Information Collection Request for Requirements for Control Technology
Determinations from Major Sources in Accordance with Clean Air Act
Sections, Sections 112(g) and 112(j).

Supporting Statement

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

ICR:	Control Technology for Equivalent Emissions Limitations by Permit
under Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act.

OMB Control Number: 2060-0266, EPA ICR # 1648.06.

	(b)	Short Characterization

	Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAAA) requires
that if EPA fails to promulgate a standard for a category or subcategory
of major sources within 18 months after its scheduled date of
promulgation, then sources must submit a title V permit application
beginning on that date.  States (with approved Title V operating permit
programs) or EPA will issue permits containing MACT emission limitations
determined on a case-by-case basis to be equivalent to what would have
been promulgated by EPA pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 112(d).  EPA
has promulgated regulations implementing Section 112(j).

	This ICR supports the regulations to implement Section 112(j) (40 CFR
part 63, subpart B, §§63.50-56).  It addresses the information
collection burden (hours and costs) to industry respondents subject to
these provisions; State and Local agencies that review applications
submitted under these provisions; and the EPA oversight review of a
percentage of State/Local decisions. As discussed further below, it may
be that only activities related to the regulatory requirement to submit
Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications are activities for which an
estimate of burden need be calculated.  However, we have estimated the
burden associated with certain permitting activities that follow
submission of Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications for informational
purposes and to provide a conservative estimate of the overall burden.
Whenever burdens and costs are presented in this Supporting Statement,
we have provided both an estimate that includes only the burden
associated with the submission of Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications
(“application burden”) and an estimate that includes the application
burden and burden associated with certain subsequent permitting
activities (“overall burden”).

	This ICR includes about 2,573 major sources (see Table 1) contained in
4 source categories for which MACT standards have been vacated by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  We
estimate up to about 2,573 existing and new sources may have to
participate in the development of case-by-case MACT permit applications.
The average administrative cost per source of these activities is
estimated to be $7,322.27 ($3,130.31 application burden only) per
source.  Total estimated administrative costs may be up to $29,986,998
($9,779,849 application burden only) for all sources in all 4 source
categories over the next three years.

	Further, the burden estimate is conservative, because we assume 2,360
boilers are subject to Section 112 and therefore covered by this ICR,
based on the number of initial notifications received following
promulgation of the boiler MACT.  However, this assumption likely
represents an overestimate of the number of such sources.  EPA's major
source boiler MACT was vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, along
with a separate rule defining a “commercial or industrial solid waste
incineration unit” for purposes of Section 129 of the Act (the
definitional rule).  NRDC V. EPA, 489 F.3d. 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).  In
the definitional rule case, the court held that Section 129’s
directive to regulate “any facility which combusts any solid waste
material from commercial or industrial establishments” does not permit
the exclusion of facilities that combust solid waste, but recover
thermal energy for a useful purpose  The court then concluded that the
flaws in EPA’s definitional rule would necessitate revision of the
major source boiler MACT rule as well, because the scope of facilities
subject to the MACT would change.  Therefore the court also vacated the
boiler MACT.  Once EPA revises both the definitional rule and the boiler
MACT, it is likely that the number of sources subject to the boiler MACT
will be smaller than those that would have been subject to the MACT the
court vacated.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 contains the
need and authority for this information collection. [42 U.S.C. 7401 (et.
seq.)  as amended by Public Law 101-549]

	Several commenters disputed any need for the information collection
asserting that 112(j) does not apply in the case of vacaturs.  They
argue that in the case of the vacaturs, EPA did not fail to promulgate
applicable standards and a vacatur does not erase a prior promulgation
from history.  They opined that a promulgation in good faith, even if
later to be judged by a court to be not valid should not invoke 112(j)
retroactively.

	We disagree with the commenters.  In light of the complete vacatur of
the rules noted above, the “hammer” requirements of Section 112(j)
apply.  We have previously taken this position in pleadings filed in the
D.C.Circuit. (See, e.g., “Reply in Support of Motion for Voluntary
Vacatur and Remand” and Opposition to Petitioners’ Cross-Motion to
Establish Deadline to Govern Remand in Natural Resources Defense
Council, et. al. v EPA (No. 04-1385 and consolidated cases) and
“EPA’s Petition for Panel Rehearing” in Mossville Environmental
Action Now and Sierra Club v. EPA, (No. 02-1282), attachment A and B,
respectively).  See also Environment Defense v Leavitt,  329 F. Supp 2d
55, 63-64 (D.D.C. 2004) (Court held that when the Court of Appeals
vacated EPA’s rule, the vacatur restored the status quo before the
invalid rule took effect, the status quo presented a situation wherein
EPA had failed to promulgate regulations in accordance with the deadline
set out in the CAA.)  Section 112(j) provides generally that major
sources in a category or subcategory for which standards are not
promulgated must submit permit applications by given dates, and that
federal or state permit writers must then determine on a case-by-case
basis an emission limitation equivalent to the limitation that would
apply if an emission standard had been issued in a timely manner under
Section 112(d) or (h) of the Act.  See CAA 112(j)(5), 40 CFR 63.55(a).

	Several commenters questioned the need for an ICR on other grounds.
One commenter noted that the CAA itself requires permit applications and
that the Paperwork Reduction Act should not be a vehicle to impede
submission of permit applications for case-by-case MACT.  The commenter
further theorized that because the CAA assigns the permitting obligation
directly to the States, the collection of information is not being
performed on EPA’s behalf and thus the ICR approval is unnecessary.
They added that OMB did not have discretion to deny approval of the
request because it would interfere with the substantive requirements of
a statute.  Finally, they urged that OMB approve the previous submittal
by EPA for an emergency ICR approval until this one could be approved.

