[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71487-71489]
[DOCID:fr29no05-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL06-4-000]

Informal Staff Advice on Regulatory Requirements; Interpretive
Order Regarding No-Action Letter Process

Issued November 18, 2005.
    Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead
Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly
    1. The Commission clarifies that section 388.104(a) of its
regulations \1\ may be used to obtain informal staff advice regarding
certain matters. Specifically, this regulation may be used to request
and obtain staff ``no-action'' letters, effective immediately, with
respect to whether staff will recommend that the Commission take no
enforcement action with respect to specific proposed transactions,
practices or situations that may raise issues under the Commission's
regulations relating to the Standards of Conduct for Transmission
Providers,\2\ Market Behavior Rules \3\ and, when a final rule is
effective, the Commission's proposed Prohibition of Energy Market

Manipulation Rules.\4\ This ``no-action letter'' process will make
available informal, advance advice by staff on transactions that
otherwise could lead to enforcement action.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 388.104(a) (2005).
    \2\ 18 CFR part 358 (2005).
    \3\ Order Amending Market-Based Rate Tariffs and Authorizations,
105 FERC ] 61,218 (2003) at Appendix A, reh'g denied, 107 FERC ]
61,175 (2004) (electric power); 18 CFR 284.288 and 284.403 (2005)
(natural gas); appeal as to both electric power and natural gas
Market Behavior Rules filed sub nom. Cinergy Marketing & Trading,
L.P. v. FERC, Nos. 04-1168 et al. (DC Cir., appeal filed April 28,
2004).
    \4\ Prohibition of Energy Market Manipulation, 113 FERC ] 61,067
(2005).
    \5\ No public notice or comment on this order is necessary
pursuant to section 4(b)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(A) (2000), which exempts from such notice or comment
``interpretative rules, general statements of policy or rules of
agency organization, procedure or practice.'' We herein establish
procedures by which entities, if they choose to do so, may seek no-
action letters as a form of staff informal advice that does not bind
the Commission. See James V. Hurson Associates, Inc. v. Glickman,
229 F.3d 277, 280 (DC Cir. 2000) (The critical feature of agency
actions that satisfy the section 553(b)(A) exception is that they do
not themselves ``alter the rights or interests of parties,''
although they ``may alter the manner in which the parties present
themselves or their viewpoints to the agency,'' quoting Batterton v.
Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (DC Cir. 1980)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    2. In recent months, a number of industry participants have
expressed concerns about the perceived ambiguity and vagueness of the
Standards of Conduct and Market Behavior Rules and uncertainty about
how they apply to the varied corporate structures, business operations
and trading strategies of companies subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction. There have been several suggestions that the Commission
consider implementing a no-action letter process similar to those made
available by the staffs of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to provide, in
advance, increased certainty on whether particular transactions,
practices or situations would be subject to agency enforcement action.
    3. The potential risks of failure to comply with the Commission's
regulatory requirements increased significantly on August 8, 2005, with
the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).\6\ EPAct
2005 for the first time granted the Commission authority to assess
civil penalties for violations of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and rules,
regulations, restrictions, conditions and orders thereunder, expanded
the Commission's Federal Power Act (FPA) civil penalty authority to
encompass violations of all provisions of FPA Part II and rules and
orders thereunder, and established the maximum civil penalty the
Commission could assess under the NGA, FPA Part II and the Natural Gas
Policy Act of 1978 as $1 million per day per violation. EPAct 2005 also
amended the NGA and FPA to make unlawful the use or employment of
manipulative or deceptive devices or contrivances in connection with
the purchase or sale of natural gas, electric energy, gas
transportation or electric transmission subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction in violation of regulations issued by the Commission.
These statutory provisions grant the Commission new authority against
manipulation in transactions in energy markets and enhance the
Commission's ability to impose sanctions for violations. On October 20,
2005, we proposed rules to implement the new EPAct 2005 anti-
manipulation authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 119 Stat.
594 (2005).
    \7\ Prohibition of Energy Market Manipulation, 113 FERC ] 61,067
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. While we intend to exercise our expanded enforcement authorities
diligently in a firm but fair manner, we seek to temper the need to use
those powers by increasing regulatory certainty and providing notice to
the regulated community of the factors we will consider in responding
to violations.\8\ More importantly, it is in the best interests of all
segments of the energy industry that compliance with the statutes
administered by the Commission and its orders and regulations should be
emphasized. In announcing proposed rules to implement increased anti-
manipulation authority under the FPA and NGA, we noted our intention to
seek comments on whether to revise or repeal existing Market Behavior
Rule 2 \9\ because both it and the new anti-manipulation authority
prohibit manipulative conduct.\10\ Concurrently with this order, we are
instituting proceedings in Docket Nos. EL06-16-000 and RM06-5-000 on
this topic. On October 20, 2005, we issued a Policy Statement on
Enforcement that provides guidance on how we intend to implement our
enhanced enforcement powers to provide ``firm but fair enforcement of
our rules and regulations.'' \11\ In particular, we encouraged entities
subject to our jurisdiction to take proactive steps to emphasize
compliance.\12\ It is entirely consistent with this objective for us to
permit entities to inquire of Commission staff in advance of
transactions, practices or situations that may raise compliance issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Policy Statement on Enforcement, 113 FERC ] 61,068 (2005).
    \9\ Order Amending Market-Based Rate Tariffs and Authorizations,
105 FERC ] 61,218 at 62,170 (Appendix A) (electric power); 18 CFR
284.288(a) and 284.403(a) (natural gas).
    \10\ Prohibition of Energy Market Manipulation, 113 FERC ]
61,067 at P 15.
    \11\ Policy Statement on Enforcement, 113 FERC ] 61,068 at P 1.
    \12\ Id. at PP 22-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The SEC and CFTC both provide no-action letter processes whereby
they permit their staffs to review certain types of proposed matters
and provide informal advice on whether the staff will recommend
enforcement action if a matter under review is put into effect as
proposed.\13\ Although this advice does not bind the agency, it is
understood that agency staff who issue the no-action letters are
themselves well-acquainted with the statutes, regulations, rules and
orders the agency administers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 17 CFR 202.1(d) (2005) (SEC) and 17 CFR 140.99 (2005)
(CFTC).
    \14\ For example, the SEC's regulations state: ``The informal
procedures of the [SEC] are largely concerned with the rendering of
advice and assistance by the [SEC's] staff to members of the public
dealing with the [SEC]. While opinions expressed by members of the
staff do not constitute an official expression of the [SEC's] views,
they represent the views of persons who are continuously working
with the provisions of the statute involved.'' 17 CFR 201.1(d)
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial No-Action Letter Process and Procedures

