[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 226 (Monday, November 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67716-67719]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25903]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2182]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The currently effective community number is shown in the
table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or

pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional
entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR
65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

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

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Chief executive officer of                                    Online location of letter of map                            Community
         State and county          Location and case No.             community               Community map repository                 revision                Date of modification       No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Mobile..................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Merceria L.       Mobile County Government       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 22, 2022.........       015008
                                    of Mobile County (21-  Ludgood, President, Mobile      Plaza, 205 Government          advanceSearch.
                                    04-4141P).             County Commission, 205          Street, 6th Floor, South
                                                           Government Street, 10th         Tower, Mobile, AL 36644.
                                                           Floor, South Tower, Mobile,
                                                           AL 36644.
Arkansas: Benton.................  City of Lowell (21-06- The Honorable Chris Moore,      City Hall, 216 North Lincoln   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 14, 2022.........       050342
                                    1057P).                Mayor, City of Lowell, 216      Street, Lowell, AR 72745.      advanceSearch.
                                                           North Lincoln Street, Lowell,
                                                           AR 72745.
Colorado:
    Boulder......................  City of Boulder (21-   The Honorable Sam Weaver,       Municipal Building Plaza,      https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 18, 2022.........       080024
                                    08-0996X).             Mayor, City of Boulder, 1777    1777 Broadway Street,          advanceSearch.
                                                           Broadway Street, Boulder, CO    Boulder, CO 80302.
                                                           80302.
    Denver.......................  City and County of     The Honorable Michael B.        Department of Public Works,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Mar. 4, 2022..........       080046
                                    Denver (21-08-         Hancock, Mayor, City and        201 West Colfax Avenue,        advanceSearch.
                                    0108P).                County of Denver, 1437 North    Denver, CO 80202.
                                                           Bannock Street, Room 350,
                                                           Denver, CO 80202.
    Larimer......................  City of Fort Collins   The Honorable Jeni Arndt,       Stormwater Utilities           https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 15, 2022.........       080102
                                    (21-08-0277P).         Mayor, City of Fort Collins,    Department, 700 Wood Street,   advanceSearch.
                                                           P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins,     Fort Collins, CO 80521.
                                                           CO 80522.
    Larimer......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable John Kefalas,     Larimer County Engineering     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 15, 2022.........       080101
                                    of Larimer County      Chairman, Larimer County        Department, 200 West Oak       advanceSearch.
                                    (21-08-0277P).         Board of Commissioners, 200     Street, Suite 3000, Fort
                                                           West Oak Street, Suite 2200,    Collins, CO 80521.
                                                           Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Florida:
    Collier......................  City of Marco Island   Mr. Mike McNees, Manager, City  Building Services Department,  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Mar. 1, 2022..........       120426
                                    (21-04-4961P).         of Marco Island, 50 Bald        50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco     advanceSearch.
                                                           Eagle Drive, Marco Island, FL   Island, FL 34145.
                                                           34145.
    Monroe.......................  Village of Islamorada  The Honorable Buddy Pinder,     Building Department, 86800     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 22, 2022.........       120424
                                    (21-04-4874P).         Mayor, Village of Islamorada,   Overseas Highway,              advanceSearch.
                                                           86800 Overseas Highway,         Islamorada, FL 33036.
                                                           Islamorada, FL 33036.
Georgia: Barrow..................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Pat Graham,       Barrow County Planning and     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 17, 2022.........       130497
                                    of Barrow County (21-  Chair, Barrow County Board of   Community Development          advanceSearch.
                                    04-4537P).             Commissioners, 30 North Broad   Department, 30 North Broad
                                                           Street, Winder, GA 30680.       Street, Winder, GA 30680.
Kentucky: Hardin.................  City of Elizabethtown  The Honorable Jeffrey H.        Stormwater Department, 200     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 18, 2022.........       210095
                                    (21-04-1010P).         Gregory, Mayor, City of         West Dixie Avenue,             advanceSearch.
                                                           Elizabethtown, 200 West Dixie   Elizabethtown, KY 42701.
                                                           Avenue, Elizabethtown, KY
                                                           42701.
Pennsylvania:
    Allegheny....................  Township of Harmar     The Honorable Robert J. Exler,  Zoning Department, 701         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 7, 2022..........       421068
                                    (21-03-0173P).         Chairman, Township of Harmar    Freeport Road, Cheswick,       advanceSearch.
                                                           Board of Supervisors, 701       PA15024.
                                                           Freeport Road, Cheswick,
                                                           PA15024.
    Allegheny....................  Township of Indiana    Mr. Daniel L. Anderson,         Code Enforcement Department,   https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 7, 2022..........       421070
                                    (21-03-0173P).         Township of Indiana Manager,    3710 Saxonburg Boulevard,      advanceSearch.
                                                           3710 Saxonburg Boulevard,       Pittsburgh, PA 15238.
                                                           Pittsburgh, PA 15238.
South Carolina:

