[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40369-40372]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2023-0002-N-11]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On March
24, 2023, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public
comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
July 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular ICR by selecting
``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the
search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected] or telephone:
(571) 609-1285.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On March 24, 2023, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting public
comment on the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 88 FR
17919. FRA has received one comment related to the proposed collection
of information. This commenter expressed concerns about FRA's estimated
paperwork burdens with respect to the Risk Reduction Program (RRP), but
did not articulate in detail which burdens were of concern. While FRA
notes this feedback, FRA's stakeholder-informed process re-evaluates
the estimated paperwork burdens periodically to ensure accuracy and
FRA's subject matter experts also analyze the updated data to determine
accurate estimates.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30-days' notice for public comment.
Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages
between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29,
1995. OMB believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to
file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest
public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29,
1995. Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to
OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full
effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Risk Reduction Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0610.
    Abstract: In 2020, FRA issued a final rule \1\ that requires each
Class I freight railroad and each freight railroad with inadequate
safety performance (ISP) to develop and implement a RRP to improve the
safety of its operations. RRP is a comprehensive, system-oriented
approach to safety that determines a railroad operation's level of risk
by identifying and analyzing applicable hazards, and develops plans to
mitigate, if not eliminate, that risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 9262 (Feb. 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information collected under this regulation will be used by
railroads, and FRA, to improve safety through structured, proactive
processes that systematically evaluate railroad safety hazards on their
systems and manage the risks associated with those hazards to help
reduce the number and rates of railroad accidents/incidents, injuries,
and fatalities. Each railroad has flexibility to tailor an RRP to its
specific railroad operations. Each railroad must implement its RRP
under a written, FRA-approved RRP plan and conduct an annual internal
assessment of its RRP, with FRA also auditing railroads' RRPs.
    The primary reason for the reduction in the estimated paperwork
burden is the expected decrease in the number of responses.
Specifically, all Class I freight railroads have already submitted
their RRP plans, leading to a decrease in the overall PRA burden,
resulting in no anticipated submissions under certain regulatory
sections.
    As a result of the merger between the Canadian Pacific and Kansas
City Southern railroads, Class I the respondent universe was reduced
from seven to six Class I railroads. While the individual burden
remains the same, for transparency, the burden table is being re-
published in this 30-day notice to illustrate the updates made.
    Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in
estimates) of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 6 Class I railroads and 15 Class II or Class
III freight railroads demonstrating inadequate safety performance.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                Average  time per     annual         Total cost
           CFR section                   Respondent universe             Total annual responses           responses        burden     equivalent in U.S.
                                                                                hours            dollar
                                                                    (A)............................  (B)..............  (C = A * B)        (D = C * wage
                                                                                rates)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.13(c)--Determination of        15 railroads...................  5.00 notices...................  3 hours..........        15.00            $1,168.65
 inadequate safety performance
 (ISP)--Qualitative assessment--
 Notice to employees of possible
 ISP identification by FRA.
--(i)Employee confidential         125 employees..................  5.00 comments..................  30 minutes.......         2.50               194.78
 comments to FRA regarding RR
 possible ISP identification.
--(ii)RR Documentation to FRA      15 railroads...................  5.00 documents.................  8 hours..........        40.00             3,116.40
 refuting possible ISP
 identification.
--(f) and (g) Petition for         15 railroads...................  0.67 petition..................  16 hours.........        10.72               835.20
 reconsideration of ISP
 determination and petition to
 discontinue compliance with this
 part.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.101--Risk Reduction Programs   The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   271.103, 271.105, 271.107,
 (RRPs)--Class I railroads.         271.109, and 271.111.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.103--RRP hazard management     6 railroads....................  2.33 HMPs analyses.............  3,360 hours......     7,828.80           609,941.81
 program (HMPs) Class I.
271.105--RRP safety performance    6 railroads....................  2.33 SPEs evaluation...........  147 hours........       342.51            26,684.95
 evaluation (SPEs): evaluation/    6 railroads....................  2.33 assessments...............  1,060 hours......     2,470.15           192,449.39
 assessments--Class I.
271.107--Safety Outreach--         6 railroads....................  44,333.00 communications.......  1 hour...........    44,333.00         2,636,040.18
 communications/reporting to       6 railroads....................  28.00 communications...........  30 minutes.......        14.00             1,090.74
 senior management--Class I.
271.109--Technology analysis and   6 railroads....................  2.33 reports...................  10 hours.........        23.30             1,815.30
 technology implementation plans--
 Class I.
271.111--RRP implementation        6 railroads....................  1,400.00 records of trained      3 minutes........        70.00             5,453.70
 training--programs/training.                                        employees.
 employees/records.--Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.113--Involvement of RR         The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   271.401 and 271.405.
 employees--Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.101(c)--Communication by       6 railroads....................  40.00 communications/            2 hours..........        80.00             6,232.80
 Class I that host passenger                                         consultations.
 train services with RRs subject
 to FRA System Safety Program
 Requirements.
--(d) Identification/              6 railroads....................  212.00 communications/           1 hour...........       212.00            16,516.92
 communication w/entities                                            consultations.
 performing/utilizing significant
 safety-related services--Class I.
--RR Identification/further        6 railroads....................  1,488.00 communications/         1 hour...........     1,488.00           115,930.08
 communication with contractors                                      consultations.
 performing/utilizing significant
 safety related services--Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.101(a)--Risk Reduction         The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under Sec.   271.103, 271.105, 271.107,
 Programs (RRPs)--ISP.              271.109, and 271.111.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.103--RRP hazard management     15 railroads...................  5.00 HMPs......................  240 hours........     1,200.00            93,492.00
 program (HMPs) ISP.
271.105--RRP safety performance    15 railroads...................  5.00 surveys...................  15 hours.........        73.65             5,738.07
 evaluation (SPEs): survey/        15 railroads...................  5.00 SPEs......................  51 hours.........       255.55            19,909.90
 evaluation--ISP.
271.107--Safety Outreach--         15 railroads...................  5.00 communications............  1 hour...........         5.00               297.30
 communications/reporting to       15 railroads...................  5.00 reports...................  3 hours..........        15.00             1,168.65
 management--ISP.
271.109--Technology analysis and   15 railroads...................  5.00 plans.....................  5 hours..........        25.00             1,947.75
