[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 9836]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-17-000]

Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Valley Lateral Project

    On November 13, 2015, Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
(Millennium) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-17-000 requesting
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural
gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Valley
Lateral Project (Project), and would provide approximately 130,000
dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation service to CPV
Valley, LLC to serve a new natural gas combined-cycle electric
generator in the Town of Wawayanda, New York (CPV Valley Energy
Center).
    On November 30, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--May 9, 2016
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--August 7, 2016

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Millennium proposes to construct, install, own, and maintain the
proposed Valley Lateral Project, which would involve construction of an
approximately 7.9-mile, 16-inch diameter lateral pipeline from
Millennium's existing mainline in Orange County, New York to the CPV
Valley Energy Center. The Project would also involve construction of a
new meter station within the CPV Valley Energy Center property, and pig
launcher and receiver facilities.

Background

    On July 6, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Valley Lateral
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI
was issued during the pre-filing review of the Project in Docket No.
PF15-23-000 and was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and
local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission
received comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and 48 comments from individual stakeholders. The primary issues raised
by commentors are purpose and need, land use, visual impacts,
vegetation and wildlife, cumulative impacts, alternatives, air quality
and climate change, safety, and socioeconomic impacts.
    The EPA and New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP16-17), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued
by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: February 19, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04144 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

	1(a)	Title of the Information Collection
Confidentiality Rules (Renewal) EPA ICR No. 1665.14, OMB Control No 2020-0003.

1(b)	Short Characterization (Abstract)

The U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) established the requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 2.201 et seq. "Confidentiality of Business Information" to establish rules to govern claims of confidential business information (CBI), i.e., the  rules governing the handling  by the Agency of business information which is or may be entitled to confidential treatment, determining whether such information is entitled to confidential treatment for reasons of business confidentiality and responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 for this information.

This request to renew an existing information collection request (ICR) allows the Agency to continue collecting information the Agency requires to make final determinations regarding whether information claimed as confidential is entitled to confidential treatment under EPA's CBI regulations 40 C.F.R. § 2.201 et seq., which sets forth:

 the procedures industry must follow to assert and justify confidentiality claims;
 the procedures EPA must follow in reviewing business information claimed as confidential; notifying and providing affected businesses with an opportunity to comment; reviewing industry substantiations; making final confidentiality determinations; and
 the requirement for signing and maintaining confidentiality agreements by all contractor/subcontractor employees who are given access to confidential information in the course of performing work for EPA.

The Agency collects such information from businesses asserting CBI claims, which may include state or local governments.

OMB Terms of Clearance

In a previous ICR renewal, OMB had these terms of clearance, "Prior to resubmission of this request for extension, the Agency should reassess burden taking into account recent experience of respondents and changes in EPA's reporting programs.  In addition, the Agency should describe its method for estimating burden."

In Fall 2016, EPA responded to OMB's terms of clearance by obtaining burden information from firms that prepare responses to the Agency's requests for information to substantiate CBI claims.  To update EPA's 2016 analysis and obtain current burden estimates, in Fall 2019, EPA contacted additional firms that, on behalf of their clients, prepare responses to the Agency's requests for information to substantiate CBI claims.  The burden estimates contained herein are predicated on the recent input from the firms identified in Section 3(c) of this document and input from EPA staff involved in the substantiation process.  The Agency's method for estimating burden is discussed in Section 6, page 9.

 2.     Need For and Use of the Collection

 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

 EPA administers several environmental protection statutes, e.g., the Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.  Environmental information is submitted by the regulated industry to EPA in accordance with the requirements of regulations issued under these statutes.  Information is also submitted to the Agency voluntarily by the regulated industry.  In many instances, the information received by the Agency is claimed as CBI by the submitter.

 Substantiation of Confidentiality Claims

In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 2.201 et seq. when EPA finds it necessary to make a final confidentiality determination (e.g., to respond to a FOIA request or in the course of rulemaking or litigation), it may provide the affected business written notice that EPA is determining whether the information claimed as CBI is entitled to confidential treatment and afford the business an opportunity to comment [i.e., substantiate its confidential filing(s)].  See 40 C.F.R. §§ 2.204, 2.205.  The notice is furnished by certified mail (return receipt requested), by personal delivery, or by other means which allows verification of the delivery and date of receipt.  The business must comment on the items detailed under Section 4(b) of this supporting statement within 15 days of receipt.

 The procedures laid out in 40 C.F.R. § 2.201 et seq. derive their authority from the FOIA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552; the Trade Secrets Act, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 1905; the Federal housekeeping statute, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 301; the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended; 5 U.S.C. § 551, et seq.; and the confidentiality provisions of environmental statutes administered by EPA, as follows:

     Sections 114, 206, 208, 301, and 307, Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 7414, 7525, 7542, 7601, 7607)
     Sections 308, 501, and 509(a), Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. §§ 1318, 1361, 1369(a))
     Section 13, Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4912)
     Sections 1445 and 1450, Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 300j - 4, 300j-9)
     Sections 2002, 3001, 3007, and 9005, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 6912, 6921, 6927, 6991d)
     Sections 8(c), 11, 12(b), and 14, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended (15 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2607(c), 2610, 2611(b), 2613)
     Sections 10, 12, and 25, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, (7 U.S.C. §§ 136h, 136j, 136w)
     Section 408(i), Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. § 346a(i))
     Sections104(f) and 108, Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. §§ 1414(f), 1418)
     Sections104 and 115, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 9604, 9615)

	2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

 EPA will use information provided to substantiate CBI claims by industry to inform the Agency's determination as to whether the information claimed as CBI is entitled to confidential treatment; whether the Agency needs to make a formal confidentiality determination; and/or whether the information in question can be withheld pursuant to Exemption 4 of FOIA when a FOIA request has been filed for the information.