    Charleston...................  Town of                The Honorable Rutledge B.       Zoning Department, 405         https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 17, 2022.........       450039
                                    McClellanville (21-    Leland, III, Mayor, Town of     Pinckney Street,               advanceSearch.
                                    04-3970P).             McClellanville, 405 Pinckney    McClellanville, SC 29458.
                                                           Street, McClellanville, SC
                                                           29458.
    Charleston...................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Teddie E. Pryor,  Charleston County Building     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 17, 2022.........       455413
                                    of Charleston County   Sr., Chairman, Charleston       Department, 4045 Bridge View   advanceSearch.
                                    (21-04-3970P).         County Council, 4045 Bridge     Drive, North Charleston, SC
                                                           View Drive, North Charleston,   29405.
                                                           SC 29405.
South Dakota: Pennington.........  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Gary Drewes,      Pennington County Office       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 18, 2022.........       460064
                                    of Pennington County   Chairman, Pennington County     Building, 130 Kansas City      advanceSearch.
                                    (21-08-0193P).         Board of Commissioners, 130     Street, Rapid City, SD
                                                           Kansas City Street, Suite       57701.
                                                           100, Rapid City, SD 57701.
Texas:
    Brazos.......................  City of Bryan (21-06-  The Honorable Andrew Nelson,    City Hall, 300 South Texas     https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 22, 2022.........       480082
                                    1877P).                Mayor, City of Bryan, P.O.      Avenue, Bryan, TX 77803.       advanceSearch.
                                                           Box 1000, Bryan, TX 77805.
    Collin.......................  City of McKinney (21-  The Honorable George Fuller,    Engineering Department, 221    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Mar. 7, 2022..........       480135
                                    06-1540P).             Mayor, City of McKinney, P.O.   North Tennessee Street,        advanceSearch.
                                                           Box 517, McKinney, TX 75070.    McKinney, TX 75069.
    Collin.......................  Town of Prosper (21-   The Honorable Ray Smith,        Town Hall, 250 West 1st        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Jan. 27, 2022.........       480141
                                    06-1205P).             Mayor, Town of Prosper, 250     Street, Prosper, TX 75078.     advanceSearch.
                                                           West 1st Street, Prosper, TX
                                                           75078.
    Ellis........................  City of Pecan Hill     The Honorable Don Schmerse,     City Hall, 1094 South          https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 25, 2022.........       481673
                                    (21-06-0676P).         Mayor, City of Pecan Hill,      Lawrance Road, Pecan Hill,     advanceSearch.
                                                           1094 South Lawrance Road,       TX 75154.
                                                           Pecan Hill, TX 75154.
    Ellis........................  City of Red Oak (21-   Mr. Todd Fuller, Manager, City  Development Services           https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 25, 2022.........       481650
                                    06-0676P).             of Red Oak, 200 Lakeview        Department, 411 West Red Oak   advanceSearch.
                                                           Parkway, Red Oak, TX 75154.     Road, Red Oak, TX 75154.
    Ellis........................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Todd Little,      Ellis County Engineering       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 25, 2022.........       480798
                                    of Ellis County (21-   Ellis County Judge, 101 West    Department, 109 South          advanceSearch.
                                    06-0676P).             Main Street, Waxahachie, TX     Jackson Street, Waxahachie,
                                                           75165.                          TX 75165.
    Tarrant......................  City of Mansfield (21- The Honorable Michael Evans,    Department of Public Works,    https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 17, 2022.........       480606
                                    06-2343P).             Mayor, City of Mansfield,       1200 East Broad Street,        advanceSearch.
                                                           1200 East Broad Street,         Mansfield, TX 76063.
                                                           Mansfield, TX 76063.
    Williamson...................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Bill Gravell,     Williamson County Engineering  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 17, 2022.........       481079
                                    of Williamson County   Jr., Williamson County Judge,   Department, 3151 Southeast     advanceSearch.
                                    (21-06-0778P).         710 South Main Street, Suite    Inner Loop, Georgetown, TX
                                                           101, Georgetown, TX 78626.      78626.
Utah:
    Salt Lake....................  City of Riverton (21-  The Honorable Trent Staggs,     Public Works Department,       https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 7, 2022..........       490104
                                    08-0137P).             Mayor, City of Riverton,        12526 South 4150 West,         advanceSearch.
                                                           12830 South Redwood Road,       Riverton, UT 84065.
                                                           Riverton, UT 84065.
    Summit.......................  City of Park City (21- The Honorable Andy Beerman,     City Hall, 445 Marsac Avenue,  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 28, 2022.........       490139
                                    08-0593P).             Mayor, City of Park City, 445   Park City, UT 84060.           advanceSearch.
                                                           Marsac Avenue, Park City, UT
                                                           84060.
West Virginia:
    Cabell.......................  City of Milton (21-03- The Honorable Tom Canterbury,   City Hall, 1595 U.S. Route 60  https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 14, 2022.........       540019
                                    0959P).                Mayor, City of Milton, 1139     East, Milton, WV 25541.        advanceSearch.
                                                           Smith Street, Milton, WV
                                                           25541.
    Cabell.......................  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Jim Morgan,       Cabell County Office of        https://msc.fema.gov/portal/        Feb. 14, 2022.........       540016
                                    of Williamson County   President, Cabell County        Grants, Planning and           advanceSearch.
                                    (21-03-0959P).         Commission, 750 5th Avenue,     Permits, 750 5th Avenue,
                                                           Suite 300, Huntington, WV       Suite 314, Huntington, WV
                                                           25701.                          25701.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-25903 Filed 11-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Secretary unless a petition for review is timely filed with the ARB and
the ARB accepts the decision for review.