	We agree that the CAA requires permit applications and that the lack of
an approved ICR for EPA’s 112(j) regulations does not affect the
statutory requirement.   We also agree that in most cases the regulatory
process for obtaining a 112(j) limit is implemented by the states.
However, under the PRA and the regulations implementing the PRA, these
circumstances do not alter EPA’s obligation to have an approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) in place for the information
collection requirements contained in the Section 112(j) regulations. The
ICR supporting implementation of these regulations expired in 2005 and
was renewed only with respect to Section 112(g).  We are working to
expedite the renewal of the ICR for the 112(j) regulations and we hope
that this will be accomplished with a minimum of unnecessary delay.  We
note that OMB’s regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(3) state “[a]
collection of information conducted or sponsored by a Federal agency
that is also conducted or sponsored by a unit of State, local, or tribal
government is presumed to impose a Federal burden except to the extent
that the agency shows that such State, local, or tribal requirement
would be imposed even in the absence of a Federal requirement.”

	Another commenter disputed the need for the collection of information
and surmised that reactivating 112(j) would be a waste of time, as EPA
will likely re-establish the boiler MACT before case-by-case MACT would
be implemented.  According to the commenter, the cost of implementing
112(j) would greatly outweigh any benefits.  The commenter also asserts
that EPA has not shown “whether the burden of the collection of
information is justified by its practical utility,” and that EPA
should first perform a reasonably thorough analysis of whether and to
what extent implementation of the 112(j) regulations would be beneficial
in view of the near-term issuance of a national MACT standard for the
appropriate set of boilers.

	We believe that obtaining ICR approval for the Section 112(j)
regulations is important to ensure that an orderly process is in place
for implementing the requirements of Section 112(j).  Without the
ability to rely on the information collection requirements in the
regulations, there is likely to be confusion and inconsistency with
respect to implementation of the statute.    Implementation of 112(j) is
not a discretionary matter that we or the States have the ability to
dismiss as “not worth the effort” as the commenter suggests.

	Finally, a couple of commenters stated that Section 112(j) of the CAA
is not self-implementing and that we should amend the Section 112(j)
rule to include the vacatur scenario before acting on the ICR.
Commenters argue that the regulations establish rules only for
“original failures to promulgate” and did not invest into those
regulations any intent or guidance as to vacaturs.  They asserted that
guidance alone should not be used, and any guidance itself should also
go through notice and comment.

We do not agree that these comments are relevant to the issue of the
need for the collection of information, but note that we do not agree
with the commenters’ position.  The provisions of the current 112(j)
regulations adequately address the circumstances surrounding vacatur.
The current rule contains provisions addressing timeframes other than
“original failures to promulgate.”  (See, e.g., 63.52(a)(2) (,
63.52(e) (establishing deadlines for Part 2 applications when Part 1
applications becomes due after the “failure to promulgate” dates
established in Table 1 of the regulations).  We also note that it is
appropriate for an Agency to issue guidance when questions arise
concerning a rule’s applicability under particular circumstances.
Notice and comment may be required under certain circumstances, but not
where, as here, an Agency is for the first time providing guidance as to
how a broadly worded rule applies under a particular set of facts that
may not have been specifically contemplated in promulgating the rules.

	(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The information collected in the permit applications will be used for
the purposes of permit approval, compliance determination, and the
selection of particular control technology on a case-by-case basis.  The
Federal or State administrator of the operating permits program will use
the information for the case-by-case emission limit determinations.
Because the information gathered is necessarily source-specific, the
case-by-case determinations cannot be made without it.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION 		CRITERIA

	3(a)	Nonduplication

	The information collection activities required under the Section 112(j)
regulations are not routinely collected elsewhere by EPA.  However, in
this situation, the permitting authority may likely have collected much,
if not all, of the information items previously in support of other
applications in the course of implementing or preparing to implement the
MACT standards that have been vacated.  Most permitting authorities,
though, will likely accept references to previously submitted
information in lieu of significant duplication, in accordance with
§63.53(b)(1).

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

	A 60-day public review and comment period of the ICR renewal occurred
after publication in the Federal Register on November 2, 2007.

	3(c)	Consultations

	Six commenters provided letters with detailed comments during the
public comment period.  One commenter noted that we had not consulted
with potential respondents prior to proposal of this ICR.  The commenter
also suggested that the ICR was incomplete to the point that it did not
provide adequate opportunity for comment on the full range of the
request and should be completely redone and reproposed.

	  While consultations were not conducted specifically on this ICR, we
did discuss with several stakeholders, including potential respondents,
on several occasions the implications of the vacaturs with respect to
112(j).  During these discussions, many of the issues raised in comments
on this ICR were discussed at great length.  Potential respondents have
also provided comments on this ICR and in some cases, we have made
adjustments to the ICR estimates based on those comments.   We disagree
that the ICR should be rewritten and reproposed.  Some of the
information the commenter requests, such as the true universe of
sources, has not yet been settled; we disagree that this is a fatal flaw
as we have included the most sources that would be subject, meaning that
we have overestimated the potential impact.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Each applicant would submit the required information only once (a
permit application) over the term of this ICR.  There is no less
frequent collection.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the Section
112(j) regulations do not violate any of the Paperwork Reduction Act
guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI)  (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	This section is not applicable.  This ICR does not contain any
sensitive questions relating to sexual behavior or attitudes, religious
beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

	Respondents include owners/operators of major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) in the following source categories: polyvinyl chloride
and copolymers production, brick and structural clay products
manufacturing, clay ceramics manufacturing, and industrial, commercial,
and institutional boilers and process heaters (Table 1).  A major source
is one that has the potential to emit considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or
more of any combination of HAP.  The boilers source category cuts across
a wide variety of industries, including both manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing sources.

