[Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 18)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4490-4495]
[DOCID:fr27ja06-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NM-4-1-5208a; FRL-8025-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico,
Visibility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision satisfies the
New Source Review (NSR) and monitoring plan requirements for
visibility, otherwise known as the ``Phase I, Part I Visibility SIP.''
In addition, this revision includes the implementation control
strategies, integral vistas protection, and long term strategies,
otherwise known as the ``Phase I, Part II Visibility SIP.'' Lastly, EPA
is removing the SIP disapprovals associated Phase I, Parts I and II,
and the resultant Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs).

DATES: This rule is effective on March 28, 2006 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 27, 2006. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by File ID No. NM-4-1-5208,
by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.
 Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select

``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section below.
     Fax: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Please include the text ``Public comment on File ID
No. NM-4-1-5208'' in the subject line of the first page of your
comments. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public file without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information

(CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information through regulations.gov or e-mail if
you believe that it is CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure.
Regulations.gov 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public file 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.
    Official File: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
in the official file which is available at the Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    Copies of any State submittals and EPA's TSD are also available for
public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official
business hours by appointment:
    New Mexico Environment Depart, Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. Francis
Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?
    A. Phase I, Part I
    B. Phase I, Part II
III. What Is Our Final Action?
IV. Why Is This a ``Final Action?''
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7491, requires
visibility protection for mandatory Class I Federal areas where EPA has
determined that visibility is an important value. ``Mandatory Class I
Federal areas'' are certain national parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks, as described in Section 162(a) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7472(a), and 40 CFR 81.400-81.437. Section 169A specifically
requires EPA to promulgate regulations requiring certain states to
amend their SIPs to provide for visibility protection.
    On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated the required visibility
regulations at 45 FR 80084, codified at 40 CFR 51.300-51.307. These
regulations required States to develop a visibility monitoring and NSR
program and to submit SIPs to satisfy those provisions by September 2,
1981 (See 45 FR 80091, codified at 40 CFR 51.302(a)(1)). That
rulemaking resulted in numerous parties seeking judicial review of the
visibility regulations. Please see the Technical Support Document (TSD)
for more details concerning the history behind Phase I, Parts I and II.
    On February 13, 1986 (51 FR 5504), EPA promulgated Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) which included a visibility monitoring
strategy (40 CFR 52.26) and the appropriate visibility NSR programs (40
CFR 52.21 and 52.28) for the State. This is known as the Phase I, Part
I Visibility FIP, and is the subject of the first part of this action.
    On November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45132), EPA promulgated FIPs for 29
States, including New Mexico, to incorporate visibility long-term
strategies (40 CFR 52.29). EPA also found that Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) requirements and other control measures were not
necessary in 28 of the States because the visibility impairment could
not be attributed to specific sources. This is known as the Phase I,
Part II Visibility FIP, and is the subject of the second part of this
action.

II. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?

A. Phase I, Part I

    On August 21, 1986, EPA Region 6 received a Phase I, Part I SIP
Revision from the Governor of New Mexico for Visibility Protection and
State regulations for monitoring and new source review. Please see the
accompanying TSD for more details of EPA's review.
    New Mexico has nine mandatory Class I areas: (1) Bandelier
Wilderness Area, (2) Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area, (3) Carlsbad
Caverns National Park, (4) Gila Wilderness, (5) Pecos Wilderness Area,
(6) Salt Creek Wilderness Area, (7) San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area,
(8) Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area, and (9) White Mountain Wilderness
Area. The SIP commits the State to visibility protection, consistent
with the CAA, for the Class I areas within its boundaries. The SIP is
to be reviewed by New Mexico every three years and revised as
necessary.
Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    40 CFR 51.305 requires each State containing a mandatory Class I
Federal area to include in the plan a strategy for evaluating
reasonably attributable visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal area by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring
techniques. The intent of this requirement is to generate data for
evaluating visibility impairment trends, determine potential impacts of
new sources, assess the effectiveness of the visibility protection
program, and identify major contributing sources. This requirement can
be adequately addressed by determining the background visibility
conditions in and around visibility protection areas, and documenting
the extent of any visibility impairment that can be attributed to a
source or small group of sources.
    Visibility impairment is the human perception of the effects of
natural or man-made conditions which reduce visual range or contrast,
or coloration change. Thus, a visibility monitoring program should
identify these effects as well as differentiate man-made effects from
natural conditions. The program could generate various types of data
such as reports from human observers, photographs, and/or automated
instruments. The minimum data collection technique that 40 CFR 51.305

requires is visual observation. However, other more objective
techniques are available.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Visibility Monitoring Guidance Document'', Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, June 1999 (EPA 454/R-99-003). This
is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/visible/r-99-003.pdf
.

