three regulatory approaches for DLHS (i.e., GTZ, numeric standard, and
the post-1977 background) and what the Agency is considering while
revising the DLCL. EPA concluded the consultation with a description of
the preliminary costs and benefits, an update on target housing
revisions, and a series of targeted questions for organizations'
consideration.
    Throughout the presentation several clarifying questions/comments
were posed and responded to about the program requirements, triggers,
and impacted entities. One commenter inquired whether cost estimates
were included for COFs. EPA responded that the costs to COFs had not
been considered; these costs are now included in the analysis. The
Agency has also added a request for comment seeking additional data on
COFs, see Unit VII.
    Additionally, two commenters expressed concerns about having
adequate funding for public housing authorities to meet their basic
needs, such as electricity, and the inability to be proactive about
issues such as lead, due to those same financial concerns. EPA
appreciates those concerns being highlighted and will note that
according to the 2021 Court Opinion the Agency cannot take into account
non-health factors, such as costs, when revising the DLHS. However, the
Agency can consider non-health factors when revising the DLCL. In this
proposal EPA has a lower primary and higher alternative DLCL, which the
Agency is requesting comment on. EPA has also spoken to nine NLLAP
laboratories and has incorporated their feedback into the discussion
surrounding DLCL within Unit IV.B. EPA is also requesting comment on a
phased approach for the DLCL (i.e., lowering the DLCL to the
alternative and then the primary options), and on whether this proposal
will have impacts on tenants or landlords of public housing, including
the potential to impact availability of federally assisted housing.
    After the consultation was complete, EPA provided the organizations
and officials an opportunity to provide follow-up comments in writing.
The Agency received one comment from a non-profit organization whose
members consist of over seventy large public housing authorities (Ref.
99). The commenter highlighted that a large portion of public housing
properties are dated, resulting in many families and children who are
living in dated housing units. They explained that public housing
authorities have unmet financial needs and strongly encouraged the
Agency to consider costs when revising the DLCL. The commenter
expressed concerns about the lower DLCL resulting in a need to switch
laboratory technology to ICP, which could require a larger surface
area, increase turnaround time and an increase in costs. Feedback on
all three DLHS approaches was also provided, notably that the post-1977
background approach would incur the highest costs and was ``undesirable
as currently presented'' and the commenter emphasized the importance of
communication materials and clear communication surrounding the GTZ
approach.
    The Agency appreciates the feedback provided to the EPA during the
consultation process. Regarding concerns over the laboratories moving
to ICP, EPA conducted laboratory outreach and included their feedback
in this proposed rule. EPA is proposing the primary DLCL of 3/20/25
[mu]g/ft\2\ and is also proposing an alternative DLCL of 5/40/100
[mu]g/ft\2\ and requesting comment on both options. As mentioned above,
EPA is also requesting comment on a phased approach to lowering the
DLCL, as well as the proposal to extend the compliance date by one year
and whether it should be shorter or longer to allow laboratories
adequate time to adjust. Additionally, the Agency agrees that
communication surrounding the GTZ approach may be an important element
of this rulemaking and has added in an additional request for comment
in Unit VII.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will
not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and

the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Federally recognized
Tribes that have authorized LBP Activities programs must demonstrate
that they have DLHS and DLCL at least as protective as the levels at 40
CFR 745.65 and 40 CFR 745.227. However, these authorized Tribes are
under no obligation to continue to administer the LBP Activities
program, and if they do not wish to adopt the new DLHS and DLCL they
can relinquish their authorization. In the absence of a Tribal
authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. This action does
not create an obligation for Tribes to administer LBP Activities
programs or alter EPA's authority to administer these programs. For
these reasons, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
However, EPA still intends to hold a Tribal consultation on this
rulemaking in order to solicit input from Tribal officials from the
four Indian Tribes with authorized programs during the public comment
period. This consultation will also be open to any Tribal officials who
would like to participate. EPA will ensure that the consultation
materials are accessible to Tribal officials so that they may view it
later as they consider submitting feedback during the public comment
period. If a Tribal official is interested in attending the
consultation on behalf of an Indian Tribe, please consult the technical
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies that Federal health and safety standards must include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health or safety
risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on children
as they are more susceptible to the adverse health effects of lead due
to their behavior and physiology. Accordingly, we have evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of dust-lead exposure on
children.
    The results of this evaluation are contained in Unit I.E. and in
the EA and TSD, where the health impacts of lead exposure on children
are discussed more fully (Refs. 14 and 16). The documents referenced
above are available in the public docket for this action.
    The proposed DLHS aligns with the current state of the science,
which does not support identifying a threshold of dust-lead exposure
below which there would be no adverse human health effects; while the
proposed DLCL is more health protective than the alternative in that it
results in the least amount of dust-lead left on a surface after the
completion of an abatement. EPA is proposing to revise the DLCL given
the statutory criteria of reliability, effectiveness, and safety.
Furthermore, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also applies to this
action. Discussion about how the Agency applied this policy is
presented in Unit I.E.6.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution
or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards under NTTAA section 12(d),
15 U.S.C. 272 note. ASTM E1728 and ASTM E1792 are already cited in an
existing regulatory definition of ``wipe sample'' at 40 CFR 745.63. EPA
is proposing to formally incorporate the most current version of these
standards (i.e., ASTM E1728-20 and ASTM E1792-20). Additional
information about these standards, including how to access them, is
provided in Unit IV.F.8.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
    EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on
people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous peoples. See
discussion in Section 8.6 of the EA concerning existing
disproportionate impacts of lead pollution faced by children in low-
income households and households of people of color and/or Indigenous
peoples, and the measured extent to which this action particularly
benefits the health of children in low-income households.
    EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental
justice concerns. For example, 49% of children who will benefit from
the rule are members of households below the poverty line, compared to
17% of children nationally who live below the poverty line. An
estimated 44% of total monetized benefits from this rule accrue to
children living in a household below the poverty line. 22-27% of
children who will benefit from the rule are non-Hispanic Black,
compared to 12% of children nationally who are non-Hispanic Black. An
estimated 23% of total monetized benefits from this rule accrue to non-
Hispanic Black children.
    There is some uncertainty, however, regarding the environmental
justice implications of this rule on HUD-assisted housing. If the rule
inadvertently limits the availability of federally-assisted affordable
housing, a subset of low-income individuals or families currently
residing in assisted housing may face higher housing costs on the
private market, disruptions caused by an involuntary loss of housing,
and the potential for dust lead levels that exceed those in their
baseline LSHR-regulated housing.
    EPA additionally identified and addressed environmental justice
concerns through public comment and collaboration with state, Tribal,
and other co-regulatory bodies related to the EJ2020 action agenda and
the development of the Lead Strategy. Through the agency-wide Lead
Strategy, EPA has engaged with key stakeholders, communities, and
organizations with vested interests in addressing lead exposures.
Disparities in lead pollution are a national area of focus in the
EJ2020 action agenda (Ref. 100), and this rulemaking's protective
standards will deliver demonstrative progress on addressing childhood
lead exposure and health disparities to members of overburdened
communities.
    The information supporting the Executive Order 12898 review is
contained in the EA (Ref. 14) and Lead Strategy (Ref. 10), both of
which are available in the docket.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Abatement, Child-occupied facility,
Clearance levels, Hazardous substances, Lead, Lead poisoning, Lead-
based paint, Target housing.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is
proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

PART 745--LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING PREVENTION IN CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.