    6. After reviewing requests for a no-action letter process and
studying efforts of other governmental agencies to maximize compliance
with complicated statutory and regulatory schemes, we have concluded
that we also can increase regulatory certainty and fairness by
permitting entities to seek no-action letters similar to those issued
by the SEC and CFTC staffs. We believe that a no-action letter process
can yield significant benefits to the entities subject to the statutes,
regulations, rules and orders administered by the Commission,
particularly by reducing such entities' risk of failing to comply with
our rules and regulations.
    7. Our regulations already recognize the ability of our staff to
provide informal advice on matters pertaining to regulatory
requirements.\15\ Staff spends a significant amount of time in these
informal activities, such as conducting pre-filing meetings with
persons who wish to submit an application to us. These activities are
valuable, and we fully intend that staff continue its present efforts
to render informal, non-binding advice. However, we also

believe that it is appropriate to allow entities to use the existing
regulation as a means to obtain advance notice on whether staff will
recommend enforcement action against a particular transaction, practice
or situation. Therefore, we are implementing a no-action letter
process, initially on a limited basis, as set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The first two sentences of section 388.104(a) of our
regulations state, ``The Commission staff provides informal advice
and assistance to the general public and to prospective applicants
for licenses, certificates and other Commission authorizations.
Opinions expressed by the staff do not represent the official views
of the Commission, but are designed to aid the public and facilitate
the accomplishment of the Commission's functions.'' These statements
are functionally equivalent to the parallel sentences of the SEC's
regulation recognizing its staff's ability to issue no-action
letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We will initially limit no-action inquiries to questions
relating to whether particular transactions, practices, situations or
other matters would violate the Standards of Conduct, the Market
Behavior Rules, or, when issued, the final Prohibition of Energy Market
Manipulation Rules. Based on concerns raised by industry participants,
we recognize that these rules may present interpretive challenges and
substantial exposure to potential enforcement actions. As we gain
experience with the no-action letter process concerning these rules, in
the future we may change the matters that may be the subject of
requests for no-action letters. At some future time, we may need to
adopt formal regulations governing the no-action letter process and
possibly establish a filing fee for no-action letters. Initially,
however, no fee will be charged.
    9. The experience of the SEC and CFTC shows that it is important
that no-action letters be issued by staff who are familiar with the
regulations on which the no-action letter process is focused. Requests
for no-action letters should initially be submitted on a non-public
basis to the General Counsel. The regulated community should understand
that staff experts in a number of Commission offices will be consulted
as appropriate in responding to no-action letter requests, and that
responses to such requests should be treated as a consensus view of the
Commission staff.
    10. An entity that seeks a no-action letter must describe in
writing the proposed transaction, practice, situation or other matter
in complete detail, including identifying to the extent possible each
of the corporate entities, counterparties or other persons that would
be involved, the purpose of the matter, the requester's role in the
proposed matter and the regulatory issues that the matter poses.
Although requesters may seek guidance on both existing practices and
anticipated future practices or transactions, the General Counsel or
designee will not respond to no-action letter requests that raise
purely hypothetical inquiries. Instead, our no-action letter process is
intended to assist regulated entities in seeking guidance on the real
world application of our regulations and orders. To accomplish this
objective, requesters must provide sufficient detail for staff
adequately to address the factual and legal issues presented in the
request. We also note that the General Counsel or designee will not
respond to a request for a no-action letter that relates to the merits
of an on-the-record proceeding currently before the Commission.
    11. In addition, a no-action letter request must be accompanied by
a statement that, to the best of the requester's personal information,
knowledge and belief, the request is accurate and complete and does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact, that there is no
omission of a material fact in the request, and that the request does
not raise any issue that relates to the merits of an on-the-record
proceeding currently before the Commission.
    12. The issuance of a response to a no-action letter request is
entirely within the discretion of the General Counsel or designee. If
the information submitted with the no-action letter request is not
sufficient, staff may request additional information or inform the
requester that it will not respond to the request and give a reason.
The timing of a response to a no-action letter request is also within
the discretion of the General Counsel or designee.
    13. In response to a request for a no-action letter, the General
Counsel or designee may state that staff: (1) Will not recommend
enforcement action if the matter is implemented as described in the
request and in any additional information provided; (2) will not
recommend enforcement action if the matter is implemented as so
described only under conditions stated in the response, or as modified
in the response; or (3) may recommend enforcement action if the matter
is implemented as so described.
    14. Until the date on which the General Counsel or designee issues
a response to a request for a no-action letter, the Commission and its
staff will treat the request and any other documents relating to it as
non-public. However, the Commission believes that public disclosure of
requests for no-action letters and responses is important to notify
interested entities of staff's views with respect to regulatory matters
at issue. Therefore, if the General Counsel or designee responds to a
request for a no-action letter, we ordinarily intend to make public the
request and the response at the time of the response. We note that this
practice is consistent with that of the SEC and CFTC, both of which
generally make public no-action letter requests and the agency staff's
response after the response is issued.
    15. We understand that in some circumstances a proposed matter that
is the subject of a request for a no-action letter may be confidential
or proprietary, at least until the matter is implemented or until
sufficient time has passed for the requester to determine, after
receiving a response, whether to implement the matter. Thus, in unusual
cases a requester may seek non-public treatment of its request for a
no-action letter and a staff response, at least to the extent that the
request and response describe the proposed matter or matters that are
under review, for a specified period of time not in excess of 120 days
from the date of any response.
    16. If our staff agrees with the period of non-public treatment the
requester seeks, the Commission will not make the request and the
response public until the expiration of the time period sought by the
requester. If staff disagrees with the non-public period sought by the
requester, it will so notify the requester, who may then withdraw the
request within 30 days of the date of the staff notice. In that case,
the General Counsel or designee will not respond to the request, and
the Commission and staff will treat the request and the staff notice as
non-public. If the request is not withdrawn after the requester
receives a staff notice, the Commission will make public on the date of
issuance of the response the request, any additional information
provided by the requester and the response.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ These processes are consistent with procedures used by the
SEC and the CFTC in their no-action letter programs to address
concerns about the treatment of assertedly confidential or
proprietary information in requests for no-action letters. See 17
CFR 144.98(b) (2005) (CFTC) and 17 CFR 200.81(b) (2005) (SEC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. As with other informal advice provided by our staff, responses
by the General Counsel or designee to requests for no-action letters
will not bind the Commission and will not operate as agency action that
would be subject to rehearing or judicial review. Any person who seeks
a binding Commission determination concerning a proposed transaction,
practice, situation or other matter may file a petition for a
declaratory order pursuant to section 385.207 of our regulations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 18 CFR 385.207 (2005).