Sec.  1978.110  Decisions and orders of the Administrative Review
Board.

    (a) The Assistant Secretary or any other party desiring to seek
review, including judicial review, of a decision of the ALJ must file a
written petition for review with the ARB, which has been delegated the
authority to act for the Secretary and issue final decisions under this
part. The parties should identify in their petitions for review the
legal conclusions or orders to which they object, or the objections may
be deemed waived. A petition must be filed within 14 days of the date
of the decision of the ALJ. The date of the postmark, facsimile
transmittal, or electronic communication transmittal will be considered
to be the date of filing; if the petition is filed in person, by hand-
delivery or other means, the petition is considered filed upon receipt.
The petition must be served on all parties and on the Chief
Administrative Law Judge at the time it is filed with the ARB. Copies
of the petition for review and all briefs must be served on the
Assistant Secretary and, in cases in which the Assistant Secretary is a
party, on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor.
    (b) If a timely petition for review is filed pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section, the decision of the ALJ will become the final
order of the Secretary unless the ARB, within 30 days of the filing of
the petition, issues an order notifying the parties that the case has
been accepted for review. If a case is accepted for review, the
decision of the ALJ will be inoperative unless and until the ARB issues
an order adopting the decision, except that any order of reinstatement
will be effective while review is conducted by the ARB unless the ARB
grants a motion by the respondent to stay that order based on
exceptional circumstances. The ARB will specify the terms under which
any briefs are to be filed. The ARB will review the factual
determinations of the ALJ under the substantial evidence standard. If
no timely petition for review is filed, or the ARB denies review, the
decision of the ALJ will become the final order of the Secretary. If no
timely petition for review is filed, the resulting final order is not
subject to judicial review.
    (c) The final decision of the ARB will be issued within 120 days of
the conclusion of the hearing, which will be deemed to be 14 days after
the date of the decision of the ALJ, unless a motion for
reconsideration has been filed with the ALJ in the interim. In such
case, the conclusion of the hearing is the date the motion for
reconsideration is ruled upon or 14 days after a new decision is
issued. The ARB's final decision will be served upon all parties and
the Chief Administrative Law Judge by mail. The final decision also
will be served on the Assistant Secretary, and on the Associate
Solicitor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, U.S, Department
of Labor, even if the Assistant Secretary is not a party.
    (d) If the ARB concludes that the respondent has violated the law,
the ARB will issue a final order providing relief to the complainant.
The final order will require, where appropriate: affirmative action to
abate the violation; reinstatement of the complainant to his or her
former position with the same compensation, terms, conditions, and
privileges of the complainant's employment; payment of compensatory
damages (backpay with interest and compensation for any special damages
sustained as a result of the retaliation, including any litigation
costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees the
complainant may have incurred); and payment of punitive damages up to
$250,000. Interest on