 3.	Non-Duplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria

 3(a)	Non-Duplication

 This information is not collected elsewhere from businesses.

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

 EPA published a notice of the renewal of the existing ICR for confidentiality rules in the Federal Register on January 23, 2020 (85 FR 3910) and invited public comment.  No comments were received.

 3(c)	Consultations

 To update its burden estimates, EPA consulted with the following businesses.  These businesses are subject to the environmental statutes administered by EPA and prepare CBI substantiations.  Input from the firms below (and the named individuals) was used to determine whether the burden to businesses who must prepare CBI substantiations had changed since the issuance of the last ICR.

            Marcia Levinson
            Covestro
<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Adam Bickel
            BASF
<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Jonathan Gerber
            3M
<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Timmery Fitzpatrick
            Senior Environmental Attorney
            Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.
            Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.
            42 Longwater Drive
            P.O. Box 9149
            Norwell, MA 02061
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
            Stephen Mandracchia,
            Vice President Legal & Regulatory
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>

          Susan M. Whalen, Esq.
          2806 Alta Street, P.O. Box 938
          Los Olivos, CA  93441

 	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

 These information collection requests are one-time collections regarding individual claims of CBI.  The one-time collection of information related to individual claims of CBI ensures that the Agency meets statutory and regulatory requirements to protect confidential information under statutes listed in Section 2(a) of this document, including the FOIA, while also enabling EPA to release to the public information not entitled to confidential treatment.  If EPA does not collect such information, then EPA will not have all information that EPA needs to complete confidentiality determinations, such as information regarding actions the submitter takes to protect the information that is claimed to be CBI.

 	3(e)	General Guidelines

 Only one provision of this collection exceeds the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines at 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(2).  This collection calls for responses to be furnished to EPA within 15 working days after the business receives the letter requesting substantiation.  Under 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(2)(ii), EPA must justify why the response needs to be prepared within a period shorter than 30 days after receipt of the collection.  In the context of addressing the time frame for determinations under the FOIA, EPA "tentatively" determined that 15 days is "a reasonable period for the business to furnish comments and substantiating data concerning its claim."  40 FR 21987, 21988, 21989 (May 20, 1975) and 41 FR 36902, 36908 (Sept. 1, 1976).  EPA has found through experience in the years since these regulations were promulgated (40 C.F.R. § 2.204(e)) that 15 days fits well with the general timetable of FOIA responses.

 	3(f)	Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

      1.  Confidentiality

         Under EPA's current CBI regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 2.201 et seq., respondents may claim substantiations submitted to EPA as CBI.

      2.  Sensitive Questions

         Not applicable.  This information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature.  Only the information returned by the respondents may be of a sensitive nature.

 4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

 	4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

 Respondents can potentially include any business that submitted to EPA information that may be claimed as CBI.  Respondents can be entities in both the manufacturing (SIC codes 20-39) and non-manufacturing sectors (no SIC codes identified).

 	4(b)	Information Requested

    A.	Substantiation of business confidentiality claims

 Whenever EPA finds it necessary to determine whether information is entitled to confidential treatment (e.g., in response to a FOIA request or in connection with rulemaking or litigation, or with regard to an advance confidentiality determination under 40 C.F.R. §§ 2.204(a), (c) and (d), 2.206), it may notify affected businesses orally and in writing and provide them with an opportunity to comment (40 C.F.R. § 2.204(e)).

 With this ICR renewal, EPA is proposing to use the five attached "Request for Substantiation" letters.  The letters address different situations which, under 40 C.F.R. § 2.203(a), require or allow EPA to determine the confidentiality of information claimed CBI:  Letter A addresses the situation where information claimed as CBI in EPA possession is responsive to a FOIA request.  Letter B requests a generic substantiation for other contexts in which EPA may need to determine whether information is entitled to confidential treatment or foresees the likelihood that the Agency will be requested to disclose the information at some future date.  Letter C covers FOIA requests for FIFRA records.  Letter D is for FIFRA not related to a FOIA request.  Letter E is related to TSCA.

 		1.	Data Items

 The written notice from EPA (40 C.F.R. §§ 2.204(e)(1) and (4)) invites the business's comments (substantiation) on the following:

            (i)	The portions of the information which are alleged to be entitled to confidential treatment;
            (ii)	The period of time for which confidential treatment is desired by the business (e.g., until a certain date, until the occurrence of a specified event, or permanently);
            (iii)	The reasons why the information should be protected as confidential;
            (iv)	Whether EPA, another federal agency, or court has made any determination as to the confidentiality of the information;
         	(v)	Whether measures have been taken by the business to guard against undesired disclosure of the information to others;
         	(vi)	The extent to which the information has been disclosed to others, and the
                precautions taken in connection therewith;
            (vii)	Whether the business has customarily kept the information private or closely held;
            (viii)	Whether, at the time the information was submitted, EPA provided any express or implied assurance of confidentiality;
            (ix) 	Whether EPA provided any expressed or implied indications at the time the information was submitted that EPA would publicly disclose the information;
            (x)	The reasons for any belief that submitted information is a trade secret;
            (xi)	Whether there are means by which a member of the public could obtain access to the information or readily discover the information; and
            (ix)	Whether the information is data or information that is prohibited from protection under a regulation or statute.

