FOCUS GROUPS AS USED BY EPA FOR ECONOMICS PROJECTS (Renewal)
EPA ICR No. 2205.21
SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Part A

Section 1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection:

      Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal)
      EPA ICR Number 2205.21, OMB Control Number 2090-0028

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract:

      The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking approval for a generic information collection request (ICR) for the conduct of focus groups and one-on-one interviews related to economics projects primarily for survey development. Focus groups are groups of individuals brought together for moderated discussions on a specific topic or issue. These groups are typically formed to gain insight and understanding of attitudes and perceptions held by the public surrounding an issue. One-on-one interviews, as the term implies, are individual interviews in which a respondent is generally asked to review materials and provide feedback on their content and design as well as the thought processes that the materials invoke.

      Focus groups and one-on-one interviews (hereafter referred to collectively as "focus groups") used as a qualitative research tool have three major purposes:

          To better understand respondents' attitudes, perceptions and emotions in response to specific topics and concepts;
          To obtain respondent information useful for better defining variables and measures in later quantitative studies; and
          To further explore findings obtained from quantitative studies.

      Through these focus groups, the Agency will be able to gain a more in-depth understanding of the public's attitudes, beliefs, motivations and feelings regarding specific issues and will provide invaluable information regarding the quality of draft survey instruments. Focus group discussions are necessary and important steps in the design of a quality survey.

Section 2.  Need For and Use of the Collection

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

      Over the next three years, the Agency anticipates embarking on a number of survey development efforts associated with a variety of economics projects including those related to valuation of ecosystems, non-fatal health risks, and improvements to water quality to name a few. Focus groups are an important part of any survey development process, allowing researchers to directly gauge what specific issues are important to the public and providing a means for explicitly testing draft survey materials.

      If this information is not collected, a vital link in developing methods to better understand the economic benefits and costs associated with Agency actions will be lost. This loss will cause further delays in the development of improved estimates of benefits and costs.

      This data collection is conducted for research purposes; there are no legal requirements. The materials prepared for these discussions will fully conform to federal regulations  -  specifically the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988 (P.L 100-297), and the Computer Security Act of 1987.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

      The information collected in the focus groups will help inform economics projects as well as economics-related surveys under development. To the extent that the surveys are ultimately successfully administered, they will serve to expand the Agency's understanding of benefits and costs of a variety of actions and could provide the means to quantitatively assess the effects of others. Participation in the focus groups will be voluntary and the identity of the participants will be kept confidential.

      Focus groups generally do not yield meaningful quantitative findings and do not yield data about public opinion that can be generalized. As such, they cannot be used directly to estimate benefits and costs associated with a specific environmental action. However, program offices engaged in survey research use focus groups as an important tool to inform thinking on issues and refine ideas, especially in the survey development process. The conduct of quantitative research would need to be completed before new estimates of benefits or costs could be developed.

Section 3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a)	Non-duplication

      It is not expected that any of the information to be submitted to the EPA during these focus group studies is duplicative or is already in the possession of the Federal Government. The proposed focus groups will address the needs of the Agency and significantly improve our ability to test and redefine ideas that will allow EPA to conduct further quantitative research on various environmental economics issues.

3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

      On May 21, 2018 (83 FR 23458), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d) (see Appendix 1). EPA received no substantive comments related to the notice.

      Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

3(c) 	Consultations

      EPA will use in-house staff and/or outside contractors (including possible contacts with the academic community) to develop focus group plans for specific areas of interest. According to OMB guidelines for generic clearances for focus groups, EPA has established an independent review process to assure the development and implementation of high-quality focus groups by EPA. EPA will provide OMB a copy of the survey instrument for inclusion in the public docket. This generic ICR does not obviate the need for OMB review and approval of each focus group project.

      This ICR covers the conduct of focus groups related to environmental economics projects. As such, follow up with respondents regarding the accuracy of estimated burden hours is not possible as focus groups by their very nature are structured as one-time collections. Focus groups are often conducted at facilities designed for this purpose, therefore deviations from estimated burden hours are generally small.

