DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

November 15 - 17, 2006

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2006-0693

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

Studies Evaluating the Impact of Surface Coatings on the Level of
Dislodgeable Arsenic, Chromium and Copper from Chromated Copper Arsenate
(CCA)-Treated Wood

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members - Steven
Heeringa, 			Ph.D. (FIFRA SAP Chair)

8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official - Mr.
				Joseph E. Bailey, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:45 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Mr. Jim Jones, Director,
Office of 			Pesticide Programs, EPA

8:50 A.M.	Introductory Remarks - Mr. Frank Princiotta, National Risk
Management 			Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
EPA

8:55 A.M.	Introduction and Background - Nader Elkasabanny, Ph.D.,
Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:15 A.M	Overview of EPA Surface Coating Study - Mr. Mark Mason, Air
Pollution 		Prevention and Control Division, National Risk Management
Research 			Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, EPA

10:00 A.M.	BREAK

10:15 A.M	Overview of EPA Surface Coating Study (continued)

10:45 A.M  Overview of CPSC Surface Coating Study - Jacqueline Ferrante,
Ph.D., 			Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
			Commission

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:15 A.M.	Public Comments (continued)

2:15 P.M.	Questions to Panel

	Question 1:  The Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) members are asked to
identify the scientific merits and limitations of the design of the
studies and the analyses of the results.  The SAP members are also asked
to comment on the quality of the data, including its objectivity and
utility.

3:15 P.M.	BREAK

3:30 P.M.	Questions to Panel

		Question 2:  Please comment on whether the reports have captured the
critical findings of the studies objectively and appropriately
consistent with the data.  Please identify any other conclusions that
can be drawn from the data.

5:00 P.M. 	Adjournment

DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

	November 15 - 17, 2006

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2006-0693

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

Arlington,VA 22202

Studies Evaluating the Impact of Surface Coatings on the Level of
Dislodgeable Arsenic, Chromium and Copper from Chromated Copper Arsenate
(CCA)-Treated Wood

Thursday, November 16, 2006

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members - Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D. (FIFRA SAP Chair)

8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official - Mr.
Joseph E. Bailey

8:45 A.M.	Questions to the Panel

		Question 3:  Please comment on whether the statistical methods
employed by EPA and CPSC staff represent a scientifically justifiable
and 			robust approach to evaluation of the data. Have the statistical
analyses, 			including the analyses of variance, been presented in an
appropriate, 			useful, clear and transparent manner?

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Questions to the Panel

		Question 4:  Certain specific issues, such as the impact of abrasion
and coating reapplication, were not examined in these studies.  Please
comment on how these data gaps have been sufficiently accounted for in
the discussion of the results of these studies.

11:15 A.M.	Questions to the Panel

		Question 5:  The studies were performed under limited study conditions
(one climatic region, i.e., the mid-Atlantic U.S., the structures were
not subjected to normal use or wear, etc.) with a limited set of
products.   Please comment on whether it is appropriate to extrapolate
these results to other conditions.

12:15 P.M.	LUNCH

1:30 P.M.	Questions to the Panel

		Question 6:  Please comment on whether the methodology is suitable for
use by others (e.g., the coating industry, wood treaters, or consumer
groups) for evaluating and developing new products.  Are there elements
of the protocol that you recommend be modified or explored (e.g., the
moisture content of the wipe material, wipe contact time on the wood
surface, etc.)?

2:30 P.M.	Break

2:45 P.M.	Questions to the Panel

		Question 7:	Please comment on whether these studies are of sufficient
quality and breadth to be used to assist in developing conclusions about
the ability of certain coatings to substantially reduce dislodgeable CCA
chemicals.  Have the agencies identified the most important information
and findings?  Are there other findings/conclusions that could be made
from these studies?

4:30 P.M.	Adjournment

DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

	November 15 - 17, 2006

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2006-0693

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive

Arlington,VA 22202

Studies Evaluating the Impact of Surface Coatings on the Level of
Dislodgeable Arsenic, Chromium and Copper from Chromated Copper Arsenate
(CCA)-Treated Wood

Friday, November 17, 2006

( 8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members - Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D. (FIFRA SAP Chair)

( 8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official -
Mr. Joseph E. Bailey

( 8:45 A.M.	Continuation of Questions to the Panel (as needed)

(10:30 A.M.	Break

(10:15 A.M.  Continuation of Questions to the Panel (as needed)

(12:00 P.M.	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Mr. Joseph Bailey, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35466-35471]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Pilot Project Grants in Support of Railroad Safety Risk Reduction
Programs

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

ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability, Solicitation of Applications.

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

SUMMARY: This notice details the application requirements and
procedures for obtaining grant funding for pilot projects designed to
eliminate or reduce railroad accidents caused by Electronic Device
Distraction (EDD), by improving safety culture and making misuse
socially unacceptable. Components of these pilot projects will include
peer-to-peer safety training techniques, and other innovative
processes. These pilot projects will be used to supplement and enhance
compliance with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 220,
Subpart C, Electronic Devices. The purpose of this subpart is to reduce
safety risks resulting from railroad operating employees being
distracted by the inappropriate use of electronic devices, such as
mobile telephones and laptop computers. This subpart was codified in
response to an increase in the number of accidents caused by misuse of
personal electronic devices. The opportunities described in this notice
are available under the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
Number 20.301

DATES: Applications for funding under this solicitation are due no
later than 5 p.m., 30 days after publication in the Federal Register,
and must be submitted on Grants.gov. See Section 4 for additional
information regarding the application process. FRA reserves the right
to modify this deadline.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Fitzpatrick, Risk Reduction
Railroad Specialist, Risk Reduction Program Division, Office of
Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
(202) 493-6021; or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. Funding Opportunity Description
2. Award Information
3. Eligibility Information
4. Application and Submission Information
5. Application Review Information
6. Award Administration Information
7. Payment Method
8. Agency Contact
Appendix 1: Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Appendix 2: Additional Information on Award Administrations and
Grant Conditions
Appendix 3: Additional Information on Applicant Budgets

Section 1: Funding Opportunity Description

1.1 Authority

    The purpose of this notice is to detail the process of applying for
grant funding for risk reduction pilot projects designed to eliminate
or reduce railroad accidents caused by electronic devices by making
misuse of electronic devices socially unacceptable and improving safety
culture using peer-to-peer coaching techniques. Congress, in Section
103 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432,
October 16, 2008) required the Secretary of Transportation, by
regulation, to require each railroad carrier that is either a Class I
railroad, a railroad carrier that has inadequate safety performance, or
a railroad carrier that provides intercity rail passenger or commuter
rail passenger transportation to develop a railroad safety risk
reduction program that systematically evaluates railroad safety risks
on its system and manages those risks in order to reduce the numbers
and rates of railroad accidents, incidents, injuries, and fatalities.
The statute also authorized the Secretary to conduct behavior-based
safety and other research, including pilot programs, and to use any
such research and pilot programs in developing the regulations.