    By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-23406 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8039-8041]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2023-0021]

Notice of Request for Clearance of a New Information Collection:
Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA 22)

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, BTS announces the intension to
request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and
renewal of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA) 2022 Pilot Data
Collection. Section 16 of OSRA 2022 mandates that the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) collect chassis and container street
dwell time, as well as chassis out of service data monthly from each
port, marine terminal operator, and chassis owner or

provider with a fleet of over 50 chassis that supply chassis for a fee.
The information collected from this data collection will be used to
provide, at the least, national level street dwell and out of service
statistics. The monthly statistics will be published by BTS on the BTS
OSRA web page at: www.bts.gov/osra.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
DOT-OST-2022-0095 to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
Dockets Management System (DMS). You may submit your comments by mail
or in person to the Docket Clerk, Docket No., U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. Comments should identify the docket number as
indicated above. Paper comments should be submitted in duplicate. The
DMS is open for examination and copying, at the above address, from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. If you
wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments,
please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following
statement: ``Comments on Docket DOT-OST-2022-0095.'' The Docket Clerk
will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S.
mail. Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to
Federal offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider
an alternative method (the internet, fax, or professional delivery
service) to submit comments to the docket and ensure their timely
receipt at U.S. DOT. You may fax your comments to the DMS at (202) 493-
2251. Comments can also be viewed and/or submitted via the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that anyone is able to electronically search all
comments received into our docket management system by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; pages 19475-19570)
or you may review the Privacy Act Statement at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: April Gadsby,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Mathematical Statistician, BTS, OST-R, Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA 22).
    Background: In response to supply chain challenges, Congress passed
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA 22). Section 16 of the OSRA
22 mandates BTS to produce statistics on ``the total street dwell time
from all causes of marine containers and chassis and the average out of
service percentage of chassis.'' OSRA 22 grants BTS authority to
collect data from ``each port, marine terminal operator, and chassis
owner or provider with a fleet of over 50 chassis that supply chassis
for a fee'' as deemed necessary to produce these statistics.
    Per the law, BTS must produce the first monthly report no later
than February 10, 2023 (240 days from the request). For this, OMB
issued an emergency clearance OMB 2138-0050 expiring February 10, 2023.
This clearance will serve to continue the national data collection
until the sunset of the program as detailed by congress by December
2026.
    This new data collection will require that BTS establish a sample
frame and research available data sources and data items from in scope
ports, terminals, and intermodal equipment providers, ocean carriers
and non-vessel operating common carriers. The results from the initial
data collection that will be published by February 10, 2023, under the
emergency clearance will provide the foundation upon which the national
program can be built.
    The data collection will be administered to ``each port, marine
terminal operator, and chassis owner or provider with a fleet of over
50 chassis that supply chassis for a fee'' (OSRA 22) as deemed
necessary to produce these statistics.
    The data collection will include approximately 190-265 data
providers representing the approximate set of 90 chassis owners, motor
carriers, and/or intermodal equipment providers (IEPs), as well as all
ports, including inland ports and their approximately 75-150 intermodal
terminal facilities, inland dry ports, intermodal terminal facilities
operators (e.g., ICTF = Intermodal Container Transfer Facility). The
data collection will request respondents to provide information such as
the estimated inventory of intermodal chassis and/or marine containers
under their control measured by TEU in the U.S., how dwell time, out of
service rates, and/or unavailable chassis are defined, tracked, and at
what frequency they can be reported for the equipment under their
control. The data collection will yield statistics on the total
intermodal marine container and chassis street dwell time and the
chassis out of service rate to satisfy the OSRA 22 mandate.
    Respondents: The target population for the data collection will be
approximately 190-265 respondents representing the approximate set of
90 chassis owners, motor carriers, and/or intermodal equipment
providers (IEPs), as well as all ports, including inland ports and
their approximately 75-150 intermodal terminal facilities, inland dry
ports, and ICTFs.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: The burden per respondent is
estimated to be an average of 2 hours. This average is based on the
resulting test data sets received from data respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The total monthly burden (once the
program is fully developed and all participants have been asked to
submit data) is estimated to be 808 hours (that is 2 hours per data
provider for 404 data providers equals 808 hours).
    Frequency: Monthly until the data collection sunset, December 2026.
    Public Comments Invited: Interested parties are invited to send
comments regarding any aspect of this information collection,
including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and utility of the
information collection for the proper performance of the functions of
the DOT; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, clarity and content of the collected information;
and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the
quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.
    Authority: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub.
L. 105-178, section 1207(c), The Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient
Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L.
109-59, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),
Pub. L. 112-141, 49 CFR 1.46, and Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act), Pub. L. 114-94, sec. 1112.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 2nd day of February 2023.
Cha-Chi Fan,
Director, Office of Data Development and Standards, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-02583 Filed 2-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

Information Collection Request (ICR) 2207.02, Exchange Network Grants Progress Reports, OMB Control Number 2025-0006, covers two forms to be used by Exchange Network Grant recipients to report semi-annual progress and quality assurance, a stipulation of their grant award. The current ICR expires on July 31, 2006.

(b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Information provides funding to EPA’s Exchange Network partners: states; territories; and federally recognized Indian tribes to support the development of the Environmental Information Exchange Network (EIEN).

As a stipulation of the award, recipients are required to submit semi-annual and final progress reports.  Over the years, the reports have come in several different formats making it burdensome to compare grantee status.  The Progress Reporting Form is intended to provide a uniform, simplified format for grantees to report goals, outputs, and outcomes.  The form will serve as both the semi-annual and final reporting form.

The Quality Assurance Reporting Form is intended to provide a simple means for grant recipients to present how quality will be addressed throughout their projects.  The Quality Assurance Reporting Form is derived from guidelines provided in the EIEN’s fiscal year 2006 grant solicitation notice.  As a stipulation of their award, grant recipients are to submit tailored quality assurance information within ninety days of grant award.

The EPA Office of Environmental Information understands that ICR 2207.01 was approved in January 2006, in advance of the government-wide effort to standardize grantee performance reporting under Public Law 106-107. As such, this information collection will adhere to the government-wide grant reporting procedures as they become available.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

AUTHORITY/NEED FOR THE COLLECTION

	The authority to gather progress performance and quality assurance information for assistantship programs is derived from   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR Part 31, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.”

	Section 31.40, Monitoring and reporting program performance, states:

“(1) Grantees shall submit annual performance reports unless the awarding agency requires quarterly or semi-annual reports. However, performance reports will not be required more frequently than quarterly.  Annual reports shall be due 90 days after the grant year, quarterly or semi-annual reports shall be due 30 days after the reporting period. The final performance report will be due 90 days after the expiration or termination of grant support. If a justified request is submitted by a grantee, the Federal agency may extend the due date for any performance report. Additionally, requirements for unnecessary performance reports may be waived by the Federal agency.

    (2) Performance reports will contain, for each grant, brief information on the following:

    	(i) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the period. Where the output of the project can be quantified, a computation of the cost per unit of output may be required if that information will be useful.

    	(ii) The reasons for slippage if established objectives were not met.

   	(iii) Additional pertinent information including, when appropriate, analysis and explanation of cost overruns or high unit costs.”

Section 31.45 Quality Assurance, states:

“If the grantee's project involves environmentally related measurements or data generation, the grantee shall develop and implement quality assurance practices consisting of policies, procedures, specifications, standards, and documentation sufficient to produce data of quality adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize loss of data due to out-of-control conditions or malfunctions.”