0
2. Amend Sec.  745.63 by adding in alphabetical order a definition for
``Reportable level'' to read as follows:

Sec.  745.63  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Reportable level means the lowest analyte concentration (or amount)
that does not contain a ``less than'' qualifier and that is reported
with confidence for a specific method by a laboratory recognized by EPA
under TSCA section 405(b).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  745.65 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  745.65  Lead-based paint hazards.

* * * * *
    (b) Dust-lead hazard. Before [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a dust-lead
hazard is surface dust in a residential dwelling or child-occupied
facility that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal to
or exceeding 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors or 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for
interior window sills based on wipe samples. On or after [DATE 12
MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], a dust-lead hazard is surface dust in a residential dwelling
or child-occupied facility that contains a mass-per-area concentration
of any reportable level of lead for floors or for interior window sills
based on wipe samples analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  745.81 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(4)(i) and redesignating paragraph (a)(4)(ii)
as paragraph (a)(4); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (b).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.81  Effective dates.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Work practices. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) Renovation-specific pamphlet. On or after December 22, 2008,
renovators or firms performing renovations in States and Indian Tribal
areas without an authorized program must provide owners and occupants
the following EPA pamphlet: Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  745.83, by adding in alphabetical order a definition for
``Electronic'' to read as follows:

Sec.  745.83  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Electronic means the submission of an application, payment, or
notification using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX), or
successor platform.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  745.89 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1)
to read as follows:

Sec.  745.89  Firm certification.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Firms that perform renovations for compensation must
electronically apply to EPA for certification to perform renovations or
dust sampling. To apply, a firm must submit to EPA a completed
``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of the firm,
and pay electronically at least the correct amount of fees. If a firm
pays more than the correct amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the firm
for the excess amount.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Timely and complete application. To be re-certified, a firm
must submit a complete electronic application for re-certification. A
complete application for re-certification includes a completed
``Application for Firms'' which contains all of the information
requested by the form and is signed by an authorized agent of the firm,
noting on the form that it is submitted as a re-certification. A
complete application must also include at least the correct amount of
fees. If a firm pays more than the correct amount of fees, EPA will
reimburse the firm for the excess amount.
    (i) An application for re-certification is timely if it is
electronically submitted 90 days or more before the date the firm's
current certification expires. If the firm's application is complete
and timely, the firm's current certification will remain in effect
until its expiration date or until EPA has made a final decision to
approve or disapprove the re-certification application, whichever is
later.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) To amend certification, a firm must electronically submit a
completed ``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of
the firm, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and
indicating the information that has changed. The firm must also pay at
least the correct amount of fees.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  745.90 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  745.90  Renovator certification and dust sampling technician
certification.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-
based paint inspector or risk assessor course before October 4, 2011,
may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in
lieu of the initial training to become a certified dust sampling
technician. Individuals who are currently certified as lead-based paint
inspectors or risk assessors may act as certified dust sampling
technicians without further training.
    (4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician
certification, an individual must complete a renovator or dust sampling
technician refresher course accredited by EPA under Sec.  745.225 or by
a State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this
part within 5 years of the date the individual completed the initial
course described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the individual
does not complete a refresher course within this time, the individual
must re-take the initial course to become certified again. Individuals
who take a renovator refresher course that does not include hands-on
training will be certified for 3 years from the date they complete the
training. Individuals who take a refresher training course that
includes hands-on training will be certified for 5 years. Individuals
who take the renovator refresher without hands-on training must, for
their next refresher course, take a refresher course that includes
hands-on training to maintain renovator certification.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  745.92 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  745.92  Fees for the accreditation of renovation and dust
sampling technician training and the certification of renovation firms.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Submit the application and a payment of $15 electronically in
accordance with the instructions provided with the application package.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  745.103 by revising the definition for ``Target
housing'' to read as follows:

Sec.  745.103  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except
housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom
dwelling (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or
is expected to reside in such housing).
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  745.113 by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(1) and (4)
to read as follows:

Sec.  745.113  Certification and acknowledgement of disclosure.

    (a) * * *
    (4) A statement by the purchaser affirming receipt of the
information set out in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section and
the lead hazard information pamphlet required under 15 U.S.C. 2686.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A Lead Warning Statement with the following language:

    Housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Lead
from paint, paint chips, and dust can pose health hazards if not
managed properly. Lead exposure is especially harmful to young
children and pregnant women. Before renting pre-1978 housing,
lessors must disclose the presence of known lead-based paint and/or
lead-based paint hazards in the dwelling. Lessees must also receive
a federally approved pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention.