1.2 Funding Approach

    At least $200,000 is available for awards under this solicitation.

Section 2: Award Information

    FRA anticipates making multiple awards from the $200,000 available.
As such, FRA expects applicants to tailor their applications and
proposed project scopes accordingly. There are no minimum or maximum
dollar thresholds for awards, and FRA may choose to award a grant for
less than the amount requested in the application. The funding provided
under these grants will be made available to grantees on a
reimbursement basis.

Section 3: Eligibility Information

3.1 Eligible Applicants

    Eligible applicants include: Individual railroad(s), railroad
association(s), rail labor organization(s), or a combination of a
railroad and its attendant labor organization(s) developing a
cooperative program (multiple stakeholders).

3.2 Cost Sharing and Matching

    Applicants should specify the non-Federal match amount, if any, in
their application. Applicants should indicate whether funding made
available through grants provided under this program, together with
committed funding from other sources, will be sufficient to complete
the overall project or a discrete portion of the project. An
applicant's contribution toward the cost of its proposed project may be
in the form of cash or permitted in-kind contributions. As part of its
application, an applicant offering an in-kind contribution must provide
a documented estimate of the monetary value of any such contribution.
All in-kind contributions must be allowable, reasonable, allocable, and
in accordance with applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
cost principles (see Appendix 1), and must not represent double
counting of costs otherwise accounted for in an indirect cost rate
pursuant to which the applicant will seek reimbursement.

3.3 Eligible Projects

    FRA is seeking innovative pilot projects that eliminate or reduce
accidents where the primary or contributing cause is distraction
associated with the misuse of personal electronic devices. The selected
pilot projects will use innovative processes such as peer-to-peer
coaching to make misuse of personal electronic devices socially
unacceptable, thereby improving the safety culture and eliminating or
reducing accidents caused by distractions.

    Submitted applications should address the following criteria and
considerations:
     Program Logic and Resource Allocation: The projects must
clearly show a link between the resources being allocated, the
processes and tasks being developed and executed, and the desired
outcome.
     Partnership with stakeholders: Shared responsibility and
program ownership are critical to a successful project, and
understandings and commitments between stakeholders should be clearly
defined.
     Feasibility: Projects must show feasibility and a strong
likelihood of success.
     Results: Program goals (process goals such as number of
people educated/trained, and end goals) must be clearly stated.
     Impact: The projected impact on safety must be stated:
Local, division or region, systemwide, and industrywide (e.g. the pilot
could be targeted at a single yard or terminal, single group at the
location such as train, yard, and engine, single shift such as 11:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
     Schedule: Estimate time and location to begin
implementation, estimate time when demonstrable improvements will be
measureable.

Section 4: Application and Submission Information

4.1 Application Procedures

4.1.1 Applying Online
    All applications must be submitted through Grants.gov by 5 p.m., 30
days after this notice is published in the Federal Register. Applicants
are strongly encouraged to apply early to ensure that all materials are
received before this deadline. To apply for funding through Grants.gov,
applicants must be properly registered. Complete instructions on how to
register and submit an application can be found at Grants.gov.
Registering with Grants.gov is a onetime process; however, it can take
up to several weeks for first-time registrants to receive confirmation
and a user password. FRA recommends that applicants start the
registration process as early as possible to prevent delays that may
preclude submitting an application package by the application deadline.
Applications will not be accepted after the due date. Delayed
registration is not an acceptable justification for an application
extension. In order to apply for funding under this announcement and to
apply for funding through Grants.gov, all applicants are required to
complete the following:
1. Acquire a DUNS Number
    A Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number is required for
Grants.gov registration. The Office of Management and Budget requires
that all businesses and nonprofit applicants for Federal funds include
a DUNS number in their applications for a new award or renewal of an
existing award. A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence
recognized as the universal standard for identifying and keeping track
of entities receiving Federal funds. The identifier is used for
tracking purposes and to validate address and point of contact
information for Federal assistance applicants, recipients, and
subrecipients. The DUNS number will be used throughout the grant life
cycle. Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time activity. Applicants
may obtain a DUNS number by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or by applying
online at http://www.dnb.com/us.
2. Acquire or Renew Registration With the Central Contractor
Registration Database
    All applicants for Federal financial assistance must maintain
current registrations in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR)
database. An applicant must be registered in the CCR to successfully
register in Grants.gov. The CCR database is the repository for standard
information about Federal financial assistance applicants, recipients,
and subrecipients. Organizations that have previously submitted
applications via Grants.gov are already registered with CCR, as it is a
requirement for Grants.gov registration. Please note, however, that
applicants must update or renew their CCR registration at least once
per year to maintain an active status, so it is critical to check
registration status well in advance of the application deadline.
Information about CCR registration procedures can be accessed at http://www.ccr.gov.
3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative and a Grants.gov
Username and Password
    Applicants must complete an Authorized Organization Representative
(AOR) profile on Grants.gov and create a username and password.
Applicants must use the organization's DUNS number to complete this
step. Additional information about the registration process is
available at http://www.Grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp.
4. Acquire Authorization for Your AOR From the E-Business Point of
Contact
    The Applicant's E-Business Point of Contact (EBiz POC) must log in
to Grants.gov to confirm a representative as an AOR. Please note that
there can be more than one AOR at an organization.
5. Search for the Funding Opportunity on Grants.gov
    The CFDA number for this opportunity is 20.301. It is titled:
Electronic Device Distraction Safety Culture Improvement Pilot Project
Grant.
6. Submit an Application Addressing All of the Requirements Outlined in
This Funding Availability Announcement
    Within 24 to 48 hours after submitting an electronic application,
an applicant should receive an email validation message from
Grants.gov. The validation message will explain whether the application
has been received and validated or rejected, with an explanation.
Applicants are urged to submit an application at least 72 hours prior
to the due date of the application to allow time to receive the
validation message and to correct any problems that may have caused a
rejection notification. If you experience difficulties at any point
during this process, please call the Grants.gov Customer Center Hotline
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week (closed on Federal
holidays).

    Note:  Please use generally accepted formats such as .pdf, .doc,
.docx, .xls, .xlsx, and .ppt, when uploading attachments.