 		2.	Respondent Activities

 To respond to the written notice, the respondent must:

          Read EPA's request for comments;
          Review the information it claimed as confidential; and
          Respond in one of two ways:
                Justify the CBI claim by substantiating the CBI claims to EPA; or
                Waive the CBI claim by deciding not to submit the substantiation to EPA.

    B.	Designation by Business of Addressee for Notices and Inquiries

 Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.213, a business may elect to designate an official contact for inquiries and notices concerning confidentiality claims.

 Data Items

 Name and address of the business making the designation, and the name and address of the designated person or office.

 Respondent Activities

 To review subject materials and decide whether to respond to EPA's request for comments.

 5.	The Information Collected  -  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

 	5(a)	Agency Activities

         1.	Review and identify whether business information may be claimed as CBI.  This review is completed by the affected program office, and it may be undertaken in response to a FOIA request or when EPA desires to determine the confidentiality of information within its possession for other purposes (e.g., rulemaking, litigation or an advance confidentiality determination).  It would involve determining whether a business confidentiality claim exists or whether a Federal court or an EPA legal office has previously determined that the information in question is entitled to treatment as CBI.

         2.	Notify the affected business orally and in writing that the Agency is determining the confidentiality of the information and provide the business with an opportunity to comment.

         3.	Review the substantiation received (if any) and make a final determination whether the business information in question is entitled to confidential treatment.  This determination will be made by the appropriate EPA legal office as described in 40 C.F.R. § 2.205.  Not all businesses choose to substantiate their CBI claims.

 	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

 The types of information that are requested are described under Section 4(b) above.  EPA may notify affected businesses in writing that it is determining the confidentiality of information they have submitted and affords them the opportunity to comment.  Affected businesses may submit comments by the date specified in the notice (i.e., postmarked or hand delivered no later than the specified date); or if a request for an extension of the comment period is made by the business and approved by the EPA legal office before the comments are due, the comment period may be extended (40 C.F.R. § 2.205(b) (2)).

 Information claimed as CBI that is submitted to EPA is protected in accordance with the policies and procedures discussed in (1) Interim Records Management Policy, CIO 2155.4 (Aug. 22, 2018); (2) Information Security Policy, CIO 2150.5 (Aug. 27, 2019); and (3) information security procedures issued by EPA organizations with statutory authority for the information [e.g., EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention developed specific procedures for protecting the confidentiality of information obtained under the TSCA and FIFRA].

 	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

 EPA does not have the flexibility to waive the need for substantiations from small entities for several reasons: (1) EPA is required to disclose information that is requested under the FOIA, unless the information is specifically exempt; (2) if EPA discloses information that is entitled to confidential treatment, the Federal government could potentially be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act and individual Federal employees could be subject to criminal liability under the Trade Secrets Act and other statutes; and (3) the submitter of the information is in the best position to explain why particular information should be entitled to confidential treatment.

 	5(d)	Collection Schedule

 The request for substantiations occurs on a case-by-case basis, as needed.

 6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

 	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

 The burden estimates were developed after consultations with the firms identified under Section 3(c), above and adjusted based on changes EPA is making in the information that will be requested, as described more fully in Section 6(d) below.

    A.	Substantiation of confidentiality claims

 Although EPA receives numerous FOIA requests for information that is claimed as CBI each year, many of the requests do not require EPA to request a full substantiation from the affected business(es).  EPA may find that a federal court or EPA legal office has previously determined that the information in question is entitled to confidential treatment; or, after consulting with an individual who requested information under the FOIA, the Agency may be able to provide the information that is of most interest to the requester without disclosing any CBI.  In these cases, no request for substantiation is issued.

 In accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 C.F.R. § 2.201 et seq. the Agency notifies approximately 300 businesses annually that it is making a final confidentiality determination on information the business has previously claimed as CBI (or which could be expected to be CBI) is being made, and provide them with an opportunity to submit comments explaining why previously submitted information should be treated as confidential.  Each affected business has an opportunity to submit comments explaining why the information should be protected.

 	6(b) 	Estimating Respondents Cost

 In EPA's previous analysis, EPA noted that only approximately 21% of the businesses submitted comments in response to EPA's requests for substantiation.  As explained in Section 6(d) below, EPA anticipates that the response rate will increase based on recent annual submissions in the past reporting period.  EPA estimates that approximately 66% or 198 of the 300 businesses will submit comments to EPA in response to EPA's requests for substantiation.  In the past, on average, each respondent spent approximately 5.6 hours on responding to each substantiation request.  As explained in Section 6(d) below, EPA expects that each respondent will spend approximately 2 hours less time, or a total of 3.8 hours, on responding to each substantiation request using EPA's revised form.

         Burden hours for 198 respondents = 752.4 hours

 EPA estimates the cost per substantiation to be approximately $855.00, which includes reviewing the information, preparing the response, and mailing the response back to the Agency at the average rate of $225/hr.  The average rate is based on the survey responses received from the firms listed in Section 2(c) and includes the cost multiplier or overhead.

         Burden cost for respondents = $169,290.

 	6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

 The burden on EPA to evaluate CBI claims, notify affected businesses, and make final confidentiality determinations varies depending on the complexity of the claim.  In some cases, the information that industry claims as confidential is specific and easily identified; yet in other cases, entire reports may be claimed as CBI.  In the latter case, a significant amount of time may be required to review the information in question.  In other cases, EPA may be able to satisfy a FOIA request without going through the entire substantiation process, if after conferring with a requestor, the Agency is able to provide the information of interest without releasing CBI.

 (EPA estimates that of the 300 letters mailed to businesses, approximately 198 businesses will respond.)