backpay will be calculated using the interest rate applicable to
underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded
daily.
    (e) If the ARB determines that the respondent has not violated the
law, an order will be issued denying the complaint.
    (f) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to all cases in
which the decision of the ALJ was issued on or after August 31, 2010.

Subpart C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec.  1978.111  Withdrawal of STAA complaints, findings, objections,
and petitions for review; settlement.

    (a) At any time prior to the filing of objections to the Assistant
Secretary's findings and/or preliminary order, a complainant may
withdraw his or her complaint by notifying the Assistant Secretary,
orally or in writing, of his or her withdrawal. The Assistant Secretary
then will confirm in writing the complainant's desire to withdraw and
determine whether to approve the withdrawal. The Assistant Secretary
will notify the parties (and each party's legal counsel if the party is
represented by counsel) of the approval of any withdrawal. If the
complaint is withdrawn because of settlement, the settlement must be
submitted for approval in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section. A complainant may not withdraw his or her complaint after the
filing of objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or
preliminary order.
    (b) The Assistant Secretary may withdraw the findings and/or
preliminary order at any time before the expiration of the 30-day
objection period described in Sec.  1978.106, provided that no
objection has been filed yet, and substitute new findings and/or a new
preliminary order. The date of the receipt of the substituted findings
or order will begin a new 30-day objection period.
    (c) At any time before the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or
preliminary order become final, a party may withdraw objections to the
Assistant Secretary's findings and/or preliminary order by filing a
written withdrawal with the ALJ. If a case is on review with the ARB, a
party may withdraw a petition for review of an ALJ's decision at any
time before that decision becomes final by filing a written withdrawal
with the ARB. The ALJ or the ARB, as the case may be, will determine
whether to approve the withdrawal of the objections or the petition for
review. If the ALJ approves a request to withdraw objections to the
Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order, and there are no other
pending objections, the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order
will become the final order of the Secretary. If the ARB approves a
request to withdraw a petition for review of an ALJ decision, and there
are no other pending petitions for review of that decision, the ALJ's
decision will become the final order of the Secretary. If objections or
a petition for review are withdrawn because of settlement, the
settlement must be submitted for approval in accordance with paragraph
(d) of this section.
    (d)(1) Investigative settlements. At any time after the filing of a
STAA complaint and before the findings and/or order are objected to or
become a final order by operation of law, the case may be settled if
the Assistant Secretary, the complainant, and the respondent agree to a
settlement. The Assistant Secretary's approval of a settlement reached
by the respondent and the complainant demonstrates the Assistant
Secretary's consent and achieves the consent of all three parties.
    (2) Adjudicatory settlements. At any time after the filing of
objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order, the case
may be settled if the participating parties agree to a settlement and
the settlement is approved by the ALJ if the case is before the ALJ or
by the ARB, if the ARB has accepted the case for review. A copy of the
settlement will be filed with the ALJ or the ARB, as the case may be.
    (e) Any settlement approved by the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or
the ARB will constitute the final order of the Secretary and may be
enforced in United States district court pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
31105(e).

Sec.  1978.112  Judicial review.

    (a) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order under
Sec. Sec.  1978.109 and 1978.110, any person adversely affected or
aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in
the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the
violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the person resided
on the date of the violation.
    (b) A final order is not subject to judicial review in any criminal
or other civil proceeding.
    (c) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case,
including the record of proceedings before the ALJ, will be transmitted
by the ARB or the ALJ, as the case may be, to the appropriate court
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local
rules of such court.

Sec.  1978.113  Judicial enforcement.

    Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order
of reinstatement or a final order, including one approving a settlement
agreement issued under STAA, the Secretary may file a civil action
seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court
for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred.

Sec.  1978.114  District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints
under STAA.