 technology implementation plans--
 ISP.
271.111--RRP implementation        15 railroads...................  50.00 records of trained         3 minutes........         2.50               194.78
 training--Records ISP RRs (Note:                                    employees.
 The associated burdens related
 to training were appropriately
 calculated as economic costs of
 the regulatory requirement.).
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.113--Involvement of RR         The estimated paperwork burden for this regulatory requirement is covered under subparts B and E of part 271.
 employees.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.101(d)--ISPs--Identification/  15 railroads...................  5.00 communications/             2 hours..........        10.00               779.10
 communication w/entities                                            consultations.
 performing significant safety-
 related services.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.201/203--Written risk          The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 reduction program plans (RRP
 plans)--Adoption and
 implementation of RRP plans--
 Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Written RRP plans--ISP.........  15 railroads...................  5.00 RRP plans.................  96 hours.........       480.00            37,396.80
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.207--RR Good faith             The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 consultation w/directly affected
 employees--Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--RR Notification to non-          The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 represented employees of
 consultation meeting--Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--RR Good faith consultations/     15 railroads...................  5.00 consults/notices..........  20 hours.........       100.00             7,791.00
 notices: ISP.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--Submission of detailed        The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 consultation statement along w/
 RRP plan by Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Submission of detailed           15 railroads...................  5.00 consults/statements.......  40 hours.........       200.00            15,582.00
 consultation statement along w/
 RRP plan by ISPs (Burden for
 plan copies included).
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Copy of RRP Plan--Class I......  The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Consultation Statement to        The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 Service List Individuals--Class
 I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Statements from directly         The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 affected employees--Class I
 railroads.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Statements from directly         15 railroads...................  12.00 statements...............  1 hour...........        12.00               934.92
 affected employees--ISP.
271.209--Substantive amendments    6 railroads....................  1.00 amended written plan......  8 hours..........         8.00               623.28
 to RRP plan--Class I.
--Substantive amendments to RRP    15 railroads...................  0.67 amended written plan......  8 hours..........         5.36               417.60
 plan--ISP railroads.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
271.301--Filing of RRP plan w/     The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I RRs has been completed.
 FRA--Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Filing of RRP plan w/FRA--ISP    15 railroads...................  5.00 filed plans...............  2 hours..........        10.00               779.10
 railroads.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Class I RR corrected RRP plan..  The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--FRA requested Class I            The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 consultation with directly
 affected employees regarding
 substantive corrections/changes
 to RRP plan.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--ISP railroad corrected RRP plan  15 railroads...................  1.00 RRP plan..................  2 hours..........         2.00               155.82
--FRA requested ISP railroad       15 railroads...................  1.00 consult/statement.........  1 hour...........         1.00                77.91
 further consultation with
 directly affected employees
 regarding substantive amendment
 to RRP plan.
271.303--Amendments consultation   21 railroads (Class I + ISP)...  2.00 consults..................  1 hour...........         2.00               155.82
 w/directly affected employees on
 substantive amendments to RRP
 plan--Class I + ISP.
--Employee statement to FRA on     21 railroads (Class I + ISP)...  2.00 employee statements.......  30 minutes.......         1.00                77.91
 railroad RRP plan substantive
 amendment where agreement could
 not be reached Class I + ISP.
271.303--Filed amended RRP plan--  6 railroads....................  1.00 plan......................  30 minutes.......         0.50                38.96
 Class I railroads.
--Filed amended RRP plan--ISP....  15 railroads...................  0.67 plan......................  30 minutes.......         0.34                26.49
--Amended RRP plan disapproved by  21 railroads (Class I + ISP)...  1.00 corrected RRP plan........  2 hours..........         2.00               155.82
 FRA & requested correction--
 Class I and ISPs.
271.307--Retention of RRP plans--  21 railroads (Class I + ISP)...  2.00 plan copies...............  10 minutes.......         0.33                25.71
 Copies of RRP Plan/Amendments by
 railroad at system/division
 headquarters --Class I + ISP.
217.401/403--Annual internal       6 railroads....................  7.00 assessments/improvement     120 hours........       840.00            65,444.40
 assessment/improvement plans--                                      plans.
 Class I.
--Annual internal assessment/      15 railroads...................  5.00 assessments/improvement     32 hours.........       160.00            12,465.60
 improvement plans--ISP.                                             plans.
271.405--Copy of Internal          6 railroads....................  7.00 reports...................  8 hours..........        56.00             4,362.96
 assessment to FRA--Class I.
--Copy of Internal assessment      15 railroads...................  5.00 reports...................  2 hours..........        10.00               779.10
 report to FRA--ISP.
271.501/.503--External audits--    21 railroads...................  7.33 responses.................  4 hours..........        29.32             2,284.32
 Response to FRA's written notice
 (Note: The associated burdens
 related to audit were
 appropriately calculated as
 economic costs of the regulatory
 requirement.).
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A--Request by FRA for     The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 additional information/documents
 to determine whether railroad
 has met good faith and best
 efforts consultation
 requirements of section 271.207--
 Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Further railroad consultation w/ The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 employees after determination by
 FRA that railroad did not use
 good faith/best efforts--Class I.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Meeting to discuss               The PRA burden associated with this requirement for Class I railroads has been completed.
 administrative details of
 consultation process during the
 time between initial meeting and
 applicability date--Class I s.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Meeting to discuss               15 railroads...................  7.00 meetings/consults.........  1 hour...........         7.00               545.37
 administrative details of
 consultation process during the
 time between initial meeting and
 applicability date--ISP.
--Notification to non-represented  15 railroads...................  600.00 notices.................  15 minutes.......       150.00            11,686.50
 employees of good faith
 consultation process -ISP.
--Draft RRP plan proposal to       15 railroads...................  20.00 proposals/copies.........  2 hours..........        40.00             3,116.40
 employees--ISP.
--Employee comments on RRP plan    2,000 employees................  60.00 comments.................  1 hour...........        60.00             4,674.60
 draft proposal--ISP RRs.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B--Request to FRA for     FRA anticipates zero railroad submissions during this 3-year ICR period.
 electronic submission or FRA
 review of written materials.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals...................  21 railroads...................  48,374 responses...............  N/A..............       60,694            3,910,597
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 48,374.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 60,694.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$3,910,597.
    FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or
sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection
of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control
number.