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

    The monitoring section of the New Mexico Visibility Protection Plan
has been updated since the submission of this SIP Revision for
Visibility Protection, and consists of three data collection methods:
    (1) Monitoring by the Federal Land Manager (FLM),
    (2) Discretionary monitoring by sources proposing to locate or
modify in an area where emissions may impact Class I areas, and
    (3) Implementation of the state monitoring network.
    Monitoring by the FLM is done through the Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program. The IMPROVE program is
a cooperative effort led by a steering committee of representatives
from federal and regional-State organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring
network was established in 1985 to aid in the construction of SIPs for
the protection of visibility in Class I areas, as stipulated in the
CAA. The following table lists the FLMs, the Class I areas each
presides over, and the kinds of visibility monitoring instrumentation
used at each Class I area in New Mexico:

                                      Federal Land Managers, Class I Areas, and Monitoring Equipment in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Federal land manager                              Class I areas                                     Visibility monitoring instrument
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service...................  Gila Wilderness Area....................................  Nephelometer.
                                   Pecos Wilderness Area...................................  Represented by transmissometer at Bandelier Wilderness
                                                                                Area.
                                   San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area.........................  Modular aerosol sampler.
                                   Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area............................  Modular aerosol sampler.
                                   White Mountain Wilderness Area..........................  Modular aerosol sampler.
National Park Service............  Bandelier Wilderness Area...............................  Transmissometer.
                                   Carlsbad Caverns National Park..........................  Represented by transmissometer at Guadalupe Mountains
                                                                                National Park.
Fish and Wildlife Service........  Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area.......................  Modular aerosol sampler.
                                   Salt Creek Wilderness Area..............................  Modular aerosol sampler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the IMPROVE network, the State may require sources
proposing to locate or modify in the locale where emissions may impact
Class I areas to model or monitor visibility if, at the discretion of
the New Mexico Environment Department, the emissions from the facility
are such that the facility is predicted to have significant impact on
visibility. The purpose of this modeling or monitoring would be to
quantify impacts to visibility from the facility at the Class I area.
    Lastly, the State itself operates 32 separate monitoring sites
across the state, each monitoring one or more of the criteria
pollutants. This monitoring network includes twelve ozone monitors,
eight nitrogen dioxide monitors, five sulfur dioxide monitors, three
carbon monoxide monitors, fourteen PM 2.5 (particles 2.5 microns or
less in diameter) monitors, and fifteen PM 10 (particles 10 microns or
less in diameter) monitors. Additional details of the air quality
monitoring in New Mexico can be found at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/Regional-Haze_index.html
.

New Source Review
    40 CFR 51.307 requires states to review new major stationary
sources and major modifications prior to construction to assess
potential impacts on visibility in any visibility protection area,
regardless of the air quality status of the area in which the source is
located. These requirements ensure that (1) The visibility impact
review is conducted in a timely and consistent manner, (2) the
reviewing authority considers any timely FLM analysis demonstrating
that a proposed source would have an adverse impact on visibility, and
(3) public availability of the permitting authority's conclusion.
    40 CFR 51.307 addresses visibility NSR in two parts. The first part
addresses major stationary sources or major modifications that would be
constructed in an area that is designated attainment or unclassified
under section 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the CAA. For major stationary
sources reviewed under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 for visibility protection, the
State must comply with certain FLM notification requirements, and must
consider any FLM visibility impairment analyses. In order to address
this requirement, New Mexico incorporated into the NSR section of its
visibility SIP, regulation 20.2.74 NMAC, ``Permits--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration'' (originally submitted as AQCR 707 and since
recodified). EPA approved regulation 20.2.74 NMAC on October 15, 1996
(61 FR 53642). The SIP commits to the notification time frame
requirements to the FLM. It also commits to provide an explanation of
its decision should it disagree with the FLM's assessment on a proposed
source's impact on visibility, and to give notice as to where that
explanation can be obtained.
    The second part to visibility NSR addresses major stationary
sources or major modifications that are proposed in an area classified
as nonattainment under section 107(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C) of the CAA.
Major sources in nonattainment areas that may impact a visibility
protection area must provide a visibility impact analysis, and the
State must ensure that the sources' emissions are consistent with the
goal of making reasonable progress toward national visibility. In order
to address this requirement, New Mexico has incorporated into the NSR
section of its visibility SIP, regulation 20.2.79 NMAC, ``Permits--
Nonattainment Areas'' (originally submitted as AQCR 709 and since
recodified). EPA approved regulation 20.2.79 NMAC on February 8, 2002
(67 FR 6147). The State must also follow the same FLM notification and
visibility impairment analyses requirements for major stationary
sources reviewed under the visibility PSD requirements, above, which it
commits to do in its SIP.
    In addition, the SIP revision includes regulations 20.2.60 NMAC,
``Open Burning'' (originally submitted as AQCR 301 and since
recodified); 20.2.61 NMAC, ``Smoke and Visible Emissions'' (originally
submitted as AQCR 401 and since recodified); and 20.2.10 NMAC, ``Wood
Waste Burners'' (originally submitted as AQCR 402 and since