4.1.2 Address To Request/Submit Application Package
    To request a hard copy of the application package, please contact:
Michael Fitzpatrick, Risk Reduction Railroad Specialist, Risk Reduction
Program Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
4.2 Content of Application

    Required documents for the application package are outlined below.
Applicants must complete and submit all components of the application
package; failure to do so may result in the application being removed
from consideration for award.
4.2.1 Project Narrative/Statement of Work
    The following points describe the minimum content that will be
required in the Project Narrative/Statement of

Work elements of grant applications. These requirements must be
satisfied through a narrative statement submitted by the applicant, and
may be supported by spreadsheet documents, tables, drawings, and other
materials, as appropriate. FRA recommends that applicants read this
section carefully and submit all required information. If an
application does not address each of these requirements to FRA's
satisfaction, the application may be considered incomplete and removed
from consideration for award. Each Project Narrative/Statement of Work
must:
     Designate a point of contact for the applicant and provide
his or her name and contact information, including phone number,
mailing address, and email address. The point of contact must be an
employee of an eligible applicant. Indicate the amount of Federal
funding requested from the program, proposed non-Federal match, and
total project cost.
     Explain how the applicant is an eligible applicant. For a
full discussion of how an applicant can meet this burden, see Section
3.1 Eligible Applicants.
     Include a detailed project description with an explanation
of how the project is an eligible project. For a full discussion of how
an applicant can meet this burden, see Section 3.3 Eligible Projects.
     Include a thorough discussion of how the project meets all
of the selection criteria. Applicants should note that FRA evaluates
applications based upon the selection criteria. If an application does
not sufficiently address the selection criteria, FRA will have little
or no basis on which to evaluate the application; therefore, it will
likely not be a competitive application. The selection criteria are
described in detail in Section 5.2.
     Provide a detailed scope of work for the proposed project
and include the anticipated project schedule. Describe the proposed
project's physical location (as applicable). If the funding from the
program is only going to be a component of the overall funding for the
project, describe the complete project and specify which component will
involve FRA funding. Applications should include feasibility studies
and cost estimates, if completed. FRA will more favorably consider
applications that include these types of studies and estimates, as they
demonstrate that an applicant has a definite understanding of the scope
and cost of the project. If FRA approves a project for funding,
allowable costs (i.e., costs that can qualify for reimbursement from
Federal funds or as part of the required non- Federal match) will have
to directly support the pilot project.
     Describe proposed project implementation and project
management arrangements. Include descriptions of expected arrangements
for project contracting, contract oversight, change-order management,
risk management, and conformance to Federal requirements for project
progress reporting.
     Describe the anticipated benefits associated with the
proposed project.
     Although FRA will weigh all of the selection criteria,
potential applicants should be aware that FRA is seeking the maximum
safety benefit from these limited funds.
     Format: Excluding spreadsheets, drawings, and tables, the
Project Narrative/Statement of Work for grant applications may not
exceed 10 pages in length. Failure to adhere to this page limitation
may result in the application being removed from consideration for
award.
     All application materials should be submitted as
attachments through Grants.gov.
     Spreadsheets consisting of budget or financial information
should be submitted via Grants.gov as Microsoft Excel (or compatible)
documents.
4.4.2 Detailed Budget
    Applicants must present a detailed budget for the proposed project
that includes both Federal funds and matching funds. Items of cost
included in the budget must be reasonable, allocable, and necessary for
the project. For a non-construction project at a minimum, the budget
should separate total cost of the project into the following
categories, if applicable: (1) Personnel; (2) fringe benefits; (3)
travel; (4) equipment; (5) supplies; (6) consultants/contracts; (7)
other; and (8) indirect costs. See Appendix 3 of this solicitation for
more information on project budgets.

4.3 Submission Dates and Times

    Complete applications must be submitted to Grants.gov (as specified
in Section 4.1) no later than 5 p.m., 30 days after this notice is
published in the Federal Register. Grants.gov will send the applicant
an automated email confirming receipt of the application. FRA reserves
the right to contact applicants with any concerns, questions, or
comments related to applications.

Section 5: Application Review Information

5.1 Application Review and Selection Process

    Applications will proceed through a three-part review process:
    1. Screening for completeness and eligibility.
    2. Evaluation of eligible applications by technical panels applying
the selection criteria.
    3. Project selection by the FRA Administrator.
    Each application will first be screened for completeness
(containing all required documentation outlined in Section 4.2, and
eligibility (requirements outlined in Section 3). Eligible and complete
applications will then be evaluated by technical panels consisting of
subject-matter experts against the selection criteria (outlined in
Section 5.2). The ratings assigned by the technical panels will not
constitute the final award determination. The FRA Administrator may
take into account other factors determined to be relevant to achieving
the goals of the program when making final award decisions.

5.2 Selection Criteria

    FRA will consider the following selection factors in evaluating
applications for grants under this program (all elements will have
equal weight):
     Program Logic: The link between the resources being
allocated, the processes and tasks being developed and executed and the
desired outcome.
     Partnership with stakeholders: Shared responsibility and
program ownership are critical to a successful project, clarity of
understandings and commitments between stakeholders are important.
     Feasibility: Feasibility and a strong likelihood of
success.
     Results: Achievement of program goals.
     Schedule: Programs with scheduled results showing sooner
projected completion will be given greater consideration than programs
with a longer timeline of completion.
     Cost sharing: Projects with a greater portion of matching
funds will be given greater consideration, i.e. a program that proposes
to match one company dollar for every grant dollar (1 to 1) would be
given more consideration than a program that matches fifty cents for
every grant dollar (.50 to 1).

Section 6: Award Administration Information

6.1 Award Notices

    Applications selected for funding will be announced after the
application review period. FRA will contact applicants with successful
applications after announcement with information and instructions about
the award process. Notification of a selected application is not an
authorization to begin proposed project activities. The period of
performance for this grant program is dependent on the project.
However, any unobligated funds will be de-obligated at the end of the
90-day close-out period, provided for in Appendix 2.4. Extensions to
the period of performance will be considered only through written
requests to FRA with specific and compelling justifications why an
extension is required.

6.2 Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    The grantee and any subgrantee shall comply with all applicable
laws and regulations. For a non-exclusive list of regulations commonly
applicable to FRA grants refer to Appendix 1.

6.3 General Requirements

    Grant recipients must comply with reporting requirements. All post-
award information pertaining to reporting, auditing, monitoring, and
the close-out process is detailed in Appendix 2.

Section 7. Payment Method

    Payment of FRA funding through FRA's Office of Financial Services
shall be made on a reimbursable basis whereby the grantee will be
reimbursed, after the submission of proper invoices, for actual
expenses incurred.
    The grantee will use the following method for transfer of
reimbursed funds: Automated Clearing House (ACH) Electronic Vendor
Payment. The grantee submits SF 3881 and SF 270.

Section 8. Agency Contact

    For further information regarding this notice and the grants
program, please refer to the section titled ``For Further Information
Contact.''

Appendix 1. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Appendix 1.1 Standard Financial and Program Administration Requirements

    Grant recipients must follow all standard financial and program
administration requirements, including:
     49 CFR part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
     49 CFR part 19, Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Cooperative
     Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education,
Hospitals, and Other Non-Profits
     Organizations (OMB Circular A-110)
     Cost Principles
     2 CFR part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and
Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87)
     2 CFR part 220, Cost Principles for Educational
Institutions (OMB Circular A-21)
     2 CFR part 230, Cost Principles for Non-Profit
Organizations (OMB A-122)
     Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), part 31.2 Contract
Cost Principles and Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations
     Audit Requirements
     OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments,
and Non-Profit Organizations

Appendix 1.2 Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Grant recipients must follow all administrative and national policy
requirements including: Procurement standards, compliance with Federal
civil rights laws and regulations, disadvantaged business enterprises
(DBE), debarment and suspension, drug-free workplace, FRA's and OMB's
Assurances and Certifications, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
environmental protection, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
environmental justice.

