[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42462-42464]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1952

[Docket ID. OSHA 2012-0029]
RIN 1218-AC78

Hawaii State Plan for Occupational Safety and Health; Proposed
Modification of 18(e) Plan Approval

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of opportunity to request informal public hearing;
request for written comments.

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

SUMMARY: Hawaii administers an occupational safety and health state
plan approved by federal OSHA. During the past three years, the state
plan has faced significant budgetary constraints and staffing
challenges, and has requested federal OSHA assistance to ensure that
workers are afforded adequate worker protection during this period. The
Hawaii Director of Labor and Industrial Relations has requested a
temporary modification of the state plan's approval status from final
approval to initial approval, to permit exercise of supplemental
federal enforcement and to allow Hawaii sufficient time and assistance
to strengthen and improve its state plan performance. Hawaii has
pledged to accomplish the necessary corrective action to regain final
approval status in a timely manner. OSHA is soliciting written comments
to ensure that all relevant information, views and data are available
to the Assistant Secretary during this proceeding. Members of the
public may also submit requests for an informal hearing, which will be
scheduled if the Assistant Secretary finds that substantial issues are
raised that necessitate a hearing.

DATES: Comments and requests for an informal hearing must be received
by August 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments, identified by
docket number OSHA-2012-0029, or regulatory information number (RIN)
1218-AC78, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making
electronic submissions; or

    Fax: If your submission, including attachments, does not exceed 10
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    U.S. mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier
service: You must submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA
Office, Docket Number OSHA-2012-0029, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>). Deliveries (hand,
express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during the
Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15
a.m.-4:45 p.m., EDT.
    Instructions for submitting comments: All submissions must include
the docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0029) or the RIN number (RIN
1218-AC78) for this rulemaking. Because of security-related procedures,
submission by regular mail may result in significant delay. Please
contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures for making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery
and messenger or courier service.
    All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you
about submitting personal information such as social security numbers
and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download submissions in response to this Federal
Register notice, go to docket number OSHA-2012-0029, at http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, however some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through that
Web page. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document as well as news releases
and other relevant information, is available at OSHA's Web page at
http://www.osha.gov. A copy of the documents referenced in this notice
may be obtained from: Office of State Programs, Directorate of
Cooperative and State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20210,<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Office of the Regional
Administrator, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, San
Francisco Federal Building, 90 7th Street, Suite 18-100, San Francisco,
California 94103,<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; and the Hawaii
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, HIOSH, 830 Punchbowl
Street, Suite 425, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813,<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (808)
586-9104. Other information about the Hawaii State Plan is posted on
the state's Web site at http://hawaii.gov/labor/hiosh.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Francis Meilinger, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general and technical information: Douglas J. Kalinowski,
Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-
3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington
DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the
Act, 29 U.S.C. 667) provides that states that desire to assume
responsibility for the development and enforcement of occupational
safety and health standards may do so by submitting, and obtaining
federal approval of a state plan. Procedures for state plan approval
are set forth in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1902. If the Assistant
Secretary, applying the criteria set forth in section 18(c) of the Act
and OSHA regulations, finds that the plan provides or will provide for
state standards and enforcement that are ``at least as effective as''
federal standards and enforcement, initial approval is granted pursuant
to section 18(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 667(b)). A state may commence
operations under its plan after this determination is made, but the
Assistant Secretary retains enforcement authority during the initial-
approval period, as provided by section 18(e) of the Act, which states,
``[a]fter the Secretary approves a State plan submitted under
subsection (b), he may, but shall not be required to, exercise his
authority under sections 8, 9, 10, 13, and 17 with respect to
comparable standards promulgated under section 6,'' for the specified
period. The Hawaii State Plan received initial federal OSHA plan
approval on December 28, 1973 (39 FR 1010). The Hawaii Occupational
Safety and Health Division (HIOSH) of the Hawaii Department of Labor
and Industrial Relations is designated as the state agency with
responsibility for administering the state plan.
    Hawaii proceeded to the next phase of federal plan approval in
1984, when the state plan received ``final approval'' under section
18(e) of the Act. Final approval under section 18(e) requires, among
other things, a finding by the Assistant Secretary that the plan, in
actual operation, provides worker protection ``at least as effective
as'' that provided by federal OSHA. A final approval determination
results in the relinquishment of federal concurrent enforcement
authority in the state with respect to occupational safety and health
issues covered by the plan, 29 U.S.C. 667(e). Hawaii was granted final
approval effective April 30, 1984 (49 FR 19182).