	One commenter suggested that we include all source categories for which
we project that the court will issue a complete vacatur.

	We believe this to be unnecessary.

	4(b)	Information Requested

	(i)	Data items, including recordkeeping requirements

	Implementation of the Section 112(j) program involves information
submitted with the Part 1 and Part 2 applications for a Section 112(j)
determination.  Although we included the burden of developing permit
terms and conditions in our proposed Supporting Statement, we now
believe that such activities may not be information collection that is
subject to the requirements of the PRA for the following reasons.
First, to be a collection of information under the PRA, ten or more
persons (respondents) need to be asked to report, provide, disclose, or
record information in response to “identical questions.”  In this
case the “identical questions” consist of the information required
in the Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications.  Any
informationsubsequently collected would be on a case by case basis
between unique sources and the permitting authority and thus would not
appear to be subject to the requirements of the PRA.  Second, according
to OMB regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(9)), “[f]acts or opinions obtained
or solicited through nonstandardized follow-up questions designed to
clarify responses to approved collections of information” are not
generally considered “information” under ICRs.

However, we do acknowledge that there is burden associated with
development of permit terms and conditions related to Section 112(j) and
thus, as noted above, for informational purposes and to ensure that we
provide conservative estimates of burden, we will provide estimates
burden associated with certain activities that occur after the
submission or Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications.

Section 112(j) regulations do not contain recordkeeping requirements.

	The Section 112(j) regulations require a 2-part permit application.
State and local agencies that develop the permit will review the
information provided in the Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications. EPA
will provide oversight to the process.

	Part 1 of the application requires the following basic information
about the source:

(1) The name and address (physical location) of the major source.

(2) A brief description of the major source and an identification of the
relevant source category.

(3) An identification of the types of emission points belonging to the
relevant source category.

(4) An identification of any affected sources for which a Section 112(g)
MACT determination has been made.

This ICR provides an estimate for all sources to submit a Part 1
application.  However, most sources should have already submitted a Part
1 application under the previous ICR approval.  Because we do not know
how many Part 1 applications will be resubmitted (a source can work with
its permitting authority to determine whether or not it needs to
resubmit its Part 1 applications), we have assumed that all will,
resulting in an overestimate of the burden.

	Part 2 of the application requires the following information from the
source:

(1) For a new affected source, the anticipated date of startup of
operation.

(2) Each emission point or group of emission points at the affected
source which is part of a category or subcategory for which a Part 2
MACT application is required, and each of the hazardous air pollutants
emitted at those emission points. When the Administrator has proposed a
standard pursuant to Section 112(d) or 112(h) of the Act for a category
or subcategory, such information may be limited to those emission points
and hazardous air pollutants which would be subject to control under the
proposed standard.

(3) Any existing Federal, State, or local limitations or requirements
governing emissions of hazardous air pollutants from those emission
points which are part of a category or subcategory for which a Part 2
application is required.

(4) For each identified emission point or group of affected emission
points, an identification of control technology in place.

For many sources the permitting authority already has much of this
information, gathered through previous title V permit submittals.  A
source may work with its permitting authority to determine what
additional or revised information is necessary for a complete Part 2
application submittal.

(ii)	Respondent Activities

Activities (see Table 2) that the owner or operator must perform are:

- Develop and submit Part 1 and Part 2 applications

- Submit applicability determination requests, as applicable

- File and maintain the permit applications and applicability
determination requests

- Utilize legal and consulting resources, as desired

	In addition, although we do not consider these to necessarily be
activities that are within the scope of the PRA, the owner or operator
will:

- Work with the permitting authority to develop the permit

- Participate in the public hearing

- File and maintain the final permit

Several commenters indicated that the burden estimates are low because
we did not include burden for several activities and items they thought
should be included, such as costs of compliance with case-by-case MACT
provisions that are different from the vacated MACTs, review by
consultants, applicability determination requests, legal expenses,
responding to public comments, stack testing, development of HAP
emissions data, development of recommended MACT, and gathering
additional information when requested.

	This ICR addresses required information and activities to meet the
information collection provisions of the Section 112(j) rule.  Several
of the activities listed by the commenters are not information
collection requirements that are imposed by the 112(j) regulations, such
as development of recommended MACT, stack testing to develop information
for the Part 2 permit application, and other activities associated with
permit development.  However, we do agree with commenters that legal
review, consultant costs, and applicability determination requests can
be associated with preparation of the Part 1 and Part 2 permit
applications; although there is no basis for how many sources will avail
themselves of these activities, we have assumed that 50 percent will,
for burden estimate purposes.  We have no information with respect to
whether any particular State that would require additional data
associated with the Part 2 application.  Moreover, any such data
requested is not required by the 112(j) rule and is not within the scope
of the information collection that is the subject of this ICR.
Compliance costs associated with meeting case-by-case MACT are not
appropriate activities to include in information collection activities.
We mistakenly implied that such costs were included in the prior draft
Supporting Statement.  We did not attribute burden to compliance costs
associated with meeting case-by-case MACT, but stated that it was
because they would have applied after the time horizon of this ICR or
would be pre-empted when the vacated MACTs were re-promulgated.  While
some ICRs may include capital and operational costs to install and
operate systems to collect and submit information, this one does not, as
it only deals with preparation and submittal of permit applications.
Most of the information required by the permit applications is readily
available to sources and in many cases has already been submitted to the
permitting authorities in previous permit applications and amendments in
preparation for meeting the vacated standards.