recodified). These regulations, among other things, control particulate
matter emissions and visible emissions, and provide for smoke
management. These regulations have all been adopted by the New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Board, were filed at the State Records
Center, and have become effective. EPA approved regulations 20.2.10
NMAC, 20.2.60 NMAC, and 20.2.61 NMAC on September 26, 1997 (62 FR
50518).
FLM Coordination
    Under Section 165(d) of the CAA, and 40 CFR 51.166(p), the FLM is
given an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related
values, including visibility, in lands within a Class I area. The
visibility regulations under 40 CFR 51.301 allow the FLM the
opportunity to identify visibility impairment and to identify elements
for inclusion in monitoring strategies.
    The State of New Mexico has accorded the FLM opportunities to
participate and comment on its visibility SIP and regulations. Comments
by the FLM were considered and incorporated where applicable. The State
has committed in the SIP to consult continually with the FLM on the
review and implementation of the visibility program. Further, the State
recognizes the expertise of the FLM in monitoring and new source
applicability analyses for visibility and has agreed to notify the FLM
of any advance notification or early consultation with a major new or
modifying source prior to the submission of the permit application.

B. Phase I, Part II

    On October 8, 1992, EPA Region 6 received a Phase I, Part II SIP
from the Governor of New Mexico for implementation control strategies,
the identification of integral vistas, and long term strategy
requirements. Please see the accompanying TSD for more details of EPA's
review.
Implementation Control Strategies for Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment
    Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) is visibility
impairment that can be traced to one, or a small number of sources.
This contrasts with regional haze (the subject of Phase II visibility
control), which is widespread, regionally undifferentiated haze due to
a multitude of sources. The implementation control strategies for the
RAVI portion of 40 CFR 51.302 include requirements addressing plan
revision procedures, State and FLM coordination, and general plan
requirements for RAVI.
    The plan revision procedures requirements are found in Sec.
51.302(a) and include (1) a deadline for submission of the SIP; (2) a
requirement to conduct public hearings prior to adoption of any SIP
that address RAVI; and (3) written notification of the hearings to the
FLMs and other affected States, and opportunity for the public to
inspect the FLM comments. Because EPA promulgated a FIP due to New
Mexico's failure to submit a Phase I, Part II SIP, the SIP submission
deadline requirement of Sec.  51.302(a) is moot. In addition, as
described in the TSD, New Mexico has satisfied the remaining plan
revision procedural requirements of Sec.  51.302(a), by conducting a
public hearing prior to adoption of the SIP and providing for
inspection of the FLM comments.
    The State and FLM coordination requirements are found in Sec.
51.302(b) and include requirements that the State identify to the FLMs
the person to whom comments should be submitted, and provide an
opportunity for consultation prior to, and after adoption of the SIP.
New Mexico has demonstrated historic and continuing (through the three
year reports, discussed below) communication and cooperation with the
FLMs. Additional details regarding how New Mexico satisfied these
requirements can be found in the TSD.
    The general plan requirements for RAVI are found in Sec.
51.302(c). These requirements provide for the adoption of specific
measures designed to control sources that contribute to the RAVI. As
the FLMs have not identified RAVI at any Class I areas in New Mexico,
the long-term strategy does not require ongoing or additional emission
reductions from existing sources. Consequently, the requirements of
Sec.  51.302(c) are not applicable.
Identification of Integral Vistas
    Section 51.304 provided that on or before December 31, 1985, the
FLMs had an opportunity to have identified integral vistas in the
State. Integral Vistas means a view perceived from within the mandatory
Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama located outside
the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area. The visibility
protection afforded by the Phase I, Part II SIP extends to any integral
vistas the FLMs identified. Since the FLMs did not identify any
integral vistas within the State prior to the December 31, 1985
deadline, Sec.  51.304 does not apply, and the integral vistas
protection requirements within 40 CFR 51.302 to 51.307 do not apply.
Long-Term Strategy Requirements for RAVI
    The long-term strategy requirements for RAVI of Sec.  51.306 are
designed to ensure reasonable progress toward the national visibility
goal. The national visibility goal includes the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, manmade impairment of
visibility in Class I areas. As discussed in the TSD in more detail,
because the FLMs have not identified any RAVI, or integral vistas, the
State's permitting programs for implementing the visibility NSR and PSD
requirements are deemed sufficient to meet the long-term strategy
requirements for preventing future impairment from major stationary
sources or major modifications. The State is also required under Sec.
51.306(c) to perform periodic review, and revisions as appropriate, of
the long-term strategy at least every three years. The State has in
fact been submitting these reviews every three years, with the last
being submitted in June of 2003. They have all been deemed
satisfactory.

III. What Is Our Final Action?

    The EPA is approving a revision to the New Mexico SIP. This SIP
revision and accompanying regulations meet all of the requirements for
NSR and visibility monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 51.305 and
51.307 (excluding integral vistas), for a Phase I, Part I Visibility
Protection Plan. This SIP revision also meets all of the requirements
for implementation control strategies under 40 CFR 51.302, integral
vistas protection under 40 CFR 51.302 to 51.307, and long-term
strategies under 40 CFR 51.306 for a Phase I, Part II Visibility
Protection Plan. In addition, EPA is removing the SIP disapprovals
associated Phase I, Parts I and II, and the resultant FIPs.