 Initial Activities

 Burden hours: Based on experience, EPA estimates that on average, it requires approximately 3 hours (2 attorney hrs. 1 clerical hr.) to conduct an initial review of a confidentiality claim and prepare and mail a substantiation to a submitter.

 Burden costs:  Burden costs are estimated to be $262.54 per letter ($65.88 attorney hr. @ GS-14, Step 5, multiplied by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6.; and $32.33 clerical hr. @ GS-9, Step 5, multiplied by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6).

 Total burden to review the subject information and prepare 300 substantiation requests annually = 900 hours at a total labor cost of $78,763.20.

 Making Confidentiality Determinations

 Burden hours: After industry comments are received, approximately 8 hours (6 attorney hrs. and 2 technical hrs.) are required to review the comments and determine whether the information that is claimed as confidential is indeed entitled to confidential treatment.

 Burden costs:  Burden costs to review and make final confidentiality determinations on each response is estimated to be $810.85 ($65.88 attorney hr. @ GS-14, Step 5, multiplied by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6; and $55.75 technical hr. @ GS-13, Step 5, multiplied by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6).

 Total burden to review and to make final confidentiality determinations on 198 substantiations = 1,584 hours at a total labor cost of $160,547.90.

 The total Agency burden to perform initial activities with substantiation requests submitted to 300 businesses and to make final confidentiality determinations on 198 responses = 2,484 hours at a total labor cost of $239,311.10 annually.

 6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

 Task
 Activity
 Burden Hours
 Total Annual Burden Hours
 Burden Costs
 Total Annual Burden Costs
                                     AGENCY
 Perform Initial activities
 Review, preliminary determination & mail 300 substantiation letters

 3 hours per letter
 900
 $262.54
  per letter
 $78,763.20

 Make final confidentiality determinations
 Review comments and make final confidentiality determination on 198 responses
 8 hours per letter
 1,584
 $810.85
  per response
 $160,547.90
 Overall Agency Burden
 2,484

 $239,311.10
                                  RESPONDENTS
 Respond to request from EPA
 198

 3.8 hours per substantiation
 752.4
 (3.8 hrs x 198 respondents)
 $855.00
  per substantiation
 $169,290.00
 ($855.00 x 198)

 Overall Respondent Burden
 752.4

 $169,290.00

 Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

 Variations in the annual burden on EPA and respondents could potentially occur due to changes in:

   the number of FOIA requests that EPA receives for information that has been claimed as confidential;
   the number of times that EPA determines that a formal confidentiality determination is necessary and notifies affected businesses, providing them with an opportunity to comment; or
   the number of times that affected businesses decide to submit CBI claims and substantiations.

 At this time, EPA does not foresee any significant changes in the annual burdens outlined above.

 	6(e)	Changes in Burden Estimate

 The revised requests for substantiation will decrease the estimated burden hours for each response, although it increases the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.  The decrease is 2 hours for each business response; the increase is based on an expected higher response rate under the new form, producing an increase from 488 hours to 752.4 hours total.  This decrease of hours spent are due to the removal of a question that required a company to describe, with specificity, the "substantial competitive harm" that would occur as a direct result of disclosing the information.

 EPA modified its substantiation questions because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media (Argus), 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019), which evaluated the definition of "confidential" as used in Exemption 4 of the FOIA.  5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).  In the Argus decision, the Court held that at least where "[1] commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and [2] provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is `confidential' within the meaning of Exemption 4."  Argus, 139 S. Ct. at 2366.  EPA has reduced burdens to business submitters by removing the requirement to explain with specificity whatever "substantial competitive harm" a submitter claims would ensue from release of each CBI claim.  The evaluation of "substantial competitive harm" had required businesses to analyze and describe the potential impacts of release.  EPA has replaced that question with modified questions that require a factual description of the submitter's handling and treatment of the CBI-claimed information, as well as a description of any assurances provided by EPA at the time of submission.  This replacement will reduce the burden on companies since evaluation and analysis of "substantial competitive harm" is no longer required.  Further, EPA reframed preexisting questions to solicit "yes" or "no" responses, which further reduces burdens on submitters.  These modifications will result in greater clarity to business submitters and improved responses as the Agency completes its confidentiality determinations.

 The Agency anticipates that this lower burden on each response will increase the response rate from 21% in the prior analysis to 66% in the present analysis.  EPA has already experienced an increase in response rate because of the Supreme Court's decision and expects this change to continue under the new form.  EPA also made other adjustments in its analysis including adjustments in the hourly costs for both the Agency and responding companies as well as removing a category of burden that was not relevant to EPA's information request.

 	6(f)	Burden Statement

 The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about 3.8 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; processing and maintaining information; adjusting approaches to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; searching data sources; completing and reviewing the collection of information; and transmitting or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 C.F.R. part 9 and 48 C.F.R. chapter 15.

 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2020-0020, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  Once in the system, select "search," then key in the docket ID number identified above.  Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (EPA-HQ-OGC-2020-0020) and OMB control number (2020-0003) in any correspondence.


[Federal Register: May 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 20355-20356]
[DOCID:fr01my09-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 11a-2; SEC File No. 270-267; OMB Control No. 3235-0272.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 11a-2 (17 CFR 270.11a-2) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) permits certain registered insurance
company separate accounts, subject to certain conditions, to make
exchange offers without prior approval by the Commission of the terms
of those offers. Rule 11a-2 requires disclosure, in certain
registration statements filed pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) of any administrative fee or sales load imposed
in connection with an exchange offer.

