                           Information Collection Request for the

                     Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund Program

                            Section 606 of the Clean Water Act

                                  EPA ICR Number 1391.10

                           OMB Control Number 2040-0118

                    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

                      Office of Wastewater Management

                            State Revolving Fund Branch

                     1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (4204-M)

                             EPA East Building, 7th Floor

                                Washington, DC  20460

    	SECTION I:  PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	"CLEAN WATER ACT STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM (Renewal)"

	(OMB Control Number 2040-0118, EPA ICR Number 1391.10)

1(b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION (ABSTRACT)

The information collection activities will occur primarily at the
program level, Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Base Program and
the CWSRF American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Program, through
the State "Intended Use Plan" and "Annual Report".  The information is
needed annually to implement Section 606 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The Act requires the information to ensure national accountability,
adequate public comment and review, fiscal integrity, and consistent
management directed to achieve environmental objectives.

The individual information collections are described as follows:

a. Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application/State Intended Use
Plan

The capitalization grant agreement and application is the principal
instrument by which the State commits to manage its revolving fund
program in conformity with the requirements of the CWA.  The grant
agreement contains or incorporates by reference the Intended Use Plan
(IUP), application materials, payment schedule, and required
certifications.  Information on hardship grants, Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE), environmental indicators, environmental benefits, core
measurements, and funding framework can be found in the IUP.  The grant
agreement is a general instrument to legally commit the State and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to execute their responsibilities
under the Act.

b. Annual Report

The Annual Report indicates how the State has met the goals and
objectives of the previous fiscal year as stated in the IUP and grant
agreement.  The Report provides information on loan recipients, loan
amounts, loan terms, hardship grants, DBE, environmental indicators,
environmental benefits, core measurements, funding framework, project
categories of eligible costs, and similar data on other forms of
assistance, and is needed for input into the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) National Information Management System.  The Report also
describes the extent to which the existing CWSRF financial operating
policies, alone or in combination with other State financial assistance
programs, will provide for the long-term fiscal health of the Fund.

c. State Annual Audit

The State annual audit report will contain opinions on the financial
statements of the CWSRF, a report on the internal controls, and whether
the CWSRF program compliance requirements have been met.  Separate
financial audits may be done in conjunction with the guidelines of the
Single Audit Act of 1996.

d. Applications for CWSRF Financing Assistance

Local communities have the responsibility for preparing and submitting
applications for CWSRF assistance to their respective State Agency which
manages the CWSRF program.  The State has sole responsibility for
reviewing the applications, entering into loan and other financing
arrangements with applicants, and otherwise managing operations of the
CWSRF.

1(c)	Terms of Clearance

For the prior ICR 1391.09, OMB provided the following Terms of Clearance
(TOC):

“This change to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program
ICR, to implement provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA), is approved. This change transfers 455,318 hours of
burden from Emergency ICR 2030-0046, which expires on Sept 30, 2009, to
this ICR, and approves EPA’s collection of 6 additional data items
required by EPA to meet the requirements of ARRA that were not
previously approved under this ICR. These are: Principal
Forgiven/Negative Interest/Grant Amount (subsidy); Last Construction
Contract Executed (Date); Construction Start Date; Construction
Completed Date; Is Project Green Infrastructure; and Green
Infrastructure Amount. The additional burden primarily reflects the
increase in grant applicants and awards expected as a result of ARRA, as
well as accounting for the new reporting requirements. Additionally, OMB
notes that EPA is providing States with the options of entering
information required under ARRA Section 1512 into the CWSRF Benefits
Reporting System (CBRS). This option provides states with an ARRA data
entry mechanism to improve data quality and consistency of reported
information. Once the information is entered in CBRS, States can
download a spreadsheet formatted for direct upload into
FederalReporting.gov. However, since recipients are required to submit
the Section 1512 data directly to FederalReporting.gov, States will need
to submit those data on their own accord on a quarterly basis beginning
in October 2009 as stipulated in the final OMB reporting guidance. The
collection of Section 1512 data in FederalReporting.gov is separately
authorized by OMB control number 0430-0004. This option (to report 1512
data to CBRS and download a spreadsheet formatted for
FederalReporting.gov) is purely voluntary; States wishing to use some
other method of reporting to FederalReporting.gov are free to do so. It
is intended merely to assist States in their 1512 reporting. OMB
understands that when EPA renews this collection (which expires on
12/31/2010), the above listed items will be incorporated into the
supporting statement for the ICR. Additionally, EPA will include these
specific items in the two requests for public comment that precede the
submission of the ICR to OMB.”

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	NEED/AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

	The Clean Water Act, as amended by "The Water Quality Act of 1987" (33
U.S.C. 1381-1387 et. seq.), created a Title VI which authorizes grants
to States for the establishment of State Water Pollution Control
Revolving Funds.  The information activities are pursuant to Section 606
of the Act, EPA Initial Guidance for State Revolving Funds (January
1988), and CWSRF Interim Final Rule (March 1990).

	The 1987 Act declares that water pollution control revolving loan funds
shall be administered by an instrumentality of the State subject to the
requirements of the Act.  This means that each State has a general
responsibility for administering its revolving fund, and must take on
certain specific responsibilities in carrying out its administrative
duties.

	EPA and the public, needs the information collected on the ARRA Program
to access whether funds under the Act were used for authorized purposes,
to evaluate whether program goals were achieved, and to ensure that
instances of fraud, waste, error, and abuse are mitigated.  EPA will
report information in recipient’s quarterly reports at a web site so
that recipients and uses of all funds are transparent to the public.
EPA will report the public benefit of the funds in a clear, accurate,
and timely manner.

2(b)	USE/USERS OF THE DATA

	In order for a State to receive a capitalization grant for its
revolving fund, it must enter into an agreement (Capitalization Grant
Agreement) with the EPA.  State responsibilities include:

a. 	contributing 20 percent matching funds;

b. 	committing funds expeditiously;

c. 	jointly establishing a payment schedule with the federal government;

d. 	ensuring that enforceable requirements are fulfilled before the
assistance is provided to recipients for other purposes; and

e. 	monitoring assistance recipient compliance with program requirements
and other federal cross-cutting authorities during the period of the
assistance agreement.

A State, as a federal grant recipient, must also agree to follow
generally accepted accounting principles.  A State is expected to have
an annual financial audit conducted and must assure that assistance
recipients adhere to appropriate accounting and auditing procedures.

	The information to be provided to EPA by the States includes:

a. Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application/Intended Use Plan;

		b. Annual Report; and

		c. State Annual Audit.

	Upon approval of the capitalization grant application, each State has
the responsibility to establish its CWSRF program.  Once the CWSRF is
operational, the State will receive and review applications for CWSRF
financing assistance submitted by local communities.  The State will
review the applications for conformance with the CWSRF Intended Use
Plan, environmental impact and benefits, and financial capability of the
applicant.  For those projects funded with monies directly made
available by the Federal capitalization grant, the State will also
review the proposed project for consistency with applicable Title II
requirements and other Federal cross-cutting authorities as described in
the CWSRF Initial Guidance and other CWSRF program materials.  The
specific procedures for preparation and review of application materials
will be developed by each State.  If an application is acceptable, the
State prepares the appropriate loan agreement documents.

	Although EPA oversees the general operations of the CWSRF programs as
part of its Annual Review process, the Agency does not have any
responsibility for reviewing or approving individual applications for
CWSRF financial assistance.

EPA and the public will use the ARRA Program information to oversee the
recipient’s programmatic and financial performance under the Act.  For
example, the information in a recipient’s quarterly report will enable
EPA and the public to assess whether program goals were achieved,
including specific program outcomes and improved results on broader
economic indicators.