Appendix 1.3 Freedom of Information Act

    As a Federal agency, FRA is subject to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), which generally provides that any person has
a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to Federal agency
records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them)
are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by
one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. Grant
applications and related materials submitted by applicants pursuant to
this guidance will become agency records, and are subject to FOIA and
to public release through individual FOIA requests. FRA also recognizes
that certain information submitted in support of an application for
funding in accordance with this guidance could be exempt from public
release under FOIA as a result of the application of one of the FOIA
exemptions, most particularly Exemption 4, which protects trade secrets
and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is
privileged or confidential (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). In the context of this
grant program, commercial or financial information obtained from a
person could be confidential if disclosure is likely to cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom
the information was obtained (see National Parks & Conservation
Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (DC Cir. 1974)). Entities
seeking exempt treatment must provide a detailed statement supporting
and justifying the request and should follow FRA's existing procedures
for requesting confidential treatment in the railroad safety context
found at 49 CFR Section 209.11. As noted in the Department's FOIA
implementing regulation (49 CFR part 7), the burden is on the entity
requesting confidential treatment to identify all information for which
exempt treatment is sought and to persuade the agency that the
information should not be disclosed (see 49 CFR Section 7.17). The
final decision as to whether the information meets the standards of
Exemption 4 rests with FRA.

Appendix 2. Additional Information on Award Administration and Grant
Conditions

Appendix 2.1 Reporting Requirements

    Reporting requirements must be met throughout the life of the grant
(additional detail will be included in the award package provided to
selected applicants).
     Progress Reports--Progress reports are to be submitted
quarterly. These reports must relate the state of completion of items
in the Statement of Work to expenditures of the relevant budget
elements. The grant recipient must furnish the quarterly progress
report to FRA on or before the 30th calendar day of the month following
the end of the quarter being reported. Grantees must submit reports for
the periods: January 1-March 31, April 1-June 30, July 1-September 30,
and October 1-December 31. Each quarterly report must set forth concise
statements concerning activities relevant to the project, and should
include, but not be limited to, the following:
    [cir] An account of significant progress (findings, events, trends,
etc.) made during the reporting period.
    [cir] A description of any technical and/or cost problem(s)
encountered or anticipated that will affect completion of the grant
within the time and fiscal constraints as set forth in the agreement,
together with recommended solutions or corrective action plans (with
dates) to

such problems, or identification of specific action that is required by
FRA, or a statement that no problems were encountered.
    [cir] An outline of work and activities planned for the next
reporting period.
     Quarterly Federal Financial Report (SF-425)--The grantee
must submit a quarterly Federal financial report electronically in
FRA's Web-based grant management system, GrantSolutions, on or before
the 30th calendar day of the month following the end of the quarter
being reported (e.g., for the quarter ending March 31, the SF-425 is
due no later than April 30). A report must be submitted for every
quarter of the period of performance, including partial calendar
quarters, as well as for periods where no grant activity occurs. The
grantee must use SF-425, Federal Financial Report, in accordance with
the instructions accompanying the form, to report all transactions,
including Federal cash, Federal expenditures and unobligated balance,
recipient share, and program income.
     Final Report(s)--Within 90 days of the project completion
date or termination by FRA, the grantee must submit a summary project
report in GrantSolutions. This report should detail the results and
benefits of the grantee's improvement efforts.
     Reports, Presentations, and Other Deliverables--Whether
for technical examination, administrative review, or publication, all
submittals shall be of a professional quality and suitable for their
intended purpose. Due dates for submittals shall be based on the
specified intervals or days from the effective date of the agreement.

Appendix 2.2 Audit Requirements

    Grant recipients that expend $500,000 or more of Federal funds
during their fiscal year, combined from all sources, are required to
submit an organization-wide financial and compliance audit report. The
audit must be performed in accordance with the U.S. General
Accountability Office, Government Auditing Standards, located at http://www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of
States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, located at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html. Currently,
audit reports must be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse no
later than 9 months after the end of the recipient's fiscal year. In
addition, FRA and the Comptroller General of the United States must
have access to any books, documents, and records of grant recipients
for audit and examination purposes. The grant recipient will also give
FRA or the comptroller, through any authorized representative, access
to, and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents
related to the grant. Grant recipients must require that subgrantees
comply with the audit requirements set forth in OMB Circular A-133.
Grant recipients are responsible for ensuring that subrecipient audit
reports are received and for resolving any audit findings.

Appendix 2.3 Monitoring Requirements

    Grant recipients will be monitored periodically by FRA to ensure
that the project goals, objectives, performance requirements,
timelines, milestones, budgets, and other related program criteria are
being met. FRA may conduct monitoring activities through a combination
of office-based reviews and onsite monitoring visits. Monitoring will
involve the review and analysis of the financial, programmatic, and
administrative issues relative to each program and will identify areas
where technical assistance and other support may be needed. The
recipient is responsible for monitoring award activities, including
subawards and subgrantees, in order to provide reasonable assurance
that the award is being administered in compliance with Federal
requirements. Financial monitoring responsibilities include the
accounting of recipients and expenditures, cash management, maintaining
of adequate financial records, and refunding expenditures disallowed by
audits.

Appendix 2.4 Closeout Process

    Project closeout occurs when all required project work and all
administrative procedures have been completed, and when FRA notifies
the grant recipient and forwards the final Federal assistance payment,
or when FRA acknowledges the grant recipient's remittance of the proper
refund. Project closeout should not invalidate any continuing
obligations imposed on the grantee by an award or by the FRA's final
notification or acknowledgment. Within 90 days of the project
completion date or termination by FRA, grantees agree to submit a final
Federal Financial Report (SF-425), a certification or summary of
project expenses, and a final report.

Appendix 3. Additional Information on Applicant Budgets

    The information contained in this appendix is intended to assist
applicants with developing the SOW budget and OMB Standard Forms 424A:
Budget Information-- Non-Construction Programs and 424C: Budget
Information--Construction Programs, as described in Section 4.2.