The need for the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) to create its own progress report and quality assurance forms for which this ICR covers is three-fold.  First, EPA does not currently have a standard progress report or quality assurance form for electronic information grants that can be disseminated to our grantees.  Second, the differing formats of the semi-annual progress report over the years have made it difficult to synthesize information for project evaluation.  Third, our program’s Regional Grant Coordinators, who are responsible for collecting progress reports from project officers in the states, tribes and territories, have specifically requested this report format.

(b) USE/USERS OF THE DATA

The information provided on semi-annual forms will be used by the Regional Grant Coordinators to monitor grant project development and performance.  The reports will be attached to the applicable grantee’s file in the Integrated Grants Management Database. The same reporting form will also be used as the Final Progress Report, and will be used to rate performance for future grant awards.

The Quality Assurance Report Form will be used to ensure grantees will use quality assurance measures outlined in the EIEN Grant Solicitation Notice Appendix D to pursue their project.

3.	NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	(a) NONDUPLICATION

	The information a grantee provides in their Semi-annual Progress Report is unique to each project.  Information concerning the status of goals, outcomes and outputs for each project is not available from any other source.

PUBLIC NOTICE

The notice for this collection renewal was published was published on in the Federal Register, Volume 71, No. 50, on March 16, 2006.  We have not received any public comments from the notice.

CONSULTATIONS

For this ICR action, we consulted with the EIEN’s ten Regional Grant Coordinators (RGC).  The RCGs are EPA employees, one in each of the EPA’s ten regions, who specialize in Environmental Information.  For most of the EIEN grants, the RGC is also the Project Officer and has direct contact with the state, tribe or territory grantee. The RGC is responsible for monitoring grant progress and collecting the Semi-annual Progress Report Form.  It was the RGCs direct input that led to specific changes in the form.

When the Emergency ICR was approved by OMB on January 31, 2006, the RGCs requested that the form be simplified and organized in a format similar to a “best practice” style that several grantees were already using.  The RGCs also suggested that the form should be created in such a way that grantees could continually update information and then use the completed updates as the final report, thus lessening the repetitive reporting methods of the past.  In conjunction with the RGCs, all of the changes have been made.  The result is a streamlined  form familiar to grantees that we are seeking ICR approval for.

The Quality Assurance Form was modeled in the same format as Appendix D of the 2006 Grant Solicitation Notice.

EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

EIEN grants are usually awarded for two-year project periods.  The Quality Assurance Form would be completed only once, no more than three moths after the award is made.  As a stipulation of the EIEN grant award, a progress report is completed every six months and a final report is submitted no later than three months after project completion. Less frequent reporting could result in project mismanagement.  For some Project Officers with many grants to manage, the semi-annual progress report is the best opportunity to ensure the project is on schedule to meet its goals.

GENERAL GUIDELINES

	Both the Semi-annual Progress Report Form and the Quality Assurance Form covered in this ICR adhere to OMB general guidelines.

CONFIDENTIALITY

No pledge of confidentiality is given for grantee responses in either the Semi-annual Progress Report Forms or Quality Assurance Forms.

SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

No sensitive questions are asked on either the Semi-annual Progress Report Forms or Quality Assurance Forms.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

RESPONDENTS/SIC CODES

Our respondents are generally employees of state, tribal, or territorial environmental government offices.  For instance, the current grants awarded to the state of North Carolina are managed by an employee of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

According to the 2002 NAICS codes available at www.naics.com, our respondents would fall into one of three categories:

921150 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments

921190 Other General Government Support

924120 Administrations of Conservation Programs

INFORMATION REQUESTED

Please see attached forms for specific data elements (Exhibits B and C).

The data fields have changed since the OMB clearance in January, 2006.  Specifically, the changes to the Semi-annual Progress Reporting form are:

Page 1 – General Project Program Information

Reporting options were changed from Quarterly, Semi-Annual, Annual, and Final to “Semi-Annual or Final” because Quarterly and Annual reports are unnecessary.

“Before 2006 Exchange Network Grant Category” was added to identify the type of grant for the Program Manager.

“Focus” was added to further identify the grant from other grants by the same state agency for the Program Manager.

Page 2 – Project Goals

Section II and III of the previous format were combined into one section in the new format.

The old format had columns titled:  Activities, Baseline, Outputs and Outcomes, Target Date, and Completion Date.

The new format, one more familiar to grantees, has the columns:  Goals, Outputs, Scheduled Date, Completion Date and Outcomes.

Page 3 – Comments

The wording was changed to phrases more familiar to grantees.

The old format included data fields for:  Problems, Impacts, Corrective Actions Taken, Other Comments.

The new format includes data fields for:  Current Problems, Actions, Request help from EPA, Other Comments.

RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES

	As previously stated, grantees are already required to report progress semi-annually on their projects.  EIEN grantees have been submitting Semi-annual Progress Reports and final reports to EPA Regional Offices since the EIEN grant program began in 2002.  The Quality Assurance Form is a new form for grantees to complete ninety days after award, but the measures for Quality Assurance in a grantees’ project have been explained in the EIEN Solicitation Notice since 2002.

	According to the 1995 PRA definition of burden §3502, the only time and effort that the forms required from grantees are:

	(A)	Reviewing instructions;

	(E)	Completing and reviewing the collection of information; and

	(F)	Transmitting through email.

5.	INFORMATION COLLECTED

AGENCY ACTIVITIES

	Once the Semi-annual Reporting and Quality Assurance Forms are received by the RGC, they are attached to the grant’s file in the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) database.  It is simultaneously emailed to the National Grant Coordinator at Headquarters who may use the information to report grant status.

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY

	This information collection is form-related.  The Semi-annual Progress Report Form has not been pre-tested but is based on a current format voluntarily used by several states.  The format has worked well in the past and is a “best practice” that we voluntarily chose to adopt.  The Quality Assurance Form has not been pre-tested because 2006 awards will not be issued until August, thus the form will be returned in October, 2006.  However, the form is based on the information in Appendix D of the 2006 Grant Solicitation Notice.

	Respondents will enter data in Microsoft Word and email it to their RGC.  The RGC will upload the forms in IGMS, a lotus based database that has been used by the EPA since 2000.  To reduce burden, we ask that grantees not re-write their entire Semi-annual Progress Report, but simply add their recent outcomes, outputs and modified dates into their Semi-annual Progress Report from the previous six months.

COLLECTION SCHEDULE

Table 1

FORM	SCHEDULE

Quality Assurance Report Form		Due to RGC 90 days after award of grant

Semi-Annual Progress Report Form	Due to RGC April 30 (Oct. 1- Mar. 31 period)

Due to RGC October 31 (Apr. 1 – Sept. 30 period)

6.	BURDEN ESTIMATE AND COST OF COLLECTION

ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN

The estimated hours for completing each form includes time for reviewing instructions, completing information and transmitting through email.