3.  NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION

CRITERIA

3(a)	NONDUPLICATION

	The information collection elements are specific to Title  VI,
established under the amendments to the CWA.  The information in the
Intended Use Plan, Annual Report, and State Audit is unique to each
State participating in the CWSRF program.  Therefore, duplication of
effort is not expected.  The information collection activities herein
are based upon program specific State sources which are not duplicated
anywhere else.

3(b)  PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB

          	The first Federal Register Notice soliciting public comment
on this ICR was published July 11, 2011 (76 FR 40723) under Document ID:
EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0015.

3(c)	CONSULTATIONS

The information collection requirements were developed during the
initial stages of the program, and were reviewed and commented on by the
groups that would be impacted; such as State officials, representatives
of local government, private concerns involved with municipal finance,
EPA regional and Headquarters’ offices, and the Office of Management
and Budget.  The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) also reviewed and commented on the
requirements.  As the program progressed through the years, there were
minor changes made to the requirements, mostly due to reporting burden
increases resulting from an increase in the number of loan applicants.
These changes were reviewed and commented on by the impacted
organizations as a result of the Federal Register postings every 3 years
during the renewal process.

The burden hours did double for one year in 2009, due to the infusion of
$4 billion dollars into the SRF program from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.  However, these burden hours were approved by
OMB on a separate ICR developed by the EPA Grants Administration
Division; and these hours allowed have since been dropped from the
Agency’s data collection budget for the SRF program.

3(d)	EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

The statute (Clean Water Act) requires the information to be provided at
least annually.  EPA is not requesting the information more frequently,
although a State may submit it more frequently if it wishes (e.g.
semi-annual audit instead of annual audit).

The information is indispensable for prudent administration and sound
fiscal management of the State Revolving Fund Program.  EPA will use the
information to respond to OMB and Congressional requests and
requirements for accurate analysis and projection of national budget
impacts and needs.  It will be relied upon by State managers for key
planning decisions and by EPA managers for essential program evaluation
and corrective measures.

Local communities are not required to apply for CWSRF assistance.
Preparation of an application is only necessary if the community wishes
to receive financial assistance.  In view of the limitation of funds
available from the CWSRF and the option of other sources, a limited
number of communities will likely receive assistance in a particular
year.  The impact on communities generally is quite limited.

3(e)	GENERAL GUIDELINES

The data collections covered by this ICR are in compliance with the OMB
General Guidelines for information collections.

3(f)	CONFIDENTIALITY

No confidential data is collected.

3(g) 	SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

No such information is required.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	RESPONDENTS/SIC CODES

State and local governments; local communities and tribes (SIC Code #99)

4(b)INFORMATION REQUESTED

	(i)	Data Items

In general, the information collections are required to ensure
compliance with Title VI of the Clean Water Act and to ensure that
self-sufficient CWSRF programs are established in perpetuity.  These
information elements also provide the accountability needed to detect
shall remedy situations of waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal funds.

The individual information collections are described as follows:

	a.	Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application/State
          	Intended Use Plan

The capitalization grant application is made on EPA short form No.
5700-33 (OMB No. 2030-0020).  The minimal increase in State burden
associated with use of this form is being handled separately by the
Grants Administration Division in their information collection budget
request.

The CWSRF Management Manual includes a model IUP which should improve
program efficiency and reduce the burden on States and EPA Regions.

b.	Annual Report

Section 606 (d) requires the States to submit an annual report at the
end of each fiscal year that identifies how the State has met the goals
and objectives of the previous fiscal year as stated in the IUP and
grant agreement.  The annual report provides information on loan
recipients, loan amounts, loan terms, environmental benefits, DBE,
project categories, and similar data on other forms of assistance.   The
annual report describes the extent to which the existing CWSRF financial
operating policies, alone or in combination with other State financial
assistance programs, will provide for the long term fiscal health of the
Fund and carry out other provisions specified in the grant operation
agreement.

To reduce the burden on the States, EPA developed a model annual report,
patterned after the model IUP.

This model is included in the CWSRF Management Manual.

	c.	State Annual Audit

Most States have agreed to conduct or to have conducted an independent
financial audit of its CWSRF which will provide opinions on the
financial statements, and a report on the internal controls and
compliance with program requirements.  The remaining States will be
covered by audits conducted under the requirements of the Single Audit
Act or by the EPA Office of Inspector General.

	d.	Applications for CWSRF Financing Assistance

Local communities and other eligible entities have to prepare and submit
applications for CWSRF assistance to their respective State Agency which
manages the CWSRF program.  Title VI outlines eligibilities under the
CWSRF program in terms of potential recipients, types of projects and
activities which may receive CWSRF assistance, and the types of
financial assistance which an CWSRF may provide.  The Clean Water Act
provides significant flexibility to the States regarding the development
of specific procedures for reviewing and approving applications for
CWSRF assistance and for managing the CWSRF program.

e.	National Program Evaluation

EPA has the responsibility of evaluating the overall effectiveness of
the CWSRF program.  Studies will be conducted annually on program
progress and environmental outcomes.  Much of the data to support such
studies is available in capitalization grant applications, annual
reports and audits.  However, in limited circumstances, it is necessary
to get information directly from communities that have received
assistance.  For instance, data on the application experience, data on
post construction project performance, etc.  These studies will complete
the public program development, implementation, and evaluation.  The
evaluation serves as a feedback loop so that the program efficiency and
effectiveness can be improved.

Specific reporting requirements which are statutorily based relate only
to the relationship between the State as recipient of the Federal
capitalization grant and the Agency as grantor.  Similarly, the CWSRF
Initial Guidance, the Interim Final Rule, CWSRF Management Manual, and
other CWSRF program materials do not provide guidance or direction to
the States regarding the development of application materials or
specific procedures for the processing and disposition of applications
for CWSRF assistance.

Generally, the applications for CWSRF assistance require local
communities to provide the following information:

o	Project description;

o	Project cost estimate;

o	Estimated construction schedule;

o	Projected disbursement schedule;

o	Description of environmental impacts and benefits;

o	Estimation of cost impacts on users;

o	Identification of repayment source;

o	Description of community financial capability; and

o	For certain projects, certifications and demonstrations regarding
compliance with applicable Title II requirements and other Federal
cross-cutting authorities.

(ii)	Respondent Activities

The respondents (State and local governments) prepare and submit the
Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application / Intended Use Plan when
applying for Federal financial assistance.

For the Clean Water State Revolving Fund ARRA Program, EPA estimates
that 51 recipients will prepare / submit reports to EPA, prepare work
plans and annual reports, and participate in audit activities.  EPA
estimates that 3,060 organizations will submit applications for funding
and 1,400 sub-recipients will prepare / submit reports to the prime
recipient.  In addition, EPA estimates that 56 recipients will submit
reports under 604(b) of the Clean Water Act.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, 	COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION 	MANAGEMENT

5(a)	AGENCY ACTIVITIES

The Agency reviews the submissions from the State and local governments
and analyzes the data provided on the Capitalization Grant Agreement and
Application/Intended Use Plan in order to base its decisions for
approval.  The Agency reviews the annual reports and the annual audits
from each state to ensure that the intended financial and programmatic
objectives of the program are being met.

5(b)	COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

The CWSRF Management Manual includes a model agreement which draws from
the existing Construction Grant Agreement.  Use of this example is
likely to reduce the information burden on States and EPA Regions.

Section 606(c) requires the State to prepare a plan identifying the
intended uses of the funds in the CWSRF and describing how these uses
support the goals of the CWSRF.  The Intended Use Plan (IUP) must be
submitted annually, after the State has provided an opportunity for
public comment and review.  The primary purpose of the IUP is the
identification of proposed annual intended uses of the amounts available
to the CWSRF.  The secondary purpose of the IUP is the facilitation of
the negotiation process for the capitalization grant agreement and
schedule of grant payments (Section 606(b)).