Appendix 3.1 Non-Construction Project Budgets

    Applicants must present a detailed budget for the proposed project
that includes both Federal funds and matching funds. Items of cost
included in the budget must be reasonable, allocable, and necessary for
the project. At a minimum, the budget should separate total cost of the
project into the following categories and provide a basis of
computation for each cost:
     Personnel: List each position by title and name of
employee, if available, and show the annual salary rate and the
percentage of time to be devoted to the project. Compensation paid for
employees engaged in grant activities must be consistent with that paid
for similar work within the applicant organization.
     Fringe Benefits: Fringe benefits should be based on actual
known costs or an established formula. Fringe benefits are for
personnel listed in the ``Personnel'' budget category and only for the
percentage of time devoted to the project.
     Travel: Itemize travel expenses of project personnel by
purpose (training, interviews, and meetings). Show the basis of
computation (e.g., X people to Y-day training at airfare, lodging,
subsistence).
     Equipment: List non-expendable items that are to be
purchased. Nonexpendable equipment is tangible property having a useful
life of more than 2 years and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per
unit. (Note: the organization's own capitalization policy may be used
for items costing less than $5,000.) Expendable items should be
included either in the ``Supplies'' category or in the ``Other''
category. Applicants should analyze the cost benefits of purchasing
versus leasing equipment, especially high-cost items and those subject
to rapid technical advances. Rented or leased equipment should be
listed in the ``Contractual'' category. Explain how the equipment is
necessary for the success of the project. Attach a narrative describing
the procurement method to be used.
     Supplies: List items by type (office supplies, postage,
training materials, copying paper, and expendable equipment items
costing less than $5,000) and show the basis for computation. (Note:
The organization's own capitalization policy may be used for items
costing less than $5,000). Generally, supplies include any materials
that are expendable or

consumed during the course of the project.
     Consultants/Contracts: Indicate whether applicant's
written procurement policy (see 49 CFR Section 18.36) or the FAR are
followed.
     Consultant Fees: For each consultant enter the name, if
known, service to be provided, hourly or daily fee (8-hour day), and
the estimated time on the project.
     Consultant Expenses: List all expenses to be paid from the
grant to the individual consultants in addition to their fees (travel,
meals, and lodging).
     Contracts: Provide a description of the product or service
to be procured by contract and an estimate of the cost. Applicants are
encouraged to promote free and open competition in awarding contracts.
A separate justification must be provided for sole source contracts in
excess of $100,000.
     Other: List items (rent, reproduction, telephone,
janitorial, or security services) by major type and the basis of the
computation. For example, provide the square footage and the cost per
square foot for rent, or provide the monthly rental cost and how many
months to rent.
     Indirect Costs: Indirect costs are allowed only if the
applicant has a federally approved indirect cost rate. A copy of the
rate approval (a fully executed, negotiated agreement) must be
attached. If the applicant does not have an approved rate, one can be
requested by contacting the applicant's cognizant Federal agency, which
will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant
organization.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 7, 2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-14418 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


1 WOODFORD COUNTY, KENTUCKY Woodford County is part of the Lexington Fayette County, Kentucky Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA). It is located southeast of Scott County, east of Fayette County, northeast of Jessamine County, northwest of Mercer County, east of Anderson County, and southeast of Franklin County. The northern tip of the county lies on the I 64 east west interstate corridor.

EPA s June 29, 2004 proposal on appropriate designations for Kentucky included Woodford County as nonattainment based on the following criteria:

  EPA indicates that Woodford County has significant ( based on 10,000 tpy of any pollutant as being significant) SO x, NO x, and PM emissions that potentially contribute to the violating MSA monitor.

Emissions Data In Kentucky s original February recommendations, 1999 NEI data was used in the original analysis.

However, in EPA s June 29, 2004 letters to states, EPA looked outside the original MSA boundaries to determine if large emissions contributions from adjacent areas were having an impact on PM2.5 levels in many of the areas. EPA also used the 2001 NEI which provided slightly newer data than had been recommended that states use.

Based on EPA s interpretation of 10,000 tpy as being significant, Woodford County s emissions would not be considered significant. Woodford County emits only 4% of SOx emissions from the counties recommended by EPA as having the potential to impact the violating monitors. A similar comparison can be made with both NOx and PM. Woodford County s NOx emissions rank at 8% of the total EPA recommended areas, and PM at 6%. In a detailed review of EPA s recommended areas to be designated nonattainment, Woodford County ranks consistently at less than or equal to 8% of combined emissions contributions within EPA s proposed nonattainment boundaries. Woodford County emits less than 5,000 tpy of any pollutant under review. See Figures 1

4 below. 2 Figure 1 Lexington Area SOx Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Scott 0% Jessamine 0% Bourbon 0% Madison 2% Clark 14% Fayette 6% Woodford 4% Mercer 74%

Figure 2 Lexington Area 2001 NOX Emissions Woodford 8%

Mercer 20% Clark 14%

Madison 12% Scott 8% Jessamine 5% Bourbon 3% Fayette 30% 3 Figure 3 Lexington Area PM Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Woodford 6% Scott 7% Jessamine 6%

Mercer 34% Madison 10% Clark 13% Fayette 19% Bourbon 5%

Figure 4 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 T o n s P e r Y e a r Fayette Clark Madison Mercer Woodford Scott Jessamine Bourbon Lexington Area Counties Emissions 2001 PM SOx NOx VOC NH3 Monitoring Data and Trends As can been seen in Figure 5 below, the speciation data from Kentucky s Lexington speciation monitor indicates that sulfate is the major component of the PM2.5 values. As can be seen in Figure 1 above, Woodford County 4 contributes only 4% of the SOx in the area of proposed nonattainment counties by EPA.

Figure 5 Lexington Speciation Monitoring Data 2001 2003 Average Concentration ( µ g/ m ³ )

Elemental carbon 3% Crustal component 3% Other 13%

Organic carbon 24%

Ammonium 13% Sulfate 32% Nitrate 12%

The MSA has three monitors located within its boundaries, two in Fayette County and one in Madison County. PM2.5 monitoring levels have continued to decline at all three monitors within this region. ( See Figure 6 below)

Fayette County has two PM2.5 monitors, one located in a central urban area in the midst of the downtown, University of Kentucky campus ( Limestone), and the other located on an arterial roadway located 1.9 miles north of downtown ( Newtown Pike).

The Newtown Pike monitor shows attainment with the standard, having an average of 14.9 µ g/ m 3 over the time period 2001 2003, and having an average of 13.6 µ g/ m 3 through April 2004.

The latest average through April 2004 for the Limestone monitor is 14.7 µ g/ m 3.

The current design value of 15.6 µ g/ m 3 is based on the 2001 2003 time period.

Even though Woodford County does not have a monitor, the PM2.5 levels have decreased by 15% at the Newtown Pike monitor, 12% at the Limestone monitor, and 13% at the Madison County monitor ( See Figure 7 below). 5 Figure 6 Fayette Area PM2.5 Trend Utilizing Most Current Available Data 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year A n n u a l A r i th m e t i c M e a n ( m ic r o g r a m s / c u b i c m e t e r )

Newtown Limestone Madison Figure 7 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Newtown Limestone Madison Decline in PM Values for the Fayette Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2003 shows decrease of 15% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 12% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 13% 6 Localized vs Regional Impacts It is Kentucky s position that the monitor located on the UK Campus exhibits an   Urban Core Phenomenon.  That is, the monitor s location is at the center of a large public university situated in a downtown metropolitan area with significant activity having a direct relationship to the PM2.5 levels being monitored.