Table 2

Form	Estimated Hours	Frequency per Year	Total Burden Hours

Semi-Annual Progress Reporting Form	1.5	2	3

Quality Assurance Reporting Form	1	1	1

Total	4

	(b) RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND BURDEN

	At the beginning of fiscal year 2007, we estimate 225 grantees will be responding to the Semi-annual Progress Report Form.  That number is derived from our estimate of the rolling number of “Active Grants.” The number of active grants fluctuates throughout the year as projects are completed and grants are officially awarded and closed.  Every EIEN grant is awarded for a two-year project period. Approximately half of the grantees from any given year request extensions for their projects for an additional year.  Using these exceptions and including the grants that will be awarded in July 2006, we estimate 225 respondents at any one time.

	The Quality Assurance Form will be completed only by award recipients beginning in 2006.  These respondents are not unique; they are the same respondents who will submit Semi-annual Progress Report Forms after the first six months of their projects.

	Our burden estimate per year is based on the government’s fiscal year.  In one fiscal year, a respondent who receives an award in 2006 will complete one Quality Assurance Form and two Semi-annual Progress Report Forms.  Since this ICR will cover 2006-2009, we have included the Quality Assurance burden hour estimate for each respondent, though respondents for grant years 2003-2005 will not be required to respond.  Please see Table 3.

Table 3

EIEN GRANT YEAR	Number of Grants

Semi-annual Progress Respondents	Number of

Closed Grants no longer reporting	Number of Awards

γ

2004	67

0 γ

2005	59

0 γ

2006†	58

58

Total:	  =SUM(ABOVE)  251

58

Total – Closed Grants	251-26 = 225	58

*As many as half of the 2003 grants projects have been completed, thus no longer requiring reporting

† Awards for 2006 have yet to be awarded, thus the number of awards is an estimate.

γ Grantees prior to 2006 will not respond to the Quality Assurance Form, thus not all respondents complete every form every year.

Total Number of Responses:

	Semi-annual Progress Forms:		225 Respondents x 2 per year = 	450

	Quality Assurance Report Form:	58 Respondents x 1 per year = 	 58

	Total =										508

Total Burden:

	Semi-annual Progress Forms :	225 respondents x 3 hours = 		675

	Quality Assurance Report Form:	58 respondents x 1 = 			058

	Total = 									733

	(c) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COST

Respondent Wage Rate:	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 $36.28 1 x 1.40 = $50.79

Quality Assurance Form:	58 Respondents x 1 hour x $50.79 = 2945.82

Progress Report Form:	225 Respondents x 1.5 hours x 2 per year x $50.79 = $34,283.25

	There are no capital, operating and maintenance, and annualizing capital costs incurred by this information collection.  The respondent cost is calculated in Table 4.

Table 4

Cost	Semi Annual	Quality Assurance

Labor Cost 	$34,283.25	$2,945.82

Capital/Start-up Cost	$0	$0

Operating and Maintenance	$0	$0

Annualizing Capital	$0	$0

Total Costs	$34,283.25	$2,945.82

	(d) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

	To estimate the cost and burden to EPA RGC’s, the estimated number of “Active Grants,” 225, was used.  Since this ICR will cover 2006-2009, the number of forms per year was calculated at three, though that number will not be in effect until grants prior to 2006 are closed.  The total number of hours that all of EPA’s RGC’s review and submit both forms is 337.50 hours per year.  The 337.50 hours per year cost the agency $12,973.50 dollars.  Please see Table 5.

Table 5

Each RGC has approximately 22.5 Active Grants.					22.5

To Review and upload one form take .5 hours.			.5

Each grantee owes the RGC three forms per year			.5 x 3	          	 x 1.5

RGCs total hours									33.75

10 RGCs										x 10

Total RGS Hours for all Grants							337.50

RGC Hourly Rate, Fully Burdened*					$38.44		x 38.44

Total costs to 10 RGC for review and submit					$12,973.50

* The 2005 average hourly rate for General Schedule (GS) 11, Step 9 ($27.46) was used to estimate burden costs for the EPA.  This was also fully burdened (x 40 %), yielding a wage rate of $38.44.

(e) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS

Table 6

Total Annual Responses =			508

Total burden hours for respondents = 	733* hours

Total burden hours for EPA = 		337.5 hours

Total respondent cost =			$0 dollars

Total EPA cost = 				$12,973.50 dollars

*Not all respondents complete every activity, every year.

(f) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

When we initially received OMB approval for ICR 2207.01 in January 2006, annual response was calculated at 450, and burden hours were calculated at 450.  These numbers did not account for responses for: extended grant project periods (e.g. 2003 grants which remain open), grants awarded this fiscal year (e.g. 2006 awards will be issued in July), and the Quality Assurance Form.

When the first Federal Register notice for ICR 2207.02 appeared on March 16, 2006, the burden statement accounted for these factors but assumed a lower number of hours for the Semi-annual Progress Report Form. After consulting with the RGCs, we raised the number of hours a respondent completes the form from 1 hour to 1.5 hours. Thus the number of burden hours for the Semi-annual Progress Report Form is adjusted from 450 (225 respondents x 2 responses x 1 hour) to 675 (225 respondents x 2 responses x 1.5 hours). This is the +225 adjustment in hours.

The program also changed because the Quality Assurance Form is now included, and that adds an additional 58 responses.  The Quality Assurance Form has a one hour burden, thus 58 hours will be added to the 675 hours for the progress form, totaling 733 burden hours.  The program change is +58 hours.

Table 7

Burden	Responses	Burden Hours	Burden Costs

Previous	450	450	$0

New	508	733	$0

Difference	58	283	$0

Program Change	+58	0	$0

Adjustment	0	+225	$0

(g) BURDEN STATEMENT

The burden for Semi-annual Progress Reports is based on time for reviewing instructions, completing information, and transmitting the information via email. For the Semi-annual Progress Report Form, the respondent burden is 1.5 hours.  Respondents complete the form twice a year, thus the total annual burden is 3 hours.  For the Quality Assurance Form, the annual respondent burden is 1 hour.  Only respondents who receive grants this year, 2006, or later will complete this form.

The annual public reporting burden for the Semi-annual Progress Report Form is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response.  The annual public reporting burden for the Quality Assurance Reporting Form is estimate to average 1 hour per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2006-0037 , which is available for online viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2006-0037 and OMB Control Number 2025-0006 in any correspondence.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Exchange Network Grant Program Progress Reporting Form

for Use by Recipients of Assistance Agreements

Please Check:

□ Semi-annual report

□ Final Report	Instructions: This form is for Exchange Network Grant recipients to report their progress. Recipients should send these to their regional grant project officer for spring reports by April 30 for the period October 1-March 31.  Fall reports are due to the regional project officer by October 31 for the period April 1-September 30.