      The need for generic ICRs to facilitate the survey administration process was discussed at a workshop hosted at Resources for the Future on October 2, 2006 entitled: Sample Representativeness: Implications for Administering and Testing Stated Preference Surveys. Generic ICRs for the conduct of focus groups were specifically identified as a means of reducing review times for focus groups and enhancing Agency's ability to navigate the survey approval process. See http://www.rff.org/rff/Events/upload/32432_1.pdf for a summary of the workshop.

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Each focus group will be a one-time collection exercise for the enrolled participants.

3(e)	General Guidelines

      This collection does not violate any of OMB's general guidelines for information collections.

      Information will be collected according to the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320. Respondents will be asked to participate in one focus group and their participation will be voluntary. There will be no need for participants to maintain records or submit documents or proprietary trade secrets. There will be complete protection of any demographic information collection from participant -- full names, phone numbers and addresses will not be associated with responses.

      EPA has developed EPA Information Quality Guidelines (2002) to ensure the utility, objectivity and integrity of information that is disseminated by the Agency. It is EPA's intention that collection of information under this ICR will result in information that will be collected, maintained, and used in ways consistent with both the EPA Information Quality Guidelines (2002) and the OMB Information Quality Guidelines (2002). EPA intends to conduct a pre-dissemination review when the Agency prepares to disseminate information collected under this ICR.

3(f)	Confidentiality

      Each focus group will fully conform to federal regulations  -  specifically the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988 (P.L 100-297), and the Computer Security Act of 1987.

3(g) 	Sensitive Questions

      No questions will be asked that are of a personal or sensitive nature.

Section 4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

      The target population for the focus group discussions will vary by project, but will generally include members of the public. The target population will be clearly defined in advance for each focus group and participants will be randomly recruited whenever feasible.

4(b)	Information Requested

 Data items, including record keeping requirements
 Respondent Activities

      Respondents will be asked to participate in a moderated discussion on a specific topic or issue, during which they will be asked their thoughts, perceptions and beliefs regarding the issue. The collection will be a one-time event and there will be no need for participants to maintain records or submit documents or proprietary trade secrets. There will be complete protection of any demographic information collection from participants -- names, phone numbers and addresses will not be associated with responses.

Section 5.  The Information Collected  -  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

      Agency activities associated with this information collection will include:
      -- Drafting focus groups scripts and accompanying materials
      -- Observing and, in some cases, moderating the focus group discussions
      -- Summarizing focus group results and making changes to draft materials as appropriate

      In addition, the Agency has established a cross-office panel to review focus group projects proposed under this ICR. Membership on the panel is on a rotational basis and consists of one economist from the Office of Policy's National Center for Environmental Economics and three economists from elsewhere in the Agency. Each of the four panel members must have experience with surveys. To avoid potential conflicts of interest and to promote impartiality, each project will be reviewed by three of the panel members. Only projects that have as their primary goal the estimation of benefits, the estimation of costs, or the elicitation of preferences for health outcomes, safety and/or environmental goods will be considered. Additional details about the panel review process can be found in Appendix 2.

      Under the previous approved generic ICR for focus groups, EPA conducted focus groups associated with four distinct projects. The respondent burden hours associated with each project is listed in the table below.

Information Collection Title
                                   Responses
                                     Hours
      Coastal New England Focus Group
                                      260
                                      520
      Health Benefits Focus Group
                                      100
                                      200
      Water Quality Benefits
                                      144
                                      288
      Mortality Risk Reductions
                                      30
                                      60
Totals Under Currently Approved ICR
                                      534
                                     1,068
Total Burden Approved Under Current ICR
                                     1,584
                                     2,745
Unused Approved Burden
                                     1,050
                                     1,677

      Supporting statements for each of these projects were reviewed by the internal review panel prior to their submission to OMB for approval.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

      Focus group studies are directed group discussions that do not produce quantitative data, but which enable skilled observers to infer the underlying views and assumptions of the group that are expressed in the discussion. To facilitate interpretation, discussions are generally recorded and videotaped so that both a visual record and written transcript of the discussion are available for review. Participants are informed in advance that the sessions will be recorded. Transcripts and video tapes will be maintained in the individual project files.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

      Small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions will not be required to participate in focus groups or interviews as part of this information collection.