IV. Why Is This a ``Final Action?''

    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments
are received. This rule will be effective on March 28, 2006 without
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by February 27, 2006.
If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. We will address all

public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note
that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or
section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 28, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 18, 2006.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subchapter GG--New Mexico

0
2. The table in Sec.  52.1620(e) entitled ``EPA Approved Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP'' is
amended by adding one new entry to the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable geographic or    State submittal/effective
       Name of SIP provision              nonattainment area                  date                     EPA approval date                Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
New Mexico Visibility Protection     Statewide..................  08/21/86                     01/27/06 [Insert FR page number
 Plan for Phase I, Part I of the                                                                where document begins].
 Federal Visibility Requirements,
 August 8, 1986.
New Mexico Visibility Protection     Statewide..................  10/08/92                     01/27/06 [Insert FR page number
 Plan for Phase I, Part II of the                                                               where document begins].
 Federal Visibility Requirements,
 September 9, 1992.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  52.1636  [Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Section 52.1636 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 06-760 Filed 1-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 19)]
[Notices]
[Page 5713-5714]
[DOCID:fr30ja09-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59293; File No. SR-OCC-2008-19]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Rule 1506

January 23, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on December 31, 2008, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared
primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \3\
thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change clarifies the text of Rule 1506, which
prohibits deposits in lieu of margin for certain options.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. OCC has prepared

summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this rule change is to make a technical correction
to Rule 1506 which prohibits deposits in lieu of margin in respect of
certain options, including binary options. The proposed rule change
amends Rule 1506 to prohibit deposits in lieu of margin in respect of
range options. In a previous rule change, OCC made technical
modifications to Rule 1506 but inadvertently omitted references to
range options in the rule text.\5\ The proposed rule change corrects
that omission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58349 (August 12, 2008),
73 FR 48420 (August 19, 2008) (File No. SR-OCC-2008-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
because it will promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of transactions in range options by clarifying the text of
Rule 1506. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the
existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be
amended.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \7\ promulgated
thereunder because the proposal constitutes an interpretation with
respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing
rule of OCC. At any time within sixty days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \7\17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2008-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2008-19. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2008-19 and should be
submitted on or before February 20, 2009.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-2021 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 33804]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11918]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4637-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Tennessee; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4637-DR), dated January 14, 2022, and
related May 16, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Leda M. Khoury,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Robert A. Haywood as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-11918 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 32601]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14809]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2017-0058]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this provides the public notice that on June 22, 2017, the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver from compliance with certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations in Title 49 Code
of Federal Regulations Part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.
FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2017-0058.
    Amtrak awarded a contract to car builder Construcciones y Auxiliar
de Ferrocarriles (CAF) on August 23, 2010 for a fleet of 130 Long
Distance Single Level (LDSL) passenger cars, composed of four car
types. The contract presently calls for delivery of 70 baggage cars
(61000 series) and 10 baggage-crew dormitory cars (69000 series) for
Amtrak crew use, 25 dining cars (68000 series), and 25 sleeping cars
(62500 series).
    Amtrak requests relief for the LDSL passenger cars from the
requirements of 49 CFR 238.131(b), Safety System for Manual and Powered
Side Doors--Propulsion Interlock, for passenger cars beginning service
after February 5, 2018. Amtrak states that some car deliveries for this
procurement will fall after February 5, 2018, which is the effective
date for this new regulation. It is projected that the 25 sleeping cars
and 10 baggage-dormitory cars will be delivered after February 5, 2018.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by August 28, 2017 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if as practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-14809 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


       Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR)
                    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Identification of the Information Collection  -  Title and Numbers
	Title: Parent Company Definition for TRI Reporting
	EPA ICR No.: 2597.01
	OMB Control No.: 2070-XXXX
	Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0155
Abstract
This final rule Information Collection Request (ICR), which explains the information collection activities and related burden and cost estimates that amends the information collection activities of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting and recordkeeping event.
This ICR addresses the paperwork requirements in a final rule titled Parent Company Definition for TRI Reporting that is not already included in the currently approved ICR "Chemical Release Reporting," which covers the current 40 CFR part 372. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing a rule under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) that codifies reporting the highest-level U.S.-based parent company and adds a new data element to Part I, Section 5 for reporting the name of a foreign company in addition to reporting the largest U.S.-based parent company. An economic analysis (EA) provides estimations of the burden and costs associated with the reporting requirements and can be found in the rulemaking docket.
Summary Total Burden and Costs

                             Number of Respondents
                          Burden per Response (hours)
                             Total Burden (hours)
                              Cost per Respondent
                                  Total Costs
Agency
-
-
-
-
-
Respondents
21,458
 First year: 0.84
 Subsequent years: <0.01