This monitor is bracketed by numerous large and small boilers on the University of Kentucky campus and is located adjacent to continuing construction on the campus. Significant local impacts are occurring due to not only the close proximity of the boilers, but also from the emission contributions of construction equipment in the area. This monitor is located only 1.9 miles from the monitor showing attainment of the standard on Newtown Pike.

If significant regional impacts from emissions from Woodford County were occurring, they would be expected throughout the regional monitoring network and not at one specific monitor in downtown Lexington.

Meteorology EPA s response to Kentucky stated that the wind speed/ wind direction data provided by Kentucky in the February submittal did not play a significant role in the decision making process and that the information was for summertime winds. Kentucky offers the following information.

As shown in the updated wind rose in Figure 8 below, the majority of the time the wind in the Lexington area comes from the south and the southwest. Woodford County is east northeast from the violating monitor in Fayette County. The wind rose data indicates that Woodford County does not impact the monitor in violation. The monitoring site more directly impacted by activity in Woodford County is the monitor showing attainment of the standard. 7 Figure 8 Scott Fayette Woodford Mercer Bourbon Clark Madison Jessamine 8 Additional Regional/ National Controls The implementation of new federal rules to decrease the amount of sulfur in both gasoline and diesel fuel will significantly decrease the amount of SO2 in the entire area. Because of the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, in 2007, new clean engines operating on 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, and reduce PM emissions by more than 90%. Due to the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur program, by 2006 average national gasoline sulfur levels will be 90% lower.

Upon implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) SO2 emissions from power plants will be reduced nationwide by 3.6 million tons in 2010 ( approximately 40 percent below current levels) and by another 2 million tons per year when the rules are fully implemented ( approximately 70 percent below current levels). NOx emissions would be cut by 1.5 million tons nationwide in 2010 and 1.8 million tons annually in 2015 ( about 65 percent below today s levels).

The first phase of compliance under the CAIR rule to reduce both SO2 and NOx emissions would be required by 2010, allowing substantial emission reductions in the area, by the proposed attainment date for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

Conclusions Based on the factors discussed above, Kentucky believes that Woodford County should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard.

  Kentucky believes that EPA s use of the weighted emissions scoring approach was skewed. EPA did not include adjacent county emissions in the total emissions being analyzed for the area. If the emissions from the entire area under review were used, vs just those within the MSA, a very different result in the weighted emissions scores would have occurred. Woodford County would not have the potential to contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels within the region.

  The only monitor showing a violation throughout the entire eight county region is being impacted by extreme urban core activities in a specific geographic location within Fayette County.

  PM2.5 levels continue to decline throughout the entire region. From a review of all monitors in the region, an average decline of 13% in PM2.5 levels has occurred from 2000 through 2003. Every monitor in the region 9 is currently showing values well within attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard using 2002 through 2004 data.

  Additional emission reductions on a national and regional level will provide substantial additional emission reductions in the region. The anticipated sulfur reductions due to the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Low Sulfur programs, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) will further lower pollutant levels within this region.

To have this county designated nonattainment would invoke additional substantial and unnecessary requirements on local government planning agencies. Drastic emission reductions are scheduled to occur in the mobile sector throughout the next several years that will greatly impact pollutant levels in the area. In addition, reductions anticipated by the CAIR provisions, the air monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the PM2.5 Standard at two of the three monitors in the area, the downward trend in monitored values, and Kentucky s position that the monitored violation of the standard in the downtown area is the result of a localized   urban core phenomenon,  lead to the conclusion that Woodford County, Kentucky, should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 Standard.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60670-60673]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC22-17-000]

Commission Information Collection Activity (FERC-549); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collections, FERC-549 (NGPA Section 311 Transactions and
NGA Blanket Certificate Transactions).

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due December 5,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments (identified by Docket No. IC22-
17-000) on FERC-549 by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For
user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
[email protected], or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    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 https://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: NGPA Section 311 Transactions and NGA Blanket Certificate
Transactions.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0086.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-549 information
collection requirements with a revision to account for the differences
between filings seeking initial approval and those disclosing a change
in circumstances.
    Abstract: FERC-549 is required to implement portions of the
following statutory provisions: (1) Section 311 of the Natural Gas
Policy Act (NGPA) (15 U.S.C. 3371); (2) Section 4(f) of the Natural Gas
Act (NGA) (15 U.S.C. 717c(f)); and (3) Section 7 of the NGA (15 U.S.C.
717f). The reporting requirements for implementing these provisions are
contained in 18 CFR part 284.

Transportation by Interstate Pipelines for Intrastate Pipelines and
Local Distribution Companies

    Under section 311(a)(1) of the NGPA and 18 CFR 284.101 and 284.102,
any interstate pipeline may transport natural gas without prior
Commission approval ``on behalf of'' an intrastate pipeline or a local
distribution company (LDC). The regulation at 18 CFR 284.102(d)
provides that the transportation is not ``on behalf of'' an intrastate
pipeline or an LDC unless one of three conditions is met:

    (1) The interstate pipeline or LDC has physical custody of and
transports the natural gas at some point;
    (2) The intrastate pipeline or LDC holds title to the natural gas
at some point, which may occur prior to, during, or after the time that
the gas is being transported by the interstate pipeline, for a purpose
related to its status and functions as a local distribution company; or
    (3) The gas is delivered at some point to a customer that either is
located in an LDC's service area or is physically able to receive
direct deliveries of gas from an intrastate pipeline, and the LDC or
intrastate pipeline certifies that it is on its behalf that the
interstate pipeline is providing transportation service.
    The certification requirement in the third condition described at
18 CFR 284.102(d)(3) is included in the burden table (below) as part of
the information collection activity labeled ``Transportation by
Pipelines.'' Before commencing service as described in paragraph
(d)(3), the interstate pipeline that is providing the transportation
must receive certification from the pertinent LDC or intrastate
pipeline consisting of a letter from the intrastate pipeline or LDC
authorizing the interstate pipeline to ship gas on its behalf, and
sufficient information to verify that the service qualifies under 18
CFR 284.102.