	Another commenter took the position that our estimates were far too
high and included activities that should not be considered burden under
the PRA and this ICR, such as those considered as consequences that
might flow from the application submittal, for example, responding to
facility-specific questions, negotiating the permit, and participating
in the public hearing.

	 As noted above, we believe that the commenter may be correct and thus
are providing burden estimates that do not include burden associated
with such activities.  However, we are still providing an estimate for
such activities for informational purposes and to provide a conservative
estimate.

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

	5(a)	Agency Activities

	This section addresses the activities of State and Local agencies, as
the permitting authority, and EPA, in an oversight capacity.  The
permitting authority, typically the State or Local air agency, will
perform the following activities (see Table 3.):

- Review Part 1 and Part 2 applications and deny or approve them

- File and maintain permit applications

- Interact with EPA as appropriate

	In addition, although we do not consider these to be within the scope
of the PRA, the permitting authority will:

- Develop the emission limitations for the source

- Prepare the draft permit

- Conduct a public hearing

- Review and analyze the public comments

- Issue the permit

- File and maintain the permit

Acting in an oversight capacity, EPA will perform the following
activities (see Table 4):

- Review Part 1 and Part 2 applications

- Interact with the permitting authority

	In addition, although we do not consider these to be within the scope
of the PRA, EPA will:

- Review draft permits

- File and maintain the permit

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	The owners or operators of the sources affected by these regulations
will have the responsibility of submitting Part 1 and Part 2
applications to the permitting authority.  It is the responsibility of
the permitting authority to provide information necessary for EPA
oversight review.

	Qualified staff who work for the permitting authority will perform the
permit application reviews and check the quality of data submitted by
the applicant on a case-by-case basis.  The permitting authority’s
employees will handle confidential information submitted by the
applicant according to the permitting authority’s confidential
information handling procedures.

	The Section 112(j) regulations do not require the request of
information through any type of survey.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	Minimizing the information collection burden for all sizes of
organizations is a continuing effort on EPA’s part.  EPA has reduced
the information required by requiring only basic information needed by
the permitting authority to make a case-by-case MACT determination.

	One commenter suggested that we have not minimized the paperwork burden
and did not consider burden reduction options.  They suggested that we
revise the boiler category to exclude solid waste incineration units,
not send notifications to sources, and provide guidance on how to set
case-by-case MACT limits.

	We disagree that we have not tried to minimize the burden.  We are
ready to provide assistance to any permitting authority that needs help
in setting case-by-case MACT. It is important to note that the court’s
decision in NRDC v. EPA did not address the legality of the Section
112(d)(4) standards that EPA established for certain boiler
subcategories in the boilers rule.  States can consider these vacated
standards in establishing “hazardous air pollutant emissions
limitations equivalent to the limitations that would apply if an
emission standard had been issued in a timely manner under Section
112(d) or (h) of the Act,”  40 C.F.R. 63.55(a).   If States consider
these vacated standards in developing Section 112(j) emission
limitations, they should consider the recent court decisions to the
extent those decisions addressed the legality of the standards at issue
in those rules. One commenter, the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, has stated it is preparing a model case-by-case MACT that may
assist States in developing permits.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

	This ICR does not require surveys.  Each source affected by the Section
112(j) regulations is required to submit a permit application which the
permitting authority must then review.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	This ICR requires the calculation of the amount of burden hours
associated with each activity for each respondent.  In the Section
112(j) permitting process for major sources, each respondent must submit
the permit application in two parts as specified in Section 4(b)(i) of
this Supporting Statement.  Much of the information required in the Part
2 application will have already been submitted to the permitting
authority in previous permit submittals; we expect the burden to be
relatively low for this activity.

	For the Section 112(j) regulations, burden for the respondents is
administrative costs (preparing and submitting the permit applications).

	Several commenters took issue with our estimates of burden for
different activities.  One commenter used their members and consultants
to develop a better estimate for preparing permit applications; this
commenter recommended using 4 hours as the burden for preparing both
permit applications.  Other commenters came to the opposite conclusion
and believed that sources will spend significantly more hours than
estimated in the proposed ICR, citing that sources will not reference
previously submitted information, that States will require additional
information and not rely on previously submitted information, and permit
negotiations will be much more burdensome than EPA estimates.

	We appreciate the commenters’ input.  Because of the nature of
case-by-case determinations, it is difficult to come up with a
one-size-fits-all estimate.  Some sources will incur burden far less
than we have estimated and others perhaps far more.  The commenters have
offered speculative burdens.  We believe that the burden will be far
more than 4 hours for the activities involved in preparing and
submitting both applications.  We estimate the burden associated with
the preparation and submittal of both applications to be over 90 hours
(see Table 2), (or about 40 hours, excluding activities we do not
believe are within the scope of the PRA).  However, we have assumed
burdens for the sake of this estimate that we believe to be reasonable
for the activities and information involved.  None of the commenters has
convinced us that the burden estimates are unreasonable and should be
revised.

	6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

	(i) 	Labor costs

	A couple of commenters questioned the rates used and suggested that
they should be higher.  Although we believe those rates we selected and
documented for the proposed ICR were reasonably acceptable and
representative of full time employment across broad sectors that use
boilers (institutional, manufacturing, academic settings), we have
decided to use rates consistent with those selected for the boiler ICR
proposed on December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69213), which are more
representative of the manufacturing sectors.