5(d) Collection Schedule

      Focus groups will be scheduled according to the needs of individual projects.  No firm schedule for this collection has been established otherwise.

Section 6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden
6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

      Estimates of respondent burden were derived from projected focus group usage over the next three years. Each program office was asked for the number and size of the focus groups that they anticipate conducting for economics projects over the next three years. At this stage, a total of six studies are projected for the next three years on subjects including water quality valuation, retrospective cost of regulation, health risk valuation, recreational benefits, and ecosystem valuation. The total estimated hourly burden imposed by this collection of information over the next three years for focus groups is approximately 1,728 hours or approximately 576 hours annually. The total burden per year is valued at approximately $14,239. The participants for the planned focus groups are individuals from the general public participating during non-work hours. As such, there are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection. There is a total of about 288 respondents per year. This is derived by taking the approximate number of studies multiplied by the average number of focus groups per study and again multiplied by the average number of participants per group. The total number of respondents for the 3-year collection would be about 864.

          TABLE 1a.  -  Average Annual Respondent Burden and Costs[1]

                         Approximate Number of Studies

                   Average Number of Focus Groups per Study

                   Average Number of Participants per Group

         Average Hours of Duration for Each Group (includes screening)

                    Total Estimated "Respondent" Hours
                               Over next 3 years

                                Total Estimated
                            Burden per Year ($)[2]
                                       6
                                      16
                                       9
                                      2.0
                                     1,728
                                    $14,239
[1] There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
   [2] Average hourly rate for wages and salaries ($24.72) from "Table 1. Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Civilian workers, by major occupational and industry group, March 2018". U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm)

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

      The Agency incurs costs to develop the focus group materials, organize and conduct focus group discussions, and observe focus group discussions. These expenses will vary by specific project. The table below provides a hypothetical assessment of what the costs might be per year based on several assumptions regarding the level of effort required. EPA person-costs are estimated using an hourly rate for a GS-14 (step 1) based in Washington, DC in 2018 (See GS Pay Tables at: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2018/DCB_h.pdf). These hourly rates are multiplied by a factor of 1.6 to reflect federal labor costs (e.g., employee benefits). Time spent on each step may vary as well as the GS-level of the employees involved. Contractor costs will also depend on the location of focus groups, degree of involvement in materials preparation and whether written transcripts of each focus group are required. The estimates presented below assume that the Agency prepares all materials and that approximately 3 individuals observe each focus group.

               Estimated Average Annual Agency Burden and Costs

                                     Task
                 Costs (and Person-hours) Per Focus Group Hour
                             Total Hours and Cost

                                      EPA
                                   ($54.91/
                                  Hour * 1.6)
                         Estimated Contractor Costs[1]
                                 O&M Cost
                       Number of focus group hours/year.
                                Total Cost/Year
                 Prepare Materials for Focus Group Discussion
                                    $1,757
                                   (20 hrs)

                                      --

                                      --

                                      64

                                   $112,448
                  Organize and conduct focus group discussion
                                 (contractor)
                                      --

                                    $5,000

                                      --

                                      64

                                   $320,000
                        Observe focus group discussion
                                     $264
                                    (3 hrs)

                                      --
                                      --

                                      64

                                    $16,896

                                     Total

                                    $2,021

                                    $5,000
                                      --

                                      64

                                   $449,344
      Notes:  [1]includes recruiting respondents, meeting space, respondent reimbursement for approximately 9 participants, and recording of discussion.

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

      We expect respondent focus group hours to total 1,728 over the next 3 years or about 576 each year. These hours will be spread over approximately 96 focus groups over the course of the 3-year time frame (~32 per year).

 Respondent Tally

Action
Approximate Number of Focus Groups per year
Estimated Respondent Hours per Year
Total labor Cost per Year
Total Annual Capital Costs
Total Annual O&M costs
Focus Group Discussion
32
576
$14,239
$0
$0

 Agency Tally

Approximate Number of Focus Groups per year
Estimated Focus Group Hours per year
Total Capital/Startup and O&M Cost Per Year
Total Labor Cost per Year
Total Annual Cost
Focus Group Discussion
32
64
$320,000
$129,344
$449,344

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

      The request for 1,728 total burden hours represents a decrease of 1,017 (=2,745-1,728) hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. Burden estimates derived for this (and the previous) renewal are based on projected use estimates for this generic ICR provided by the various program offices at EPA. These projections are based on anticipated, new and continuing projects over the coming three years. A decrease in burden over the previous ICR conveys simply that EPA anticipates less need for the conduct of focus groups under this ICR than in the past.