	Under Section 606(c)(l), the IUP must contain a list of  publicly-owned
treatment works projects on the State's priority list that are eligible
for CWSRF construction assistance.  This IUP list includes:  the
community name; the permit number or other applicable enforceable
requirement; the type of financial assistance; and the projected amount
of eligible assistance.

Under Section 606(c)(2), the State must describe long and short term
goals and objectives of its water pollution control revolving fund.

	Under Section 606(c)(3), the IUP must include information on the types
of activities to be supported by the CWSRF.

	Section 606(c)(4) requires that assurances and specific proposals be
contained in the IUP to describe how the State intends to meet the
following requirements:

- Section 602(a)--State certification that it will conduct environmental
reviews on treatment works projects and submit the specific procedures
it will use.

- Section 602(b)(3)--State certification that it will enter into binding
commitments.  The estimated schedule for the binding commitments is a
part of the IUP.

- Section 602(b)(4) -State certification that all funds in the CWSRF
will be expended in an expeditious and timely manner.

- Section 602(b)(5)--State identification of all projects expected to be
funded with "first use" funds to meet the enforceable requirements of
the Act.  All States have certified compliance with this requirement.

Section 606(c)(5) requires that the IUP describe the criteria and
methods established for the distribution of the CWSRF funds.  The first
part describes the distribution of the various types of assistance
offered by the State (e.g., loans, guarantees, insurance, refinancing of
existing debt, leveraging).  The second part describes the process the
State will use to select Section 212 POTW construction projects from the
project priority list, and projects or programs to be funded as eligible
activities for non-point source (NPS) and estuary protection management
programs.  This section also includes how the State will provide
opportunity for public comment and review of the IUP before submitting
it in final form to EPA.

	Except for the NPS and estuarine management programs under Sections 319
and 320, the procedures for selecting projects from the State priority
list and for providing for public participation have already been
established under the existing Construction Grant Program.  Therefore,
the burden connected with this part of the IUP will also be minimal.

Payment Schedule -- Based on its projection of binding commitments in
its Intended Use Plan, the State must propose a draft payment schedule.
The payment schedule and the specific criteria establishing the
conditions under which the State may draw cash from ASAP (Automated
Standard Application for Payments system) must be jointly established by
EPA and the State.  A schedule of estimated disbursements is also
required to allow a forecast of the amount of funds to be drawn from
ASAP during the upcoming Federal fiscal year.  This forecast is
necessary to plan the outlay of Federal funds from the Treasury due to
the Title VI program.

In its Annual Report, the State verifies that it has:

- Reviewed all CWSRF funded Section 212 projects in accordance with the
approved environmental review procedures (Section 602(a));

- Deposited its matching funds on or before the date on which each EPA
quarterly grant payment was made (Section 602(b)(2));

- Made binding commitments to provide assistance equal to 120 percent of
the amount of each grant payment within one year after receiving the
grant payment (Section 602(b)(4));

- Expended all monies in the fund in an expeditious and timely manner
(Section 602(b)(4));

- First used all monies in the fund as a result of capitalization grants
to assure maintenance of progress toward compliance with the enforceable
requirements of the Act (Section 602(b)(5)); and

- Complied with the Title II requirements applicable to those eligible
treatment works funded in whole or in part before fiscal year 1995 with
an amount equivalent to the capitalization grant (Section 602(b)(6));
crosscutters still apply

Under Section 606(b), at least once a year the Administrator (through
the Office of the Inspector General) expects the State to independently
conduct or to have conducted a financial and compliance audit of its
CWSRF and operations.  The State may designate an independent auditor to
carry out the audit or may contractually procure the service.  If the
State fails to conduct the audit or if the review is unsatisfactory, the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) may arrange for an EPA audit.  The OIG
is currently developing an audit guide for CWSRFs, which should reduce
the burden on States that wish to conduct their own audits and improve
the efficiency of EPA reviews.

Title VI outlines eligibilities under the CWSRF program in terms of
potential recipients, types of projects and activities which may receive
CWSRF assistance, and the types of financial assistance which an CWSRF
may provide.  The CWA provides significant flexibility to the States
regarding the development of specific procedures for reviewing and
approving applications for CWSRF assistance and for managing the CWSRF
program.

Specific reporting requirements which are statutorily based relate only
to the relationship between the State as recipient of the Federal
capitalization grant and the Agency as grantor.  Similarly, the CWSRF
Initial Guidance,

Interim Final Rule, CWSRF Management Manual, and other CWSRF program
materials do not provide guidance or direction to the States regarding
the development of application materials or specific procedures for the
processing and disposition of applications for CWSRF assistance.

The Initial Guidance and Interim Final Rule on State Revolving Funds
impose virtually no requirements on States that go beyond those imposed
by the CWA itself.  The guidance and rule were designed to promote
flexibility for States in establishing and operating their CWSRF
programs, within the bounds of the Act.

Because the CWSRF is a dynamic State-led program, EPA has undertaken
many activities to support the Regions and States with implementation.
EPA has prepared model documents relating to intended use plans,
capitalization grant agreements, and annual reports.  EPA Regional
personnel are regularly in contact with their State counterparts and are
currently working to determine efficient ways to communicate needed
information and reduce the burden.  The information collection
activities will occur primarily at the program level through the State
Intended Use Plan and Annual Report.  The information is needed annually
to implement Section 606 of the CWA.  The Act requires the information
to ensure national accountability, adequate public comment and review,
fiscal integrity, and consistent management directed to achieve
environmental objectives.

5(c)	SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

A majority of the reporting burden (IUP, annual report, annual audit,
falls on the States.  For those communities / municipalities desiring
financial assistance from the CWSRF, they will have a smaller reporting
burden requirement (loan applications).  For those small or local
organizations requiring assistance (non-point source projects), they
will also prepare loan applications similar to the communities’ /
municipalities’ requirement for submittal to the State program office.

5(d)	COLLECTION SCHEDULE

The information collection activities will occur primarily at the
program level for use in the State Intended Use Plan and Annual Report.
The information is needed annually to implement Section 606 of the CWA.
The Act requires the information to ensure national accountability,
adequate public comment and review, fiscal integrity, and consistent
management directed to achieve environmental objectives.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS

The respondent burden estimates are based on the incremental effort
associated with the information collection activity.  As program
activity increases at the local and State level the preparation and
review of local community applications for CWSRF assistance will likely
increase.

The estimation of State respondents' burden for the four information
collections are shown below:

Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application /State Intended

Use Plan

We estimate that States will spend an average of 400 hours each to
prepare the Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application / State
Intended Use Plan for submission to EPA.  The information provided for
hardship grants, environmental benefits, core measurements and funding
framework is included in the burden hour estimate.   The following chart
represents the total national burden from the Capitalization Grant
Agreement and Application / State Intended Use Plan.

FY 2012: 51 States X 400 hrs = 20,400 burden hours

FY 2013: 51 States X 400 hrs = 20,400 burden hours

FY 2014: 51 States X 400 hrs = 20,400 burden hours

			Total		1,200 hrs		61,200 hrs

b. 	Annual Report

EPA estimates that over the three year period covered by this ICR the
States will spend an average of 275 hours to put together their Annual
Report on the CWSRF program.  The annual report will include information
on hardship grants, DBE, environmental benefits, core measurements,
funding framework, and input for the CWSRF National Information
Management System.

FY 2012: 51 States X 275 hrs = 14,025 burden hours

FY 2013: 51 States X 275 hrs = 14,025 burden hours

FY 2014: 51 States X 275 hrs = 14,025 burden hours

	Total		825 hrs		42,075 hrs

c. 	State Annual Audit

The estimated average burden for each State Annual Audit was 80 hours
per year.  It should be noted that all States are expected to have an
annual financial audit of their program conducted, including opinions on
the financial statements, and reports on internal controls and
compliance with program requirements.  This estimate is based on the
extra increment of effort caused by the federal requirement.  Some
States will build on the Single Audit Act audits while others will
simply have annual financial audits conducted on their program.