* * * * *
    (4) A statement by the lessee affirming receipt of the information
set out in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section and the lead
hazard information pamphlet required under 15 U.S.C. 2686.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec.  745.223 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (1), (3)(i) through
(iii), and (4) of the definition for ``Abatement'';
0
b. Revising the definition for ``Child-occupied facility'';
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Electronic'' and
``Housing for the elderly''; and
0
d. Revising the definitions for ``Living area'' and ``Target housing''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  745.223  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Abatement means any measure or set of measures designed to
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in the case of dust-
lead hazards to below the clearance levels. Abatement includes, but is
not limited to:
    (1) The removal of paint and dust (in the case of dust-lead hazards
to below the clearance levels), the permanent enclosure or
encapsulation of lead-based paint, the replacement of painted surfaces
or fixtures, or the removal or permanent covering of soil, when lead-
based paint hazards are present in such paint, dust or soil; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Shall result in the permanent elimination of lead-based paint
hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the clearance
levels; or
    (B) Are designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards,
in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the clearance levels, and are
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this definition.
    (ii) Projects resulting in the permanent elimination of lead-based
paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the clearance
levels, conducted by firms or individuals certified in accordance with
Sec.  745.226, unless such projects are covered by paragraph (4) of
this definition;
    (iii) Projects resulting in the permanent elimination of lead-based
paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the clearance
levels, conducted by firms or individuals who, through their company
name or promotional literature, represent, advertise, or hold
themselves out to be in the business of performing lead-based paint
activities as identified and defined by this section, unless such
projects are covered by paragraph (4) of this definition; or
* * * * *
    (4) Abatement does not include renovation, remodeling, landscaping
or other activities, when such activities are not designed to
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in the case of dust-
lead hazards to below the clearance levels, but, instead, are designed
to repair, restore, or remodel a given structure or dwelling, even
though these activities may incidentally result in a reduction or
elimination of lead-based paint hazards. Furthermore, abatement does
not include interim controls, operations and maintenance activities, or
other measures and activities designed to temporarily, but not
permanently, reduce lead-based paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead
hazards to below the clearance levels.
* * * * *
    Child-occupied facility means a building, or portion of a building,
constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6
years of age, on at least two different days within any week (Sunday
through Saturday period), provided that each day's visit lasts at least
3 hours and the combined weekly visit lasts at least 6 hours, and the
combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied
facilities may include, but are not limited to, day-care centers,
preschools and kindergarten classrooms.
* * * * *
    Electronic means the submission of an application, payment, or
notification using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX), or
successor platform.
* * * * *
    Housing for the elderly means retirement communities or similar
types of housing reserved for households composed of one or more
persons 62 years of age or more at the time of initial occupancy.
* * * * *
    Living area means any area of a residential dwelling used by one or
more children under age 6 including, but not limited to, living rooms,
kitchen areas, dens, play rooms, and children's bedrooms.
* * * * *
    Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except
housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom
dwelling (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or
is expected to reside in such housing).
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  745.225 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1), paragraphs
(c)(13)(vi) and (14)(iii), the introductory text of paragraph (e)(5)
and paragraph (f)(2);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (i)(2)(ii); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (j)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.225  Accreditation of training programs: target housing and
child-occupied facilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit an
electronic

application to EPA containing the following information:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (13) * * *
    (vi) Notification must be accomplished electronically. Instructions
can be obtained online at https://www.epa.gov/lead or from the NLIC at
1-800-424-LEAD (5323). Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may reach
the above telephone number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal
Communications Commission's Telecommunications Relay Service at 711.
* * * * *
    (14) * * *
    (iii) Notification must be accomplished electronically.
Instructions can be obtained online at https://www.epa.gov/lead or from
the NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) A training program seeking accreditation to offer refresher
training courses only shall submit an electronic application to EPA
containing the following information:
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) A training program seeking re-accreditation shall submit an
electronic application to EPA no later than 180 days before its
accreditation expires. If a training program does not submit its
application for re-accreditation by that date, EPA cannot guarantee
that the program will be re-accredited before the end of the
accreditation period.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) To amend an accreditation, a training program must
electronically submit a completed ``Accreditation Application for
Training Providers,'' signed by an authorized agent of the training
provider, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and
indicating the information that has changed.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec.  745.226 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1), introductory text of paragraph (e)(1),
paragraphs (e)(2), (f)(2) and (3);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(5); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.226  Certification of individuals and firms engaged in lead-
based paint activities: target housing and child-occupied facilities.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Submit to EPA an electronic application demonstrating that they
meet the requirements established in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this
section for the particular discipline for which certification is
sought; or
    (ii) Submit to EPA an electronic application attaching a valid
lead-based paint activities certification (or equivalent) from a State
or Tribal program that has been authorized by EPA pursuant to subpart Q
of this part.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Following the submission of an electronic application
demonstrating that all the requirements of this section have been meet,
EPA shall certify an applicant as an inspector, risk assessor,
supervisor, project designer, or abatement worker, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) To maintain certification in a particular discipline, a
certified individual shall apply electronically to and be re-certified
by EPA in that discipline by EPA either:
* * * * *
    (2) An individual shall be re-certified if the individual
successfully completes the appropriate accredited refresher training
course and electronically submits a valid copy of the appropriate
refresher course completion certificate.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) A firm seeking certification shall electronically submit to EPA
an application attesting that the firm shall only employ appropriately
certified employees to conduct lead-based paint activities, and that
the firm and its employees shall follow the work practice standards in
Sec.  745.227 for conducting lead-based paint activities.
    (3) From the date of receiving the firm's electronic application
requesting certification, EPA shall have 90 days to approve or
disapprove the firm's request for certification. Within that time, EPA
shall respond with either a certificate of approval or a letter
describing the reasons for a disapproval.
* * * * *
    (5) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Misrepresented facts in its electronic application for
certification to EPA.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  745.227 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (iv) and (v), (d)(3), (5), (6)(ii)
and (7), (e)(4)(ii), (vii) and (8)(viii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(10)(vii); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h)(3).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  745.227  Work practice standards for conducting lead-based paint
activities: target housing and child-occupied facilities.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Background information regarding the physical characteristics
of the residential dwelling or child-occupied facility and occupant use
patterns that may cause lead-based paint exposure to one or more
children under age 6 shall be collected.
* * * * *
    (iv) In residential dwellings, two composite dust samples shall be
collected, one from the floors and the other from the windows, in
rooms, hallways or stairwells where one or more children, under age 6,
are most likely to come in contact with dust.
    (v) In multi-family dwellings and child-occupied facilities, in
addition to the floor and window samples required in paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) of this section, the risk assessor shall also collect
composite dust samples from common areas where one or more children,
under age 6, are most likely to come into contact with dust.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Background information regarding the physical characteristics
of the residential dwelling or child-occupied facility and occupant use
patterns that may cause lead-based paint exposure to one or more
children under age 6 shall be collected.
* * * * *
    (5) In residential dwellings, dust samples (either composite or
single-surface samples) from the interior window sill(s) and floor
shall be collected and analyzed for lead concentration in all living
areas where one or more children, under age 6, are most likely to come
into contact with dust.
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Other common areas in the building where the risk assessor
determines that one or more children, under age 6, are likely to come
into contact with dust.
    (7) For child-occupied facilities, interior window sill and floor
dust samples (either composite or single-surface samples) shall be
collected and

analyzed for lead concentration in each room, hallway or stairwell
utilized by one or more children, under age 6, and in other common
areas in the child-occupied facility where one or more children, under
age 6, are likely to come into contact with dust.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Notification for lead-based paint abatement activities
required in response to an elevated blood lead level (EBL)
determination, or Federal, State, Tribal, or local emergency abatement
order should be received by EPA as early as possible before, but must
be received no later than, the start date of the lead-based paint
abatement activities. Should the start date and/or location provided to
EPA change, an updated notification must be received by EPA on or
before the start date provided to EPA. Documentation showing evidence
of an EBL determination or a copy of the Federal/State/Tribal/local
emergency abatement order must be included in the notification to take
advantage of this abbreviated notification period.
* * * * *
    (vii) Notification must be accomplished electronically.
Instructions can be obtained online at https://www.epa.gov/lead, or
from the NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (viii) Before [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the clearance levels for lead in
dust are 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior
window sills, and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs; on or after
[DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the clearance levels for lead in dust are 3
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills,
and 25 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs.
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (vii) On or after [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], when dust-lead clearance
sampling results are below the dust-lead clearance levels and at or
above the dust-lead hazard standards, a dust-lead hazard statement with
the following language must be included:

    Although the completed abatement project achieved dust-lead
levels below clearance, some dust-lead hazards remain because any
reportable level of dust-lead is considered a dust-lead hazard. In
order for abatement work to be considered complete, dust-lead levels
must be below clearance levels, which are established based on
reliability, effectiveness and safety. To continue to reduce lead
exposure from dust, the EPA pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family
From Lead in Your Home includes recommendations such as: using a
vacuum with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on
furniture and other items returned to the work area and regularly
cleaning hard surfaces with a damp cloth or sponge and a general
all-purpose cleaner. For more information on how to continue to
reduce lead exposure see Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) Dust-lead hazards and dust-lead clearance levels are identified
for residential dwellings and child-occupied facilities as follows:
    (i) Before [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a dust lead-hazard is present in a
residential dwelling on floors and interior window sills when the
weighted arithmetic mean lead loading for all single surface or
composite samples of floors and interior window sills are equal to or
greater than 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for
interior window sills, respectively; for projects where clearance
sampling is required or otherwise performed, levels of lead in dust
must be below 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for
interior window sills, and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs for
purposes of clearance; on or after [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a dust lead-
hazard is present in a residential dwelling on floors and interior
window sills when the lead loading for any single surface or composite
sample of floors and interior window sills is equal to or greater than
any reportable level of dust-lead for floors and for interior window
sills; for projects where clearance sampling is required or otherwise
performed, levels of lead in dust must be below 3 [micro]g/ft\2\ for
floors, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, and 25 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for window troughs for purposes of clearance;
    (ii) A dust lead-hazard is present on floors or interior window
sills in an unsampled residential dwelling in a multi-family dwelling,
if a dust-lead hazard is present on floors or interior window sills,
respectively, in at least one sampled residential unit on the property
(and, for projects where clearance sampling is required or otherwise
performed, levels of lead in dust must be below the applicable value
from paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section for purposes of clearance);
and
    (iii) A dust lead-hazard is present on floors or interior window
sills in an unsampled common area in a multi-family dwelling, if a
dust-lead hazard is present on floors or interior window sills,
respectively, in at least one sampled common area in the same common
area group on the property (and, for projects where clearance sampling
is required or otherwise performed, levels of lead in dust must be
below the applicable value from paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section for
purposes of clearance).
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec.  745.238 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2),
0
b. Removing paragraph (d)(3),
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (2).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.238  Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based
paint activities.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Certification and re-certification.
    (i) Individuals. Submit a completed application electronically
(titled ``Application for Individuals to Conduct Lead-based Paint
Activities''), the materials described at Sec.  745.226, and the
application fee(s) described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) Firms. Submit a completed application electronically (titled
``Application for Firms''), the materials described at Sec.  745.226,
and the application fee(s) described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. Submit a completed
application electronically (titled ``Accreditation Application for
Training Programs''), the materials described at Sec.  745.225, and the
application fee described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (e) * * *
    (1) Parties seeking identification card or certificate replacement
shall electronically complete the applicable portions of the
appropriate application in accordance with the instructions provided.
    The appropriate applications are:
* * * * *
    (2) Submit application and payment electronically in the amount
specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section in accordance with the
instructions.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  745.325 by revising paragraph (d)(3)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  745.325  Lead-based paint activities: State and Tribal program
requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Abatements permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in
the case of dust-lead hazards to below the clearance levels, and are
conducted in a way that does not increase the hazards of lead-based
paint to the occupants of the dwelling or child-occupied facility.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-15073 Filed 7-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5418-5423]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD19-16-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-922); Comment
Request

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) staff is soliciting public comment on the reinstatement and
revision of the FERC-922, Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs, and
Regions Outside ISOs and RTOs. The Commission is submitting the
information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and
should address a copy of those comments to the Commission, as explained
below.

DATES: Comments on the information collection are due March 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0262, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. A copy of the comments should also
be sent to the Commission, identified by Docket No. AD19-16-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions to the Commission 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: Darren Sheets may be reached by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-922 (Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs, and Regions
Outside ISOs and RTOs).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0262.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission previously had OMB approval for the
information collection FERC-922 under OMB Control No. 1902-0262. At
the Commission's request, OMB approval for the information
collection was discontinued on August 31, 2018. Commission staff
plans to request authority from OMB to reinstate the information
collection FERC-922, with certain revisions, as described in more
detail herein. See 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Request: Reinstatement of the FERC-922 information
collection, with revisions, as discussed in Docket No. AD19-16-000.
    Abstract: On July 10, 2019, the Commission published a notice in
the Federal Register in Docket No. AD19-16-000 requesting comment on
the proposed information collection. The Commission received eight
comments on the proposed reinstatement and revision of the FERC-922.
Commission staff addresses these comments in this notice and in its
submittal to OMB. In addition to addressing the comments received,
Commission staff also has updated the attachments to the notice of
information collection to reflect the correction of certain
typographical and formatting errors.
    In September 2008, the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a report recommending that the Commission, among
other actions, work with Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs),
Independent System Operators (ISOs), stakeholders, and other experts to
develop standardized metrics to track the performance of RTO/ISO
operations and markets and publicly report those metrics.\2\ In
accordance with the 2008 GAO Report, Commission staff developed a set
of standardized metrics (the Common Metrics), sought and received OMB
approval to collect information on those metrics from RTOs/ISOs, and
later non-RTO/ISO utilities, and ultimately issued five public reports
(Common Metrics Reports).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-08-987, Report to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate; Electricity Restructuring: FERC Could Take Additional Steps
to Analyze Regional Transmission Organizations' Benefits and
Performance (2008), https://www.gao.gov/assets/290/281312.pdf.
    \3\ See Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, RTO/ISO Performance
Metrics (last updated Aug. 16, 2019), http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/rto/rto-iso-performance.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2017, the GAO issued a report on the RTOs/ISOs with