    There are currently 743 registrants governed by Rule 11a-2. The
Commission includes the estimated burden of complying with the
information collection required by Rule 11a-2 in the total number of
burden hours estimated for completing the relevant registration
statements and reports the burden of Rule 11a-2 in the separate PRA
submissions for those registration statements (see the separate PRA
submissions for Form N-3 (17 CFR 274.11b), Form N-4 (17 CFR 274.11c)
and Form N-6 (17 CFR 274.11d)). The Commission is requesting a burden
of one hour for Rule 11a-2 for administrative purposes.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules or forms. With regard to Rule 11a-2, the Commission
includes the estimate of burden hours in the total number of burden
hours estimated for completing the relevant registration statements and
reported on the separate PRA submissions for those statements (see the
separate PRA submissions for Form N-3, Form N-4 and Form N-6). The
information collection requirements imposed by Rule 11a-2 are
mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept
confidential.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: April 23, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10014 Filed 4-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 7189]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-65-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

February 2, 2011.
    Take notice that on January 21, 2011 Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI), 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed in Docket
No. CP11-65-000, a Prior Notice request pursuant to Sections 157.205
and 157.208 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
for authorization to replace approximately 3.07 miles of certain
pipeline facilities located in Tompkins, Cortland, Madison, Oneida,
Herkimer, and Schenectady Counties, New York. Specifically, DTI
proposes to replace using a ``lift and lay'' construction technique
2.07 miles of the 16- and 20-inch diameter LN-30 pipeline and
approximately 0.37 mile of the 30-inch diameter LN-550 pipeline. The
LN-30 pipeline will be replaced at nine separate sites and the LN-550
will be replaced at two sites, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Brad
Knisley, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst, Dominion Transmission,
Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or call (804)
771-4412, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2808 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13714-13716]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04903]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0132; FRL-10020-72]

Cryolite and Propazine; Notice of Receipt of Request to
Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests
by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations.
These requests would terminate the last cryolite and propazine products
registered in the

United States. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the
comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives
substantive comments within the comment period that would merit further
review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their
requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use
of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the
registration has been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use
is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0132, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
    Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001. ATTN: Carolyn Smith.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Smith, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from
registrants to cancel eight pesticide products registered under FIFRA
section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These
registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company
number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.
    Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments
that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw
their requests, EPA intends to issue orders in the Federal Register
canceling all of the affected registrations.

      Table 1--Registrations With Pending Requests for Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Registration No.            Product name        Chemical name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10163-41......................  Prokil Cryolite    Cryolite.
                                 96.
10163-225.....................  Gowan Cryolite     Cryolite.
                                 Bait.
10163-242.....................  Prokil Cryolite    Cryolite.
                                 75-Dust.
10163-243.....................  Prokil Cryolite    Cryolite.
                                 50-Dust.
42750-148.....................  Propazine 4L.....  Propazine.
42750-149.....................  Propazine          Propazine.
                                 Technical.
91813-32......................  Kryocide           Cryolite.
                                 Insecticide.
FL000011......................  Prokil Cryolite    Cryolite.
                                 96.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the
EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.

         Table 2--Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             EPA company No.                 Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10163...................................  Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569,
                                           Yuma, AZ 85366.
42750...................................  Albaugh, LLC, P.O. Box 2127,
                                           Valdosta, GA 31604-2127.
91813...................................  UPL NA, Inc., 630 Freedom
                                           Business Ctr., #402, King of
                                           Prussia, PA 19406.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a
registrant of a pesticide product may, at any time, request that any of
its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that,
before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of
any such request in the Federal Register.
    Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that
before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide
a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary
cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C)
(7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment
period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any
minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrant requests a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the
pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II have requested that EPA waive
the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day
comment period on the proposed requests.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation
should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the products have been subject to a
previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and
all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are
controlling.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
that are currently in the United States and that were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant
potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon
cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II, EPA
anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks
of the cryolite products listed in Table 1 of Unit II for 18 months
after publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal Register,
and EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute
existing stocks of the propazine products listed in Table 1 of Unit II
for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation Order in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or
distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II, except
for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for
proper disposal. Persons other than registrants will generally be
allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks until such stocks
are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is
consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or
that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 4, 2021.
Mary Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-04903 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7545-7549]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0096]

