                                                                Year 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Averaging One-Time Burden  and Responses for FERC-725A(1B), Changes Due
to TOP-010-1 in Docket No. IC20-6-000 Over Years 1-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Balancing Authority (BA). The following Requirements and
associated measures apply to balancing authorities: Requirement R1:
A revised data specification and writing the required operating
process/operating procedure; and Requirement R2: Quality monitoring
logs and the data errors and corrective action logs.
    \7\ Transmission Operations (TOP). The following Requirements
and associated measures apply to transmission operators: Requirement
R1: A revised data specification and writing the required operating
process/operating procedure; and Requirement R3: Alarm process
monitor performance logs to maintain performance logs and corrective
action plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Year 1 has 19,224 hrs. of burden and record retention
--Years 2 and 3 have on-going annual burden and record retention of
11,410 hrs.

    For purposes of this OMB clearance, the 19,224 one-time burden
hours will be averaged over Years 1-3. After Year 3, the one-time
burden hours will then be removed from the inventory. The estimated
additional burden due to this Order is 14,014 [consisting of (19,224
+11,410 + 11,410) / 3].
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: February 19, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03698 Filed 2-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P