FY 2012: 51 States X 80 hrs = 4,080 burden hours

FY 2013: 51 States X 80 hrs = 4,080 burden hours

FY 2014: 51 States X 80 hrs = 4,080 burden hours

			Total		240 hrs		12,240 hrs

It is important to note that respondents may use CWSRF administrative
monies to pay for costs resulting from the State Annual Audit.  Section
603(d)(7) of the Act allows money in the CWSRF to be used for the
reasonable costs of administering the Fund, provided that the amount
does not exceed four percent of the Federal  grant awards received by
the State CWSRF.  If the effort required under the State Audit exceeds
the requirements under the Single Audit Act, the incremental costs
associated with the additional effort may be paid from the
administrative monies.

	d. 	CWSRF Assistance Application Preparation and Review

States have total responsibility for reviewing and approving local
applications for assistance from the CWSRF program.  We estimate that
States will spend an average of 40 hours in reviewing and approving each
assistance application.  The following chart represents the total
national State burden in processing CWSRF assistance applications.

FY 2012: 51 States X 74 Comm. appl. X 40 hrs = 150,960 hours

FY 2013: 51 States X 79 Comm. appl. X 40 hrs =  161,160 hours

FY 2014: 51 States X 84 Comm. appl. X 40 hrs = 171,360 hours

			Total 	      237 Comm. appl.	               483,480 hours

States develop specific procedures and reporting and application
materials for CWSRF assistance applicants.  We estimate that local
communities and tribes will spend an average of 60 hours in collecting
information and preparing their CWSRF assistance applications.  The
following chart represents the total national local community burden in
preparing CWSRF assistance applications.

FY 2012:   3,774 Comm. X 60 hrs = 226,440 burden hours

FY 2013:   4,029 Comm. X 60 hrs = 241,740 burden hours

FY 2014:   4,284 Comm. X 60 hrs = 257,040  burden hours

     	Total        12,087 Comm.	                725,220 hrs

Average Annual State Burden Hours (FY 2012-2014):

						    		Hours			 Hours

		ICR				  		per State   	all States

		Capitalization Grant Agreement		1,200			61,200

		and Application / State

		Intended Use Plan

		Annual Report				825	    	 	42,075

		State Annual Audit				240	    	 	12,240

		Application Review			  	9,480 	 	483,480

						  ___________________

	Total State Burden Hrs.

                                                  	(FY 2012-2014)
           		11,745	   	598,995

		Average Annual State Burden

	Hours (FY 2012-2014)		   	 3,915     	         199,665

Total Local Community Burden Hours (FY 2012-2014):

								Hours		Hours

		ICR						per Comm.  all Comm.

		Application Preparation			 60	     	725,220

	Average Annual Local Community Burden Hours (FY 2012-2014):

							Hours		Hours

		ICR			      	    	per Comm.  all Comm.

		Application Preparation		 60		 241,740

Total Local Community Respondents

		(FY 2012 – 2014)					12,087

		Average Local Community Respondents

		(FY 2012 – 2014)					 4,029

6(b)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS

a. Costs To State Respondents

The average annual State Costs for the three-year period is estimated to
be $6,389,280

It is important to note that costs to the States are CWSRF grant
eligible, and therefore, are indirect Federal costs paid out of the
CWSRF.  Under section 603(d)(7), money in the CWSRF may be used for the
reasonable costs of administering the Fund, provided that the amount
does not exceed four percent of all grant awards received by the CWSRF.
CWSRF administrative monies may be used for all reasonable costs that
would be eligible under section 205(g) for delegated program and project
management, to the extent those types of costs are incurred for
management of the CWSRF and for projects receiving financial assistance
from the .  (If actual State expenditures for administrative costs of
managing the CWSRF exceed the four percent limit, the excess costs must
be paid from other State monies.)

A small sample of State respondents were initially selected during
program implementation for interviews for assessing costs and hourly
burden.  The respondents provided estimates for the costs associated
with the information collection activity.  The estimates were averaged
for the four individual activities involving information collections
that have already been described.  The averages were multiplied to
reflect participation by all States in the CWSRF program and by the
States' reported FTE (full-time employee) direct labor costs.

FY 2012

  	ICR		# States	  Hours	  $/Hour	  $ Cost

Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application/Intended Use Plan

- Initial Plan	  	  51		  300		32.00**	    489,600

  	- Revised Plan	  51		  100 	 	32.00**	    163,200

Annual Report	  51		  275	 	32.00**	    448,800

State Audit	 	 51		   80	 	32.00**	    130,560

Appl. Review		51   	  74* 	   40	 	32.00**	  4,830,720

Total FY 2012 State Cost	  			                   $6,062,880

* communities

** State salary cost is figured at $27.00 per hour to cover technically
trained personnel plus an additional ADP cost of $5.00 per hour = $32.00
total per hour.

                                       FY 2013

  	ICR		# States	  Hours	  $/Hour     $ Cost

Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application/Intended Use Plan

- Initial Plan	  	   51		  300		 32.00**      489,600

  	- Revised Plan	   51		  100 	 	 32.00**	163,200

Annual Report	  51		  275	   	32.00**       448,800

State Audit	 	 51		   80		32.00**      130,560

Appl. Review		51	79*	   40		32.00**   5,157,120

Total FY 2013 State Cost	 			            $6,389,280

*communities

				FY 2014

  	ICR		# States	  Hours	  $/Hour	 $ Cost

Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application/Intended Use Plan

- Initial Plan	  	51		  300	 	32.00**   	489,600

  	- Revised Plan	51		  100		 32.00**	 163,200

Annual Report	51		  275	 	32.00**   	448,800

State Audit	  	51		   80	 	32.00**	 130,560

Appl. Review	     	51	84*	   40	 	32.00**       5,483,520

Total FY 2014 State Cost	  	 	  $6,715,680

Total State costs (FY 2012-2014)		            $19,167,840

Average annual State cost over

3-year period	   				    	  $6,389,280

* communities

	b. Costs to Local Respondents

Local communities may incur costs in identifying and evaluating their
water quality problems.  Likewise, communities may need to absorb costs
related to the development and evaluation of alternative planning and
engineering approaches for solving the water quality problems.  These
planning and design costs may be eligible for CWSRF assistance at a
State's option.  For the purpose of this information collection, only
the direct costs associated with preparation of the application for
CWSRF financial assistance are reported.

During the period of this information collection activity, the CWSRF
program will experience growth in the number of communities which
receive CWSRF financial assistance.  The number of communities in each
State will vary significantly according to the funding available, the
types of projects to be assisted, the average cost/size of projects, and
other factors.  The Agency estimates that the number of local
communities to receive CWSRF assistance during the period of this
information collection to be as follows: 2012 - 74 per State; 2013 - 79
per State; 2014 - 84 per State.

Only communities which desire financial assistance from the CWSRF will
prepare applications.  Therefore, this information collection will
pertain only to a limited number of communities.  The specific
requirements and complexity of application materials varies widely among
the States which are responsible for CWSRF program implementation and
management.  The Agency estimates that on average, communities will
spend approximately 60 hours in completing their CWSRF assistance
applications.