6(g) 	Burden Statement

      The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.0 hours per response.

      Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 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 of 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 number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

      To comment on the Agency'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, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OA-2008-0701, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OEI docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OA-2008-0701 and OMB Control Number 2090-0028 in any correspondence.
Part B.

There are no tabulated results for this information collection.

Information gathered from focus groups is qualitative in nature. They allow for a more in-depth understanding of respondents' attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative studies. It serves the narrowly defined need for direct and informal opinion on a specific topic.

Appendix 1

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23458-23459]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10793]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA HQ-OA-2008-0701; FRL-9977-91-OA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Focus
Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Focus Groups as used by EPA for
Economics Projects (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2205.17, OMB Control No.
2090-0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing
so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed
renewal of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30,
2018. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2008-0701, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathalie Simon, Office of Policy, (MC
1809T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-2338 email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking
renewal of a generic information collection request (ICR) for the
conduct of focus groups and protocol interviews (hereafter jointly
referred to as focus groups) related to economics projects. Over the
next three years, the Agency anticipates working on a number of survey
development efforts associated with a variety of economics projects
including those related to valuation of ecosystems, health risk
reductions, and improvements to coastal waters, to name a few. Focus
groups are an important part of any survey development process,
allowing

researchers to directly gauge what specific issues are important to the
public and providing a means for explicitly testing draft survey
materials. Through these focus groups, the Agency will be able to gain
a more in-depth understanding of the public's attitudes, beliefs,
motivations and feelings regarding specific issues and will provide
valuable information regarding the quality of draft survey instruments.
    The information collected in the focus groups will be used to
develop and improve economics-related surveys. To the extent that these
surveys are ultimately successfully administered, they will serve to
expand the Agencies understanding of benefits and costs of a variety of
actions and could provide the means to quantitatively assess the
effects of others. Participation in the focus groups will be voluntary
and the identity of the participants will be kept confidential.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Individuals.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,584 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 2,745 hours (total). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0, includes $0 annualized capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Al McGartland,
Director, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-10793 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Appendix 2
Proposed Process for Review of Focus Group Submissions
Under Generic ICR "Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects"

 A cross-office, standing panel has been created, consisting of three economists with survey experience, to review requests from individuals or teams wishing to conduct focus groups under the generic ICR. One member of the panel will be from NCEE. Nominations for the other two seats will be solicited from the Program offices through the Econ Forum and will be decided by the Econ Forum Steering Committee. Membership on the panel will be on a rotational basis with each member appointed to a 1-year term. Members will be permitted to serve up to five, consecutive terms, but must then step down for a 12-month period before serving in this capacity again. In order to prevent wholesale turn-over of the panel at one time, the following maximum term limits may be applied to members of the panel (if needed):

      NCEE  -  no more than 3 consecutive terms
      Program Office #1  -  no more than 4 consecutive terms
      Program Office #2  -  no more than 5 consecutive terms.

 Only relevant projects will be considered. Relevant projects are defined as those with an economics component. That is, they must have as their primary goal the estimation of benefits, the estimation of costs, or the elicitation of preferences for health outcomes, safety and/or environmental goods.

 Projects submitted for consideration must have their parent projects entered into the Science Inventory Database. The Science Inventory Database is a publicly searchable database designed to track and report peer review and other science activities across the Agency. Peer review work products are divided into three categories: highly influential scientific assessments, influential scientific information and other products. Creating an entry in the database will allow more public scrutiny of the proposed research and will allow the project to be reflected in the Agency's Annual report to OMB summarizing peer review activities.