Recipient Information:

     Agency Name:	EPA Grant Number – Program Code, Number, and Amendment Number (e.g., OS – 12345678 – 0):

	For grants awarded before 2006 Exchange Network Grant Category (i.e., One Stop, Readiness, Implementation, or Challenge):

Project Manager:

    Name:

    Phone:

    Email:

	Funding Year:

Award Amount:

Expenditures during this reporting period:

Funds Remaining:

	Reporting Period (starting and ending dates, mm/dd/yyyy):

	Date Report Submitted (mm/dd/yyyy):

	EPA Project Officer to Whom Report is Submitted:

     Name:

     EPA Region/Program:

Focus:

Progress Report Instructions:

List major goals and each goal’s outputs as described in the work plan.

In the “Scheduled Date” column enter the dates from the grant work plan

In the “Completion Date” column enter the date each output completed as of the period covered by this report

In the Outcomes column, briefly outline how the goal or output will enhance the recipient’s ability to carry out its mission or result in other benefits.

Use bold type for the outputs or outcomes you achieved during the current reporting period.

Insert more rows if you need them by using the tab key in the last cell of the last row.

EXAMPLE

Goals	Outputs	Scheduled Date	Completion date	List Outcomes for Each Goal, and, if they differ, each Output

1. Begin flowing ambient air quality data through the Exchange Network. 1. Develop XML schema by.	. mm/yyyy	mm/yyyy	 Enhanced environmental decision-making due to more timely access to ambient air quality data.

	2. Initiate first test data flow by mm/yyyy	mm/yyyy

Goals	Outputs	Scheduled Date	Completion date	List Outcomes for Each Goal, and, if they differ, each Output

Comments

Instructions: If you have had any problems during the current period please report them here.  In accordance with 40 C.F.R. §30.51(f) and 40 C.F.R. §31.40(d), a recipient of an EPA assistance agreement must notify EPA of any problems, delays, or adverse conditions that will materially impair the recipient’s ability to achieve the outputs/outcomes specified in the assistance agreement work plan.

Current problems during this reporting period:

Describe any actions your organization has taken or plans to take to resolve the problem:

If you need help from EPA you may request it here:

Other comments:

Definitions

Project/Program Goal:  A major objective or endpoint identified in the assistance agreement work plan.  A work plan may include one or more project/program goals. Use the goals as described in the assistance agreement work plan.

Output:  A product, service, or implementation target that will be produced or achieved during the project/program.  Outputs may be qualitative or quantitative, but they must be measurable during the assistance agreement funding period.

Outcome:  Changes or benefits resulting from the successful achievement of the project/program activities and outputs.  Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related, or programmatic in nature, but they must be quantitative.  Outcomes may not necessarily be achievable within the assistance agreement funding period, and they can be described as short-term, intermediate, or long-term:

short-term – changes in learning, knowledge, attitudes, or skills;

intermediate – changes in behavior, practices, or decisions; or

long-term – changes in environmental, human health, or other conditions.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Burden Statement:  The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average ninety minutes per response.  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 Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the completed form to this address.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Quality Assurance Reporting Form

for Use by Recipients of Assistance Agreements

Recipient Organization:

Name:

Address:

	EPA Award Number:

	Project/Program Period(starting and ending dates, mm/dd/yyyy):

Activity Group:

(check all that apply)

□ Infrastructure Development

□ Data Exchange, Analysis and Integration

□ Planning, Mentoring, and Training

□ Challenge

Goal	Task	Output	Outcome	Quality Assurance Measures

Instructions:     - Please submit electronically to <EMAIL_ADDRESS>within 90 days of award.

                           - For Quality Assurance Measures, please refer to Solicitation Notice Appendix D: Quality Assurance Guidelines.

4

=

3

옍)

<

&

@

&

@

@

@

&

@

&

@

摧ᎊP

摧ᎊP

摧ᎊP

摧ᎊP

0ý@

@

0ý&

ö

Z

0ý&

ö

Z

0ý&

ö

Z

0ý&

ö

Z

0ý&

ö

Z

0ý&

ö

Z

0ý&

ö

Z

ਁ氃愀϶ﶜ瑹ᎊP

B*

B*

o average one hour per response.  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 Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the completed form to this address.

	1  $36.28 represents the average wage rate of several occupations expected to apply for grants or fellowships.  1.40 represents a 40% rate for benefits.  This figure is derived from Table 1. Civilian Workers, by Major Occupation Group; Management, Professional, and Related- found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics New Release, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - March 2005.”

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

OMB No. 2025-0006

Expires xx/xx/xxxx

 PAGE   14

EPA Form 5300-26

 PAGE   15

EPA Form 5300-27


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26956-26958]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11292]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9150-7; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0403]

Draft Toxicological Review of Hexachloroethane: In Support of the
Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period and Listening Session.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 60-day public comment period and a public
listening session for the external review draft document titled
``Toxicological Review of Hexachloroethane: In Support of Summary
Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/
635/R-09/007). The draft document was prepared by the National Center
for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within the EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD). The public comment period and the external peer-
review workshop, which will be scheduled at a later date and announced
in the Federal Register, are separate processes that provide
opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the document.
EPA intends to forward the public comments that are submitted in
accordance with this notice to the external peer-review panel prior to
the meeting for their consideration. When finalizing the draft
document, EPA intends to consider any public comments that EPA receives
in accordance with this notice.
    EPA is also announcing a listening session to be held on June 16,
2010, during the public comment period for this draft document. This
listening session is a step in EPA's revised IRIS process, announced on
May 21, 2009, to develop human health assessments for inclusion in the
IRIS database. The purpose of the listening session is to allow all
interested parties to present scientific and technical comments on

draft IRIS health assessments to EPA and other interested parties
during the public comment period and before the external peer review
meeting. EPA welcomes the scientific and technical comments that will
be provided to the Agency by the listening session participants. The
comments will be considered by the Agency as it revises the draft
assessment in response to the independent external peer review and the
public comments. All presentations submitted to EPA according to the
instructions below will become part of the official public record.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination.