	Wage rates were based on May 2006 raw labor rates for the Manufacturing
Sector (NAICS 31 thru 34), loaded using an overhead factor of 110%, and
indexed to June 2007 using the Employment Cost Index.  The resulting
rates are $115.12 for management personnel, $77.77 for technical
personnel, and $30.58 for clerical personnel. These values were taken
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics
Survey Web site and reflect the latest values available (May 2006).  The
Employment Cost Index is located at:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t02.htm.  Table 2 provides a
breakdown of labor hours and associated costs per occurrence for each
activity in each part of the application process for existing and new
sources.

	(ii) 	Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	We do not expect sources to expend additional capital and O&M costs to
gather information required by the Parts 1 and 2 permit applications.

	6(c)	Estimating State/Local Agency Burden and Cost

	Similar to Sections 6(a) and 6(b), the activities for State/Local
agencies are divided into the activities that would take place for both
parts of the application process as described in Section 4(b)(i) of this
Supporting Statement.  Wage rates for State/Local employees were
retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (  HYPERLINK
(http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202007.pdf
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202007.pdf , Table 4.
Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a
percent of total compensation:  State and local government workers, by
occupational group and full-time and part-time status, June 2007) and
are as follows: $33.11 per hour for management labor, $33.22 per hour
for technical labor, and $16.39 per hour for clerical labor.  We added
in the value of total benefits in BLS Table 4.  We chose 20 percent of
the base rate as the percentage of salary that constitutes overhead.
The addition of benefits and overhead to the hourly rate produces a pay
rate that reflects the true cost to employ a State, Local, or Tribal
agency worker.  Following is a summary of the computed hourly wages for
State, Local, and Tribal agency employees.

 Hourly Labor Rates for State, Local and Tribal Respondents

Labor Type	Hourly Rate	Benefits

	Overhead

(20 % Salary)	Adjusted Hourly Rate

Management	$33.11	$14.18	$6.62	$53.91

Technical	$33.22	$13.79	$6.64	$53.65

Clerical	$16.39	$10.21	$3.28	$29.88

	Table 3 provides a breakdown of labor hours and associated costs for
State/Local/Tribal agencies for existing sources and new sources,
respectively.

	6(d)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	Under the Section 112(j) regulations, EPA would serve in an oversight
capacity and audit approximately 10 percent of all applications
processed by State/Local agencies.  As recommended in the ICR Handbook,
wage rates for EPA employees are based upon the Federal government pay
scale.  We calculated the hourly rates for EPA employees using
information on annual salaries from the Internet site for the Office of
Personnel Management.  (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/pdf/RUS.pdf"
http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/pdf/RUS.pdf ; January 2008).  We used
the appropriate pay grade levels for management, technical, and clerical
personnel.  We divided the annual pay rate by 2080, the amount of
working hours during a calendar year, to get the hourly wage rate.  We
then multiplied this rate by 1.6 to produce a pay rate that reflects the
true cost to the Federal government to employ a worker.  The value of
1.6 incorporates the addition of benefits at 40 % of salary and the
addition of overhead at 20% of salary to the hourly rate.  Following is
a summary of the computed wages for EPA personnel.

 Hourly Labor Rates for EPA

Labor Type	Pay Grade	Annual Salary	Hourly Rate	Benefits

(40 % Salary)	Overhead

(20 % Salary)	Adjusted Hourly Rate

Management	GS-15	$107,962	$51.90	$20.76	$10.38	$83.04

Technical	GS-12	$65,315	$31.40	$12.56	$6.28	$50.24

Clerical	GS-6	$33,135	$15.93	$6.37	$3.19	$25.49

	Table 4 provides a breakdown in the amount of hours associated with
each activity and the total burden hours and cost per occurrence for
existing and new sources, respectively.

	6(e) The Respondent Universe

	In order to estimate the number of sources subject to the Section
112(j) regulations in the proposed ICR, EPA reviewed information in the
originally promulgated MACT standards for the 4 source categories and
allowed for a small amount of growth in the industries to the present
time, unless subsequently otherwise provided or updated.  We used the
estimate provided by the Vinyl Institute for the number of polyvinyl
chloride production facilities.  For the boiler source category, two
commenters noted the estimate was far too high; one commenter believed
it was too low.

After the vacatur of the boiler NESHAP, the Agency began collecting data
from EPA regional offices and delegated state authorities to revise its
estimate of boilers and process heaters that may be impacted under a
revised standard.  Since the last boiler and process heater data
gathering effort, many sources have shut down, others have selected to
operate with a limit on their HAP emissions in order to avoid being
subject to the boiler and process heater NESHAP, and some units have
switched out older solid fuel units for newer equipment due to increased
insurance and maintenance costs.  Therefore, the Agency will base its
boiler respondent pool on a revised list of initial notifications, Title
V permits, and state applicability lists.  Since the proposal of this
ICR, data from Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin has been compiled
and reviewed, and the Agency estimates that 2,360 existing boiler
facilities will be subject to this ICR. However, for the boilers source
category, this estimate is still likely high because in the court
decision vacating the boilers rule, the court indicated that EPA had
inappropriately included certain facilities in the category.  At this
time, though, without additional information, we are unable to determine
a more appropriate estimate.  The estimated number of potentially
affected sources is shown in Table 1.

	6(f)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

	Over the three-year period of this ICR, the estimated average annual
burden and cost associated with the Section 112(j) regulations are
151,730 (45,576 application burden only) hours and $9,995,666
($3,259,950 application burden only)  respectively.  Tables 5 and 5a
contain the total estimated burden and cost breakdown associated with
the Section 112(j) regulations.  Tables 6 and 6a provide a summary of
the estimated bottom line burden hours and costs associated with the
Section 112(j) regulations.