   Entries should clearly indicate whether or not the parent survey under development will yield data that is expected to be "highly influential." According to EPA's Science Policy Council Peer Review Handbook, influential scientific or technical work products are those expected to have "a major impact, [involve] precedential, novel, and/or controversial issues, or the Agency has a legal and/or statutory obligation to conduct a peer review." Highly influential scientific assessments are those that "could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any year," or that are considered "novel, controversial, or precedent-setting or has significant interagency interest." Our reading of these definitions would place all surveys in the "influential scientific assessments" category. The classification of a specific survey as "highly influential" will need to be determined on a case by case basis. Most surveys developed specifically for direct input into an economic analysis for a rule or regulation will be considered "highly influential." However, other survey activities could also be considered "highly influential" depending on the subject matter.

 Supporting statements, clearly indicating peer review plans, must accompany each request. Individuals or teams wishing to submit a project for consideration under this generic ICR must submit a draft supporting statement for review by the standing panel. Since focus group results are not expected to yield data that can be analyzed statistically, only Part A of the supporting statement will be expected.

   In addition to the other standard requirements of the supporting statement, the document should clearly describe the need for and purpose of the parent project as well as the projected peer-review plan to assess the quality of any potential survey instruments. For highly influential parent projects, an external peer review panel process, as recommended by the EPA Peer Review Handbook, will be expected. This panel review could take one of two forms: periodic consultations with experts in the field throughout the survey development process or a panel review of the survey development process in advance of submitting an ICR to OMB should the project advance to that stage.

 Time-lines for project completion should accompany the supporting statement, highlighting hard deadlines where they exist. In assessing the project, the review panel will consider whether in their view there is sufficient and reasonable time to complete the focus groups given these timing constraints. As separate ICR approval will be required for administration of any survey once developed, the submitted timeline should reflect the date by which the project team expects to file the ICR for any anticipated survey administration.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17542-17544]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1055]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Rainy River, Ranier, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a drawbridge regulation for
the Canadian National Railway Bridge across the Rainy River at Mile
85.0 at Rainer, Minnesota. This rule addresses the request by the
bridge owner to remotely operate the drawbridge and establishes
seasonal dates of operation.

DATES: This rule is effective: April 29, 2011.

DATES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as well
as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-1055 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1055 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search''. This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 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 rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing material in the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On December 27, 2010, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rainey River, Rainer,
MN. in the Federal Register (75 FR 32381). We received 7 positive
comments and 1 negative comment. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.

Basis and Purpose

    Currently, there is no drawbridge regulation for this drawbridge or
waterway. The drawbridge is required to open on signal at all times in
accordance with the general opening requirements at 33 CFR 117.5. Rainy
River and Rainy Lake serve as the border between the United States of
America and Canada. This bridge is a single leaf bascule type railroad
bridge that provides a horizontal clearance of 125 feet. The water
level on Rainy Lake and under the bridge is controlled by a hydro-
electric dam facility at International Falls, Minnesota, thus charted
datum is based on the water level surface of Rainy Lake when the gauge
at Fort Frances, Canada reads 1107.0 feet resulting in a variable
vertical clearance of 6 to 10 feet in the closed position. Pursuant to
33 CFR 117.8, numerous local entities, including; local governments,
federal entities, and private citizens requested improvement to the
service provided at the drawbridge to allow greater reliability for
bridge openings for vessel traffic. Vessel traffic on the waterway
consists of federal, state, and local public vessels, small commercial
vessels, and both power and sail recreational vessels. The railroad
bridge carries significant train traffic across the international
border. Rainer is a customs port-of-entry, with particular requirements
for trains and vessels.
    The drawbridge was remotely operated for several years without
explicit approval by Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. The bridge
owner, Canadian National Railway (CN RR), requested approval to
continue using remote operation equipment and operate the drawbridge
with remotely located drawtenders in accordance with 33 CFR 117.42. In
the last year, the Coast Guard was informed the drawbridge is routinely
unresponsive to signals and communications from vessels for bridge
openings. In addition, the presence of government and public