Current Situation in Hawaii

    During the past three years, the Hawaii State Plan has faced major
budgetary and hiring restraints that have significantly affected its
program. Impacts on the state plan are clearly reflected in the
deficiencies identified throughout recent OSHA monitoring reports.
Joint efforts were made by federal OSHA and Hawaii to address these
issues, yet Hawaii continues to face severe programmatic, staffing and
training issues. As of March 1, 2012, the HIOSH program employed five
safety inspectors and five health inspectors, which falls short of the
required nine (9) safety inspectors and nine (9) health inspectors as
determined by benchmarks established pursuant to a federal court order
entered in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, C.A. No. 74-406 (D.D.C. 1978)(order
implementing AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 570 F.2d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1978).) This
reduced staffing level has resulted in a significant decrease in
enforcement activities. Added to the state's economic situation is the
loss of institutional knowledge with the recent retirement of the
program administrator. With the ongoing task of training a new program
administrator, as well as hiring and training new enforcement and
administrative staff, Hawaii has requested assistance from federal
OSHA. Hawaii's proactive efforts demonstrate a commitment to ensuring
that workers are afforded adequate protection during this period of
program strengthening and improvement.
    Joint efforts by federal OSHA and HIOSH to address Hawaii's worker
protection needs during this period, necessitate a greater enforcement
presence by OSHA in the state. In order for federal OSHA to be able to
provide

this assistance, Hawaii's plan approval status must be modified from
final approval to initial approval. During the phase of initial state
plan approval status, federal OSHA regains authority to enforce federal
OSHA requirements as a supplement to state plan enforcement.
    Dwight Takamine, Hawaii's Director of Labor and Industrial
Relations, has committed the state to making Hawaii's workplaces safe
and healthful and to working ``diligently toward restoring [the
state's] 18(e) status as soon as possible.'' OSHA notes that the 3-year
evaluation requirement for final approval following initial approval
(see section 18(e), second sentence) does not apply in this instance.
Hawaii received initial approval in 1974, and the structural features
of the state plan remain completely intact.

Procedures for OSHA's Proposed Modification to Hawaii Plan Approval

    Today's notice proposes a modification to the Hawaii State Plan's
status from final approval to initial approval in order to allow for
federal OSHA to provide inspection and enforcement assistance to
Hawaii. OSHA intends to make this modification in keeping with
procedures at 29 CFR 1902.47 et seq. Relevant materials, including all
public comments, relevant federal monitoring reports, a copy of the
federal court's order under which state staffing benchmarks are
established, and other pertinent documentation will be publically
available in OSHA's docket office, as well as through various federal
OSHA and state offices as described above. At the close of the public
comment period initiated today, OSHA will review all comments
submitted; will review any hearing requests; and will schedule an
informal hearing if required to resolve substantial issues raised in
any such requests. The Assistant Secretary's final decision will
thereafter be published in the Federal Register and will include the
appropriate revisions to 29 CFR 1952 if the Hawaii State Plan's status
is changed.

Effect of Modifying Hawaii's Status

    As discussed above, modifying the Hawaii State Plan's status from
final to initial approval would authorize OSHA to carry on an
enforcement program to supplement that of HIOSH, including independent
federal or joint state and federal inspections resulting in issuance of
appropriate federal citations. However, modifying Hawaii's final
approval status would not affect Hawaii's basic plan approval and would
not affect Hawaii's legal authority to enforce state occupational
safety and health standards in the state's workplaces. This
modification would leave Hawaii's federally-approved state plan
completely in place, and would simply reinstate federal OSHA's
authority to supplement state enforcement during this difficult period.
    Pending a final decision in the proceeding instituted today, OSHA
will continue to exercise federal authority over safety and health
issues excluded from coverage under the state plan; monitoring
inspections including accompanied visits; and other federal authority
not affected by the 1984 final approval decision.