(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-13133 Filed 6-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 37414]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0625]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Filing Objections and Requests for a
Hearing on a Regulation or Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Filing Objections and Requests for
a Hearing on a Regulation or Order'' has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 30, 2012, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Filing Objections and
Requests for a Hearing on a Regulation or Order'' to OMB for review and
clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now
approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number
0910-0184. The approval expires on June 30, 2015. A copy of the
supporting statement for this information collection is available on
the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-15132 Filed 6-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


traveled (VMT), and the underlying composite emissions factors for such
sources as motor vehicles and nonroad mobile sources (using such
emissions models as MOBILE6 and NONROAD, consistent with the baseline
(2002) inventory). The population projections used in developing the
future year emissions projections are consistent with those that were
adopted by the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission for use in
developing the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. The vehicle activity
assumptions used for the emissions projections are consistent with
those developed and used by the local Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe
County.
    The projections for 2010 and 2016 reflect the control measures
relied upon for attainment and maintenance of the CO NAAQS in Truckee
Meadows, including the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, the
District's oxygenated gasoline program, the State's vehicle I/M
program, and the District's residential woodburning combustion program.
    Based on the inventory estimates, CO emissions in Truckee Meadows
are expected to decrease significantly between 2002 and 2016, despite a
projected 24% increase in population and 38% increase in VMT over that
period, primarily due to decreases from the on-road motor vehicle
category associated with increasingly stringent EPA exhaust standards
for new cars and trucks and the gradual turnover from older more
polluting, to newer cleaner burning, vehicles. The District AQMD has
also established safety margins for years 2010 and 2016 and assigned
the safety margins to the on-road motor vehicle source category. Based
on our review of the emissions projections, we find that the methods
used to make the future year projections are acceptable.
    Assuming redesignation of Truckee Meadows for CO early in 2008, the
plan does not quite project emissions for 10 years beyond
redesignation, but given how close the out-year in the maintenance plan
(2016) is to a 10-year horizon year (2018), the low design value (4.4
ppm) of Truckee Meadows in the attainment year (2002), the flat trend
in CO emissions documented by the maintenance plan (even assuming use
of the safety margin), and the expected continuation of all of the
measures that brought the area to attainment, we find that the plan
adequately demonstrates maintenance of the CO NAAQS for the initial
maintenance period (i.e., first 10 years after redesignation).
3. Monitoring Network
    Continued ambient monitoring of an area is required over the
maintenance period. In the Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance Plan (see
page 22 of the plan), the District AQMD indicates its intention to
continue to operate an air quality monitoring network consistent with
40 CFR part 58 to verify the attainment status. The Truckee Meadows CO
Maintenance Plan also states that, in addition, Washoe County's CO
monitoring network will be reviewed annually pursuant to 40 CFR
58.20(d) to ensure the network meets the monitoring objectives defined
in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    The District AQMD and NDEP have the legal authority to implement
and enforce the requirements of the Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance
Plan. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any
emission control contingency measures determined to be necessary to
correct CO NAAQS violations. As noted above, to implement the Truckee
Meadows CO Maintenance Plan, the District AQMD will continue to monitor
CO levels in Truckee Meadows. To track progress on the plan, the
District AQMD has also committed to continue preparing (and submitting
to EPA) CO emission inventory updates on a triennial schedule (see page
23 of the Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance Plan). The District AQMD also
intends to continue residential wood combustion surveys on a triennial
basis to monitor changes in the types and number of woodburning devices
operating, and the amount of wood being burned, in Truckee Meadows and
thereby maintain up-to-date information on this important CO source
category.
5. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that maintenance plans include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any
violations of the NAAQS that occur after redesignation of the area.
Under section 175A(d), contingency measures identified in the
contingency plan do not have to be fully adopted at the time of
redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency
measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a
specified event. The maintenance plan should clearly identify the
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a specific timeline for action by the State. As a
necessary part of the plan, the State should also identify specific
indicators or triggers, which will be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be implemented.
    The Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance Plan includes a contingency plan
consisting of two tiers. As background to the first tier, we note that,
under the District's emergency episode plan, now codified as District
rule 050.001, an exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (i.e. a value
exceeding 9 ppm (eight-hour average), which means an actual recording
of 9.5 ppm or greater due to rounding conventions) at any of the
monitors located in the Truckee Meadows area triggers a Stage 1 (Alert)
Episode. Stage 1 (Alert) Episode actions include cessation of open
burning and use of incinerators that are subject to District AQMD
operating permits, and a request to the public to curtail unnecessary
motor vehicle use through the District's public outreach program. Under
certain conditions, Stage 1 (Alert) Episode actions may also include
the suspension of the burning of any solid fuel in commercial or
residential stoves and/or fireplaces unless such fuels supply the only
heat available to the person burning it. We approved the current
version of the District's emergency