centralized capacity markets.\4\ Among other recommendations, the GAO
found that the Commission should take steps to improve the quality of
the data collected for its Common Metrics Reports, such as implementing
improved data quality checks and, where feasible, ensuring that RTOs/
ISOs report consistent metrics over time by standardizing definitions.
Furthermore, the GAO recommended that the Commission develop and
document an approach to regularly identify, assess, and respond to
risks that capacity markets face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-18-131, Electricity
Markets: Four Regions Use Capacity Markets to Help Ensure Adequate
Resources, but FERC Has Not Fully Assessed Their Performance (2017),
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689293.pdf (hereinafter 2017 GAO
Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the 2017 GAO Report, Commission staff has proposed
changes to the Common Metrics information collection. First, Commission
staff proposes to improve the data collection process by creating a
standardized information collection Input Spreadsheet (i.e., the
reporting form) and an updated, more detailed User Guide, which will
provide guidance on completing the information collection request,
including information about who should respond; the timeline for
responses; the metrics being collected, including important definitions
and a description of the types of metrics and their structure in the
information collection; and how to properly use the reporting form.
Also, Commission staff proposes to update the list of Common Metrics to
focus on centrally-organized energy markets and capacity markets, which
involves adding capacity market metrics.
    The update eliminates previously-collected metrics on reliability,
RTO/ISO billing controls and customer satisfaction, interconnection and
transmission processes, and system lambda. Commission staff proposes
eliminating these metrics because they provide limited information, do
not significantly help Commission staff or the public draw any
conclusions regarding the benefits of an RTO/ISO, and to reduce the
reporting burden for respondents. The revised data collection, after
additions and deletions, consists of twenty-nine Common Metrics.
    In addition to eliminating certain metrics and adding new ones, the
Common Metrics are now organized into three groups:
     Group 1 metrics are designed to be collected from all
respondents (i.e., RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities). There are
seven Group 1 metrics: Reserve Margins, Average Heat Rates, Fuel
Diversity, Capacity Factor by Technology Type, Energy Emergency Alerts
(EEA Level 1 or Higher), Performance by Technology Type during EEA
Level 1 or Higher, and Resource Availability (Equivalent Forced Outage
Rate Demand (EFORd)).
     Group 2 metrics pertain to organized energy markets and,
thus, are designed to be collected only from respondents with such
energy markets (i.e., all RTOs/ISOs). There are twelve Group 2 metrics:
Number and Capacity of Reliability Must-Run Units, Reliability Must-Run
Contract Usage, Demand Response Capability, Unit Hours Mitigated,
Wholesale Power Costs by Charge Type, Price Cost Markup, Fuel Adjusted
Wholesale Energy Price, Energy Market Price Convergence, Congestion
Management, Administrative Costs, New Entrant Net Revenues, and Order
No. 825 \5\ Shortage Intervals and Reserve Price Impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Settlement Intervals and Shortage Pricing in Mkts. Operated
by Reg'l Transmission Orgs. & Indep. Sys. Operators, Order No. 825,
155 FERC ] 61,276 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Finally, the new Group 3 metrics pertain to organized
capacity markets and, thus, are designed to be collected only from
respondents with such capacity markets (i.e., all RTOs/ISOs with
capacity markets). There are ten Group 3 metrics: Net Cost of New Entry
(Net CONE) Value, Resource Deliverability, New Capacity (Entry),
Capacity Retirement (Exit), Forecasted Demand, Capacity Market
Procurement and Prices, Capacity Obligations and Performance Assessment
Events, Capacity Over-Performance, Capacity Under-Performance, and
Total Capacity Bonus Payments and Penalties.
    A table showing the revised Common Metrics organized by the three
groups can be found at the end of this notice.
    The updated User Guide for the information collection, as well as
the standardized information collection reporting form, are also
attached to this notice. These attachments will not be published in the
Federal Register but will be available as part of this notice in the
Commission's eLibrary system under Docket No. AD19-16-000.
    Commission staff has assured itself, by means of internal review,
that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information collection requirements.
    Type of Respondents: ISOs, RTOs, and non-RTO/ISO utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \6\ Commission staff expects that
respondents will submit information on the Common Metrics every two
years. Commission staff is requesting a three-year approval from OMB,
so the voluntary information collection would happen in Year 1 and Year
3.\7\ The following table sets forth the estimated annual burden and
cost \8\ for this information collection:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Burden is defined as 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 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \7\ The OMB approval is for a maximum of three years.
    \8\ See generally Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational
Employment and Wages, May 2018 (last modified Mar. 29, 2019),
available at: Computer Systems Analysts (15-1121), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151121.htm; Lawyers (23-1011), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm; Electrical Engineers (17-
2071), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172071.htm; Economists
(19-3011), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes193011.htm; Chief
Executives (11-1011), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm;
see also Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation, News Release USDL-19-2195 (Dec. 18, 2019), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. Those estimated average
hourly wages (plus benefits) are: $82.42 for the Metrics Data
Collection and Write Performance Analysis categories, and $156.99
for the Management Review component (which is solely based on the
Chief Executive wage rates).

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JA20.005

Explanation of the Table

    The Number of Respondents (1) in the first column varies by Group
because all respondents do not provide information on each of the
twenty-nine Common Metrics.
    Commission staff has estimated the number of respondents for the
first three Groups based on the assumption that the six jurisdictional
RTOs/ISOs and the five non-RTO/ISO utilities (eleven total respondents)
that previously responded to the FERC-922 information collection will
provide responses to this revised FERC-922 information collection.
Therefore, the estimated number of respondents in Group 1 is eleven,
because all respondents can report on the Group 1 metrics. The
estimated number of respondents for Group 2 is six because only the
jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs with energy markets can respond to the Group 2
metrics. Likewise, the estimated number of respondents in Group 3 is
four because only the jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs with capacity markets
can respond to the Group 3 metrics. Finally, the table includes a
burden estimate for potential new respondents. Since all the
jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs previously responded to FERC-922, any
potential new respondent would be a non-RTO/ISO utility and, thus,
would only submit responses to the Group 1 metrics. The burden estimate
for new respondents reflects the fact that a potential new respondent
would be submitting for the first time, therefore requiring more hours
and cost per new response. Commission staff conservatively estimates
that one new non-RTO/ISO utility may respond to this revised FERC-922
information collection.
    The second column (2), Number of Responses in Years 1 & 3, is
characterized by the number of Balancing Authority Areas (BAAs) each
respondent would be reporting on, as the respondent would provide a
response to each metric for each of its BAAs. Each RTO/ISO is a single
BAA and, therefore, will only provide responses to each metric for one
BAA, but non-RTO/ISO utilities may report for multiple BAAs. Therefore,
the estimated number of responses for Group 1 (all RTOs/ISOs and non-
RTO/ISO utilities) is the number of BAAs in the RTOs/ISOs (i.e., six),
plus the number of non-RTO/ISO BAAs (i.e., ten), which equals sixteen
total responses. The estimated number of responses for Group 2 (all
RTOs/ISOs with energy markets) is the same as the number of respondents
(i.e., six), as only the RTOs/ISOs respond and they each have only one
BAA. The estimated number of responses for Group 3 (all RTOs/ISOs with
capacity markets) is the same as the number of respondents (i.e.,
four), as only the four RTOs/ISOs with capacity markets can respond and
they each have only one BAA. Finally, there is only estimated to be one
non-RTO/ISO utility as a potential new respondent, which would only
respond to the Group 1 metrics that apply to all respondents.
    The Annual Frequency of Filings (3) is 0.67 for all groups. This
fraction reflects that there will be two information collections, one
each during Year 1 and Year 3 of the three-year OMB authorization
period. Therefore, \2/3\ or 0.67 is the adjustment to reflect an
average yearly value for the burden.
    The Total Number of Annual Responses (4) is the product of the
second column, Number of Responses in Years 1 and 3 (2), multiplied by
the third column, the Annual Frequency of Filings (3). Thus, for the
first group of respondents, this value is 16 x 0.67, or 10.72.
    The Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5) reflects the total
number of estimated burden hours, separated into the three reporting
categories (collect, write, review) for each group of respondents. The
total estimated burden hours for the first 3 groups of respondents are
the same (401 hours) as determined in the previous FERC-922 information
collection burden estimates. An increased estimate of the burden hours,
427 hours, is for Potential New Respondents, in recognition of the fact
that the burden on a new respondent is likely higher. The number of
hours in each reporting category has been adjusted in this collection,
as compared to the previous FERC-922 collection burden estimate, to
reflect less emphasis on the writing category, as Commission staff has
developed a structured data collection tool that will decrease the
amount of written text that respondents will provide in the information
collection.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The estimated hours per response has increased for: (a)
Metrics Data Collection component to 271 hours (from 229 hours), and
(b) Management Review component to 60 hours (from 33 hours). The
estimated hours per response for ``Write Performance Analysis'' has
decreased to 70 hours (from 139 hours).