Request for Approval of a New Information Collection

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the OMB for review and comment.
A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on
November 27, 2017.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For programmatic issues, contact
Barbara Sauers, Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NRO-011,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues and background information,
contact Roland (R.T.) Baumann III, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
300, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA sought public comment
on the following proposed collection of information for which the
agency is seeking approval from OMB:
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Title: State Highway Safety Grant Programs.
    Form Numbers: N/A (Highway Safety Plan, Annual Report, Assessment).
    Type of Review: New Collection.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Abstract: In response to the 60-day notice, the following groups
submitted comments to the public docket on www.regulations.gov:
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and a joint submission by
the Departments of Transportation of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota and Wyoming (5-State DOTs). Both groups offered comments
on State obligations related to the grant application and assessment
requirements under the collection of information. These comments
included examples of burden hours and costs associated with meeting the
requirements. These comments are addressed in the agency's response
below.
    The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST), Public Law
114-94, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to issue highway safety grants to States under Chapter 4 of
Title 23, U.S.C. Specifically, these grant programs include the Highway
Safety Program grants (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402), the National
Priority Safety Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 405) and a
separate grant on racial profiling data collection contained in a
previous authorization that was revised and restored under the FAST Act
(Pub. L. 109-59, Sec. 1906 or Section 1906, as amended by Sec. 4011,
Pub. L. 114-94).
    For all of these grants, as directed in statute, NHTSA uses a
consolidated application process that relies on the Highway Safety Plan
(HSP) States submit under the Section 402 program as a single
application. The information required to be submitted for these grants
includes the HSP, consisting of information on the highway safety
planning process, performance report, performance plan, problem
identification, highway safety countermeasure strategies, planned
activities and funding amounts, certifications and assurances, and
application materials that cover Section 405 grants and the
reauthorized Section 1906 grant.\1\ States also must submit an annual
report evaluating their progress in achieving performance targets. In
addition, as part of the statutory criteria for Section 405 grants
covering the areas of occupant protection, traffic safety information
system improvements and impaired driving countermeasures, States may be
required to receive assessments of their State programs in order to
receive a grant. States must provide information and respond to
questions as part of the assessment process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 405 grants cover the following: Occupant Protection
Grants; State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants;
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (including Alcohol-Ignition
Interlock Grants and 24-7 Sobriety Program Grants); Distracted
Driving Grants; Motorcyclist Safety Grants; State Graduated Driver
Licensing Incentive Grants; and Nonmotorized Safety Grants. Section
1906 is a separate racial profiling data collection grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the statute, NHTSA recently issued a Final Rule (83
FR 3466, Jan. 25, 2018) that creates uniform procedures for States to
apply for grant funds. These procedures specify the information that is
required to be submitted to receive a grant and the type of information
required to verify performance under the grants. Under these efforts,
NHTSA has taken actions to streamline the required application
procedures, including the expanded use of an electronic submission
process identified as the Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS).
This system will replace the current grants management tracking system
and allow States to apply for and receive grants electronically.
Implementation is scheduled to occur after several participating States
have completed system usability testing, and NHTSA has reviewed and
considered any feedback provided. With the application requirements set
as part of the issuance of the Final Rule, this process addresses the
burden estimates covering hours and costs associated with meeting the
established application requirements. Separately, it addresses the
burden estimates covering the assessment process required under three
of the individual grant programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under occupant protection grants, one criterion that a State
with a lower belt use rate may use to get a grant is to complete an
assessment of its occupant protection program once every three years
(23 U.S.C. Sec.  405(b)(3)(B)(ii)(VI)(aa)) and another criterion is
a comprehensive occupant protection program that includes a program
assessment conducted every five years as one of its elements (23
U.S.C. 405(b)(3)(B)(ii)(V)(aa), 23 CFR 1300.21(e)(5)(i)). Under
traffic safety system information system improvement grants, a State
must have an assessment of its highway safety data and traffic
records system once every 5 years in order to receive a grant (23
U.S.C. 405(c)(3)(E)). Under impaired driving countermeasure grants,
a State with high average impaired driving fatality rates must have
an assessment of its impaired driving program once every 3 years in
order to receive a grant (23 U.S.C. 405(d)(3)(C)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: As noted above, the statute provides that the HSP is the
application basis for grants each fiscal year. The information is
necessary to determine whether a State satisfies the Federal criteria
for grant awards. The annual report tracks progress in achieving the
aims of the grant program. The information is necessary to verify
performance under the grants and to provide a basis for improvement. As
specified in statute, States may be