 First year: 18,091
 Subsequent years: 210
 First year: $56.35
 Subsequent years: $0.65
 First year: up to $1,209,202
 Subsequent years: up to $14,020

Supporting Statement
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), certain facilities are required to file annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), States, and Indian Country officials on their releases, transfers, and other waste management practices for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above certain threshold amounts. This information is included in a publicly available database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Congress also granted EPA broad rulemaking authority to allow the Agency to fully implement the statute. EPCRA section 328 states that: "The Administrator may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter." 42 U.S.C. 11048.
TRI requires facilities to report their highest-level United States-based parent company information annually in Part 1, Section 5. No text currently exists in 40 CFR part 372 related to this important data field, and current guidance has led to differing interpretations on the definition of parent company between EPA and reporting facilities. Additionally, incorporating this definition into regulatory text as other Agency reporting programs have done will increase the enforceability of consistent and accurate reporting of this data element, which will benefit TRI data quality for many data users.
Each year, EPA standardizes parent company names submitted to TRI. This process involves aligning submissions to a set of business rules (e.g. Corporation is changed to Corp) in addition to researching submitted names to ensure proper reporting by using online sources and other datasets. Each year, EPA has needed to standardize at least 15 percent of the forms received.
In addition to misinterpretation of parent company reporting guidance, there are several company ownership scenarios where current guidance does not explicitly address how to report the parent company, such as facilities that are publicly-owned or have no owner with at least 50 percent of the company's voting stock. In addition, the corporate structure for internationally-headquartered parent companies is often confusing, and facilities may not even know their highest-level U.S.-based parent company. The final rule further defines and clarify reporting requirements for facility parent company information.
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

The overall goal of TRI is to provide communities with information about toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities and to support informed decision making by industry, government, non-governmental organizations, and the public. TRI's success is due, in large part, to the right-to-know provisions contained in the legislation. By requiring that the resulting data be made publicly available "by electronic and other means," Congress ensured that the general public, the media, environmental advocates, researchers, the business community, and others could evaluate and influence industry's efforts to manage toxic emissions. Consequently, EPA makes available data collected under EPCRA section 313 and the PPA section 6607 through access tools such as EPA's Envirofacts, the TRI P2 Tool, or TRI Tribal Search.
The TRI Program provides the TRI Preliminary Dataset within weeks after the annual July 1st TRI reporting deadline. The release consists of downloadable files on the TRI website (also accessible through Data.gov), as well as updated online data access tools (Envirofacts and TRI Explorer).
EPA generally makes available the annual TRI National Analysis and the final dataset used for that analysis within eight months after the reporting deadline. In addition to providing information to the public via electronic means, EPA also conducts outreach activities to make key groups and the public aware of TRI. Libraries in communities across the United States (in particular, members of the Federal Depository Library Program) provide public access to TRI data.
Environmental agencies, industry, and the public use TRI data. EPA program offices use TRI data, along with other data, to help establish programmatic priorities, evaluate potential hazards to human health and the natural environment, and undertake appropriate regulatory and/or enforcement activities. Environmental and public interest groups use the data to better understand toxic chemical releases at the community level and to work with industry, government agencies, and others to promote reductions in toxic chemical releases. Industrial facilities use the TRI data to evaluate the efficiency of their production processes and to help track and communicate their progress in achieving pollution prevention goals. States use the TRI data to compare toxic chemical releases and other waste management approaches within specific industries and to set environmental priorities at the state level.  See EPA's The Toxics Release Inventory in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI Data for more detailed descriptions of how these organizations use TRI data. EPA encourages TRI data users to provide feedback on ways to improve TRI products and services.
EPA believes that TRI data on the facility's foreign parent company are of interest to the public because of the potential social benefits resulting from the availability of these data. Making TRI information available to the public may provide incentives for facilities to reduce TRI chemical releases. For example, the public availability of release information aggregated at the parent company level may induce parent companies to encourage facilities to reduce releases when such changes would not be in the parent company's interest if release information were not in the public domain. Potential social benefits derived from voluntary follow-on activities include decreased costs of waste treatment and disposal, lower probability of accidental releases and lower clean-up costs in the event of such releases, reduced contamination of natural resources, improved air and water quality, and reduced risks to human health. Such social benefits are partially offset by the social costs to implement the changes, such as using flare gas recovery recycling and installing vapor recovery systems. The net social benefits of the information provided by the final rule and the possible follow-on activities equal the difference between the total benefits and the total costs of the activities leading to reduced releases.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

EPA requires the electronic submission of TRI reporting forms through the Internet via EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Toxics Release Inventory Made Easy Web (TRI-MEweb) reporting software (see 40 CFR 372.85(c)). TRI-MEweb helps facilities prepare high-quality reports more easily than they could by using paper reporting forms due to a number of technology advances, including built-in data quality checks. The final rule does not change electronic submission requirements.
Additionally, EPA has made reporting via TRI-MEweb more automated for facilities. Once facility-level information (including parent company data) is submitted in TRI-MEweb, the data remain in TRI-MEweb and are automatically populated for each chemical reporting form. For the parent company data element, EPA has incorporated a drop-down list of known TRI parent company names in the standardized format to assist facilities in identifying their parent company and the standardized format for reporting purposes.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