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

    The Estimated Cost per Response (6) is the product of the following
three variables: The Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5) for a
category, multiplied by the labor rate (wages plus benefits) for each
category (which is not shown in the table), multiplied by the
proportion of total hours attributable to a given Group that reports on
a category, e.g., the number of metrics in that Group divided by the
total number of metrics (also not shown in table). An example in the
first row is that for Group 1, Metrics Data Collection category, the
$5,391 is the product of 271 hours in column (5) multiplied by the
weighted average labor rate for that category ($82.42) multiplied by
0.242 (the ratio of metrics in Group 1, 7, to the total number of
metrics, 29 or 7 / 29). This fraction is not displayed in the
table.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The fraction for Group 1 and the Potential New Respondents
is 0.242 (the seven metrics in Group 1 divided by the total number
of metrics, twenty-nine); for Group 2 the fraction is 0.414 (twelve
divided by twenty-nine); for Group 3 the fraction is 0.345 (ten
divided by twenty-nine).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours (7) is the product of the
Total Number of Annual Responses (4) times the Estimated Burden Hours
per Response (5). For the first row of the first group of respondents,
this value is 2,905 hours (or 10.72 x 271 hours).
    Finally, the Estimated Total Annual Cost (8) reflects the total
burden to the industry and is calculated by multiplying the Total
Number of Annual Responses (4) times the Estimated Cost per Response
(6) for each category for all groups and produces an estimated total
cost in the last row of the table. The wage rates utilized in this
burden estimate have been updated to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates for the same categories as used in the prior burden estimates
for the FERC-922 information collection (i.e., Computer Systems
Analysts, Lawyers, Electrical Engineers, Economists, and the category
Chief Executive) in the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution industry. Wage estimates use the hourly mean wage from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics data, adjusted upward for the private
industry benefits of 29.9 percent, and are an average of those
categories.
    Public Comments and Commission Staff's Responses: Comments were
filed by the public in response to the July 10, 2019 notice published
by the Commission in the Federal Register, 84 FR 32,908 (July 10,
2019). Commission staff's responses to those comments are provided
below.

General Comments on Reinstatement and Revision of FERC-922 Information
Collection

    In general, commenters, including APPA, California Independent
System Operator Corporation (CAISO), Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. (MISO), the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Independent
Market Monitor (PJM market monitor), the ISO/RTO Council (IRC),
Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), and the Competitive
Transmission Developers,\11\ support Commission staff's efforts to
reinstate the FERC-922 information collection and to improve it by
adding the Group 3 capacity market metrics, and by providing a new User
Guide and Input Spreadsheet. APPA further notes its support of
Commission staff's proposal to eliminate the metrics on reliability,
RTO/ISO billing controls, interconnection and transmission processes,
and system lambda. To further improve the value of the information
collection, APPA and the Competitive Transmission Developers comment
that the metrics collected should not be limited to information that is
already collected and published by RTOs/ISOs. APPA and the Competitive
Transmission Developers also comment that Commission staff should
increase the quality checks it performs on the data submitted in
response to the information collection and undertake critical analysis
of the data submitted, including identifying opportunities for
comparisons between RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities. IRC requests a
reasonable period to submit information in response to the information
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Competitive Transmission Developers include GridLiance
Holdco, LP, LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC, and BHE U.S.
Transmission, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Staff Response: Commission staff believes that staff
deliberations, combined with significant public outreach, have resulted
in the development of twenty-nine Common Metrics, as well as the
associated User Guide and Input Spreadsheet, that address many of the
concerns raised by the GAO in the 2017 GAO Report, and that will allow
for meaningful evaluations of the performance and reliability of RTOs/
ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities. Commission staff has not limited the
information collection to metrics that are already collected and/or
published by the RTOs/ISOs or their market monitors. If and when the
information collection is approved by OMB, Commission staff will issue
a formal request for information, seeking responses to the information
collection within ninety days, which staff believes is a reasonable
period of time to respond. Once responses are received, Commission
staff intends to undertake additional, improved quality checks on the
data, as recommended by GAO.