required to receive an assessment of certain covered programs. The
information provided by a State allows subject matter experts to
provide recommendations for the purpose of improving the covered grant
area.
    In general, both commenters indicated support for the agency's
collection of information. GHSA stated that it ``strongly supports the
role of a single, unified annual Highway Safety Plan,'' and further
supported ``the use of Annual Reports to document progress on
performance'' and the ``assessment process as a mechanism to help
States improve programs.'' The 5-State DOTs noted separately that
``NHTSA must have an application process and that States must provide
periodic reports.'' However, both commenters requested simplification
of the application requirements contained in the Interim Final Rule
published on May 23, 2016 (81 FR 32554). NHTSA addressed substantially
similar comments from both commenters about the Interim Final Rule
through a separate process that established the Final Rule for these
requirements published on January 25, 2018 (83 FR 3466). In the Final
Rule, NHTSA explained that it adopted some of the commenter's
recommendations, clarified NHTSA expectations about requirements where
the actual burdens were potentially misunderstood, and further
explained the importance of a requirement where a commenter's request
was not adopted. As with the prior effort, NHTSA sought to achieve a
balance between the minimum need to ensure proper stewardship of
Federal funds and the States' need for flexibility and efficiency in
the use of their funds.
    Similarly, for the statutorily-mandated assessments that also are
part of the Final Rule and about which the commenters raise issues,
NHTSA developed the assessment tools through a separate public comment
process. For occupant protection and impaired driving grants, the
assessment tools are identified in the Final Rule as the Highway Safety
Uniform Guidelines that have been in place for many years and are
familiar to all States under the grant program. States use the
guidelines as a basis to develop the Section 402 portion of their HSPs.
For traffic records assessments, NHTSA developed the current approach
based on comments provided by several States and other interested
parties in 2012. Currently, NHTSA is reviewing the traffic records
assessment tool under a separate public comment process that recently
closed. (82 FR 49473, Oct. 25, 2017) We note that both commenters
provided comments to that process as well and their comments are being
considered as part of the agency's overall effort to refine the traffic
records assessment process.
    Estimated Burden: Under the grant application and annual report
requirements for Section 402 grants, with 57 potential respondents, we
estimated that it will take each respondent approximately 240 hours to
collect, review and submit the required information to NHTSA. For
Section 405 grants, with 56 potential respondents, we estimated that it
will take each respondent approximately 180 hours to collect, review
and submit the required information to NHTSA.
    In response to these estimates, both commenters provided anecdotal
examples of time and cost spent by States to meet application
requirements, concluding that the agency underestimated the time
burdens involved. According to GHSA, the examples suggest that NHTSA's
burden estimates ``fall far short of actual time commitments in many
States.'' Separately, the 5-State DOTs commented that ``the burden of
complying with these processes is significantly underestimated by
NHTSA.'' GHSA also acknowledged the difficulty of developing an
estimate across States with ``different size grant programs and
staff.'' We agree that an average may be not reflective of the
experience of some States. However, our view is that the estimates
properly reflect what should be the average time spent on the required
application. As GHSA notes, the estimates suggest that States spend
52.5 days to provide the required HSP and annual report under this
program. In most cases, HSP applications are between 100 and 200 pages
in length and consist of revising or updating a previously produced
document. The agency's estimate is in line with updating and revising a
document of this size over a 50-day period. Recognizing that
variability exists among States, we believe that this is a reasonable
estimate of the average burden. Regardless, we plan to reach out to
GHSA to gain more specific information about the examples provided and
will work with those States that may be spending an excessive amount of
time (and cost) on application activities.
    We note further that, while we appreciate the anecdotal examples
provided, the information provided by the commenters is based on
meeting the prior IFR requirements. States have not yet submitted an
application based on the Final Rule just released, which sought to
reduce burdens where possible. In addition, these comments do not take
into account the more automated application process NHTSA intends to
use this year under GMSS. Although the 5-State DOTs provide their view
that the system will not achieve time savings, we do not agree with the
assessment. As an improvement over the current paperwork-intensive
process, GMSS will align directly with the applicable program
requirements, tying discrete fields within GMSS to the specific
regulatory component. Such an approach should reduce uncertainty about
what level of information must be provided to meet the application
requirements, resulting in increased efficiency in State applications.
Understandably, there may be some additional time spent providing the
necessary application information the first year GMSS operates, but the
system will save the information each year and only require that a
State revise and update information in a succeeding year to apply for a
grant. As stated in the Final Rule, we believe that GMSS will
streamline and simplify the application process, decrease the overall
size of HSPs by eliminating content unnecessary to satisfy statutory
requirements, and reduce duplicative entries related to grants.
    The estimate totals covering hours and costs also are based on the
universe of potential applicants submitting the required information
for every available grant, and in this regard overestimate the burden,
as not all States apply for and receive a grant each year under each of
these programs. In addition, under Section 405 grants, some
requirements permit States to submit a single application covering
multiple years, allowing States to simply recertify in subsequent
years. Considering the agency's steps to streamline the current
submission process, including increased use of prepopulated information
fields in GMSS and greater reliance on electronic submission in
general, we believe that the approach represents the highest possible
burden hours and costs for States submitting the required information.
    NHTSA plans to deploy GMSS as soon as possible. NHTSA recently
worked with GHSA and States on user acceptance testing, making system
enhancements based on the feedback provided as part of the process.\3\
In the future, NHTSA will complete a second round of user acceptance
testing based on States using the enhanced system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In its comments, GHSA recognized that NHTSA included GHSA
and State highway Safety Offices ``as partners in the development
and testing of GMSS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GHSA included within its comments some ``high-level concerns''
about the