Operational Status Agreement

    OSHA regulations provide that in states with initially-approved
plans, OSHA and the state may enter into an agreement describing the
division of responsibilities between them (29 CFR 1954.3). OSHA and
HIOSH are developing such an agreement, which in this case would also
include a timetable for remedial action to make state operations ``as
least as effective'' and to ensure state compliance with applicable
personnel staffing benchmarks. Notice will be provided in the Federal
Register of this agreement, which OSHA intends will be effective on the
date of a final decision in the modification proceeding initiated
today.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified
by Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912), and 29
CFR part 1905.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 11, 2012.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-17363 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


MEMORANDUM  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM:	Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

DATE:		September 8, 2009

SUBJECT:	Summary of the August 27, 2009 Teleconference with the
Environmental Defense  Fund and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to discuss the Proposed NESHAP for Existing Stationary RICE

1.0	INTRODUCTION

A teleconference between the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was held on August 27, 2009.  The
purpose of this teleconference was to discuss the proposed national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing
stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE).  The
proposed NESHAP for existing stationary RICE was published in the
Federal Register on March 5, 2009 (74 FR 9698).  A previous
teleconference was held between EPA and EDF on June 30, 2009, and the
purpose of this meeting was to follow-up on issues discussed in June.
This meeting summary will be available in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708).

2.0	ATTENDEES

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bob Wayland, OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

Melanie King, OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

Michael Horowitz, OGC

Environmental Defense Fund

Hilary Sinnamon, Consultant to EDF

Elizabeth Paranhos, Consultant to EDF

Alpha-Gamma, Technologies Inc. (subcontractor to EC/R, Inc.)

Tanya Parise, Consultant to EPA

3.0	SUMMARY OF MEETING

EDF requested this meeting with EPA to further discuss their comments on
the proposed rule for existing stationary RICE.  In particular, EDF
wanted to reiterate why it believes it is important to set a particulate
matter (PM) standard.  In EDF’s opinion, establishing requirements for
PM is critical to public health.

The State of California and others have shown that technologies are
available to reduce PM emissions from stationary diesel engines,
according to EDF.  EPA asked if California is attempting to apply PM
filters on existing stationary diesel engines that are older (20 years).
 EDF thought this was the case and that the California rule is designed
to make older engines retire.  The existing RICE NESHAP is a
technology-based standard and EPA has concerns about the technical
feasibility of applying catalyzed PM filters to existing diesel engines.
 EDF said that it recently had a conversation with the Manufacturers of
Emission Controls Association (MECA), who indicated that that PM filters
can be applied to older engines, but that there is an increased cost in
retrofitting the engines.  EDF said that according to MECA, PM filters
are currently being applied to older engines dating back to the
pre-1990s.  EDF recommended that EPA talk directly to MECA regarding
this issue.

EDF had stated in its original written comments on the proposed rule
that PM is a more appropriate surrogate than carbon monoxide (CO).
Additional research conducted since submitting their original comments
has led EDF to conclude that CO is an appropriate surrogate for gaseous
toxics.  However, EDF also urged EPA to consider PM as an additional
surrogate.  EPA noted that it does not have speciated PM data to link
the emissions of HAP to PM.  EPA indicated that it would be necessary to
establish a quantitative relationship between HAP and PM emissions.  If
EPA could determine that HAP emissions are invariably present in the
potential surrogate, which in this case would be PM emissions, EPA could
consider using PM as a surrogate for HAP and establish a PM standard.
EDF asked if EPA could base a relationship on scientific studies.  EPA
responded that it could likely use a scientific study to establish a
relationship, but that for floor-setting purposes, EPA would need
emissions data from existing sources.  EDF said that it could help
provide information indicating that HAP is in PM and that it would check
with the State of California in order to obtain some supporting
information for EPA.  EPA told EDF that mid to the end of October would
be acceptable for submitting additional information, but that the sooner
EDF can send information the better, especially if EDF plans to submit
test data.

E C/R Incorporated	Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89-91]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC20-1-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-549); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC-549 (NGPA Title III Transactions and NGA
Blanket Certificate Transactions) and submitting the information
collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due February 3,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0086, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC20-1-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-549, NGPA Title III Transactions and NGA Blanket
Certificate Transactions.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0086.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-549 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract: On October 23, 2019, the Commission published a Notice in
the Federal Register (84 FR 56805) in Docket No. IC20-1-000 requesting
public comments. The Commission received no public comments.
    FERC-549 is required to implement the statutory provisions governed
by Sections 311 and 312 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) (15 U.S.C.
3371-3372) and Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (15 U.S.C. 717f).
The reporting requirements for implementing these provisions are
contained in 18 CFR part 284.