Comments Requesting Modification of Proposed Metrics and Inclusion of
Additional Metrics

    The CAISO Department of Market Monitoring (CAISO market monitor)
requests the addition of four additional Group 2 metrics regarding the
efficiency of congestion revenue rights (CRR) auctions. APPA requests
additional Group 2 and Group 3 metrics, including: (1) A metric
addressing transmission costs comprehensively; (2) a metric addressing
whether existing capacity is over- or under-recovering its costs in the
RTO/ISO-operated markets; (3) a metric addressing the concentration of
ownership of capacity resources; and (4) a metric regarding the
participation and profitability of financial entities in RTO/ISO-
operated markets. APPA also recommends that Commission staff retain the
RTO/ISO governance metric it proposed deleting from the information
collection. The Competitive Transmission Developers recommend inclusion
of a transmission metric on constructions costs, comparing initial RTO/
ISO cost estimates to actual costs at the time the project went into
service, and identifying whether a project was competitive or
designated to incumbents. In contrast, IRC does not believe that
expansion of the metrics beyond Commission staff's proposal is
warranted.
    APPA recommends substantive changes to Metrics #13, #16, #18, #22,
and #25 on the basis that its proposed changes would increase the
accuracy of the metrics, increase comparability, or otherwise add
useful data to the information collection. TAPS recommends that sub-
part ten of Metric #25 be expanded to include data on generation
capacity owned by load serving entities, to allow for greater
comparability across markets. The PJM market monitor recommends
substantive changes to Metrics #3, #5, #6, #10, #11, #16, #19, #20, and
#26, on the basis that its proposed changes would enhance the metrics,
better align them with the PJM market monitor's own calculations, or
otherwise add useful data to the information collection. The PJM market
monitor argues that Metrics #13 and #14 are not useful measures of
market performance.
    Commission Staff Response: Commission staff agrees with IRC that an
expansion of these metrics is not warranted at this time. Some of the

additional metrics recommended by commenters may be calculated by
certain RTOs/ISOs or non-RTO/ISO utilities but not by others, thus
losing the commonality and comparability of the Common Metrics desired
by Commission staff. In many instances, commenters have requested
further granularity of specific metrics--either at a sub-RTO/ISO level,
further divisibility of the metric, or for information based on
individual resources or resource owners. However, Commission staff
notes that the Common Metrics collection is aimed at data applicable at
the RTO/ISO-level or non-RTO/ISO utility-level based on data that could
be calculated using ``common'' methodologies and not designed for
granularity at the individual resource or resource owner level or
further split in a manner that loses the commonality for each region.
    Commission staff also believes that adding some of the proposed
additional metrics, without allowing significant time for further
research, outreach, and refinement, would be premature. However, staff
commits to continuing to research and discuss additional metrics of
interest to commenters in the ongoing voluntary and collaborative
process with participating RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities, and to
consider adding additional metrics to the next iteration of this
information collection.
    Commission staff does not agree with APPA that the customer
satisfaction metric staff proposed to eliminate should be retained.
Historically, responses to this metric have not provided meaningful
data, and therefore the metric has served only to increase the
reporting burden on respondents. Staff commits to continuing to
research and discuss additional metrics of interest to commenters in
the ongoing voluntary and collaborative process, which could include
organizational effectiveness.
    Commission staff has reviewed the substantive changes recommended
by commenters to the proposed metrics and has determined not to make
significant modifications to the metrics at this time. Among other
considerations, Commission staff believes some of the proposed changes:
(1) Would significantly increase the data collection and reporting
burden on respondents; (2) would undermine the commonality and
comparability of certain metrics across RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO
utilities; and (3) do not support the general purpose of the Common
Metrics information collection.\12\ Further, Commission staff believes
that certain other refinements would be premature to implement at this
time, without additional research, outreach, and refinement. However,
Commission staff commits to continue discussing ways to improve the
metrics and make them more meaningful in the ongoing voluntary and
collaborative process with participating RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO
utilities, and to consider additional refinements to the metrics in the
next iteration of this information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Commission staff notes that individual RTOs/ISOs, non-RTO/
ISO utilities, and market monitors may consider developing more
granular metrics specific to their markets for their own reporting
purposes. The Common Metrics information collection is not meant to
be a comprehensive information collection for all RTOs/ISOs and non-
RTO/ISO utilities. Rather, it is meant to focus on metrics that are
common and comparable across the different regions. Staff believes
that earlier outreach efforts and extensive internal staff
deliberations have resulted in meaningful common metrics that meet
this objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Requesting Clarification of Proposed Metrics

    Commenters, including CAISO, MISO, the PJM market monitor, and IRC,
note that certain respondents may not be able to provide responsive
information or data for each metric addressed in the information
collection, or may collect data in a manner that deviates from the
metric as requested. IRC comments that the wording of Metric #17
implies that the ability of RTOs/ISOs to manage the growth rate of
administrative costs will be commensurate with the growth rate of
system load--a presumption with which IRC disagrees. APPA and TAPS both
recommend certain clarifying edits to the description and calculation
of Metric #16. Specifically, with regard to Metric #16, TAPS recommends
that Commission staff: (1) Clarify the definition of ``congestion
revenue''; (2) clarify the definition of ``congestion charge''; (3)
clarify the information to be submitted in sub-part 5 of Metric #16;
and (4) clarify that in reporting congestion revenues returned to load,
RTOs should take into account all revenues and charges associated with
Financial Transmission Rights (FTRs) and Auction Revenue Rights (ARRs).
APPA supports TAPS' comments requesting an improved definition of
congestion revenue and congestion charges and also recommends reversing
the numerator and denominator of the calculation in sub-part 5 of
Metric #16. APPA also recommends that Metric #16 document how the
payments for FTRs that are purchased in an auction compare to the
revenues paid to the instrument holders. The PJM market monitor
recommends that Commission staff clarify: (1) The method of calculating
new entrant net revenues in Metric #18; (2) the intent of Metric #19;
(3) whether Metric #21 is intended to include aggregate import and
exports limits for the RTO/ISO as a whole; and (4) whether Metric #24
should be calculated for each Locational Deliverability Area that price
separates in PJM and for PJM as a whole.
    Commission Staff Response: Commission staff acknowledges that not
all respondents will have responsive information for all of the
metrics, and that some respondents may calculate certain data
responsive to a metric in a way that deviates from that requested due
to administrative and/or structural differences across the different
RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities. Commission staff requests that
respondents respond as comprehensively and as close to the form
requested as possible and simply note and explain in the ``Explanatory
Text'' field for each metric any deviations or omissions.
    Commission staff did not intend for the wording of Metric #17 to
imply that administrative costs will always be commensurate with the
system load growth; therefore, Commission staff has revised Metric #17
to read:

The ability of RTOs/ISOs to manage the growth rate of administrative
costs as the growth rate of system load changes.