DATES: The public comment period begins May 13, 2010, and ends July 12,
2010. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by
EPA by July 12, 2010.
    The listening session on the draft IRIS health assessment for
hexachloroethane will be held on June 16, 2010, beginning at 9 a.m. and
ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. If you want to make a
presentation at the listening session, you should register by June 9,
2010, indicate that you wish to make oral comments at the session, and
indicate the length of your presentation. When you register, please
indicate if you will need audio-visual aid (e.g., lap top computer and
slide projector). In general, each presentation should be no more than
30 minutes. If, however, there are more requests for presentations than
the allotted time allows, then the time limit for each presentation
will be adjusted. A copy of the agenda for the listening session will
be available at the meeting. If no speakers have registered by June 9,
2010, the listening session will be cancelled and EPA will notify those
registered of the cancellation.
    Listening session participants who want EPA to share their comments
with the external peer reviewers should also submit written comments
during the public comment period using the detailed and established
procedures described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
notice. Comments submitted to the docket prior to the end of the public
comment period will be submitted to the external peer reviewers and
considered by EPA in the disposition of public comments. All comments
must be submitted to the docket, but comments received after the public
comment period closes will not be submitted to the external peer
reviewers.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``Toxicological Review of Hexachloroethane: In
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)'' is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA
home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available from
the Information Management Team, NCEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you are requesting a paper copy, please
provide your name, mailing address, and the document title.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
    The listening session on the draft hexachloroethane assessment will
be held at the EPA offices at Two Potomac Yard (North Building), 7th
Floor, Room 7100, 2733 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
To attend the listening session, register by June 9, 2010, by e-mailing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Hexachloroethane Listening Session);
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext. 545, or toll free at 1-800-2-VERSAR (ask
for Kathy Coon, the Hexachloroethane Listening Session Coordinator); or
by faxing a registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please reference the
``Hexachloroethane Listening Session'' and include your name, title,
affiliation, full address and contact information.
    Please note that to gain entrance to this EPA building to attend
the meeting, attendees must have photo identification with them and
must register at the guard's desk in the lobby. The guard will retain
your photo identification and will provide you with a visitor's badge.
At the guard's desk, attendees should give the name Christine Ross and
the telephone number,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the guard on duty. The guard
will contact Ms. Ross who will meet you in the reception area to escort
you to the meeting room. When you leave the building, please return
your visitor's badge to the guard and you will receive your photo
identification.
    A teleconference line will also be available for registered
attendees/speakers. The teleconference number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the
access code is<PHONE_NUMBER>, followed by the pound sign ().
The teleconference line will be activated at 8:45 am, and you will be
asked to identify yourself and your affiliation at the beginning of the
call.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: EPA
welcomes public attendance at the ``Hexachloroethane Listening
Session'' and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. Questions regarding access or services for individuals
with disabilities should be directed to Versar, Inc. by mailing Versar,
Inc., 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA 22151; by e-mailing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Hexachloroethane Listening Session);
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext. 545, or toll free at 1-800-2-VERSAR (1-
800-283-7727) (ask for Kathy Coon, the Hexachloroethane Listening
Session Coordinator); or by faxing a registration request to 703-642-
6954. Please reference the Hexachloroethane Listening Session and
include your name, title, affiliation, full address and contact
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on the public listening sessions, please contact
Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you have questions about the document, please contact John
Cowden, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 109
T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone: 919-
541-3667; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About IRIS

    EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates
quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may
result from exposure to specific chemical substances found in the
environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality
science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's
regulatory activities. The IRIS database contains information for more
than 540 chemical substances that can be used to support the first two
steps (hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the

risk assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS
provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference
concentrations (RfCs) for chronic noncancer health effects and cancer
assessments. Combined with specific exposure information, government
and private entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks
of chemical substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support
risk management decisions designed to protect public health.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-
0403 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center's Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
mail or hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages
numbered consecutively and three copies of the comments. For
attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the
comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2010-0403. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: April 20, 2010.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2010-11292 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5017-5018]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0038; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Sibley, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sibley Municipal Airport in
Sibley, IA. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Sibley non-
directional radio beacon (NDB).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-0038; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-3, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Witucki, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Sibley Municipal
Airport, in support of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-0038;
Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-3.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace-amendments/">http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace-amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius
(increased from 6.0 miles) of Sibley Municipal Airport. This action is
necessary due to the decommissioning of the Sibley NDB. This action
would enhance safety and the management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Sibley, IA [Amended]

Sibley Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 43[deg]22'10'' N, long 94[deg]45'35'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Sibley Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 13, 2019.
John Witucki,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-02677 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50667-50668]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1104]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 25, 2010, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 75 FR 29246. The table provided here represents the
flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and
modified elevations, and communities affected for Erie County,
Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions). Specifically, it addresses the
flooding sources Fourmile Creek and Lake Erie.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before November 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1104, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are
used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.

Correction

    In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 29246, in the May 25, 2010,
issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Erie County,
Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)'' addressed the flooding sources
Fourmile Creek and Lake Erie. That table contained inaccurate
information as to the location of referenced elevation, effective and
modified elevation in feet, and/or communities affected for Lake Erie.
In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate
information, to address these prior errors. The information provided
below should be used in lieu of that previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) + Elevation in
                                                                 feet (NAVD)
                                       Location of referenced     Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)                 elevation **       ground [caret] Elevation    Communities affected
                                                                    in meters (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Erie County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdiction)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourmile Creek......................  Approximately 735 feet          None         +577  Township of
                                       downstream of Access                               Harborcreek, Township
                                       Road.                                              of Lawrence Park.
                                      Approximately 745 feet          None         +688
                                       downstream of Buffalo
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 485 feet          None         +693
                                       downstream of Buffalo
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 400 feet          None         +770
                                       upstream of Mindi
                                       Court.
Lake Erie...........................  Entire coastline in the         None         +577  Borough of Lake City,
                                       Commonwealth of                                    Township of Girard,
                                       Pennsylvania.                                      Township of
                                                                                Harborcreek, Township
                                                                                of North East.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Borough of Lake City
Maps are available for inspection at the Municipal Building, 2350 Main Street, Lake City, PA 16423.

Township of Girard
Maps are available for inspection at the Municipal Building, 10140 West Ridge Road, Girard, PA 16417.

Township of Harborcreek
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Building, 5601 Buffalo Road, Harborcreek, PA 16421.

Township of Lawrence Park
Maps are available for inspection at the Lawrence Park Township Office, 4230 Iroquois Avenue, Erie, PA 16511.

Township of North East
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Main Office, 1300 West Main Road, North East, PA 16428.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: August 8, 2012.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-20648 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 60711-60712]
[DOCID:fr25oc07-118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In August
2007, there were three applications approved. This notice also includes
information on one application, approved in July 2007, inadvertently
left off the July 2007 notice. Additionally, 23 approved amendments to
previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph (d) of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: Broward County Aviation Department, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.
    Application Number: 07-08-C-00-FLL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $72,409,477.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2014.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFCs:
    Non-scheduled/on-demand air carriers.