episode plan on June 18, 2007 (72 FR 33397).
    Under tier 1 of the contingency plan, the District would initiate a
rulemaking process to redefine the CO stage 1 (alert) episode level
from 9 ppm to 9.0 ppm. This will have the effect of triggering the
actions cited above at pre-exceedance levels due to the convention of
rounding all values from 9.1 ppm through 9.4 ppm down to 9 ppm. In
other words, under tier 1, the Stage 1 (Alert) Episode criteria level
for CO will be reduced, as a practical matter, from 9.5 ppm to 9.0 ppm.
The plan indicates that the District will adopt and implement this
regulatory change before the next CO season following the triggering
event.
    Tier 2 will be triggered by a violation of the CO NAAQS (i.e., a
second non-overlapping exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS in the same
calendar year from any National Ambient Monitoring Station (NAMS),
State and Local Monitoring Stations (SLAMS), or Special Purpose
Monitoring (SPM) site operated within Washoe County). If triggered,
under tier 2 of the contingency plan, the District AQMD will bring to
the District Board of Health (within 45 days of the tier 2 triggering
event) a recommendation for regulatory action, including a timeline for
adoption and implementation. The contingency plan contains the current
list of potential CO contingency measures, including an increase in the
oxygen content requirement under the District's wintertime oxygenated
gasoline rule, and a request to the State Environmental Commission to
revise certain provisions of the vehicle I/M program to achieve
additional CO emissions reductions in Truckee Meadows. The District
AQMD intends to update this list of potential measures on a triennial
basis.
    EPA finds that the contingency plan provided in the maintenance
plan is adequate to ensure prompt correction of a violation and thereby
complies with section 175A(d) of the Act.
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires States to submit a subsequent
maintenance plan revision eight years after the original redesignation
request and maintenance plan have been approved by EPA. The subsequent
revision is to provide for maintenance of the air quality standard for
an additional 10 years following the initial ten-year maintenance
period. Through adoption of the Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance Plan,
the District has committed (see page 16 of the Truckee Meadows CO
Maintenance Plan) to prepare, adopt and submit a revised CO maintenance
plan eight years after redesignation to attainment.
7. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    A maintenance plan must contain motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) that, in conjunction with all other sources, are consistent
with maintenance of the applicable NAAQS. In this case, an MVEB
represents the total allowable CO emissions allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use during the maintenance period. The rules and
requirements governing transportation conformity (codified at 40 CFR
part 93, subpart A) require certain transportation activities to be
consistent with the MVEBs contained in control strategy or maintenance
SIPs (40 CFR 93.118). The projected emissions resulting from the
transportation activities must be less than or equal to the emissions
budget levels (40 CFR 93.118(a)).
    The MVEBs for years 2010 and 2016 that are contained in the Truckee
Meadows CO Maintenance Plan were developed using emission factors
generated using EPA's MOBILE6 model but also include a safety margin
equal to the difference between the projected level of overall CO
emissions in Truckee Meadows in those years and the actual CO emissions
that were estimated for the baseline year (2002). Safety margins are
allowed under our transportation conformity rule so long as such
margins are explicitly quantified in the applicable plan and are shown
to be consistent with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS (whichever
is relevant to the particular plan). See 40 CFR 93.124(a). In this
instance, the safety margin has been explicitly quantified and shown to
be consistent with continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in Truckee
Meadows through the applicable maintenance period. See section IX.E.2
of this document.
    We found the MVEBs in the Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance Plan
adequate in a letter to Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E., Administrator, NDEP,
dated February 14, 2006. See 71 FR 13386 (March 15, 2006). The adequacy
finding on the maintenance plan budgets was effective as of March 30,
2006.
    Our adequacy finding is a preliminary determination that MVEBs are
consistent with the purposes of the submitted plan (in this case, a
maintenance plan) and does not constitute an approval action, and in
today's action, EPA is taking the next step by proposing to approve the
MVEBs in the Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance Plan for transportation
conformity purposes. EPA believes that the MVEBs are consistent with
the control measures identified in the SIP, and that the SIP as a whole
demonstrates maintenance with the CO NAAAQS. The 2010 and 2016 motor
vehicle emissions budgets included in the Truckee Meadows Truckee
Meadows CO Maintenance Plan are shown in Table 2 below.

   Table 2.--On-Road Motor Vehicle Carbon Monoxide Emissions Budgets,
                     Truckee Meadows, 2010 and 2016
                   [Pounds per typical CO season day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2010        2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets.........     330,678     321,319
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Conclusion
    Based on the review presented above of the various elements of the
submitted plan, we propose to approve the Truckee Meadows CO
Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Truckee Meadows portion of the
Nevada SIP. In so doing, we find that the Truckee Meadows CO
Maintenance Plan, adopted on September 22, 2005 by the Washoe County
District Board of Health and submitted by NDEP to EPA on November 4,
2005, satisfies the requirements of section 175A of the Act. Our final
approval of the Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance Plan would satisfy the
criterion for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv).

X. Proposed Action and Request for Comment

    For the reasons given above, we are proposing to approve, under
section 110(k)(3) and part D (of title I) of the Act, certain
submittals by NDEP of revisions to the Nevada SIP that are required to
provide for attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Truckee Meadows
``moderate'' CO nonattainment area, to