	6(g)	Reasons for Change in Burden

	The ICR 1648.04 spanned the period in which the Section 112(j) rule
would have applied to any of the 59 source categories covered by the
2000 MACT standards (the 10-year bin).  This ICR would affect only the 4
source categories covered by the MACT standards that have been vacated
by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (see Table 1).  Unlike ICR No. 1648.04, which estimated the
burden from the Part 1 application only (because all the MACT standards
were promulgated before Part 2 applied), this ICR estimates burden for
preparing and submitting both the Parts 1 and 2 permit applications, as
well as for the activities that we believe are not within the scope of
the ICR such as developing the case-by-case title V permit terms and
conditions, and the permit review and approval process.

	This ICR also estimates the number of responses on a facility basis
instead of an individual boiler basis as the previous ICR did, because
each facility will submit one application for the facility, not each
boiler.  We have additionally updated the estimated number of
respondents in the source categories that will be subject to this ICR.

	Finally, EPA has updated the labor rates for respondents, State, Local,
and Tribal agencies, and the EPA as discussed in Sections 6(b), (c), and
(d) of this ICR.  These adjustments were made to more accurately reflect
the true cost of an hour of labor for the respondents, State, Local, and
Tribal agencies, and the EPA   The unloaded hourly rates are different
because they are based on the latest available rates from the BLS and
the OPM.  Table 7 provides a summary of the differences between burden
hours and costs associated with each occurrence for the previous and
current ICR.

	Thus, the difference in the burden estimate is due to the adjustments
discussed above, including number of respondents, submittal of permit
applications, development of the case-by-case permit (non-PRA), and
updated labor rates.

	6(h) 	Burden Statement

	 This estimate includes all activities associated with the respondents
or government agencies.  Overall, the Section 112(j) program will have
the following average annual burden: 79,420 (34,392 application burden
only) hours and $6,280,067 ($2,684,763 application burden  only) for
respondents; 71,444 (10,978 application burden only) hours and
$3,667,100 ($563,170 application burden only) for State/Local/Tribal
agencies; and 866 (206 application burden only) hours and $48,499
(12,018 application burden only) for the EPA.  Tables 5 and 5a present
the annual burden for respondents, State/Local agencies, and the EPA
over the next 3 years.

	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 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.

	Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, and to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.  Include the EPA ICR
number 1648.06 and OMB control number 2060-0266 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used
in the data collection associated with the Section 112(j) regulations.

TABLES

								Table 1.  Source Categories for which MACT Standards have been
vacated

Source Category	Estimated # of sources at promulgation	Estimated growth
rate	Years since promulgation	Total estimated number of sources

Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production (Part 63, Subpart J)

21 (Vinyl Institute)

Brick and structural clay products manufacturing (Part 63, Subpart
JJJJJ)	68	3/yr	4	80

Clay ceramics manufacturing (Part 63, Subpart KKKKK)	8	1/yr	4	12

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters
(Part 63, Subpart DDDDD)

2,360 (Revised EPA estimate)a

	Total	2,473

 (1) Totals reflect ½ of actual estimate to account for 50 percent of
sources.

 (1) Totals reflect ½ of actual estimate to account for 50 percent of
sources.

 PAGE   24

 PAGE   1


Jon Scholl/ DC/ USEPA/ US 11/ 30/ 2005 11: 07 AM To Sally Shaver/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject Re: Fw: It is true Thanks.  Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld From: Sally Shaver Sent: 11/ 30/ 2005 11: 07 AM To: Jon Scholl Subject: Re: Fw: It is true Yes, I will call her.

Sally Shaver Associate Counselor for Agricultural Policy Office of Air and Radiation 202 564 7421 919 541 5572 Fax: 919 685 3222 Jon Scholl/ DC/ USEPA/ US 11/ 30/ 2005 11: 02 AM To Sally Shaver/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject Re: Fw: It is true Do you want to call Rebecka? I believe I remember you recently met with her.  Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld From: Sally Shaver Sent: 11/ 30/ 2005 10: 57 AM To: Jon Scholl Subject: Re: Fw: It is true I n the summary " The EPA solicits comment on ... and on alternative approaches to providing continued protection from thoracic coarse particles based on retaining the current 24 hour PM10 standard."

I think that means we're taking comment on retaining the current standard, but it's not the most clear way to say it. I have. I am on page 51 and have not gotten to that full discussion. Will email you when I find that part. I will try to get a copy of the presentation given today.

Sally Shaver Associate Counselor for Agricultural Policy Office of Air and Radiation 202 564 7421 919 541 5572 Fax: 919 685 3222 Jon Scholl/ DC/ USEPA/ US 11/ 30/ 2005 10: 41 AM To " Sally Shaver" < shaver. sally@ epa. gov> cc Subject Fw: It is true Reaction?  Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld  Original Message  From: " Burleson. Smith@ usda. gov" [ Burleson. Smith@ usda. gov] Sent: 11/ 30/ 2005 10: 33 AM To: " rebeckah@ fb. org% inter2" < rebeckah@ fb. org> Cc: Jon Scholl/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: RE: It is true I hadn't heard and was not there.

 Original Message From: rebeckah@ fb. org% inter2 [ mailto: rebeckah@ fb. org] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10: 24 AM To: Smith, Burleson; Scholl. Jon@ epamail. epa. gov% inter2 Subject: It is true That the presentation given by EPA today at the public mtg on PM implementation prop will suggest that the PM proposal on 20th will NOT include " options," specifically that " no std, for now" will not be offered as an option?

