[Federal Register: February 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7541-7542]
[DOCID:fr17fe09-183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0001-N-3]

Notice and Request for Comments

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded

to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment.
The ICRs describe the nature of the information collection and its
expected burden. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75169).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety,
Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Ms. Nakia Jackson, Office of
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6073). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On December 10, 2008, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking
OMB approval. 73 FR 75169. FRA received no comments after issuing this
60-day notice. Accordingly, DOT announces that these information
collection activities have been re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR
1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5
CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summaries below describe the nature of the information
collection requirements(ICRs) and the expected burden. The revised
requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by
the PRA.
    Title: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0548.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads, State and Local Governments, Other
Interested Eligible Parties.
    Abstract: Prior to the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act
of the 21st Century (``TEA 21''), Title V of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (the ``Act''), 45
U.S.C. 821 et seq., authorized FRA to provide railroad financial
assistance through the purchase of preference shares (45 U.S.C. 825),
and the issuance of loan guarantees (45 U.S.C. 831). The FRA
regulations implementing the preference share program were eliminated
on February 9, 1996, due to the fact that the authorization for the
program expired (28 FR 4937). The FRA regulations implementing the loan
guarantee provisions of Title V of the Act are contained in 49 CFR 260.
Section 7203 of TEA 21, Public Law 105-178 (June 9, 1998), replaces the
existing Title V financing programs. The collection of information is
used by FRA staff to determine the eligibility of applicants for a loan
regarding eligible projects for the improvement/rehabilitation of rail
equipment or facilities, the refinancing of outstanding debt for these
purposes, or the development of new intermodal or railroad facilities.
The aggregate unpaid principal amounts of obligations can not exceed
$3.5 billion at any one time and not less than $1 billion is to be
available solely for projects benefitting railroads other than Class I
carriers.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 2,163 hours.
    Addresses: Send comments regarding this information collection to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Alternatively, comments may be sent via e-
mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office
of Management and Budget, at the following address: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 10, 2009.
Kimberly Orben,
Director, Office of Financial Management,Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-3296 Filed 2-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		September 16, 2014

TO:		Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Gavin Lau, EPA Region 2/CASD-APB

SUBJECT:	August 13, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 13, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

Mr. Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner, Air Resources, Climate Change and Energy
Ms. Lois New, Acting Director, Office of Climate Change
Mr. David Shaw, Director, Division of Air Resources
Mr. Robert Sliwinski, Director, Bureau of Air Quality
Mr. Scott Griffin
Mr. Michael Sheehan

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority:
Mr. John Williams, Director
Mr. David Coup, Assistant Director

New York State Department of Public Service:

Ms. Audrey Zibelman Chair
Mr. Raj Addepalli,
Mr. James Austin
Mr. Warren Myers

Questions Submitted for August 13, 2014 call

Building Block #2: Natural Gas:  New York would like to discuss a number of issues regarding the equity of EPA's approach to this building block, including the following questions:
   * How did EPA take into account limitations of a state's electricity and natural gas distribution systems, the impact on a state's diversity of fuel mix, and other issues regarding technical implementation (e.g., reliability rules and transmission constraints that impact dispatch) when setting a target of 70% natural gas utilization?
   * States with deregulated electricity systems, like New York, have extremely limited ability to regulate the dispatch of power plants.  Did EPA consider the differences between regulated and deregulated systems in determining the potential emission reductions under this building block?
Building Block #3: Renewables and nuclear:  In addition to discussing how EPA applied this building block, New York would like to discuss alternative approaches to this building block, including the alternative based on technical and market potential.  Specific questions include:
   * The calculation for the northeastern regional renewables target uses a 29% figure for NY's RPS, but that includes existing hydro, but states are not allowed to count existing hydro for compliance purposes.  Instead, NY's renewables target excluding existing hydro is in the vicinity of 10%.  Will EPA correct this apparent inconsistency if it adheres to this approach for setting a renewables target?
   * Has EPA considered using an energy target (MWh) in lieu of a percentage?
   * How does EPA propose that states would maintain at-risk nuclear plants, given that the NRC and federal regulatory system could deem such plants no longer safe for operation or otherwise dictate their status?
   * Discuss how new imported hydropower can be used to meet either a rate-based or mass-based target?
Building Block #4: Energy Efficiency:  The current methodology in the energy efficiency building block is setup to assume that all states reach a point where incremental annual energy efficiency additions are 1.5% of retail sales.
   * Has EPA considered using a methodology that instead requires all states to get to a cumulative annual energy efficiency level as a percentage of retail sales? Such an approach would allow early acting states like New York to build upon their cumulative 2012 efficiency level (almost 7% of NY retail sales vs. national average of about 4%) while encouraging other states to "pick the low hanging fruit" more rapidly to result in more substantial emissions reductions overall.
Rate to Mass Conversion:  The EPA documents provide an illustrative example of making this conversion and staff have emphasized that this is merely "guidance".  The RGGI states are considering modeling that would help us comment productively on the methodology as well as inform us on what our mass-based limit might look like.  We have three assumptions that we would like to discuss:
   * Because EPA indicates that states will get credit for all RE/EE measures after the proposal date, and since RE/EE are already included in setting our states' intensity targets, we assume no RE/EE beyond 2014 in establishing our mass-based limit.
   * We assume the cap is our only enforceable measure (and modeling will show what complementary policies, including RE/EE measures, we expect will help us achieve the cap).
   * We assume that we can incorporate projections of demand growth due to increased reliance on electric vehicles.