Several existing data sources contain parent company information. The Chemical Data Reporting program finalized a rule in 2020 which included a codified definition of "parent company" nearly identical to the definition. While there is some overlap between the facilities who report under the Chemical Data Reporting rule and to TRI, EPA estimates over half of TRI facilities do not currently report to CDR.
Additionally, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requires facilities to report the legal name of the highest-level United States parent company of the facility or supplier and the percentage ownership interest for each listed parent company; however differences exist in information collected and facility coverage.
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Under EPCRA section 313 (b)(1)(A), facilities with fewer than 10 full-time employees (or the equivalent) do not have to report. In addition, EPA has taken several steps to minimize the burden for covered small businesses. EPA added a range reporting option to the Final Rule (53 FR 4500, February 16, 1988) codifying the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. Range reporting was the preferred option from the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to provide burden reduction for small businesses. Range reporting provides an option for releases of less than 1,000 pounds to be recorded as a code representing one of three ranges (1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, or 500 to 999 pounds) rather than as a specific estimate of the release amount. The benefit is not, however, limited to small businesses. Note that facilities may not use range reporting on Forms R for Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) chemicals.
In response to a petition from the Small Business Administration, EPA promulgated the alternate threshold (59 FR 61488, November 30, 1994), manifested in Form A reporting, as discussed in Section 1(d). Although any reporting facility meeting the criteria may use the alternate threshold, this alternate threshold may be particularly advantageous to small entities.
6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

Since TRI represents the best available multi-media database for tracking toxic chemical releases in the United States, a change in the reporting frequency to less than once a year could have a significant impact on the availability of timely toxic chemical data, including parent company information, and affect data users, particularly at the community level. Additionally, public access to the most current toxic chemical release data and other waste management information would become more difficult.
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:
 requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
 requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
 requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document; requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
 in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
 requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
 that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
 requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

Not applicable.
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

There was a public comment period for this proposed rule. EPA has addressed the comments received during the comment period in the final rule and accompanying Response to Comment document. Copies of the proposed rules, ICRs, comments received, and EPA's Response to Comments document are available in the docket.

Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), agencies are not required to consult with potential ICR respondents and information users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an ICR to OMB for review and approval.

 9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

This collection does provide any payment or gift to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

Although reporting facilities must identify the chemical for which they submit reports, in situations where respondents must submit trade secret information, they can claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. In such circumstances, facilities provide a generic name as part of the information made available to the public. EPA securely stores and maintains the true identity of the chemical (see also Section 3(f) below). However, all other data submitted to EPA on the TRI reporting forms, including parent company identity, cannot be claimed as trade secret and are made public.
While EPCRA section 313 is generally published under community right-to-know principles, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance as a trade secret according to EPCRA section 322. Procedures for submission and review of trade secret claims under EPCRA section 313 are set forth in 40 CFR 350. When a facility claims the chemical identity to be a trade secret and properly substantiates the claim, EPA will not disclose the identity of the chemical to the public. EPA securely stores forms with trade secret information and allows access to those documents only to persons with Trade Secret clearance. Data made available to the public through any means do not include trade secret information. Parent company names cannot be considered trade secret under EPCRA section 313.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

This collection does not request any sensitive information.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
 Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
 If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
 Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.