Transportation by Intrastate Pipelines for Interstate Pipelines or LDCs
Served by an Interstate Pipeline

    Under section 311(a)(2) of the NGPA and 18 CFR 284.122 and 284.123,
any intrastate pipeline may, without prior Commission approval,
transport natural gas on behalf of any interstate pipeline or any LDC
served by an interstate pipeline. No rate charged for such
transportation may exceed a fair and equitable rate. The filing
requirements described below are included in the burden table (below)
as part of the information collection activity labeled ``Transportation
by Pipelines.''
    The regulation at 18 CFR 284.123(b) provides that intrastate gas
pipeline companies must file for Commission approval of rates for
services performed in the interstate transportation of gas. An
intrastate gas pipeline company may elect to use rates contained in one
of its then effective transportation rate schedules on file with an
appropriate state regulatory agency for intrastate service comparable
to the interstate service or file proposed rates and supporting
information showing the rates are cost based and are fair and
equitable. It is the Commission policy that each pipeline must file at
least every five years to ensure its rates are fair and equitable.
Depending on the business process used, either 60 or 150 days after the
application is filed, the rate is deemed to be fair and equitable
unless the Commission either extends the time for action, institutes a
proceeding or issues an order providing for rates it deems to be fair
and equitable.
    The regulation at 18 CFR 284.123(e) requires that within 30 days of
commencement of new service any intrastate pipeline engaging in the
transportation of gas in interstate commerce must file a statement that
includes the interstate rates and a description of how the pipeline
will engage in the transportation services, including operating
conditions. If an intrastate gas pipeline company changes its
operations or rates it must amend the statement on file with the
Commission. Such amendment is to be filed not later than 30 days after
commencement of the change in operations or change in rate election.

Initial Approval of Market-Based Rates for Storage

    Section 4(f) of the NGA authorizes the Commission to permit natural
gas storage service providers to charge market-based rates for storage,
subject to conditions and requirements set forth in the statute. The
Commission implements this authority under 18 CFR 284.501 through
284.505. An applicant may apply for market-based rates by filing a
request for a market-power determination that complies with the
following:
    (a) The applicant must set forth its specific request and
adequately demonstrate that it lacks market power in the market to be
served, and must include an executive summary of its statement of
position and a statement of material facts in addition to its complete
statement of position. The statement of material facts must include
citation to the supporting statements, exhibits, affidavits, and
prepared testimony.
    The regulation at 18 CFR 284.503 requires that an application to
charge market-based rate for storage services must include the
following information:
    (1) Statement A--geographic market. This statement must describe
the geographic markets for storage services in which the applicant
seeks to establish that it lacks significant market power. It must
include the market related to the service for which it proposes to
charge market-based rates. The statement must explain why the
applicant's method for selecting the geographic markets is appropriate.
    (2) Statement B--product market. This statement must identify the
product market or markets for which the applicant seeks to establish
that it lacks significant market power. The statement must explain why
the particular product definition is appropriate.
    (3) Statement C--the applicant's facilities and services. This
statement must describe the applicant's own facilities and services,
and those of all parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies, in the
relevant markets identified in Statements A and B in paragraphs (b)(1)
and (2) of this section. The statement must include all pertinent data
about the storage facilities and services.
    (4) Statement D--competitive alternatives. This statement must
describe available alternatives in competition with the applicant in
the relevant markets and other competition constraining the applicant's
rates in those markets. Such proposed alternatives may include an
appropriate combination of other storage, local gas supply, LNG,
financial instruments and pipeline capacity. These alternatives must be
shown to be reasonably available as a substitute in the area to be
served soon enough, at a price low enough, and with a quality high
enough to be a reasonable alternative to the applicant's services.
Capacity (transportation, storage, LNG, or production) owned or
controlled by the applicant and affiliates of the applicant in the
relevant market shall be clearly and fully identified and may not be
considered as alternatives competing with the applicant. Rather, the
capacity of an applicant's affiliates is to be included in the market
share calculated for the applicant. To the extent available, the
statement must include all pertinent data about storage or other
alternatives and other constraining competition.
    (5) Statement E--potential competition. This statement must
describe potential competition in the relevant markets. To the extent
available, the statement must include data about the potential
competitors, including their costs, and their distance in miles from
the applicant's facilities and major consuming markets. This statement
must also describe any relevant barriers to entry and the applicant's
assessment of whether ease of entry is an effective counter to attempts
to exercise market power in the relevant markets.
    (6) Statement F--maps. This statement must consist of maps showing
the applicant's principal facilities, pipelines to which the applicant
intends to interconnect and other pipelines within the area to be
served, the direction of flow of each line, the

location of the alternatives to the applicant's service offerings,
including their distance in miles from the applicant's facility. The
statement must include a general system map and maps by geographic
markets. The information required by this statement may be on separate
pages.
    (7) Statement G--market-power measures. This statement must set
forth the calculation of the market concentration of the relevant
markets using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The statement must also
set forth the applicant's market share, inclusive of affiliated service
offerings, in the markets to be served. The statement must also set
forth the calculation of other market-power measures relied on by the
applicant. The statement must include complete particulars about the
applicant's calculations.
    (8) Statement H--other factors. This statement must describe any
other factors that bear on the issue of whether the applicant lacks
significant market power in the relevant markets. The description must
explain why those other factors are pertinent.
    (9) Statement I--prepared testimony. This statement must include
the proposed testimony in support of the application and will serve as
the applicant's case-in-chief, if the Commission sets the application
for hearing. The proposed witness must subscribe to the testimony and
swear that all statements of fact contained in the proposed testimony
are true and correct to the best of his or her knowledge, information,
and belief. The regulation at 18 CFR 284.505(a), requires: (1) a
demonstration that market-based rates are in the public interest and
necessary to encourage the construction of storage capacity in an area
needing storage services, and (2) an explanation of what means the
storage service provider will use to protect customers from the
potential exercise of market power.

Market Based-Rates--Notice of Change in Circumstances

    The Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 284.504(b) provide that a
storage service provider granted the authority to charge market-based
rates is required to notify the Commission within 10 days of acquiring
knowledge of significant change occurring in its market power status.
The notification should include a detailed description of the new
facilities/services and their relationship to the storage service
provider. Significant changes include: (1) The storage provider
expanding its storage capacity beyond the amount authorized; (2) The
storage provider acquiring transportation facilities or additional
storage capacity; (3) An affiliate providing storage or transportation
services in the same market area; and (4) The storage provider or an
affiliate acquiring an interest in or is acquired by an interstate
pipeline.