    (a) If there is no final order of the Secretary, 210 days have
passed since the filing of the complaint, and there is no showing that
there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant, the
complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in
the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have
jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in
controversy. The action shall, at the request of either party to such
action, be tried by the court with a jury.
    (b) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a
complainant must file with the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the
ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-
stamped complaint. A copy of the complaint also must be served on the
OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the
Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor.

Sec.  1978.115  Special circumstances; waiver of rules.

    In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of
these rules, or for good cause shown, the ALJ or the ARB on review may,
upon application, after three days notice to all parties, waive any
rule or issue such orders as justice or the administration of STAA
requires.

[FR Doc. 2012-17994 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60996-60997]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0166; FRL-8727-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska;
Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the action of the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to address the
provisions of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). These provisions require each state to submit a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that prohibits emissions that
adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate
transport. EPA is proposing to approve ADEC's SIP revision because it
adequately addresses the four distinct elements related to the impact
of interstate transport of air pollutants for the state of Alaska.
These include prohibiting emissions that contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state, interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS by another state, interfere with plans in another state to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality,

or interfere with efforts of another state to protect visibility.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2008-0166, by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: Donna Deneen, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107
EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    D. Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA, Region 10 Mail Room, 9th Floor,
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Donna Deneen,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen at telephone number:
(206) 553-6706, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fax number: (206)
553-0110, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register. EPA is approving the State's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in
the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse
comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.
    If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Elin D. Miller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
 [FR Doc. E8-24278 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10925-10926]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4496]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Bio-Life Labs, Inc., BSI2000, Inc., Calais Resources, Inc., EGX
Funds Transfer, Inc., Great Western Land Recreation, Inc. (a/k/a Great
Western Land and Recreation, Inc.), and Id-CONFIRM, Inc., Order of
Suspension of Trading

February 24, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Bio-Life Labs, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended March 31, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
BSI2000, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended December 31, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Calais Resources, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended August 31, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
EGX Funds Transfer, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended December 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Great Western Land Recreation, Inc. (a/k/a Great Western Land and
Recreation, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended June 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Id-CONFIRM, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended March 31, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed

companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on February 24, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EST on March 9, 2011.

    By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4496 Filed 2-24-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14997-14999]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0689; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-225-AD;
Amendment 39-17791; AD 2014-05-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by a report that a batch of main landing gear (MLG) door actuators with
a certain part number having certain serial numbers could be assembled
with the scraper installed backward. This AD requires repetitive
functional checks of the MLG alternate extension system (AES) and
eventual replacement of certain MLG door actuators with actuators that
have either been reworked or do not have certain serial numbers. We are
issuing this AD to prevent incorrectly installed scrapers, which could
hinder the operation of the MLG AES, and result in failure of the MLG
AES on one side, and consequent unsafe asymmetrical landing
configuration.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 22, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 22,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0689; or in person at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto,
Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Walker, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bombardier, Inc. Model
DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on August 13, 2013 (78 FR 49240). The NPRM was prompted by a report
that a batch of main landing gear (MLG) door actuators with a certain
part number having certain serial numbers could be assembled with the
scraper installed backward. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive
functional checks of the MLG alternate extension system (AES) and
eventual replacement of certain MLG door actuators with actuators that
have either been reworked or do not have certain serial numbers. We are
issuing this AD to prevent incorrectly installed scrapers, which could
hinder the operation of the MLG AES, and result in failure of the MLG
AES on one side, and consequent unsafe asymmetrical landing
configuration.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2012-28R1, dated November 26, 2012 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    It was discovered that a batch of [main landing gear] MLG door
actuators, [part number] P/N 46830-7, may be assembled with the
scraper installed backwards. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in increased actuator friction, which could hinder operation
of the MLG alternate extension system (AES). In the case of a
failure of the primary MLG extension system, the failure of the MLG
AES on one side will lead to an unsafe asymmetrical landing
configuration.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive functional check of
the AES until replacement of the affected MLG door actuators.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0689-0003.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Correct Typographical Error

    Horizon Air noted that the part number of the MLG door actuator was
incorrect in paragraphs (i) and (k) of the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August
13, 2013). The correct part number is 46830-7 but is specified as
16830-7 in paragraphs (i) and (k) of the NPRM.
    We agree there was an error regarding the part number of the MLG
door actuator in paragraphs (i) and (k) of the NPRM (78 FR 49240,
August 13, 2013) and have corrected the part number in paragraphs (i)
and (k) of this final rule.