					 FY 2012

  	ICR	# Communities	  Hours	$/Hour	  $ Cost

Appl. Prep.	 	3,774              60	 	27.00       $6,113,880

				FY 2013

  	ICR	# Communities	  Hours	$/Hour	  $ Cost

Appl. Prep.		4,029	   	   60 		27.00      $6,526,980

 FY 2014

  			ICR	# Communities	  Hours	$/Hour	  $ Cost

Appl. Prep.		4,284	   	    60 		27.00       	$6,940,080

Total Local costs (FY 2012-2014)		 	$19,580,940

Average annual local cost over 3-year period	     	$6,526,980

6(c)	ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

Estimation of the direct costs to EPA to implement the CWSRF Program
covers negotiation and analysis of the Intended Use Plan (including
Capitalization Grant Agreement and Application), and assessment of State
performance and compliance through the Annual Report and State Audit.
Analysis of documents, information, and data includes receipt,
validation, verification, and evaluation.

Authorization for the CWSRF Program expired in FY 1994, however, since
future appropriations for the program are anticipated, States will
continue to submit applications for capitalization grants.  Many States
are expected to make modifications to their programs.  These changes may
include new funding approaches (e.g., leveraging funds, alternative
sources for required State matching funds), revised environmental
procedures, and alternative methods to assure 	compliance

	The average annual Federal cost of $1,766,640 over the three-year
period was estimated as follows:

FY 2012

						ICR 	Hours		$/Hour	   $ Cost

EPA HQ Review of IUP	  765	  	48.00*	   36,720

and Agreement Materials

(15 hrs per State

submission)

EPA Regions' Review of IUP 		17,850 	40.00**	  714,000

and Agreement Materials

(350 hrs per State

submission)

EPA HQ Oversight Review	2,040	 	 48.00*	   97,920

of Annual Report/Audit

(40 hours per State

submission)

EPA Regions' Oversight 	20,400	  40.00**	  816,000

Review of Annual

Report/Audit (400 hours

per State submission)

Total FY 2012 Federal 	 		41,055		    $1,664,640

* GS 13/5, including PC&B (personnel compensation and benefits).

** GS 12/5, including PC&B.

FY 2013

	   	ICR			 Hours	$/Hour     $ Cost

EPA HQ Review of IUP 	   	 765	  	48.00*	36,720

and Agreement Materials

(15 hours per State

submission)

EPA Regions' Review of   			 17,850	 40.00**     714,000

IUP and Agreement

Materials (350 hours

per State submission)

EPA HQ Oversight Review	  	2,040	  	48.00*	97,920

of Annual Report/Audit

(40 hours per State

submission)

EPA Regions' Oversight   			 22,950	 40.00**	918,000

Review of Annual

Report/Audit (450 hours

per State submission)

Total FY 2013 Federal 			43,605		    $1,766,640

FY 2014

ICR			  Hours	  S/Hour	   $ Cost

EPA HQ Review of IUP         	    765	 48.00*	   36,720

and Agreement Materials

(15 hours per State

submission)

EPA Regions' Review of  		  17,850	  40.00**  	 714,000

IUP and Agreement

Materials (350 hours

per State submission)

EPA HQ Oversight Review	  2,040	  48.00*	 97,920

of Annual Report/Audit

(40 hours per State

submission)

EPA Regions' Oversight 	 25,500	  40.00**	1,020,000

Review of Annual

Report/Audit (500 hours

per State submission)

Total FY 2014 Federal 	        	46,155		          $1,868,640

Total Federal costs (FY 2012-2014)

Base Program  				$5,299,920

ARRA Program		  		$3,230,948

Average annual cost over 3-year period

Base Program  	$1,766,640

ARRA Program	$1,076,982

	Total Federal Burden Hours (FY 2012-2014)

Base Program 				130,815

ARRA Program				 80,804

	Average Annual Federal Burden Hours

Base Program				43,605

ARRA Program				26,934

Hourly Federal Cost

Base Program				$44.00

ARRA Program			  	$39.99

6(d)  BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS / BURDEN TABLES

	(i)	Respondent Burden (FY 2012-2014)

Total State Burden Hours

Base Program			598,995

				ARRA program			638,010

Average Annual State Burden Hours

Base Program			199,665

ARRA Program			212,670

		Total State Costs

Base Program		$19,167,840

ARRA Program		  20,416,320

		Average Annual State Costs

Base Program		$6,389,280

ARRA Program		  6,805,440

		Hourly State Cost

Base Program			$32.00

ARRA Program		  	  32.00

		Total Local Burden Hours

Base Program		     725,220

ARRA Program		     455,316

Average Annual Local Burden Hours

Base Program			241,740

ARRA Program			151,772

Total Local Costs

Base Program	          $19,580,940

ARRA Program		   12,291,142

		Average Annual Local Costs

Base Program		$6,526,980

ARRA Program		  4,097,047

Hourly Local Cost

Base program			$27.00

ARRA Program		  	  27.00

		Total Average Annual Respondents (State and Local)

Base Program			8,262

ARRA Program			4,669

		Total Average Annual Respondent (State and local) Burden Hours

Base Program			441,405

ARRA Program			364,442

                  	Total Average Annual Respondent (State and Local)
Cost

		Base Program		$12,916,260

		ARRA Program		  10,902,487

Total Number of Annual Burden Hours / per respondent

Base Program			53.43

ARRA Program		 	78.06

	(ii)	The Agency Tally (FY 2012-2014)

Total Federal Costs

Base Program		$5,299,920

ARRA Program		  3,230,948

		Average Annual Federal Costs

Base Program		$1,766,640

ARRA Program		  1,076,982

		Total Federal Burden Hours

Base Program		130,815

ARRA Program		 80,804

		Average Annual Federal

		Burden Hours

Base program		43,605

ARRA Program		26,934

		Federal Cost per hour

Base Program		$44.00

ARRA Program		  39.99

6(e)	REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

In the previous ICR 1391.09, the change in the State and local
respondent burden of 455,318 hours was attributed to an increased
estimate on the number of respondents receiving CWSRF loans under the
ARRA Program (adjustment). The previous ICR estimated the number of
respondents in the base program to be 3,825, while this ICR estimates
the number of respondents in the base program to be 8,262, plus an
additional 4,669 ARRA respondents.  More entities will be applying for
CWSRF loans in the base program than in previous years.

6(f)	BURDEN STATEMENT

Average annual State and local burden for this ICR is estimated to be
441,405 hours for the base program, and an additional 364,442 hours for
the ARRA Program.  The average annual Federal burden for the base
program is estimated to be 43,605 hours, with an additional 26,934 hours
for the ARRA program.  This includes the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining
the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information.

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 53.43 hours per response for the
base program and 78.06 hours per response for the ARRA program.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part
9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ –OW-2004-0015, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Water Docket
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Water Docket
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,”
then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0015 and OMB Control Number 2040-0118 in any
correspondence.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71427]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2020-000]

Domtar Paper Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

November 16, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Domtar Paper Company, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is December 6, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29436 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 47936-47937]
[DOCID:fr18se09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

September 10, 2009.