approve a maintenance plan under section 110(k)(3) and 175A of the Act,
and to approve, under section 107(d)(3) of the Act, NDEP's request to
redesignate Truckee Meadows to attainment for the CO NAAQS.
    First, we are proposing to approve the local oxygenated gasoline
regulation (Rule 040.095 of the Washoe County District Board of Health
Regulations Governing Air Quality Management, as amended on September
22, 2005) as fulfilling the requirements of section 211(m) of the CAA.
    Second, we are proposing to approve the State of Nevada's SIP
revisions containing the ``basic'' vehicle I/M program for Truckee
Meadows because we find that the program meets all applicable
requirements under CAA section 187(a)(4) and EPA regulations.
Specifically, we are proposing to approve three I/M-related SIP
revisions submitted by NDEP:
    (i) State Implementation Plan for a Basic Program for the
Inspection and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles for the Truckee Meadows
Planning Area, Nevada (June 1994), submitted on June 3, 1994; we are
excluding the following outdated or superseded elements included in the
June 3, 1994 SIP revision: the statutory provisions and rules, the
exhaust gas analyzer specifications, and a contingency measure adopted
by the Washoe County District Board of Health;
    (ii) Basic I/M Performance Standard Evaluation for motor vehicles
in the Truck Meadows planning area, submitted on November 2, 2006; and
    (iii) Current Nevada I/M statutory provisions and rules and updated
exhaust gas analyzer (NV2000) specifications, submitted by NDEP on May
11, 2007. The submitted Nevada I/M statutory provisions and regulations
that are proposed for approval are as follows:
     Nevada Revised Statutes (2005), chapter 365: section
365.060; chapter 366, section 366.060; chapter 445B, sections 445B.210,
445B.700-845 (excluding NRS 445B.776, 445B.777, and 445B.778); chapter
481, sections 481.019-481.087; chapter 482, sections 482.029, 482.155-
482.290, 482.385, 482.461, and 482.565; and chapter 484, sections
484.101, 484.644 and 484.6441;
     Nevada Administrative Code, chapter 445B (January 2007
revision by the Legislative Counsel Bureau), sections 445B.400 to
445B.735, excluding subsection (2) of section 445B.595.
    The May 11, 2007 SIP revision submittal is a comprehensive update
of the statutory and regulatory portion of Nevada's mobile source SIP
(excluding the rules establishing fuels specifications, alternative
fuels programs for government vehicles, and any local rules related to
mobile sources) and is an update of the exhaust gas analyzer
specifications as approved in 2004 for the State's I/M program in Las
Vegas and Boulder City.
    In connection with the approval of the State's I/M program, we are
taking no action on submitted rule NAC 445B.595(2), which extends the
State's I/M requirements to motor vehicles operated on Federal
installations located within I/M areas because the Federal government
has not waived sovereign immunity in the context of vehicle I/M
programs. Furthermore, we are proposing, under CAA section 110(k)(6),
to rescind our previous, and erroneous, approval of NAC 445B.595(2)
into the Nevada SIP in 2004, also on the grounds of sovereign immunity.
    Third, under section 107(d)(3), we are proposing to approve NDEP's
request (dated November 4, 2005) to redesignate the Truckee Meadows CO
nonattainment area to attainment. In so doing, we find that:
     The Truckee Meadows nonattainment area has attained the CO
NAAQS;
     EPA has fully approved the applicable SIP for this area
under section 110(k) of the CAA;
     The improvement in ambient CO conditions in Truckee
Meadows is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions;
     The State has met all requirements applicable to Truckee
Meadows under section 110 and part D (of title I) of the CAA; \15\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ With respect to this criterion, we will not finalize this
proposed redesignation until we have finalized proposed approvals of
the District's wintertime oxygenated gasoline rule and the State's
basic I/M program, both of which are addressed herein. Also, we find
that we need not fully approve either the District's nonattainment
new source review rules or conformity rules as a pre-condition to
redesignation of Truckee Meadows to attainment for the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The State has submitted a maintenance plan, the
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Truckee Meadows
Carbon Monoxide Non-Attainment Area (September 2005) (``Truckee Meadows
CO Maintenance Plan''), adopted by the Washoe County District Board of
Health on September 22, 2005, and submitted by NDEP to EPA on November
4, 2005, for which we are proposing approval as a revision to the
Truckee Meadows portion of the Nevada SIP.
    In connection with the Truckee Meadows CO Maintenance Plan, we find
the following plan elements to be acceptable:
     Baseline (2002) emissions inventory and future year (2010
and 2016) inventory projections;
     Commitment to continue operating an appropriate ambient CO
monitoring network;
     Commitment to verify continued attainment through ambient
monitoring and the preparation and submittal of periodic inventory
updates and surveys of residential woodburning;
     Contingency provisions under CAA section 175A(d),
specifically, the adopted two-tier approach with specific triggering
events and regulatory responses: the first involving a lowering of the
stage 1 (alert) episode level (tier 1) by the next CO season and the
second involving a recommendation and timetable for action by the
Washoe County District Board of Health or the State Environmental
Commission to tighten certain requirements, potentially including a
higher wintertime gasoline oxygen content or higher waiver amounts in
the State's vehicle I/M program, to promptly correct any violation of
the CO NAAQS after redesignation;
     Commitment to prepare and submit a subsequent CO
maintenance plan for the Truckee Meadows area eight years after
redesignation; and
     CO motor vehicle emissions budgets (in terms of pounds per
typical CO season day) of 330,678 pounds per typical CO season day in
year 2010 and 321,319 pounds per typical CO season day in year 2016.
    We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed SIP and
redesignation rulemaking action. We will consider your comments in
deciding our final action if your comments are received by February 6,
2008.

XI. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve
state plan revisions as meeting Federal requirements and redesignate an
area to attainment for air quality planning purposes and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely proposes to approve state plan revisions implementing a
Federal standard and to redesignate an area to attainment for air
quality planning purposes and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to
children.
    In reviewing SIP submissions and redesignation requests, EPA's role
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing
requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission or redesignation
request for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission or
redesignation request, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This
proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: December 26, 2007.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E7-25636 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Atrazine Human Health Re-Evaluation

Conference Calls with Stakeholders and USDA and NASDA

October 7, 2009

Call Requested By: EPA Office of Pesticide Programs

Participants:

Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA – Robert McNally, Steven Bradbury,
Catherine Eiden, and Carol Stangel

Stakeholders (11:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. EST) –

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

(202) 289-6868 (office main)

Jennifer Sass, Ph.D.,   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Aaron Colangelo,   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

[On the call: Mae Wu and Josh Mogerman, Chicago]

American Water Works Association (AWWA)

J. Alan Roberson, P.E.

Director of Security and Regulatory Affairs

(202) 326-6127 (direct)

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Triazine Network

Jere White

Kansas Corn Growers Association

785-448-6922

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

American Farm Bureau Federation

Tyler Wegmeyer

202-406-3663

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

USDA and NASDA (11:30 a.m. – Noon EST) –

Teung Chin, Acting Director, Office of Pest Management Policy

Agricultural Research Service

USDA

(202) 720-5375

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Nathan Bowen, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Specialist

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA)

(202) 296-9680

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Bob Ehart, Public Policy Director

NASDA

(202) 296-9680

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Meeting Summary:

EPA discussed with atrazine stakeholders the Agency’s announcement
today that we are launching a comprehensive new evaluation of atrazine.

EPA’s review will be based on transparency and sound science,
including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine
whether a change in our regulatory position on atrazine is appropriate.
At the end of this process, the Agency will decide whether to revise its
current atrazine risk assessment and whether new restrictions are
necessary to better protect public health.

During the reevaluation, EPA will consider the potential for atrazine
cancer and non-cancer effects, including data generated since 2003 from
laboratory animal and human epidemiology studies.  To be certain that
the best science possible is used in its atrazine human health risk
assessment, and to ensure transparency, EPA is seeking advice from the
independent FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).

EPA will engage the SAP to reevaluate the human health effects of
atrazine over the coming year:

November 3, 2009 – EPA will present its plan for the new atrazine
evaluation.

February 2010 – EPA will present and seek scientific peer review of
its proposed plan for incorporating epidemiology studies into the
atrazine risk assessment.

April 2010 – EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation
of atrazine non-cancer effects based on animal laboratory toxicology
studies, selection of safety factors in the risk assessment, and the
sampling design currently used to monitor drinking water in community
water systems.