The Economic Analysis of the Proposed Parent Company Definition for TRI Reporting (U.S. EPA, 2021) provides the detailed methodology for estimating the number of respondents. This final rule would not alter the universe of TRI-reporting facilities. Thus, the respondents under this final rule are those which are currently required to report under EPCRA section 313. Reporting year (RY) 2019 data are used to characterize the potentially affected facilities and forms. As such, an estimated 21,458 facilities and 78,661 forms are potentially affected by the final rule. Respondents under this final rule would report to EPA annually.
For the final rule, the incremental burden and cost potentially incurred by industry are estimated using comparisons to the Ratio-Based Burden Methodology (RBBM), which is a simplified formulation of a previously employed burden methodology (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011).
Reporting activities can be divided into two distinct groups: Form Activities, consisting of rule familiarization, reporter compliance determination, form completion, and recordkeeping and submission; and Non-Form Activities, consisting of non-reporter compliance determination. Specifically, the following activities may be undertaken under the final rule:
Form Activities
Rule Familiarization: Staff at a facility must read the reporting package and become familiar with the revised language and reporting requirements. This activity includes the time needed to review instructions as well as the time needed to train personnel to respond to an information collection request. As part of doing so, facility staff will be able to ascertain whether the facility is reporting parent company information accurately per the codified definition.
Reporter Compliance Determination: Staff at reporting facilities must determine whether the facility is reporting parent company information accurately per the codified definition. Under the final rule, there is no incremental burden expected for Compliance Determination since facilities already know how they are currently reporting parent company information and whether that complies with the parent company information identified during Rule Familiarization.
Form Completion: Staff at reporting facilities must gather data to provide the information required on Reporting Form R or Reporting Form A. This activity includes the time required to search data sources for parent company information and complete and review the information.
Recordkeeping and Submission: Staff at reporting facilities must maintain recordkeeping systems and submit the report to EPA and the state in which the facility is located. This activity includes the time required to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Non-Form Activities
Non-Reporter Compliance Determination: In any given reporting year, a group of eligible facilities will complete compliance determination but will not file a Form R or a Form A. The activity is the same as is presented above under Form Activities. Given that the final rule will not change any reporting requirements that might change the universe of eligible facilities, no non-reporter compliance determination is expected.
In this final rule, all TRI reporters are expected to incur rule familiarization costs associated with reading the new requirements as well as reporter compliance determination.
EPA is presenting three regulatory options in this final rule to codify the definition of parent company:
 Option 1: codifies the definition of parent company; facilities must report appropriate highest-level U.S.-based parent
 Option 2: codifies the definition of parent company, and also directs facilities to report a foreign parent instead of the highest-level U.S. parent when appropriate (i.e., no new data elements added)
 Option 3: codifies the definition of parent company, and add two new data elements to the TRI reporting forms to report the highest-level foreign parent and its Dun & Bradstreet number (i.e., facilities would report both the highest-level U.S.-based parent and the highest-level foreign parent, when applicable).
Because only Option 3 would add new data elements to the TRI reporting forms, thus necessitating this ICR supporting statement, only the burden and cost of choosing Option 3 will be analyzed here.
Under Option 3, management and technical time are required in the first year for rule familiarization. The rule familiarization burden and assumptions include five minutes management time and 25 minutes technical time for the first year. This assumption includes the burden needed to read the rule, plus an additional five minutes of technical time to read instructions related to the new U.S.-based parent company and additional foreign parent company data elements in Part I, Section 5.
Facility staff are assumed to fully comprehend the rule and associated requirements by the subsequent year (0 minutes in steady state). Because the parent company is repeated for all forms a facility submits in TRI-MEweb, the burden estimates are accrued at the facility level.
EPA also estimated burden for form completion activities. Options 1 and 2 codify element definitions only and do not affect the number of form elements or their data type, and as such, no incremental burden is incurred for these regulatory options. Option 3 adds two data elements to Part I, Section 5 for the foreign parent entity. Incremental reporting burden is calculated by addition of the same reporting burden in the RBBM as Part I, Sections 5.1 and 5.2. The first-year burden is calculated using the RBBM as 0.16 minutes of management time per form and 20 minutes technical time per firm. Steady state burden only requires management time for reviewing purposes (0.16 minutes per form) since the information will already be recorded in TRI-MEweb.
The incremental costs potentially incurred by industry are estimated using the weighted average wage rate (WAWR), representing the average loaded cost for a mix of Managerial, Technical, and Clerical labor per hour of TRI reporter burden. The WAWR is calculated using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (2021), updated quarterly, and is equal to $66.84 (in 2020 dollars).
Tables 1 and 2 present the total incremental industry burden and cost, respectively, of the final rule in the first year of the rule and in the steady state, for Option 3.

Table 1 	First Year and Steady State Incremental Industry Burden

                                   Activity
                               Option 3 (hours)
 First Year
Rule Familiarization
                                    10,729

Form Completion
                                     7,362

Total
                                    18,091
 Steady State
Rule Familiarization
                                       0

Form Completion
                                      210

Total
                                      210

Table 2 	First Year and Steady State Incremental Industry Cost

                                   Activity
                                   Option 3
First Year
Rule Familiarization
                                                                       $717,126

Form Completion
                                                                       $492,076

Total
                                                                     $1,209,202
Steady State
Rule Familiarization
                                                                             $0

Form Completion
                                                                        $14,020

Total
                                                                        $14,020

Table 3 shows Option 3's estimated unit burden by activity (rule familiarization, form completion), reporting period, and labor category.

Table 3		Estimated Unit Burden by Activity, Period, Regulatory Option, and Labor Category
                                   Activity
                                Labor Category
            Option 3: U.S. and Foreign Parent Company Data Elements

                            First Year Burden (min)
                           Steady State Burden (min)
Rule Familiarization (Per Facility)
Management
                                       5
                                       0

Technical
                                      25
                                       0

Clerical
                                       0
                                       0
Report Completion
(Per Facility)
Management
                                       0
                                       0

Technical
                                      20
                                       0

Clerical
                                       0
                                       0
Report Completion
(Per Form)
Management
                                     0.16
                                     0.16

Technical
                                       0
                                       0

Clerical
                                       0
                                       0
Total
Management (Per Facility)
                                       5
                                       0

Technical (Per Facility)
                                      45
                                       0

Clerical
(Per Facility)
                                       0
                                       0

Management (Per Form)
                                     0.16
                                     0.16

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).
 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

There are no specific capital and operation and maintenance costs associated directly with this information collection activity.