EC&R Papalote Creek I, LLC...........................        EG09-39-000
Stony Creek Wind Farm, LLC...........................        EG09-40-000
Conectiv Vineland Solar, LLC.........................        EG09-41-000
Astoria Energy II LLC................................        EG09-42-000
Hoosier Wind Project, L.L.C..........................        EG09-43-000
Lost Lakes Wind Farm LLC.............................        EG09-44-000
Blue Canyon Windpower V LLC..........................        EG09-45-000
Lost Creek Wind, LLC.................................        EG09-46-000
Meadow Lake Wind Farm LLC............................        EG09-47-000
Meadow Lake Wind Farm II LLC.........................        EG09-48-000
Blackstone Wind Farm, LLC............................        EG09-49-000
AES Armenia Mountain Wind, LLC.......................        EG09-50-000
Northern Colorado Wind Energy, LLC...................        EG09-51-000
Escondido Energy Center, LLC.........................        EG09-52-000
Chula Vista Energy Center, LLC.......................        EG09-53-000
Northwest Wind Partners, LLC.........................        EG09-54-000
GenConn Middletown LLC...............................        EG09-55-000
GenConn Devon LLC....................................        EG09-56-000
NaturEner Glacier Wind Energy 2, LLC.................        EG09-57-000
NaturEner Montana Wind Energy 2, LLC.................        EG09-58-000
Horse Hollow Generation Tie, LLC.....................        EG09-59-000
Grand Ridge Energy LLC...............................        EG09-60-000
Grand Ridge Energy II LLC............................        EG09-61-000
Grand Ridge Energy III LLC...........................        EG09-62-000
Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC............................        EG09-63-000
Grand Ridge Energy V LLC.............................        EG09-64-000
Streator-Cayuga Ridge Wind Power, LLC................        EG09-66-000
Wilton Wind II, LLC..................................        EG09-67-000
Orange Grove Energy, L.P.............................        EG09-68-000

    Take notice that during the month of July/August, 2009, the status
of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22468 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The 1990 CAAA do not specify how many contingency measures are needed or the magnitude of emission reductions ( or VMT reductions) they must provide. The EPA believes that for serious nonattainment areas, a logical contingency measure for failure to attain by the attainment date would be the adoption of a requirement for a minimum 3.1 percent oxygen content of gasoline subject to the waiver provisions in section 211( m)( 3). This suggested contingency measure parallels the requirement under section 211( m)( 7) for serious areas which fail to attain the CO NAAQS to adopt and implement an oxygenated fuels program of at least 3.1 percent. For serious areas that fail to meet rate of progress requirements, for moderate areas that fail to attain by the attainment date, and for all areas that exceed a VMT forecast, States may select contingency measures for the reduction of CO emissions.

The EPA believes that for exceedance of a VMT forecast, one appropriate choice of contingency measures would be to provide for the implementation of sufficient VMT reductions or emissions reductions to counteract the effect of 1 year's growth in VMT while the State revised its SIP ( including VMT projections) to provide for attainment by the applicable date. These measures may offset either the excess VMT in the nonattainment area or the additional CO emissions in the area that are attributable to the additional VMT. Since EPA will require the State to revise its SIP within 1 year of finding that VMT levels are exceeding forecasts considering the tolerance discussed earlier, the contingency measures should be capable of reducing VMT or resultant emissions by an amount equal to the projected annual growth rate for VMT. In other words, if VMT is expected to increase at a rate of 2 percent per year, the contingency measures under this alternative should be capable of reducing future VMT ( or offsetting VMT growth) by 2 percent.

As discussed above for ozone areas, EPA Interprets the requirement for contingency measures to " take effect without further action by the State or the Administrator" to mean that no further rulemaking activities by the State or EPA would be needed to implement the measures. Certain actions, such as notification of sources, modification of permits, etc., would probably be needed before a measure could be implemented effectively. States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions.

( c) Special rule on TCM's for Denver. The requirements of section 187( a)( 2)( B) have the same effect as sections 182( d)( 1)( A) and 187( b)( 2), discussed below in section III. B. 3.( b) ( TCM's equivalent to severe ozone TCM's). Readers are referred to that discussion for a description of this requirement. ( d) Enhanced I/ M. Section 187( a)( 6) requires moderate or above CO nonattainment areas with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm to implement enhanced I/ M programs in urbanized areas within the nonattainment areas, as defined by the Bureau of Census, with 1980 populations of 200,000 or more. The section requires that the plan meet the requirements of section 182( c)( 3), as discussed in the section in this preamble concerning enhanced I/ M in serious and above ozone nonattainment areas.

In some cases, areas may have become newly subject to both basic and enhanced I/ M requirements at the time of enactment, with the basic I/ M requirements due shortly prior to the deadline for submission of the SIP revision providing for the enhanced I/ M program. In such cases, EPA regards enhanced I/ M requirements as superseding the basic I/ M requirements, and therefore will not require the submission of the basic I/ M requirements discussed previously. The EPA will, under section 182( i), require SIP revisions to provide for an enhanced I/ M program within 2 years in areas newly subject to enhanced I/ M requirements in the future as a result of redesignation or reclassification.

The SIP's for enhanced I/ M programs are due no later than November 15, 1992. In the event that EPA's enhanced I/ M performance standard is not finalized soon enough to provide sufficient time for full SIP development, EPA will use its authority under section 110( k)( 4) to conditionally approve SIP submittals committing to adopt enforceable, enhanced I/ M programs consistent with EPA guidance. The guidance will cover the elements of the SIP.

If a moderate nonattainment area fails to attain the CO standard by December 31, 1995, and is reclassified to serious, an enhanced I/ M program must be implemented if the area meets the population criterion ( urbanized area population, as defined by the Census Bureau, of 200,000 or more). The EPA will, under section 182( i), require SIP revisions to provide for an enhanced I/ M program within 2 years of redesignation or reclassification.

As mandated by section 202( m), the Administrator will promulgate regulations requiring manufacturers to install diagnostic systems on all new light duty vehicles and light duty trucks. The purpose of these systems is to identify and track emissions related systems deterioration or malfunction. According to section 202( m)( 3), within 2 years of EPA's promulgating regulations requiring States to do so, all States with I/ M programs must amend their SIP to provide for inspection of these onboard diagnostics systems. The EPA will issue revised I/ M guidance which addresses onboard diagnostic inspections.

( e) Attainment demonstration. Section 187( a)( 7), " Attainment Demonstration and Specific Annual Emission Reductions," applies to CO nonattainment areas with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm at the time of classification. A demonstration of attainment is required by November 15, 1992, and can be met through application of a modeling analysis, following the guidance contained in EPA " Guideline on Air Quality Models ( Revised)." The attainment demonstration must include a SIP control strategy, which is also due by November 15, 1992. The SIP control strategy for a given nonattainment area must be designed to ensure that the area meets the specific annual emission reductions necessary for reaching attainment by the deadline.

( f) Tracking plan implementation and milestone compliance. Section 187( a)( 2) requires States containing CO nonattainment areas with design values above 12.7 ppm to submit plans that contain forecasts / 13/ of VMT for each year before the year in which the plan projects attainment. Subsequently, the States must submit annual updates to those forecasts and report on how accurate the previous forecasts proved to be. The annual reports containing estimates of VMT must be preapred for each year in which a forecast was required. Contingency measures, developed in accordance with section 187( a)( 3) ( see section III. B. 2.( b)), must be implemented if either the annual estimates of actual VMT or any new VMT forecasts exceeds the earlier forecasts included in the State plan, considering the tolerance discussed above. The first annual reports for CO areas ( with design values above 12.7 ppm) must be submitted to EPA within 9 months after the first full calendar year after the attainment demonstration is due ( i. e., the reports must be submitted by September 1994). These reports must contain estimates of actual VMT in the previous year, forecasts of VMT in future years, and verification that contingency measures are being implemented if the actual VMT estimates for the previous year or any new VMT forecasts for any year until the attainment year exceed any earlier forecasts in the State plan. The reports must also show that the control strategies are being implemented as projected in the plan. The EPA wants to use the annual reports to ensure that VMT forecasts are consistent with VMT estimates. Furthermore, a serious CO nonattainment area must demonstrate by March 31, 1996 that it has " achieved a reduction in emissions of CO equivalent to the total of the specific annual emission reductions required by December 31, 1995" ( section 187( d)( 1) Milestone Demonstration).

NOTE / 13/ Guidance for preparing the forecasts of VMT is contained in the section 187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance.

( g) NSR. All CO nonattainment areas with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm part D NSR programs meeting sections 172( c)( 5) and 173 requirements not later than November 15, 1992, in accordance with section 187( a)( 7).