Reb Sent via remote access from

Rebeckah Freeman, American Farm Bureau 202 445 9630 cell


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51261-51263]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20504]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0417; FRL-9913-13-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District and Shasta County Air Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District (ICAPCD) and the Shasta County Air Quality Management
District (SHAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). We are approving local rules regarding enhanced monitoring under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 27, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 29, 2014. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0417], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Graham, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules.
    D. Public Comment and Final Action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving, with the dates that they
were adopted by ICAPCD and SHAQMD, and submitted by the California
State Air Resource Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Rule                    Rule title                 Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD.............................          910  Enhanced Monitoring.................     03/21/95     06/16/95
SHAQMD.............................          3:8  Enhanced Monitoring and Compliance       01/03/95      2/24/95
                                                   Certification for Major Sources as
                                                   Defined by Title V.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 16, 1995, the submittal for ICAPCD Rule 910 was deemed
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part
51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
    On August 24, 1995, the submittal for SHAQMD Rule 3:8 was deemed by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 910 in the ICAPCD portion of
the SIP, nor Rule 3:8 in the SHAQMD portion of the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    The primary purpose of these rules is to improve the current
monitoring schemes so that sources, districts, states and EPA can
determine a source's compliance with underlying emission limitations or
standards on a regular basis.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    As part of the 1990 amendments to the CAA, Congress amended
Sections 113 and 114. Among the revisions are provisions which require
an enhanced monitoring and compliance certification program for major
stationary sources of air pollution. EPA Region IX provided recommended
language necessary to be incorporated into SIPs. A summary of our
evaluation finds that the credible evidence language used in Rules 910
and 3:8 is identical to the language required in the CAA for the
implementation of regulations. In addition, we have evaluated whether
the rules are adequately enforceable and whether they would interfere
with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) and attainment of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) are met.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and other CAA requirements include a letter dated May
16, 1994, from EPA Region IX, Felicia Marcus, entitled ``Call for SIP
Revision Concerning Enhanced Monitoring''.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. Our Technical
Support Document (TSD) has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    When these rules are next revised, we recommend that section
D.2.b(1) of ICAPCD Rule 910, and section c.2.d of SHAQMD Rule 3:8 be
modified to include test methods as outlined in 40 CFR part 63. This is
not an approvability issue because the rules do not limit credible
evidence to those methods specifically listed, but it would be clearer
to also specify part 63 in this list.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by September 29, 2014, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the
direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the
comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do
not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be
effective without further notice on October 27, 2014. This will
incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur Oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 23, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(215) (i)(G) and
(c)(222)(i)(F) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (215) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) Shasta County Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 3:8, ``Enhanced Monitoring and Compliance Certification
for Major Sources as Defined by Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act,''
adopted on January 3, 1995.
* * * * *
    (222) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 910, ``Enhanced Monitoring,'' adopted March 21, 1995.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2014-20504 Filed 8-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86444-86445]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27317]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[DOT-OST-2023-0137]

Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity (ACTE); Notice of
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: DOT OST announces a meeting of ACTE, which will take place via
Zoom Webinar.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, January 5, 2023, from 2:30 to
4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Requests for accommodations because of a
disability must be received by Friday, December 22. Requests to submit
questions must be received no later than Friday, December 22. The
registration form will close on Thursday, January 4.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via Zoom. Those members of the
public who would like to participate virtually should go to https://www.transportation.gov/mission/civil-rights/advisory-committee-transportation-equity-meetings-materials to access the meeting, a
detailed agenda for the entire meeting, meeting minutes, and additional
information on ACTE and its activities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Norman, Senior Advisor and
Designated Federal Officer, Departmental Office of Civil Rights, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. Any ACTE-related request or
submissions should be sent via email to the point of contact listed
above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Purpose of the Committee

    ACTE was established to provide independent advice and
recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation about comprehensive,
interdisciplinary issues related to civil rights and transportation
equity in the planning, design, research, policy, and advocacy contexts
from a variety of transportation equity practitioners and community
leaders. Specifically, the Committee will provide advice and
recommendations to inform the Department's efforts to:
    Implement the Agency's Equity Action Plan and Strategic Plan,
helping to institutionalize equity into Agency programs, policies,
regulations, and activities;
    Strengthen and establish partnerships with overburdened and
underserved communities who have been historically underrepresented in
the Department's outreach and engagement, including those in rural and
urban areas;
    Empower communities to have a meaningful voice in local and
regional transportation decisions; and
    Ensure the compliance of Federal funding recipients with civil
rights laws and nondiscrimination programs, policies, regulations, and
activities.

Meeting Agenda

    The agenda for the meeting will consist of:

Opening remarks
ACTE Community Check-In
Brief discussion of ACTE standards
Review of Department updates
Discussion of ACTE rolling recommendations
Open discussion with the public and Committee members
Discussion on guidance for the next round of rolling recommendations

Closing remarks

Meeting Participation

    Advance registration is required. Please register at https://strategixmanagement.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_SurX9jTAR5CxpX652egeZw#/registration by the deadline referenced in
the DATES section. The meeting will be open to the public for its
entirety. The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to
providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you
need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as
sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact
the point of contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Questions from the public will be answered during the public
comment period only at the discretion of the ACTE chair, vice chair,
and designated Federal officer. Members of the public may submit
written comments and questions to the point of contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section on the topics to be considered
during the meeting by the deadline referenced in the DATES section.