vessels operating between Rainy River and Rainy Lake has magnified the
need for the drawbridge to be responsive and reliable for all vessel
traffic.
    This regulation does not authorize remote operations and requires
the bridge owner to provide the necessary drawtender(s) for the safe
and prompt opening of the drawbridge each year between May 1 and
October 15, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. From October 16 to April 30
each year the bridge would open for vessels if 12-hours advance notice
is provided. Additionally, this regulation requires the bridge owner to
post and maintain a clearance gauge to indicate to vessels the water
levels and available clearance while the bridge is in the closed-to-
navigation position.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received eight (8) comments in response to the NPRM. Seven (7)
comments generally supported the proposed regulation, as written,
including letters of support from the City of International Falls, the
City of Rainer, and Koochiching County Board of Commissioners. Among
the supporting comments, one commenter requested the Coast Guard
require the bridge to be maintained in the open-to-navigation position,
require radiotelephone operation, require additional visual signals to
advise when the drawbridge would open for vessels, and to specify a
maximum amount of time that the drawbridge could remain closed to
vessel traffic. The Coast Guard did not include a specific time
requirement in the NPRM due to the wide variation in times for train
and border processes. The same time could not be applied for every
instance. The Coast Guard passed the commenter's requests to leave the
bridge in the open-to-navigation position when trains are not crossing,
install and operate radiotelephone, and provide additional visual
signals to improve communications with vessels and access through the
crossing to the bridge owner. The Coast Guard may require
radiotelephone installation and operation in the future.
    One negative comment was submitted by the bridge owner, Canadian
National Railway (CN RR). The comment from CN RR questions the
justification to require drawtenders due to infrequent bridge openings
for vessels in recent years. The commenter also requests that the Coast
Guard alter the proposed dates and times that drawtenders would be
required to be at the drawbridge. CN RR states that no bridge opening
requests were received until June 20th last year, and that between
Memorial Day and Labor Day last year the bridge was required to be
opened a total of 31 times, resulting in an average of 2.2 bridge
openings per week. Based on the information provided by other comments
received in response to the NPRM the Coast Guard is concerned about the
drawbridge being responsive to requests for bridge openings and not
being operated in accordance with federal drawbridge regulations. No
other comments were received in response to the NPRM concerning the
proposed dates and times that the bridge must open on signal.
    We made two modifications to the rule from the NPRM that were not
based on comments in response to the NPRM. The name ``Rainey'' will be
changed to ``Rainy'' to conform to the spelling on U.S. nautical charts
and publications. An editorial change was made to the language
describing the requirement for clearance gauges, citing the applicable
Code of Federal Regulations.
    This rule is expected to provide for the reasonable balance of all
modes of transportation and effectively accomplish the requested goal
of improving bridge openings and communications between vessel
operators and the CN RR drawtender(s).

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. The Coast Guard
believes that the drawbridge has not been operated in accordance with
the drawbridge regulations in 33 CFR part 117. This rule is expected to
bring the drawbridge into full compliance with the federal drawbridge
regulations.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will provide for on demand drawbridge
openings from May 1 to October 16, thereby improving access for any
small entities during warmer weather, when most transits typically
occur, and provide for openings with 12 hour advance notice during the
rest of the year.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
Federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  117.664 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.664  Rainy River, Rainy Lake and their tributaries.

    The draw of the Canadian National Bridge, mile 85.0, at Rainer,
shall open on signal; except that, from October 16 to April 30, the
draw shall open on signal if at least 12-hours advance notice is
provided. The commercial phone number to provide advance notice shall
be posted on the bridge so that it is plainly visible to vessel
operators approaching the up or downstream side of the bridge. The
owners of the bridge shall maintain clearance gauges in accordance with
33 CFR 118.160 of this chapter.

    Dated: March 21, 2011.
M.N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-7466 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39161-39162]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0614; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASW-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Artesia, NM

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Artesia, NM. This
action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Artesia non-directional beacon (NDB). The
geographic coordinates of the airport are also being updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 5, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Artesia Municipal Airport, Artesia, NM, to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-0614 in the
Federal Register (88 FR 21138; April 10, 2023) proposing to amend the
Class E airspace at Artesia, NM. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO
7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA
Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. These amendments will be published in the
next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile
(decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Artesia Municipal Airport, Artesia,
NM; removes all extensions as they are no longer required; and updates
the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion

under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,''
paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW NM E5 Artesia, NM [Amended]

Artesia Municipal Airport, NM
    (Lat 32[deg]51'07'' N, long 104[deg]28'03'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Artesia Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 12, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-12781 Filed 6-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P