system, including that NHTSA provide opportunity for training and
additional technical support during deployment; that the system offer a
template that States can use to organize their application content and
upload data; and that system functionality allow States to produce a
formatted HSP document. In response to these comments, in line with
prior information provided to GHSA, NHTSA plans regular contact with
GHSA and the States throughout GMSS implementation. These activities
include several planned training sessions with States and the
development of an extensive user manual. NHTSA also will provide help
desk services and additional support through its regional offices with
dedicated system experts available in each office. GMSS also will
include system capabilities that cover the ability to accept State
submissions via a template-based system, with capability for bulk
uploads of certain information found in many State e-grant systems.
Finally, the system will be capable of exporting information in a
printed format. We believe these steps will be responsive to the noted
concerns. We plan to have GMSS available to accept application
submissions in late March and will continue to work with States
throughout the system's deployment and use.
    In addition to the application process, this collection also covers
the assessment process that is a requirement of three separate grant
areas under Section 405--occupant protection, impaired driving
countermeasures and traffic safety system improvement grants. For
occupant protection and impaired driving countermeasures grants, we
estimated that it takes 80 hours to respond to questions under an
assessment. For traffic safety information system improvement grants,
we estimated that it takes 165 hours to respond to questions under the
assessment.
    In response to these estimates, the commenters provided anecdotal
examples of time and cost for States responding to assessments. On this
basis, GHSA concluded that the estimates ``do not reflect the time
needed to carry out the assessment.'' Although not specific to the
estimates, the 5-State DOTs added that ``the assessment process for the
programs has become costly and very wide-ranging.'' More specifically,
both commenters shared concerns about the time and cost necessary for a
State to respond to a traffic records assessment. On the basis of these
comments, however, with one exception explained below, we do not
believe that our estimates need to be revised.
    Assessments serve as a critical evaluation of a State's traffic
safety programs, resulting in recommendations from a panel of experts.
Congress has recognized the value of the assessment process as well,
making these statutorily-mandated components of the grant requirements.
Federal grant funds are available to States to defray the costs of
these assessments. While we understand that some grant funds may be
diverted from program uses to support the assessment process (as the 5-
State DOTs assert), a State that continues its same approach without
review may spend funds in inefficient ways or focus on areas that do
not improve traffic safety. Assessments are not carried out on an
annual basis, but rather occur on a 3- or 5-year basis depending on the
statutory requirement. Some anecdotal examples of assessment costs
cited by the commenters may not have taken this into account. For
example, for FY19 grants, NHTSA estimates that only 6 States will need
occupant protection assessments and only 2 States will need traffic
records assessments to qualify for grants. (These States will not need
another assessment for several years.) This is far smaller than the
total number of jurisdictions that are eligible for grants (and smaller
than the average number of assessments per year the agency used to
develop the burden estimates). In addition, the period between
assessments may be even longer if a State improves its performance in
certain grant areas, as the statute identifies the need for assessment
relating to programs such as occupant protection and impaired driving
on the basis of performance in key safety metrics (e.g., seat belt use
rate or average impaired driving fatality rate).
    Separately, both commenters expressed concern about the number of
questions that might be raised during an assessment. Assessments are
intended to be comprehensive and by their nature can entail an
extensive review. Occupant protection and impaired driving
countermeasures assessments do not limit the number of questions that
may be asked but instead set a time limit on the actual process. States
provide background materials in advance, which are reviewed by a team
of experts prior to the assessment, with the actual assessment process
taking place over a single week. States participate in an interview
process (based on the review of background material) during the first
half of the week (2.5 days), with the remaining period spent by the
team of experts producing and presenting recommendations. For these
types of assessments, the agency estimated 80 hours of time needed for
State participation. This covers the background material collection,
responding to questions and participating in interviews during the
assessment week. For traffic records assessments, NHTSA estimated 165
hours of time needed to respond to questions through a web-based
interface. These responses are reviewed by a team of experts
separately, and a final report is provided to the State. NHTSA
developed this estimate based on system usage time by States (i.e.,
records of time logged in to the system). It also presumes that States
have access to a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee--a requirement
of the Section 405 grant statute--that represents each of the traffic
records disciplines in a State. With this mechanism in place, the State
should be able to draw readily on the required expertise to answer the
questions, limiting the amount of time needed to respond. In general,
we expect States to be familiar with their own programs and to be able
to identify the expertise and decision-making authority required for a
response.
    Our estimates do not take into account the possibility that
coordination issues within a State may exist that delay responses.
However, with regard to traffic record assessments, we recognize that
our burden estimates are more than double that of other assessments.
The agency is reviewing this assessment tool under a separate process,
in light of comments received from GHSA, the 5-State DOTs, and other
stakeholders.\4\ We will pay careful attention to issues of burden as
we work to refine that process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The notice seeking public comment on the traffic records
assessment advisory appears at 82 FR 49473, Oct. 25, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on GHSA's comment regarding the costs of on-site assessment
teams used for occupant protection and impaired driving assessments, we
are revising the cost estimates to include the travel, per diem, and
honoraria paid to assessment team members. Although States are allowed
to use Section 402 grant funds to cover these costs, we agree with GHSA
that they should be included in the estimate of overall cost under this
collection of information. Although GHSA's anecdotal examples indicate
that these costs are lower, our estimate is that States spend on
average $25,000 per assessment to cover the costs of the on-site team
members and related expenses. Using thirteen (13) as

the average number of assessments for impaired driving and occupant
protection grants per year, the overall increase in cost would be
$325,000. We have added this amount to the total estimated costs for
the collection.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The total number of respondents is based on every eligible
respondent submitting the required information for every available
grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Estimated Number of Respondents
    The estimated burden hours for the grant application and annual
report part of the collection of information are based on all eligible
respondents each year for each of the grants:
     Section 402 grants: 57 (fifty States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs);
     Section 405 Grants (except Impaired Driving
Countermeasures, Motorcyclist Safety and Nonmotorized Grants) and
Section 1906 Grant: 56 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and
     Section 405, Impaired Driving Countermeasures,
Motorcyclist Safety and Nonmotorized Grants: 52 (fifty States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
    The estimated burden hours for the assessment part of the
collection of information are based on the average number of State
assessments that are carried out each year in each of the covered grant
areas: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Assessment average is based on the total number of
assessments conducted each year divided by the number of years since
the inception of assessment requirements for certain grants under
MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 405, Occupant protection grants: 9 assessments;
     Section 405, Traffic safety information system improvement
grants: 11 assessments; and
     Section 405, Impaired driving countermeasure grants: 4
assessments.
(2) Estimated Hours per Respondent
 Section 402 and 405 Grant Applications/Annual Report: 420
 Occupant Protection Grant Assessments: 80
 Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grant
Assessments: 165
 Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant Assessments: 80
(3) Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 26,615
    Under the grant application and annual report requirements for
Sections 402 and 405, we estimate that it will take each respondent
approximately 420 hours to collect, review and submit the required
information to NHTSA. For traffic safety information system improvement
grants, we estimate that it will take 165 hours to respond to questions
under the assessment. For occupant protection and impaired driving
countermeasures grants, we estimate that it will take 80 hours to
provide the required information and respond to questions under an
assessment. Based on the above information, the estimated annual burden
hours for all respondents are 26,615 hours.
    Assuming the average salary of the individuals preparing the
application materials or assessment responses is $50.00 per hour, the
estimated cost for each respondent to respond is $23,350. If all
eligible States applied for and received grants for all programs (and
including the annual number of assessment responses required from
States), the total labor costs for all respondents would be $1,330,750.
    In addition to these labor costs, NHTSA is revising the total costs
to include the assessment team costs paid for by States under occupant
protection and impaired driving assessments. Annually, these additional
costs are $25,000 per assessment, totaling $325,000 based on the
average estimated number of assessments conducted each year for these
programs. Based on these additional costs, the overall total cost is
revised to be $1,655,750.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44. U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; 5 CFR part 1320; and 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on: February 14, 2018.
Mary D. Gunnels,
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2018-03515 Filed 2-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P