September 2010 – EPA will present and seek peer review of its
evaluation of atrazine cancer and non-cancer effects based on animal
toxicology studies and epidemiology studies.  This review is intended to
include the most recent results from the National Cancer Institute’s
Agricultural Health Study, anticipated for publication in 2010.

At the conclusion of this process, EPA will ask the SAP to review
atrazine’s potential effects on amphibians and aquatic ecosystems.

The SAP meetings will be open to the public.

In addition to conducting this scientific review of atrazine’s human
health and ecological effects, EPA plans to meet with interested groups
to explore better ways to inform the public more quickly about results
of atrazine drinking water monitoring.

Meeting Summary Prepared by:  Robert McNally

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28651]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4512-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Virginia; Amendment No. 1 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 Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4512-DR), dated April 2, 2020,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 30, 2020.

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: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby amended to include
Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event
declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April
2, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the Commonwealth of Virginia (already designated
for emergency protective measures [Category B] not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance).
    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,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-10185 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68312-68317]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC16-2-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-538, FERC-740,
FERC-729, FERC-715, FERC-592, FERC-60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A);
Consolidated Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collections and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
requirements and burden \1\ of the information collections described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission defines burden 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, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due January 4,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-2-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in
your comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection
requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the
current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is
distinct from the next.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are 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 estimates of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

FERC-538, Gas Pipelines Certificates: Sections 7(a) Mandatory Initial
Service

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0061.
    Abstract: Under sections 7(a), 10(a) and 16 of Natural Gas Act
(NGA),\2\ upon application by a person or municipality authorized to
engage in the local distribution of natural gas, the Commission may
order a natural gas company to extend or improve its transportation
facilities, and sell natural gas to the municipality or person and, for
such purpose, to extend its transportation facilities to communities
immediately adjacent to such facilities or to territories served by the
natural gas pipeline company. The Commission uses the application data
in order to be fully informed concerning the applicant, and the service
the applicant is requesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 717f-w.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondent: Persons or municipalities authorized to engage
in the local distribution of natural gas.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $72.00 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from
the FERC average salary of $149,489/year.

                                       FERC-538--Gas Pipeline Certificates: Section 7(a) Mandatory Initial Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Annual number                      Average      Total annual
                                                             Number of     of  responses   Total number    burden & cost  burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents         per        of responses    per response    total annual     respondent
                                                                            respondent                          \3\            cost             ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Pipeline Certificates...............................               1               1               1             240             240         $17,280
                                                                                $17,280         $17,280
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-740, Availability of e-Tag Information to Commission Staff

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0254.
    Abstract: In Order 771,\4\ the FERC-740 information collection
(providing Commission staff access to e-Tag data) was implemented to
provide the Commission, Market Monitoring Units (MMUs), Regional
Transmission Organizations (RTOs), and Independent System Operators
(ISOs) with information that allows them to perform market surveillance
and analysis more effectively. The e-Tag information is necessary to
understand the use of the interconnected electricity grid, particularly
transactions occurring at interchanges. Due to the nature of the
electricity grid, an individual transaction's impact on an interchange
cannot be assessed adequately in all cases without information from all
connected systems, which is included in the e-Tags. The details of the
physical path of a transaction included in the e-Tags helps the
Commission to monitor, in particular, interchange transactions
effectively, detect and prevent price manipulation over interchanges,
and ensure the efficient and orderly use of the transmission grid. For
example, the e-Tag data allows the Commission to identify transmission
reservations as they go from one market to another and link the market
participants involved in that transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Order 771 was issued in Docket No. RM11-12 (77 FR 76367, 12/
28/2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Order No. 771 provided the Commission access to e-Tags by requiring
that Purchasing-Selling Entities \5\ (PSEs) and Balancing Authorities
(BAs), list the Commission on the ``CC'' list of e-Tags so that the
Commission can receive a copy of the e-Tags. The Commission accesses
the e-Tags by contracting with a commercial vendor, OATI. In early
2014, the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) incorporated
the requirement that the Commission be added to the ``CC'' list on e-
Tags as part of the tagging process.\6\ Even before NAESB added the
FERC requirement to the tagging standards, the rules behind the ``CC''
list requirement had already been programmed into the industry standard
tagging software so as to make the inclusion of FERC in the ``CC'' list
automatic. The Commission expects that PSEs and BAs will continue to
use existing, automated procedures to create and validate the e-Tags in
a way that provides the Commission with access to them. In the rare
event that a new BA would need to alert e-Tag administrators that
certain tags it generates qualify for exemption under the Commission's
regulations (e.g., transmissions from a new Canadian BA into another
Canadian BA), this administrative function would be expected to require
less than an hour of effort total from both the BA and an e-Tag
administrator to include the BA on the exemption list. New exempt BAs
occur less frequently than every year, but for the purpose of
estimation we will conservatively assume one appears each year creating
an additional burden associated with the Commission's FERC-740
requirement of $60.59.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Purchasing-Selling Entity is the entity that purchases or
sells, and takes title to, energy, capacity, and Interconnected
Operations Services. Purchasing-Selling Entities may be affiliated
or unaffiliated merchants and may or may not own generating
facilities. Purchasing-Selling Entities are typically E-Tag Authors.
    \6\ NAESB Electronic Tagging Functional Specifications, Version
1.8.2.
    \7\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided in
this section is based on the figures for May 2014 posted by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Utilities sector (available at
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm#13-0000) assuming:
     15 minutes legal (code 23-0000), $129.87 hourly
     45 minutes information and record clerk (code 43-4199),
$37.50 hourly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondent: Purchasing-Selling Entities and Balancing
Authorities.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden (rounded) for the information collection as:

                                             FERC-740--Availability of e-Tag Information to Commission Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number                      Average      Total annual
                                                             Number of     of  responses   Total number    burden hours   burden hours &     Cost per
                        FERC-740                            respondents         per        of responses     & cost per     total annual     respondent
                                                                            respondent                       response          cost             ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchasing-Selling Entities (e-Tag Authors).............             369           4,404       1,625,326               0               0              $0
Balancing Authorities...................................             101          16,092       1,625,326               0               0               0
New Balancing Authority [as noted above]................               1               1               1   1 hr.; $60.59   1 hr.; $60.59           60.59
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             470  ..............  ..............  ..............   1 hr.; $60.59           60.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-729, Electric Transmission Facilities