Request To Clarify Which MLG Actuators Require a Functional Check

    Horizon Air stated that paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 49240,
August 13, 2013) does not clearly define the conditions that require a
functional check of the MLG AES. Horizon Air commented that the wording
of paragraph (h) of the NPRM implied that all MLG door actuators having
part number (P/N) 46830-7 must have a functional check accomplished, in
accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-32-108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012. Horizon
Air noted that airplanes having MLG actuators that are clearly outside
of the affected group do not need a MLG AES functional check. The
commenter recommended that the airplanes subject to the functional
check of paragraph (h) of the NPRM be changed to those with ``. . . any
MLG door actuator having P/N 46830-7 and a serial number included in
paragraph 1.A., `Effectivity,' of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-
108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, or the P/N is unable to be
determined.''
    We agree with the commenter and have revised paragraph (h) of this
final rule to clarify that only MLG door actuators having P/N 46830-7
and a serial number included in paragraph 1.A. ``Effectivity,'' of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-108, Revision A, dated October 1,
2012, or a part number that cannot be determined, require a functional
check.

Request To Require Only Certain Section of the Service Information

    One commenter, Mattson, requested that the language in the NPRM (78
FR 49240, August 13, 2013) be changed

from mandating that the required actions be accomplished in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
32-108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, to specifically stating that
the required actions be accomplished in accordance with Section B,
``Procedures,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions. The commenter
stated that only the actions in Section B of the service information
address the unsafe condition, and the FAA should not dictate the
working environment for implementing the correction to the unsafe
condition. The commenter asserted that requiring operators to follow
the procedures in Section A, ``Job Setup,'' and Section C,
``Closeout,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-32-108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, forces them to
have the airplane in a specific condition and keep it in that condition
while performing the corrective action. Furthermore, if an operator
wanted to deviate from an action specified in Section A or Section C of
the service information, it would have to request an alternative method
of compliance (AMOC), which would increase the cost of compliance with
the proposed AD.
    We agree to clarify the required actions. Paragraphs (h) and (i) of
the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013) do not require the actions in
paragraphs 3.A., ``Job Set-Up,'' and 3.C., ``Close Out,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-2-108,
Revision A, dated October 1, 2012. The actions required by paragraphs
(h) and (i) of the NPRM must be done in accordance with Part A,
``Inspection,'' and Part B, ``Actuator Replacement,'' of paragraph
3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-2-108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012. For
clarity, we have revised paragraphs (h) and (i) of this final rule to
include the reference to paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service information.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Records check, functional check,      17 work-hours x $85 per            $128           $1,573           $3,146
 replacement of actuators.             hour = $1,445.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0689-0003; or in
person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2014-05-18 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-17791. Docket No. FAA-
2013-0689; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-225-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 22,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401,
and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that a batch of main landing
gear (MLG) door actuators with a certain part number having certain
serial numbers could be assembled with the scraper installed
backward. We are issuing this AD to prevent incorrectly installed
scrapers, which could hinder the operation of the MLG alternate
extension system (AES), and result in failure of the MLG AES on one
side, and consequent unsafe asymmetrical landing configuration.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Inspection to Determine Part Number of MLG Door Actuators

    Within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
inspect the MLG door actuators to determine whether part number (P/
N) 46830-7 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is
acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the MLG
door actuator can be conclusively determined from that review.

(h) Functional Check of the MLG AES

    If, during the inspection to determine the part number of the
MLG actuators as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any MLG door
actuator having P/N 46830-7 and a serial number included in
paragraph 1.A. ``Effectivity,'' of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
32-108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, is found; or if the part
number is unable to be determined: At the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, do a functional check of
the MLG AES, in accordance with Part A of paragraph 3.B.
``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-32-108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012.
Repeat the functional check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50
flight cycles until the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD
are done. If the force applied during the functional check exceeds
67 pound-force (lbf), before further flight, replace the affected
actuator, in accordance with Part B of paragraph 3.B. ``Procedure,''
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-32-108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012.
    (1) For airplanes with MLG door actuators that have accumulated
more than 950 total flight hours as of the effective date of this
AD: Within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes with MLG door actuators that have accumulated
950 total flight hours or less as of the effective date of this AD:
Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for Repetitive Functional Checks