3. Serious Areas ( a) Major stationary source definition. As specified in section 187( c)( 1), for serious CO nonattainment areas in which stationary sources contribute significantly to CO levels ( determined according to guidance issued in the May 13, 1991 memorandum from William Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, to Regional Air Division Directors), a SIP shall be submitted by November 15, 1992 that provides that the term " major stationary source" includes any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of CO. If such determination is not made by EPA under section 187( c)( 1), then " major stationary source" includes any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of CO.

( b) TCM's equivalent to severe ozone TCM's. Serious CO areas ( and Denver, Colorado) must adopt and implement enforceable TCM's in conjunction with other control measures necessary to comply with the periodic emissions reduction requirements of the 1990 CAAA. The TCM's, which are required to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT and number of vehicle trips and to achieve necessary reductions in mobile source emissions, are due by November 15, 1992. States should choose from the list of TCM's and other measures in section 108( f). These requirements are contained in section 187( b)( 2) for CO areas and section 187( a)( 2)( B) for Denver. See section III. A. 5.( d) above ( severe ozone TCM's) for a discussion of how to calculate growth in emissions from growth in VMT.

All serious CO areas covered by the clean fuel vehicle fleet program ( except for areas in New York State, should any such area ultimately be bumped to serious), as well as Denver, must explain why any section 108( f) measure is not adopted, what proposed emission reduction measures will provide comparable reductions, or why such reductions are not necessary to attain the CO NAAQS. This requirement may be met by an attainment demonstration using EPA modeling techniques that shows the other adopted control measures are sufficient to provide for attainment by the required date.

This requirement must be met by any serious CO area meeting the section 246 definition of " covered area." Section 246 defines " covered areas" as areas with a CO design value of 16 ppm or greater, excluding those areas in which mobile sources do not contribute significantly to CO exceedances. Of the three existing areas with CO design values above 16 ppm, EPA anticipates that one ( the Steubenville, Ohio area) may be able to show that mobile sources do not contribute significantly to CO exceedances. Thus, at the minimum, this requirement would apply to the Denver and Los Angeles areas. Areas that are not " covered areas" are not required by this provision to justify their rejection of TCM's.

( c) Clean fuel vehicle fleet program. Section 246( a)( 2)( B) requires that all CO nonattainment areas with 1980 populations of 250,000 or more and design values of 16.0 ppm or higher, submit SIP revisions providing for clean fuel vehicle fleet programs by May 15, 1994 ( 42 months from enactment).

The programs must require a specified percentage of fleet vehicles in model year 1998 and thereafter to be clean fuel vehicles that use only clean alternative fuels when operating in the area. For light duty vehicles and light duty trucks, the required percentage must be 30 percent in 1998, 50 percent in 1999, and 70 percent in 2000 and thereafter. For heavy duty trucks, the percentage must be 50 percent in each such year. Light duty vehicles and light duty trucks in fleets participating in this program for these model years must also meet the title II clean fuel vehicle standards for model year 2001. If light duty vehicles and light duty trucks of 6,000 pounds GVWR or less are not available in California before model year 2001, the phase in schedules will be delayed accordingly.

Some of the major program requirements include the following: That fuel providers make clean alternative fuel available to fleet operators; that Federal fleets ( except certain vehicles certified by the Secretary of Defense as needing an exemption based on national security grounds) be included in the program; and that credits consistent with EPA regulations due 1 year from enactment be issued for purchasing more vehicles than required, for purchasing vehicles that exceed the established standards, or for purchasing vehicles prior to the effective date of the program. In addition, certain TCM's may not apply to covered fleet vehicles consistent with EPA regulations.

Areas where mobile sources do not contribute significantly to CO exceedances may be able to obtain a waiver from the clean fuel program. The reader is referred to the discussion in this preamble that addresses guidance on waivers for mobile source measures, section III. B. 7.

Each State subject to the fleet program may submit a SIP revision by November 15, 1992 consisting of fully adopted control measures as a substitute for all or a portion of the clean fuel vehicle program required by section 246. The substitute measures must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the long term reductions in CO emissions and toxic substances are, at a minimum, equal to those that would be achieved under the clean fuel vehicle program or the percentage of the emissions reductions attributable to the portion of the program for which the revision is to substitute. Substitute measures may not include any other measures required by the Act.

( d) Milestone and attainment failures ( economic incentive programs). Economic incentives and transportation control programs ( as described in section 182( g)( 4)) are required for serious areas under several different types of failure: Failure to submit a milestone demonstration ( as defined in section 187( d)( 1)), failure to meet the milestone ( section 187( d)( 3)), or failure to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date ( section 187( g)). In all such cases, the State shall submit a plan revision with such incentives within 9 months of failure. The EPA urges such a State to initiate the development of a program of economic incentives and transportation controls as soon as it can reasonably define the objectives and scope of an appropriate program, without waiting until such a failure occurs. The EPA believes that early initiation is important so as to allow for sufficient time to develop, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Economic incentive programs are discussed in more detail in section III. G. 3.

( e) Long term measures. The EPA recognizes that some serious CO nonattainment areas ( and perhaps areas with long term attainment dates for other pollutants) will have such large emissions reductions requirements that identifying, developing, and adopting in final form the control measures that represent the areas preferred strategy for their demonstrations of attainment may present an unreasonable burden. The EPA believes that these areas may need additional time to fully develop and adopt certain " long term" measures that would be the preferred means to reach attainment. These measures would include those that require complex analyses and decision making and coordination among a number of government agencies.

The EPA intends to allow these areas reasonable additional time to complete full development and adoption under the following conditions: ( 1) The plan containing the demonstration of attainment must identify each measure for which additional time would be needed for full development and adoption.

( 2) The plan must show that the long term measures cannot be fully developed and adopted by the submittal date for the attainment demonstration.

( 3) The plan must contain an enforceable commitment by the relevant agency that development and adoption will occur on an expeditious schedule to achieve specified emission reductions from each long term measure for each year through the attainment year.

( 4) The plan must contain " backstop" measures that would be implemented to achieve equivalent emission reductions unless the long term measure is adopted on schedule.

( 5) The long term measures must not be needed to meet any emission reduction requirement before December 31, 1995.

The " backstop" measures required under condition 4 must be submitted with the 1992 attainment demonstration in fully adopted form. The " backstop" measures must be designed to go into effect automatically on a schedule sufficient to achieve all of the reductions identified with each long term measure for each year through the attainment year. The " backstop" measures may represent broad, across the board reductions in emissions, rather than thoroughly analyzed and developed control measures. For this reason, EPA does not anticipate the actual implementation of " backstop" measures in most cases, as States will have ample opportunity to submit SIP revisions incorporating the fully developed long term measures and deleting the " backstop" measures from the SIP. Additionally, if a long term measure cannot be developed, then the State has the option to submit a SIP revision identifying a fully developed and adopted alternative measure to replace the original long term measure prior to any necessary implementation of " backstop" measures.

Thus, a State may find that progress can be achieved with measures that are fully developed by the 1992 SIP submittal date. However, the State may determine that expeditious attainment of the NAAQS is impossible unless the SIP also includes measures which cannot be fully developed until after the 1992 SIP is due. In its 1992 SIP submittal, the State must clearly describe each of these long term measures and show that each measure cannot be fully developed and adopted until a specified future date, despite expeditious implementation efforts. The 1992 SIP must include with each long term measure an enforceable schedule, binding responsible agencies to achieve identified emissions reductions from each measure.

Along with these provisions, the State's 1992 SIP submittal must include " backstop" measures. The " backstop" measures must be fully adopted and scheduled for implementation to achieve reductions equivalent to those assigned each year by the long term measures. When each long term measure is fully developed, it must be submitted to EPA as a SIP amendment. This amendment would also propose deletion of the associated " backstops." The EPA's approval of the long term measures would also rescind from the SIP, the " backstop" measures.