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0238.
    Abstract: This information collection implements the Commission's
mandates under EPAct 2005 section 1221 which authorizes the Commission
to issue permits under FPA section 216(b) for electric transmission
facilities and the Commission's delegated responsibility to coordinate
all other federal authorizations under FPA section 216(h). The related
FERC regulations seek to develop a timely review process for siting of
proposed electric transmission facilities. The regulations provide for
(among other things) an extensive pre-application process that will
facilitate maximum participation from all interested entities and
individuals to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to present
their views and recommendations, with respect to the need for and
impact of the facilities, early in the planning stages of the proposed
facilities as required under FPA section 216(d).
    Additionally, FERC has the authority to issue a permit to construct
electric transmission facilities if a state has withheld approval for
more than a year or has conditioned its approval in such a manner that
it will not significantly reduce transmission congestion or is not
economically feasible.\8\ FERC envisions that, under certain
circumstances, the Commission's review of the proposed facilities may
take place after one year of the state's review. Under section
50.6(e)(3) the Commission will not accept applications until one year
after the state's review and then from applicants who can demonstrate
that a state may withhold or condition approval of proposed facilities
to such an extent that the facilities will not be constructed.\9\ In
cases where FERC's jurisdiction rests on FPA section 216(b)(1)(C),\10\
the pre-filing process should not commence until one year after the
relevant State applications have been filed. This will give states one
full year to process an application without any intervening Federal
proceedings, including both the pre-filing and application processes.
Once that year is complete, an applicant may seek to commence FERC's
pre-filing process. Thereafter, once the pre-filing process is
complete, the applicant may submit its application for a construction
permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FPA section 216(b)(1)(C).
    \9\ However, the Commission will not issue a permit authorizing
construction of the proposed facilities until, among other things,
it finds that the state has, in fact, withheld approval for more
than a year or had so conditioned its approval.
    \10\ In all other instances (i.e. where the state does not have
jurisdiction to act or otherwise to consider interstate benefits, or
the applicant does not qualify to apply for a permit with the State
because it does not serve end use customers in the State), the pre-
filing process may be commenced at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondent: Electric transmission facilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

                                                       FERC-729--Electric Transmission Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number                      Average      Total annual
                                                             Number of     of  responses   Total number    burden & cost  burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents         per        of responses    per  response   total annual     respondent
                                                                            respondent                         \11\            cost             ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Transmission Facilities........................               1               1               1           9,600           9,600        $691,200
                                                                                $691,200        $691,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \11\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $72.00 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from
the FERC average salary of $149,489/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-715, Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0171
    Abstract: Acting under FPA section 213,\12\ FERC requires each
transmitting utility that operates integrated transmission system
facilities rated above 100 kilovolts (kV) to submit annually:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 16 U.S.C. 824l.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Contact information for the FERC-715;
     Base case power flow data (if it does not participate in
the development and use of regional power flow data);
     Transmission system maps and diagrams used by the
respondent for transmission planning;

     A detailed description of the transmission planning
reliability criteria used to evaluate system performance for time
frames and planning horizons used in regional and corporate planning;
     A detailed description of the respondent's transmission
planning assessment practices (including, but not limited to, how
reliability criteria are applied and the steps taken in performing
transmission planning studies); and
     A detailed evaluation of the respondent's anticipated
system performance as measured against its stated reliability criteria
using its stated assessment practices.
    The FERC-715 enables the Commission to use the information as part
of their regulatory oversight functions which includes:
     The review of rates and charges;
     The disposition of jurisdictional facilities;
     The consolidation and mergers;
     The adequacy of supply and;
     Reliability of nation's transmission grid
    The FERC-715 enables the Commission to facilitate and resolve
transmission disputes. Additionally, the Office of Electric Reliability
(OER) uses the FERC-715 data to help protect and improve the
reliability and security of the nation's bulk power system. OER
oversees the development and review of mandatory reliability and
security standards and ensures compliance with the approved standards
by the users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system. OER also
monitors and addresses issues concerning the nation's bulk power system
including assessments of resource adequacy and reliability.
    Without the FERC-715 data, the Commission would be unable to
evaluate planned projects or requests related to transmission.
    Type of Respondent: Integrated transmission system facilities rated
at or above 100 kilovolts (kV).
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

                                              FERC-715--Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number                                   Total annual
                                                             Number of     of  responses   Total number   Average burden  burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents         per        of responses     & cost per     total annual     respondent
                                                                            respondent                     response \13\       cost             ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)       (1)*(2)=3             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report......             115               1             115             160          18,400         $11,520
                                                                                $11,520     $ 1,324,800
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............             115  ..............          18,400         $11,520
                                                                                $ 1,324,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \13\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $72 per Hour
= Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the
FERC average salary of $149,489. Subject matter experts found that
industry employment costs closely resemble FERC's regarding the
FERC-715 information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-592: Standards of Conduct for Transmission Provider and Marketing
Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0157
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-592 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses the information maintained and posted
by the respondents to monitor the pipeline's transportation, sales, and
storage activities for its marketing affiliate to deter undue
discrimination by pipeline companies in favor of their marketing
affiliates. Non-affiliated shippers and other entities (e.g. state
commissions) also use information to determine whether they have been
harmed by affiliate preference and to prepare evidence for proceedings
following the filing of a complaint.

18 CFR Part 358 (Standards of Conduct)

    Respondents maintain and provide the information required by part
358 on their internet Web sites. When the Commission requires a
pipeline to post information on its Web site following a disclosure of
non-public information to its marketing affiliate, non-affiliated
shippers obtain comparable access to the non-public transportation
information, which allows them to compete with marketing affiliates on
a more equal basis.