    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$4.50 PFC Level:
    Runway implementation plan.
    Reconstruct runway 9L/27R and taxiway B west; install engineered
materials arresting system.
    Near term in-line baggage handling systems, terminals 1, 2, and 3.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level:
    Terminal roof replacement ( Terminals 2, 3, and 4).
    Airport information management system.
    Flight information display systems replacements for Terminals 1, 2,
and 3.
    Decision Date: July 31, 2007.
    For Further Information Contact: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Santa Maria Public Airport District, Santa Maria,
California.
    Application Number: 07-01-C-00-SMX.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $5,380,346.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2007.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2028.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:
    Non-scheduled on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Santa Maria Public/G. Allan Hancock Field Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Terminal building design and construction (expansion of baggage
claim area and passenger hold room).
    Environmental assessment for runway extension
    Decision Date: August 3, 2007.
    For Further Information Contact: David Delshad, Los Angeles
Airports District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Westchester, Mount Vernon, New York.
    Application Number: 07-03-U-00-HPN.
    Application Type: Use PFC revenue.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue to be Used in This Decision: $12,300,000.
    Charge Effective Date: January 1, 2004.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: December 1, 2008.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:

    No change from previous decision.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Use:
    Reconstruction of terminal ramp/ deicing areas.
    Decision Date: August 9, 2007.
    For Further Information Contact: Dan Vornea, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Buncomb and City of Asheville, Asheville,
North Carolina.
    Application Number: 07-04-C-00-AVL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $3,521,375.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2007.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: May 1, 2010.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:
    Non-scheduled/on-demand air taxi operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Asheville Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Terminal renovations phase 1--construction.
    Regional boarding ramp improvements.
    Aircraft lavatory cart facility.
    Pre-conditioned air.
    Runway \16/34\ rehabilitation/reconstruction--design.
    Decision Date: August 15, 2007.
    For Further Information Contact: John Marshall, Atlanta Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
   Amendment No.  city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92-01-C-03-AOO..................        07/24/07        $127,054        $110,500        02/01/96        02/01/96
  Altoona, PA
96-02-C-03-AOO..................        07/24/07         124,620         116,620        10/01/99        10/01/99

  Altoona, PA
96-02-C-04-AOO..................        07/24/07         116,620         116,620        10/01/99        10/01/99
  Altoona, PA
00-03-C-03-AOO..................        07/24/07         135,340          89,950        08/01/02        08/01/02
  Altoona, PA
02-04-U-01-AOO..................        07/24/07              NA              NA        08/01/02        08/01/02
  Altoona, PA
95-01-C-03-BFD..................        07/27/07         288,090         206,793        05/01/03        05/01/03
  Bradford, PA
92-01-I-09-PHL..................        07/27/07      98,863,016      98,765,785        08/01/95        08/01/95
  Philadelphia, PA
93-02-U-02-PHL..................        07/27/07              NA              NA        08/01/95        08/01/95
  Philadelphia, PA
98-06-C-06-PHL..................        07/27/07      23,560,410      19,534,950        10/01/98        10/01/98
  Philadelphia, PA
94-01-C-02-RDG..................        07/27/07         480,000         392,031        07/01/98        07/01/98
  Reading, PA
97-02-U-01-RDG..................        07/27/07              NA              NA        07/01/98        07/01/98
  Reading, PA
92-01-I-04-RFD..................        07/30/07         410,286         385,681        10/01/96        10/01/96
  Rockford, IL
93-02-U-02-RFD..................        07/30/07              NA              NA        10/01/96        10/01/96
  Rockford, IL
93-01-C-02-JST..................        07/30/07         150,202         148,269        12/01/96        12/01/96
  Johnstown, PA
96-02-C-01-JST..................        07/30/07          14,250          14,106        12/01/96        12/01/96
  Johnstown, PA
95-03-C-05-PHL..................        07/30/07       9,994,274       9,994,273        03/01/97        03/01/97
  Philadelphia, PA
03-06-C-02-DSM..................        07/31/07      11,060,000      11,700,000        04/01/08        04/01/08
  Des Moines, IA
05-08-C-01-DSM..................        07/31/07       2,750,000       2,250,000        01/01/12        01/01/12
  Des Moines, IA
92-01-C-06-HPN..................        08/03/07      17,252,918      15,546,537        05/01/04        05/01/04
  White Plains, NY
01-08-C-02-PDX..................        08/08/07     551,129,000     551,230,600        05/01/16        05/01/16
  Portland, OR
06-08-C-01-ATL..................        08/14/07     177,974,163     227,606,163        08/01/19        01/01/20
  Atlanta, GA
02-06-C-05-MSY..................        08/14/07     252,936,769     255,936,769        01/01/16        09/01/16
  New Orleans, LA
01-07-C-01-RHI..................        08/15/07          34,405          36,348        01/01/05        01/01/05
  Rhinelander, WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 18, 2007.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 07-5261 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

							            OFFICE OF

						                 PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

							AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

April 16, 2007

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	2,4-D: HED Response to Irrigated Crop Waiver Request.

		PC Code: 030001, DP Barcode: D336596.

FROM:	Toiya Goodlow, Chemist

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Michael S. Metzger, Branch Chief

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Katie Hall, Chemical Review Manager

Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

This document was written in response to an irrigated crop waiver
request submitted by the 2,4-D Task Force.

The 2005 Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED) for 2,4-D
included a data requirement for Guideline 860.1400 Water, fish, and
irrigated crops.  Although irrigated crop data has been submitted for a
variety of crops, supplemental irrigated crop data were required for
strawberries and sugar beets (roots and tops).  Irrigated crop data for
strawberries were required to support tolerance reassessment for
irrigated perennial crops (pome fruit, stone fruit, and grapes); sugar
beet data were required to support tolerance reassessment for root and
tuber vegetables, excluding potatoes (Crop Group 1) and the leaves of
root and tuber vegetables (Crop Group 2).  After reevaluating the
existing irrigated crop data and given the significant amount of 2,4-D
data currently available to the Agency, it was determined that
additional irrigated crop data would not negate the current data or
significantly impact the risk assessment.  Therefore, no additional
irrigated crop data are required.

Aquatic use patterns supported by the 2,4-D Task Force prohibit the use
of 2,4-D treated water for irrigation unless an approved assay indicates
that 2,4-D concentrations are <0.1 ppm.  Based on the 2,4-D data
available including terrestrial and aquatic half-life information,
metabolism data, and the irrigated crop residue data for other crops,
it is unlikely that irrigation with water containing 2,4-D at <0.1 ppm
would result in inadvertent residues exceeding 0.1 ppm (two times the
limit of quantification, 0.05 ppm). Therefore, a tolerance value of 0.1
ppm is appropriate, and should be set for residues of 2,4-D in/on
strawberries and perennial crops, as well as Crop Groups 1 and 2, root
and tuber vegetables (excluding potatoes) and the leaves of root and
tuber vegetables, respectively.

Table 1.  Summary of Reassessed Tolerances for 2,4-D, Post-RED

Commodity/ Crop Group	Reassessed Tolerance (ppm)

Tolerances Needed Under 40 CFR §180.142(a)1

Fruit, pome, group 11	0.1

Fruit, stone, group 12	0.1

Grape	0.1

Strawberry	0.1

Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, except potato, group 2	0.1

Vegetable, root and tuber, except potato, group 1	0.1

1 Part (a) is reserved for commodities with permanent tolerances
reflecting at least one preharvest (field) or postharvest use. For the
commodities above, tolerances resulting from the primary use of 2,4-D
are high enough  to cover any inadvertent residues that may result from
the use of 2,4-D treated irrigation water.  Therefore, separate
tolerances for inadvertent residues in/on these crops are not required.

cc:  T. Goodlow/HED/RRB1.

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  2