Code of Conduct Record Retention

    The Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 284.288(b) and 284.403(b),
respectively, impose a record retention requirement contained in a Code
of Conduct applicable to: (1) interstate pipelines that provide
unbundled natural gas sales service,\1\ and (2) persons who are not
interstate pipelines and whose sales of natural gas are authorized by
the ``automatic'' blanket marketing certificate granted by operation of
18 CFR 284.402.\2\ Any entity fitting one of those descriptions must
retain, for a period of five years, all data and information upon which
it billed the prices it charged for natural gas it sold pursuant to its
market based sales certificate or the prices it reported for use in
price indices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As defined at 18 CFR 284.282(c), unbundled sales service is
gas sales service that is sold separately from transportation
service.
    \2\ The regulation at section 284.402(a) provides that any
person who is not an interstate pipeline is granted a blanket
certificate of public convenience and necessity, pursuant to section
7 of the NGA, that authorizes the certificate holder to make sales
for resale of natural gas at negotiated rates in interstate
commerce. Section 2(1) of the NGA (15 U.S.C. 717a(1)) defines a
``person'' to include an individual or corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC uses these records to monitor the jurisdictional
transportation activities and unbundled sales activities of interstate
natural gas pipelines and blanket marketing certificate holders.
    The record retention period of five years is necessary due to the
importance of records related to any investigation of possible
wrongdoing and related to assuring compliance with the codes of conduct
and the integrity of the market. The requirement is necessary to ensure
consistency with 18 CFR 1c.1 (``Prohibition of Natural Gas Market
Manipulation'') and the generally applicable five-year statute of
limitations where the Commission seeks civil penalties for violations
of the anti-manipulation rules or other rules, regulations, or orders
to which the price data may be relevant.
    Failure to have this information available would mean the
Commission would have difficulty performing its regulatory functions
and to monitor and evaluate transactions and operations of interstate
pipelines and blanket marketing certificate holders. The Code of
Conduct Record Retention burden \3\ associated with the FERC-549
includes both labor \4\ and storage costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 284.288(b) and 18 CFR 284.403(b)
    \4\ The $35.83 hourly cost figure comes from the average cost
(wages plus benefits) of a file clerk (Occupation Code 43-4071) as
posted on the BLS website (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: Jurisdictional interstate and intrastate
natural gas pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \5\ The Commission estimates the annual
burden and labor costs for the information collection as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.

                                  FERC-549--Estimated Labor Costs for NGPA Section 311 Transactions, NGA Blanket Certificate Transaction, and Record Retention
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             B  Annual
                                           A  Number of      number of       C  Total  number of      D  Average  burden hrs.  & cost    E  Total annual  burden hours  & total     F  Cost per
                                            respondents    responses per          responses                ($) \6\ per response                        annual cost                  respondent
                                                            respondent
                                                                             (Column A x Column B)                                      ($).....................................             ($)
                                                                                (Column C x Column D)...................     (Column E /
                                                                                Column A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation by Pipelines.............              43               2                        86  50 hrs.; $4,550...................  4,300 hrs.; $391,300....................          $9,100
MBR--Initial Approval...................               1               1                         1  350 hrs.; $31,850.................  350 hrs.; $31,850.......................          31,850
MBR--Change in Circumstances \7\........               5               1                         5  75 hrs.; $6,825...................  375 hrs.; $6,825........................           1,365

Record Retention........................             299               1                       299  1 hr.; $38.71.....................  299 hrs.; $11,574.29....................           38.71
                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................             348  ..............                       391  ..................................  5,324 hrs.; $441,549....................  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Storage Cost: \8\ In addition to the labor costs for record
retention, non-labor costs of record retention and storage are
estimated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For the information collection activities labeled
``Transportation by Pipelines,'' ``MBR--Initial Approval,'' and
``MBR--Change in Circumstances,'' Commission staff estimates that
respondents' hourly labor cost is approximated by the Commission's
average hourly cost (for wages and benefits) for 2022, or $91.00 per
hour.
    For the information collection activity labeled ``Record
Retention,'' Commission staff estimates that respondents' hourly
labor cost is $38.71 (for wages and benefits), based on $27.24 (the
mean hourly wage for an information and record clerk, Occupation
Code 43-4000 for Utilities as posted at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm), plus $11.47 (the average hourly cost for
benefits for private industry, as posted at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.
    \7\ This new row was added to account for the differences
between initial MBR filings and filings pertaining to a change in
circumstances.
    \8\ Each of the 299 entities is assumed to have both paper and
electronic record retention. Internal analysis assumes 50 percent
paper storage and 50 percent electronic storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Paper storage costs (using an estimate of 12.5 cubic feet
x $6.46 per cubic foot): $80.75 per respondent annually. Total annual
paper storage cost to industry ($80.75 x 299 respondents): $24,144.25.
This estimate assumes that a respondent stores 12.5 cubic feet of
paper. We expect that this estimate should trend downward over time as
more companies move away from paper storage and rely more heavily on
electronic storage.
     Electronic storage costs: $3.18 per respondent annually.
Total annual electronic storage cost to industry ($3.18 x 299
respondents): $950.82. This calculation estimates storage of
approximately 200 MB per year with a cost of $3.18.
    Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: September 30, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21764 Filed 10-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 75594-75596]
[DOCID:fr15de06-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54905; File No. SR-ISE-2006-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Rule 2107 (Priority and Execution of Orders)

December 8, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 24, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial''
rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which rendered the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2107 (Priority and
Execution of Orders). The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site, http://www.iseoptions.com, at the

Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On September 28, 2006, the Commission granted the ISE approval for
its proposed adoption of trading rules related to its new electronic
trading system for equities (``ISE Stock Exchange'').\4\ As required by
Regulation NMS under the Act, on and after February 5, 2007, the ISE
Stock Exchange will not Trade-Through \5\ the Protected Quotation \6\
of another Trading Center.\7\ Accordingly, when the ISE does not have
interest resident in the ISE Stock Exchange at the National Best Bid or
Offer (``NBBO''), the order will be routed to the Trading Center(s)
displaying a Protected Quotation that is at a superior price. If the
ISE is unable to route the order to the other Trading Center(s) for any
reason and no valid exception to the order protection rule under
Regulation NMS \8\ exists, the order will be canceled back to the
Equity EAM. The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend ISE
Rule 2107 regarding priority and execution of orders to clarify that
when the ISE Stock Exchange is not at the NBBO, orders will either be
routed to Protected Quotation(s) or canceled back to the Equity EAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54528, 71 FR 58650
(October 4, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-48).
    \5\ As defined in Rule 600(b)(77) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR
242.600(b)(77).
    \6\ As defined in Rule 600(b)(58) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR
242.600(b)(58).
    \7\ As defined in Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR
242.600(b)(78).
    \8\ See Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the ISE proposes to amend the Supplementary Material
to ISE Rule 2107 to specify that the ISE Stock Exchange will execute
inbound intermarket sweep orders (``ISOs'') \9\ without regard to
prices on other markets and to define an Equity EAM's obligations
associated with submitting ISOs to the ISE Stock Exchange, in each case
prior to February 5, 2007 (the ``Trading Phase Date'' of Regulation
NMS).\10\ An Equity EAM may submit an ISO only if it has simultaneously
sent an ISO (or comparable order) for the full displayed size of all
firm quotations that are disseminated pursuant to an effective national
market system plan and are at a superior price to the ISE Stock
Exchange's best bid or offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As defined in Rule 600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR
242.600(b)(30).
    \10\ Telephone conference between Nancy J. Sanow, Assistant
Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and Laura E.
Clare, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, on December 4, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
     The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would impose no
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comment on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange did not solicit or receive any written comments with
respect to the proposal.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms,
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act\12\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Exchange provided
the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of the
filing of the proposed rule change. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, because this filing
should clarify trading processes relating to the handling of orders on
the ISE Stock Exchange. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the
Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\16 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-ISE-2006-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-68. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-SE-2006-68 and should be submitted on or
before January 5, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E6-21361 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P