Transportation for Intrastate Pipelines

    In 18 CFR 284.102(e), the Commission requires interstate pipelines
to obtain proper certification in order to ship natural gas on behalf
of intrastate pipelines and local distribution companies (LDC). This
certification consists of a letter from the intrastate pipeline or LDC
authorizing the interstate pipeline to ship gas on its behalf. In
addition, interstate pipelines must obtain from its shippers the
certifications including sufficient information to verify that their
services qualify under this section.
    In 18 CFR 284.123(b), the Commission provides that intrastate gas
pipeline companies file for Commission approval of rates for services
performed in the interstate transportation of gas. An intrastate gas
pipeline company may elect to use rates contained in one of its then
effective transportation rate schedules on file with an appropriate
state regulatory agency for intrastate service comparable to the
interstate service or file proposed rates and supporting information
showing the rates are cost based and are fair and equitable. It is the
Commission policy that each pipeline must file at least every five
years to ensure its rates are fair and equitable. Depending on the
business process used, either 60 or 150 days after the application is
filed, the rate is deemed to be fair and equitable unless the
Commission either extends the time for action, institutes a proceeding
or issues an order providing for rates it deems to be fair and
equitable.
    In 18 CFR 284.123(e), the Commission requires that within 30 days
of commencement of new service any intrastate pipeline engaging in the
transportation of gas in interstate commerce must file a statement that
includes the interstate rates and a description of how the pipeline
will engage in the transportation services, including operating
conditions. If an intrastate gas pipeline company changes its
operations or rates it must amend the statement on file with the
Commission. Such amendment is to be filed not later than 30 days after
commencement of the change in operations or change in rate election.

Market-Based Rates for Storage

    In 2006, the Commission amended its regulations to establish
criteria for obtaining market-based rates for storage services offered
under 18 CFR 284.501-505. First, the Commission modified its market-
power analysis to better reflect the competitive alternatives to
storage. Second, pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005), the Commission promulgated rules to implement section 4(f) of
the Natural Gas Act, to permit underground natural gas storage service
providers that are unable to show that they lack market power to
negotiate market-based rates in circumstances where market-based rates
are in the public interest and necessary to encourage the construction
of the storage capacity in the area needing storage services, and where
customers are adequately protected. The revisions were intended to
facilitate the development of new natural gas storage capacity while
protecting customers.

Code of Conduct

    The Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 284.288 and 284.403 provide
that applicable sellers of natural gas adhere to a code of conduct when
making gas sales in order to protect the integrity of the market. As
part of this code, the Commission imposes a record retention
requirement on applicable sellers to ``retain, for a period of five
years, all data and information upon which it billed the prices it
charged for natural gas it sold pursuant to its market based sales
certificate or the prices it reported for use in price indices.'' FERC
uses these records to monitor the jurisdictional transportation
activities and unbundled sales activities of interstate natural gas
pipelines and blanket marketing certificate holders.
    The record retention period of five years is necessary due to the
importance of records related to any investigation of

possible wrongdoing and related to assuring compliance with the codes
of conduct and the integrity of the market. The requirement is
necessary to ensure consistency with the rule prohibiting market
manipulation (regulations adopted in Order No. 670, implementing the
EPAct 2005 anti-manipulation provisions) and the generally applicable
five-year statute of limitations where the Commission seeks civil
penalties for violations of the anti-manipulation rules or other rules,
regulations, or orders to which the price data may be relevant.
    Failure to have this information available would mean the
Commission is unable to perform its regulatory functions and to monitor
and evaluate transactions and operations of interstate pipelines and
blanket marketing certificate holders.
    Type of Respondents: Jurisdictional interstate and intrastate
natural gas pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the annual
burden and cost for the information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as 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. See 5
CFR 1320 for additional information on the definition of information
collection burden.