18 CFR 250.16, and the FERC-592 log/format

    This form (log/format) provides the electronic formats for
maintaining information on discounted transportation transactions and
capacity allocation to support monitoring of activities of interstate
pipeline marketing affiliates. Commission staff considers discounts
given to shippers in litigated rate cases.
    Without this information collection:
     The Commission would be unable to effectively monitor
whether pipelines are giving discriminatory preference to their
marketing affiliates; and
     non-affiliated shippers and state commissions and others
would be unable to determine if they have been harmed by affiliate
preference or prepare evidence for proceedings following the filing of
a complaint.
    Type of Respondents: Natural gas pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \14\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission defines burden 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, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                         FERC-592--Standards for Conduct for Transmission Providers Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number                      Average      Total annual
                                                             Number of     of  responses   Total number    burden & cost  burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents         per        of responses    per  response   total annual     respondent
                                                                            respondent                         \15\            cost             ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC 592 \16\...........................................              85               1              85          116.62           9,913          $8,396
                                                                                $8,396        $713,736
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \15\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
FERC average salary of $149,489/year (or $72.00/hour). Commission
staff finds that the work done for this information collection is
typically done by wage categories similar to those at FERC.
    \16\ The requirements for this collection are contained in 18
CFR part 358 and 18 CFR part 250.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-60 (Annual Report of Centralized Service Companies), FERC-61
(Narrative Description of Service Company Functions), and FERC-555A
(Preservation of Records Companies and Service Companies Subject to
PUHCA)

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0215.
    Abstract: On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, was
signed into law, repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935 (PUHCA 1935) and enacting the Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 2005 (PUHCA 2005). Section 1264 \17\ and section 1275 \18\ of PUHCA
2005 supplemented FERC's existing ratemaking authority under the
Federal Power Act (FPA) to protect customers against improper cross-
subsidization or encumbrances of public utility assets, and similarly,
FERC's ratemaking authority under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). These
provisions of PUHCA 2005 supplemented the FERC's broad authority under
FPA section 301 and NGA section 8 to obtain the books and records of
regulated companies and any person that controls or is under the
influence of such companies if relevant to jurisdictional activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Federal Books and Records Access Provision.
    \18\ Non-Power Goods and Services Provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC Form 60

    Form No. 60 is an annual reporting requirement under 18 CFR 366.23
for centralized service companies. The report's function is to collect
financial information (including balance sheet, assets, liabilities,
billing and charges for associated and non-associated companies) from
centralized service companies subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC.
Unless Commission rule exempts or grants a waiver pursuant to 18 CFR
366.3 and 366.4 to the holding company system, every centralized
service company in a holding company system must prepare and file
electronically with the FERC the Form No. 60, pursuant to the General
Instructions in the form.

FERC-61

    FERC-61 is a filing requirement for service companies in holding
company systems (including special purpose companies) that are
currently exempt or granted a waiver of FERC's regulations and would
not have to file FERC Form 60. Instead, those service companies are
required to file, on an annual basis, a narrative description of the
service company's functions during the prior calendar year (FERC-61).
In complying, a holding company may make a single filing on behalf of
all of its service company subsidiaries.

FERC-555A

    FERC prescribed a mandated preservation of records requirements for
holding companies and service companies (unless otherwise exempted by
FERC). This requires them to maintain and make available to FERC, their
books and records. The preservation of records requirement provides for
uniform records retention by holding companies and centralized service
companies subject to PUHCA 2005.
    Data from the FERC Form 60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A provide a level
of transparency that: (1) Helps protect ratepayers from pass-through of
improper service company costs, (2) enables FERC to review and
determine cost allocations (among holding company members) for certain
non-power goods and services, (3) aids FERC in meeting its oversight
and market monitoring obligations, and (4) benefits the public, both as
ratepayers and investors. In addition, the FERC's audit staff used
these records during compliance reviews and special analyses.
    If data from the FERC Form 60, FERC-61, and FERC-555A were not
available, FERC would not be able to meet its statutory
responsibilities, under EPAct 1992, EPAct of 2005, and PUHCA 2005, and
FERC would not have all of the regulatory mechanisms necessary to
ensure customer protection.
    Type of Respondent: Electric transmission facilities
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

  FERC-60 (Annual Report of Centralized Service Companies), FERC-61 (Narrative Description of Service Company Functions), & FERC-555A (Preservation of
                                                Records Companies and Service Companies Subject to PUHCA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number                                   Total annual
                                                             Number of     of  responses   Total number       Average     burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents         per        of responses    burden & cost   total annual     respondent
                                                                            respondent                     per response        cost             ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-60 \19\............................................              39               1              39              75           2,925          $4,280
                                                                                $4,280        $166,929

FERC-61 \20\............................................             100               1             100             0.5              50           18.75
                                                                                $18.75          $1,875
FERC-555A \21\..........................................             100               1             100           1,080         108,000          33,480
                                                                                $33,480      $3,348,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............         1155.50         110,975          37,779
                                                                                $37,779      $3,516,804
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \19\ For the FERC-60 the $57.00 (rounded from $57.07) hourly
cost figure comes from the average cost of an management analyst
(Occupation Code 13-1111) and an accountant (Occupation Code 13-
2011) as posted on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Web site
(http://www/bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm).
    \20\ For the FERC-61 the $37.50 hourly cost figure comes from
the cost of a records clerk (Occupation Code 43-4199) as posted on
the BLS Web site (http://www/bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm).
    \21\ For the FERC-555 the $31.00 hourly cost figure (rounded
from $30.71) comes from the cost of a file clerk (Occupation Code
43-4071) as posted on the BLS Web site (http://www/bls.gov/oes/
current/naics2_22.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $3,516,262
[$166,725 (FERC Form 60) + $1,537.00 (FERC-61) + $3,348,000 (FERC-555A)
= $3,516,600].
    FERC Form 60: 2,925 hours * $57.07/hour = $166,929.00.
    FERC-61: 50 hours * $37.50/hour = $1,875.
    FERC-555A: \22\

    \22\ Internal analysis assumes 50% electronic and 50% paper
storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Labor costs for paper storage: 108,000 hours * $31.00/hours =
$3,348,000
 Record Retention/storage cost for paper storage (using an
estimate of 6,000 ft\3\): $38,763.75
 Electronic record retention/storage cost: $2,335,500 [108,000
hours / 2 = 54,000 * $28.00/hour \23\ = $1,512,000; electronic record
storage cost: 54,000 hours * $15.25/year \24\ = $823,500; total
electronic record storage: $2,335,500].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Commission bases the $28/hour figure on a FERC staff
study that included estimating public utility recordkeeping costs.
    \24\ Per entity; the Commission bases this figure on the
estimated cost to service and to store 1 GB of data (based on the
aggregated cost of an IBM advanced data protection server).

    Dated: October 28, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28086 Filed 11-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P