14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

For the TRI program in general, EPA incurs burden and costs to process TRI forms in five categories of activities: data processing, outreach and training, information dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement. The estimate of EPA burden and costs is separated into a fixed component and a variable component. Activities and expenses that are not greatly affected by marginal changes in reporting quantities are considered fixed costs. These activities and expenses include rent for the EPCRA Reporting Center, development costs for data access tools, compliance assistance measures, and other activities and expenses listed above. There are no additional fixed costs to the Agency associated with the final rule. Activities and expenses that vary with marginal changes in the number of reports submitted are considered variable costs. The primary variable cost analyzed in this analysis is the cost of processing forms. Because the final rule does not change the number of forms submitted, there is no additional variable costs to the Agency associated with the final rule.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the burden worksheet.

The incremental reporting burden per form for the addition of two data elements to Part I, Section 5 for the foreign parent entity is calculated by addition of the same reporting burden in the RBBM as Part I, Section 5.1. Steady state burden only requires management time for reviewing purposes since the information will already be recorded in TRI-MEweb. The resulting reporting burden will increase by 0.16 minutes per reporting form.
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Not applicable.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Not applicable.

18. Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.

Supplemental Information
The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average approximately 0.28 hours annually per respondent over the three-year period. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, "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. For this collection it includes the time needed to review and understand instructions; prepare and submit reports (including searching data sources); complete and review the collection of information; transmit the information; and keep records.
 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-OPPT-2018-0155, which is available at http://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.
You can also provide comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget via http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review -- Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
All comments received by EPA will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Please note that due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
List of Attachments
The attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR or by using the hyperlink that is provided in the list below. The docket for this ICR is accessible electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT_2018-0155.

Ref.
Title
1.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313  and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act
2.
Final Rule
3.
Toxics Release Inventory Sample 2020 Form R https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/guideme_ext/guideme_ext/guideme/file/ry_2020_form_r.pdf
4.
Toxics Release Inventory Sample 2020 Form R Schedule 1 https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/guideme_ext/guideme_ext/guideme/file/ry_2020_form_r_schedule_1.pdf
5.
Toxics Release Inventory Sample 2020 Form A
https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/guideme_ext/guideme_ext/guideme/file/ry_2020_form_a.pdf

References
Abt Associates Inc. (2004). Abt Associates Engineering Study (TRI Reporting Burden Estimates).
Heiden Associates. (1989). Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - December 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03202018.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology.  Retrieved from: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/136321RatioBasedMethodology.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting for Facilities Located in Indian Country Final Rule.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Parent Company Definition for TRI Reporting. Available at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0155.


[Federal Register: October 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59747]
[DOCID:fr13oc05-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-698-000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

October 5, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 30, 2005, Williston Basin Interstate
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing as part of its
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No.
358I, to become effective September 30, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5637 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21704-21705]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0051]

Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information
Collection: Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval, and invites public comment. This ICR will enable
FMCSA to document the burden associated with the marking regulations
codified in 49 CFR 390.21, ``Marking of Self-Propelled CMVs and
Intermodal Equipment.'' These regulations require marking of vehicles
and intermodal equipment by motor carriers, freight forwarders and
intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) engaging in interstate
transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2013-0051 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement for
the Federal Docket Management System published in the Federal Register
on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Kelly, Chief, Compliance
Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
authorized to require marking of vehicles and intermodal equipment by
motor carriers, freight forwarders and intermodal equipment providers
(IEPs) engaging in interstate transportation under the 49 U.S.C.
31133(a)(8) and 49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(10). The Secretary has delegated
authority pertaining to the marking of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
pursuant to 49 CFR 1.87(f). The Agency's regulation governing the
marking of CMVs is at 49 CFR 390.21.
    Vehicle marking requirements are intended to ensure that FMCSA, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and State safety officials
are able to identify motor carriers and correctly assign responsibility
for regulatory violations during inspections, investigations,
compliance reviews, and

crash studies. These marking requirements will also provide the public
with beneficial information that could also assist in identifying
carriers for the purposes of commerce, complaints or emergency
notification. The marking requirements apply to motor carriers, freight
forwarders and intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) engaging in
interstate transportation. The Agency does not require a specific
method of marking as long as the marking complies with FMCSA's
regulations.
    Title: Marking of Self-Propelled CMVs and Intermodal Equipment.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-XXXX.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Respondents: Freight carrying commercial motor carriers, Passenger
carrying commercial motor carriers, and intermodal equipment providers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 191,000.
    Estimated Time per Response: 26 minutes [12 minutes to affix DOT
Number + 14 minutes for affixing a carrier's name = 26].
    Expiration Date: N/A.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 655,000 [620,000 hours for
freight carrying commercial carriers + 26,000 hours for passenger
carrying commercial motor carriers + 9,000 hours for intermodal
equipment providers (IEPs) = 655,000].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued on: April 2, 2013.
G. Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-08481 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P