    Commission staff agrees with APPA and TAPS that enhancing the
definitions of congestion charges and congestion revenue in Metric #16
would ensure consistent reporting across RTOs/ISOs, and Commission
staff has updated the User Guide and Input Spreadsheet accordingly.
Commission staff also agrees that adding a line omitted from the
original Input Spreadsheet and reversing the numerator and denominator
of sub-part 5 of Metric #16 will improve the metric's clarity, and
Commission staff has updated the Input Spreadsheet accordingly.
Commission staff does not agree that Metric #16 should examine how
payments for FTRs that are purchased in an auction compare to the
revenues paid to the instrument holders because the Commission does not
generally assess the effectiveness of a market by examining how well
specific types of market participants are profiting from participation
in the market. Commission staff also does not agree that congestion
charges should be reported separately for the day-ahead and balancing
markets because only

day-ahead congestion is associated with FTRs.
    Commission staff recognizes there are varying methodologies for
calculating new entrant net revenues in Metric #18 and requests that
respondents explain in the Explanatory Text field any clarifications
they wish to provide. The intent of Metric #19 is to measure the impact
that shortage events will have on reserve market clearing prices. If
respondents would like to provide more granular data or improvements to
the methodology, these can be submitted in the Input Spreadsheet and
described in the Explanatory Text field provided. The intent of Metric
#21 is to measure the maximum importable external capacity into a
capacity zone for the purpose of resource deliverability in the
capacity auction and should therefore focus on imports by zone.
Commission staff confirms Metric #24 should be calculated both by zone
and for the RTO as a whole.
    Finally, Commission staff notes that this information collection is
a voluntary, collaborative process. To the extent respondents have
outstanding or additional questions about the twenty-nine Common
Metrics, including the relevant definitions and calculations,
Commission staff is available to provide guidance.

Further Comments Requested

    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: January 24, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01692 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9835-9836]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2242-078--Oregon]

Eugene Water and Electric Board; Notice of Designation of Certain
Commission Personnel as Non-Decisional

    Commission staff members Ryan Hansen (Office of Energy Projects
202-502-8074<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Katherine Liberty (Office of
the General Counsel<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>are
assigned to help resolve environmental and other issues associated with
development of a settlement agreement for the Carmen-Smith Project.

    As ``non-decisional'' staff, Mr. Hansen and Ms. Liberty will not
participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any
offer of settlement or settlement agreement, or deliberations
concerning the disposition of the relicense application.
    Different Commission ``advisory staff'' will be assigned to review
any offer of settlement or settlement agreement, and to process the
relicense application, including providing advice to the Commission
with respect to the agreement and the application. Non-decisional staff
and advisory staff are prohibited from communicating with one another
concerning the settlement and the relicense application.

    Dated: February 22, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04154 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24147-24149]
[DOCID:fr02my08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0262; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-021-AD;
Amendment 39-15493; AD 2008-09-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 6, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 6,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2008 (73 FR
12032). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to Canadair Regional
Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053,
Part 2, Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the
required CDCCL.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the
CDCCL data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in
the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S.

operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend
to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and
related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 700 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $56,000, or $80 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-09-12 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-15493.
Docket No. FAA-2008-0262; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-021-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 6,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any
category, all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to
preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention
features during configuration changes such as modifications and
repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical
fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in
a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to Canadair Regional
Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053,
Part 2, Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the
required CDCCL.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
include the CDCCL data.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or
before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCLs
specified in Canadair Temporary Revision (TR) 2D-2, dated March 31,
2006, to Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part 2,
``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053.

    Note 1: The revision required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may
be done by inserting a copy of the TR into the maintenance
requirements manual. When the TR has been included in the general
revision of the maintenance program, the general revision may be
inserted into the maintenance requirements manual, provided the
relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in
the TR, and the temporary revision may be removed.

    (2) After accomplishing the action specified in paragraph (f)(1)
of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are
part of a later revision of Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,''
of Part 2, ``Airworthiness Requirements,'' Revision 7, dated May 10,
2007, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual
CSP A-053, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA) (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved
as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: James Delisio, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-35,
dated December 21, 2007, and Canadair Temporary Revision 2D-2, dated
March 31, 2006, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Canadair Temporary Revision 2D-2, dated March
31, 2006, to Appendix D, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part 2,
``Airworthiness Requirements,'' of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station
Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-9196 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 49065-49066]
[DOCID:fr25se09-155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending September 12, 2009

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the
Answer period DOT may process the application

by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of
a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final
order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0216.
    Date Filed: September 9, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: September 30, 2009.
    Description: Application of The 224th Flight Unit State Airlines
(``JSC FU224'') requesting a foreign air carrier permit and exemption
authority to engage in (i) charter foreign air transportation of
property between points in Russia and points in the United States, with
or without stopovers, and (ii) fifth freedom charter service pursuant
to the prior approval requirements.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2004-19077.
    Date Filed: September 9, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: September 30, 2009.
    Description: Application of Continental Airlines, Inc. requesting
renewal of its authority to provide scheduled air transportation of
persons, property and mail between Newark Liberty and Beijing on
Segment 1 of its certificate for Route 821.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2004-19077.
    Date Filed: September 10, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: October 1, 2009.
    Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc. requesting
renewal of its certificate of public convenience and necessity for
Route 810, authorizing scheduled foreign air transportation of persons,
property and mail between Chicago, Illinois and Shanghai, China, as
well as renewal of its allocation of seven associated weekly
frequencies.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0219.
    Date Filed: September 10, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: October 1, 2009.
    Description: Application of Alitalia--Compagnia Aerea Italiana
S.p.A. requesting a foreign air carrier permit to engage in: (i)
Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property
and mail between any point or points behind any member state or the
European Union via any point or points in any member state and via
intermediate points to any point or points in the United States or
beyond; (ii) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United
States and any point or points in any member of the European Common
Aviation Area; (iii) foreign scheduled and charter cargo air
transportation between any point or points in the United States and any
other point or points; (iv) other charter pursuant to prior approval
requirements; and (v) transportation authorized by any additional route
rights that may be made available to European Union carriers in the
future.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-23183 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60310]
[DOCID:fr10oc08-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1791-DR]

Texas; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1791-DR), dated September 13, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of September 13, 2008.

    Chambers County for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already
designated for Individual Assistance and debris removal and
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036;
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24097 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 28313]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4421-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Iowa; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4421-DR), dated March 23, 2019, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 17, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective May 16, 2019.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-12828 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 54610]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP23-840-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Technical
Conference

    On July 14, 2023, the Commission issued an order directing
Commission staff to convene a technical conference to discuss
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC's revisions to the rates,
charges, and certain terms and conditions of service at the Washington
Storage Field in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana.\1\ The technical
conference will be held on Wednesday, September 13, 2023, from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The conference will be held
virtually and in person at a room to be designated at the offices of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. All interested persons are permitted to attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 184 FERC ]
61,035 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    All interested parties that are not able to attend in person are
invited to participate remotely. Staff will use the WebEx platform to
view supporting documents related to this docket using the following
link--https://ferc.webex.com/ferc/j.php?MTID=m6642c4c3eb3c3c97ed6dc3cc03527e8d. For more information
about this technical conference, please contact Sorita Ghosh at
[email protected] or at<PHONE_NUMBER> by September 12, 2023.

    Dated: August 7, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17247 Filed 8-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P