    Dated: December 8, 2023.
Irene Marion,
Director, Departmental Office of Civil Rights.
[FR Doc. 2023-27317 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56099-56102]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0011]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 13 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 20, 2014. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0011 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, R.N., Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 13 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Terry L. Allen

    Mr. Allen, 63, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20,
and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``Upon successfully passing the medical
examination, it is in my professional opinion that Mr. Allen has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle, provided the vehicle meets the states [sic]
requirements for monocular drivers.'' Mr. Allen reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 390,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Wilfred J. Brinkman

    Mr. Brinkman, 79, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist, in a
letter addressed to US DOT, stated, ``I examined Wilfred Brinkman . . .
on April 21 2014 [sic]. His best corrected vision in his right eye is
20/20 and left eye is 20/400 . . . Mr. Brinkman's visual status is
unchanged from previous exams and he is still capable of driving.'' Mr.
Brinkman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years,
accumulating 96,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 39
years, accumulating 4.39 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Todd A. Carlson

    Mr. Carlson, 51, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion
Mr. Carlson has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Carlson reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 1
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Roderick L. Duvall

    Mr. Duvall, 71, has had branch retinal vein occlusion in his left
eye since 1997. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his
left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``The only pathology is an old branch retinal vein occlusion
that occurred in 1997 and is stable since event. I cannot find any
reason to not grant Mr. Duvall a commercial vehicle license from a
visual standpoint, therefore I think he is capable of driving a
commercial vehicle without any detriment.'' Mr. Duvall reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 60,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 43 years, accumulating 473,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from

Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash,
to which he did not contribute and for which he was not cited, and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald R. Gaines

    Mr. Gaines, 44, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since
2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye,
20/15. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated,
``With glasses, I see no reason why Mr. Gaines cannot operate a
commercial vehicle with excellent safety.'' Mr. Gaines reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 9.5 years, accumulating 494,000 miles.
He holds an operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was cited for careless
driving, and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV.

Russel K. Gray

    Mr. Gray, 47, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/
15. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Russell
[sic] does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Gray reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 199,800 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 27 years, accumulating 999,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Billy R. Hampton

    Mr. Hampton, 53, has had a corneal transplant in his left eye since
2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
20/80. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated,
``Per DMV regulations, patient's vision both eyes together is better
than 20/40. Therefore, patient has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hampton
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating
850,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 9 years, accumulating
702,000 miles, and buses for 2 years, accumulating 9,500 miles. He
holds an operator's license from North Carolina. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows one crash, to which he contributed, and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Raymond A. Holt

    Mr. Holt, 57, has had moderate hyperopia, astigmatism, and
amblyopia in his right eye since 1996. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``I certify that Raymond Holt has normal
and sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle when he is wearing
his prescribed glasses.'' Mr. Holt reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 12 years, accumulating 312,000 miles. He holds an operator's
license from California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Christopher M. Keen

    Mr. Keen, 40, has optic atrophy in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014,
his optometrist stated, ``I believe he has sufficient vision to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Keen reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 4 years, accumulating 240,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL
from Kansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Julie A. Mabry

    Ms. Mabry, 52, has complete loss of vision in her left eye due to a
traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in her right eye
is 20/20, and in her left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2014, her optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion
Julie Mabry has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Ms. Mabry reported that she has
driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 135,000 miles. She
holds an operator's license from Arizona. Her driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

William L. Moore

    Mr. Moore, 46, has had a macular scar in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``In my medical opinion I believe Mr. Moore has vision sufficient to
perform all driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Moore reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years,
accumulating 80,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15
years, accumulating 1.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Benny R. Morris

    Mr. Morris, 57, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to
a traumatic incident in 1990. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2013, his ophthalmologist stated, ``Since he has been operating a
commercial vehicle for approximately 20 years, and has had no change in
his visual system for at least 10 years, I do not feel there are any
more problems now than in the past with his operating a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Morris reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5
years, accumulating 25,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
35 years, accumulating 4.38 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
West Virgnia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Juan C. Puente

    Mr. Puente, 50, has retinal damage in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``The damage to his macula, while
permanent is unchanged and is not progressing. . . . In my opinion
there should be no question of his ability to drive any vehicle.'' Mr.
Puente reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years,
accumulating 300,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years,
accumulating 2.56 million miles, and buses for 4 years, accumulating
336,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of

these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2014-0011 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search. When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail
or hand 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 comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2014-0011 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility 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., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued On: September 10, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-22258 Filed 9-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 18788]
[DOCID:fr07ap08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1888-025]

York Haven Power Company; York Haven Power Company, LLC; Notice
of Application for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

March 28, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Transfer of License.
    b. Project No.: 1888-025.
    c. Date Filed: March 24, 2008.
    d. Applicants: York Haven Power Company. (Transferor) York Haven
Power Company, LLC (Transferee).
    e. Name and Location of Project: York Haven Hydroelectric Project
is located on the Susquehanna River in Lancaster and York Counties
Pennsylvania.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Applicant Contacts: For the transferor: Mr. Michael E. Haddad,
York Haven Power Company, C/O Hunton & Williams LLP, 1900 K Street,
NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20006-1500.
    For the transferee: Mr. Michael E. Haddad, York Haven Power
Company, C/O Hunton & Williams LLP, 1900 K Street, NW., Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20006-1500
    h. FERC Contact: Robert Bell at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 15 days after the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the Project
Number on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the documents on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Application: Applicants seek Commission approval
to transfer the license for the York Haven Hydroelectric Project from
York Haven Power Company, to York Haven Power Company, LLC.
    k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number
(P-2512) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item
g above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and eight
copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicants specified in the particular application.
    o. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicants.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicants'
representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7105 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P