4. " Not Classified" Nonattainment Areas ( a) General. Nonclassifiable CO areas consist of " not classified" areas. The EPA describes areas as " not classified" if they were designated nonattainment both prior to enactment and ( pursuant to section 107( d)( 1)( C) at enactment, and if they did not violate the primary NAAQS for CO in either year for the 2 year period 1988 through 1989.

Although it seems clear that the CO specific requirements of subpart 3 of part D do not apply to CO " not classified" areas, the 1990 CAAA are silent as to how the requirements of subpart 1 of part D, which contains general SIP planning requirements for all designated nonattainment areas, should be interpreted for such CO areas. Nevertheless, because these areas are designated nonattainment, some aspects of subpart 1 necessarily apply. The EPA interprets the requirements under section 172( c) for these areas below. Applicable revisions to the SIP are due 3 years from designation under section 107( d) ( see 56 FR 56694).

( 1) RACM. Reasonably available control measures are required for areas needing to achieve attainment. Because " not classified" areas may be already attaining or are presumably very near attainment, the EPA believes that additional RACM controls beyond what may already be required in the SIP are not necessary to achieve attainment and are therefore not required.

( 2) Attainment demonstration. Section 187( a)( 7) specifically exempts moderate areas with design values less than 12.7 ppm from requiring an attainment demonstration. Because these moderate areas are exempt from this requirement, it would seem unreasonable to subject this requirement to an area that was not violating the standard. Therefore, EPA will presume that the existing SIP requirements and any existing and future Federal requirements ( e. g., the title II rules) will be sufficient to provide for attainment in these areas.

( 3) RFP. A RFP requirement assumes a long nonattainment period. The fact that a " not classified" area is already in or near attainment obviates the need for an RFP requirement.

( 4) Emissions inventory. An emissions inventory is specifically required under this section and is not tied to an area's proximity to attainment. Moreover, even if these areas are already attaining or near attainment, they will need such an inventory to develop an approvable maintenance plan under section 175A. Therefore, an emissions inventory must be included in the SIP revision due 3 years from designation.

( 5) NSR. Like the emissions inventory requirement, the NSR requirement is not tied to an area's proximity to attainment, and therefore exempting a nonattainment area from the NSR requirements is not allowed by the Act. Furthermore, the new NSR program is one of the Act's major bulwarks for preventing further deterioration of the Nation's air quality. Therefore, all


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49521-49522]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16099]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-424, OMB Control No. 3235-0473]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17Ad-3(b)

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ad-3(b) (17 CFR
240.17Ad-3(b)), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection
of information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ad-3(b) requires registered transfer agents to send a copy
of the written notice required under Rule 17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h) to
the chief executive officer of each issuer for which the transfer agent
acts when it has failed to turnaround at least 75% of all routine items
in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-2(a), or to process at
least 75% of all items in accordance with the requirements of Rule
17Ad-2(b), for two consecutive months. The issuer may use the
information contained in the notices: (1) as an early warning of the
transfer agent's non-compliance with the Commission's minimum
performance standards regarding registered transfer agents; and (2) to
become aware of certain problems and poor performances with respect to
the transfer agents that are servicing the issuer's issues. If the
issuer does not receive notice of a registered transfer agent's failure
to comply with the Commission's minimum performance standards, then the
issuer will be unable to take remedial action to correct the problem or
to find another registered transfer agent. Pursuant to Rule 17Ad-3(b),
a transfer agent that has already filed a Notice of Non-Compliance with
the Commission pursuant to Rule 17Ad-2 will only be required to send a
copy of that notice to issuers for which it acts when that transfer
agent fails to turnaround 75% of all routine items or to process 75% of
all items for two consecutive months.
    The Commission estimates that only one transfer agent will be
subject to the third party disclosure requirements of Rule 17Ad-3(b)
each year. If a transfer agent fails to meet the turnaround and
processing requirements under 17Ad-3(b), it would simply send its
issuer-clients a copy of the notice that had already been produced for
the Commission pursuant to Rule 17Ad-2(c) or (d). The Commission
estimates the requirement will take the transfer agent approximately
four hours to complete. The total estimated burden associated with Rule
17Ad-3(b) is thus approximately 4 hours per year. The Commission
estimates that the internal compliance cost for the transfer agent to
comply with this third party disclosure requirement will be
approximately $1,128 per year (4 hours x $283 per hour = $1,128). The
total estimated internal cost of compliance associated with Rule 17Ad-
3(b) is thus approximately $1,128 per year. There are no external costs
associated with sending the notice to issuer-clients.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
September 29, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 25, 2023.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16099 Filed 7-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3763-3764]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-43-000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on January 5, 2012, Questar Pipeline Company
(Questar), 180 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 filed a prior
notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Questar's blanket certificate issued in
Docket No. CP82-491-000, to construct, own and operate the upgraded
compressor engine at the Blind Canyon Compressor Station located in
Duchesne County, Utah, all as more fully set forth in the application,
which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to L.
Bradley Burton, General Manager, Federal Regulatory Affairs and Chief
Compliance Officer, Questar Pipeline Company, 180 East 100 South, P.O.
Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0360 or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
or fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant
request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant
to section 7 of the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: January 19, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1474 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18253-18254]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2012-0173]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0048,
Vessel Reporting Requirements. Our ICR describes the information we
seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA,
the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2012-0173] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND ST. SW., STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office
of Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2012-0173], and
must be received by May 29, 2012. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2012-0173], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use
only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via
www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver,
or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at the DMF. We recommend you
include your name, mailing address, an email address, or other contact
information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if
we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2012-0173'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8-1/2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and will
address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0173'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Vessel Reporting Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0048.
    Summary: Owners, Charterers, Managing Operators, or Agents of U.S.
vessels must immediately notify the Coast Guard if they believe the
vessel may be lost or in danger. The Coast Guard uses this information
to investigate the situation and, when necessary, plan appropriate
search and rescue operations.
    Need: Section 2306(a) of 46 U.S.C. requires the owner, charterer,
managing operator, or agent of a vessel of the United States to
immediately notify the Coast Guard if: (1) There is reason to believe
that the vessel may have been lost or imperiled, or (2) more than 48
hours have passed since last receiving communication from the vessel.
These reports must be followed by written confirmation submitted to the
Coast Guard within 24 hours. The implementing regulations are contained
in 46 CFR part 4.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 137 hours per
year.

    Dated: March 20, 2012.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-7285 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                       BMD Analysis (Pooled Data, Cmax)

                                   Kan Shao                                September 6, 2013

Dose  N Effect                                                                               0                                                                              48                                                                              22                                                                            11.9                                                                              20                                                                               5                                                                            24.5                                                                              19                                                                               8                                                                           49.57                                                                              25                                                                               5                                                                           202.4                                                                              22                                                                              11                                                                           641.1                                                                              23                                                                              14                                                                          2049.6                                                                              22                                                                              18

                            BMD Estimation Results                                         Model P-Value AIC BMD  (BMR=10%) BMDL (BMR=10%)  BMD (BMR=5%) BMDL  (BMR=5%) Gamma 0.125 235.31 180.45 102.61 91.49 49.95 Logistic 0.179 233.77 244.03 169.56 123.48 85.78 LogLogistic 0.140 235 174.78 57.27 98.26 27.13 LogProbit 0.203 233.329 277.44 169.82 192.93 118.09 Multistage 0.205 233.327 162.95 102.49 79.33 49.90 Probit 0.175 233.84 251.66 181.67 127.01 91.67 Weibull 0.125 235.33 168.05 102.5 82.63 49.90 Quantal-Linear 0.205 233.327 162.95 102.49 79.33 49.90 Note: Multistage model and Quantal-Linear model have the lowest AIC. But the BMDLs exceed 3-fold range, so the BMDL from the Loglogistic model should be selected.

The best fitted model Quantal-linear is shown below.