                                                        FERC-549--NGPA Title III Transactions and NGA Blanket Certificate Transaction \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual number
                                             Number of     of responses    Total number       Average burden hrs. & cost ($) per       Total annual burden hours & total annual      Cost per
                                            respondents   per respondent   of responses                    response                               cost ($) (rounded)              respondent ($)
                                                     (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).......................................  (3) * (4) = (5)...........................       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation by Pipelines.\3\                       53               2             106  50 hrs.; $5,331...........................  5,300 hrs.; $565,086......................         $10,662
Market-Based Rates.\4\                                 1               1               1  350 hrs.; $37,317.........................  350 hrs.; $37,317.........................          37,317
                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ..............  ..............             107  ..........................................  5,650 hrs.;$602,403.......................  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 Record Retention Requirements for Holders of Blanket Marketing or Unbundled Sales Certificates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual number
          Labor burden and cost              Number of     of responses    Total number       Average burden hrs. & cost ($) per       Total annual burden hours & total annual      Cost per
                                            respondents   per respondent   of responses                    response                               cost ($) (rounded)              respondent ($)
                                                     (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).......................................  (3) * (4) = (5)...........................       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Conduct (record-keeping).5 6                 319               1             319  1 hr.; $33.39.............................  319 hrs.; $10,651.........................          $33.39
                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ..............  ..............             319  ..........................................  319 hrs.; $10,651.........................  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Storage Cost for Record Retention Requirements for Holders of Blanket Marketing or Unbundled Sales Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total number    Cost ($) per    Total annual
                                                                   of responses     respondent       cost ($)
                                                                     (1) * (2) =             (4)     (3) * (4) =
                                                                             (3)                             (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper Storage...................................................             319          $80.75      $25,759.25
Electronic Storage..............................................             319            3.18        1,014.42
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Storage Cost..........................................             319  ..............       26,773.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Storage Cost: \7\ In addition to the burden and cost for labor, the
table above reflects an additional cost for record retention and
storage:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $106.62 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly average of $106.62 (for
wages and benefits) assumes equal time is spent by an economist and
lawyer. The average hourly cost (for wages plus benefits) is: $70.38
for economists (occupation code 19-3011) and $142.86 for lawyers
(occupation code 23-0000). (The figures are taken from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, May 2018 figures at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm.)
    \3\ The entities affected by 18 CFR 284.123(b) and (e) are
intrastate pipelines. Interstate and intrastate pipelines are
affected by 18 CFR 284.102(e). Since 2016, the Commission has not
received any filings under 18 CFR 284.102(e).
    \4\ 18 CFR 284.501-505.
    \5\ 18 CFR 284.288 and 284.403.
    \6\ For the Code of Conduct record-keeping, the $33.39 hourly
cost figure comes from the average cost (wages plus benefits) of a
file clerk (Occupation Code 43-4071) as posted on the BLS website
(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm).
    \7\ Each of the 319 entities is assumed to have both paper and
electronic record retention. Internal analysis assumes 50% paper
storage and 50% electronic storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Paper storage costs (using an estimate of 12.5 cubic feet
x $6.46 per cubic foot): $80.75 per respondent annually. Total annual
paper storage cost to industry ($80.75 x 319 respondents): $25,759.25.
This estimate assumes that a respondent stores 12.5 cubic feet of
paper. We expect that this

estimate should trend downward over time as more companies move away
from paper storage and rely more heavily on electronic storage.
     Electronic storage costs: $3.18 per respondent annually.
Total annual electronic storage cost to industry ($3.18 x 319
respondents): $1,014.42. This calculation estimates storage of
approximately 200 MB per year with a cost of $3.18. We expect that this
estimate should trend downward over time as the cost of electronic
storage technology, including cloud storage, continues to decrease. For
example, external hard drives of approximately 500GB are available for
approximately $50. In addition, cloud storage plans from multiple
providers for 1TB of storage (with a reasonable amount of requests and
data transfers) are available for less than $35 per month.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: December 26, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28298 Filed 12-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 55386]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4394-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

South Carolina; Amendment No. 6 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 South Carolina (FEMA-4394-DR), dated September 16,
2018, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 16, 2018.

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 notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of September 16, 2018.

    Berkeley and Williamsburg Counties for Public Assistance
[Categories A and C-G] (already designated for emergency protective
measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program).
    Chesterfield, Darlington, Dillion, Florence, Georgetown, Horry,
Marion, and Marlboro Counties for Public Assistance [Categories A
and C-G] (already designated Individual Assistance and emergency
protective measures [Category B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
    Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, and Lancaster Counties for Public
Assistance.
    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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-24185 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P