    At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) of this AD: Replace all MLG door actuators having P/N 46830-7
and a serial number included in paragraph 1.A. ``Effectivity,'' of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-108, Revision A, dated October 1,
2012, with MLG door actuators reworked in accordance with Part B of
paragraph 3.B. ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-108, Revision A, dated October 1,
2012, or with a MLG door actuator having P/N 46830-7 and a serial
number that is not included in section 1.A. ``Effectivity,'' of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-108, Revision A, dated October 1,
2012. Installation of a MLG door actuator having P/N 46830-7 with
``Mod Status 32-106'' on the identification plate is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 3,000 total flight hours on any
MLG door actuator, or within 50 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) Within 12 months or 2,000 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-108, dated
September 6, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a MLG
door actuator having P/N 46830-7, with a serial number identified in
paragraph 1.A. ``Effectivity,'' of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
32-108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, unless ``Mod Status 32-
106'' is on the identification plate.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-28R1, dated November
26, 2012, for related information. The MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0689-0003.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-108, Revision A, dated
October 1, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 19, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04851 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58424]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23315]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Drucker, Inc., DynaMotive Energy Systems Corp., and Gate to Wire
Solutions, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

September 18, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Drucker, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended December 31, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
DynaMotive Energy Systems Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended December 31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Gate to Wire Solutions, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended November 30, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 18, 2012 through 11:59
p.m. EDT on October 1, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23315 Filed 9-18-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46744-46745]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16892]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78308; File No. 265-29]

Equity Market Structure Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Equity Market Structure
Advisory Committee is providing notice that it will hold a public
meeting on Tuesday, August 2, 2016, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The
meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the public.
The public portions of the meeting will be webcast on the Commission's
Web site at www.sec.gov. Persons needing special accommodations to take
part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed
below. The public is invited to submit written statements to the
Committee. The meeting will focus on updates and potential
recommendations from the four subcommittees.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 2, 2016.
Written statements should be received on or before July 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. Written statements may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-29 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

     Send paper statements in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-29. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all statements on the Commission's
Internet Web site at SEC Web site at (http://www.sec.gov/comments/265-29/265-29.shtml).
    Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing
in the

Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arisa Tinaves Kettig, Special Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, and the regulations
thereunder, Stephen Luparello, Designated Federal Officer of the
Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.

    Dated: July 13, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-16892 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


		DRAFT IN PREPARATION

Renewal of an

Information collection request

 for

Regulatory Pilot Projects

OMB Control No. 2010-0026

EPA ICR No. 1755.08

The United States Environmental Protection Agency

September  2007

Table of Contents

Title										Page

1.	Identification of the Information Collection	1

1(a) Title of the Information Collection	1

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract	1

2.	Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection	 2

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data	3

3. 	Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Nonduplication	4

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	4

3(c) Consultations	4

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection	4

3(e) General Guidelines	4

3(f) Confidentiality	 4

  	3(g) Sensitive Questions	4

4.	The Respondents and The Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes	4

4(b) Information Requested	 6

(I) Data items, including record keeping requirements

(II) Respondent Activities

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

and Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities	6

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management	6

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility	6

5(d) Collection Schedule	6

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost	7

6(b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	9

6(c) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs	10

6(d) Reason for Burden Hour Change	11

Burden Statement	11

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Regulatory Innovation Pilot Projects (ICR) No. 1755.08

1.  Identification of the information collection

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

Title:  Regulatory Innovation Pilot Projects, ICR No. 1755.08, OMB
Control No. 2010-0026.

1(b) Short Characterization

This is a request for renewal of currently approved ICR No. 1755.07,
which authorizes the solicitation of proposals for innovative pilot
projects. A 60-day comment period for this ICR renewal in the Federal
Register concluded on [               ], during which [    ] comments
were received.

In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to solicit
innovative pilot projects in response to a challenge to transform the
environmental regulatory system to better meet the needs of a rapidly
changing society while maintaining the nation(s commitment to protect
human health and safeguard the natural environment. Since then, through
a number of mechanisms including: site-specific agreements with project
sponsors at the facility or community level; broader agreements under
the Joint EPA – State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation (
HYPERLINK "http://www.ecos.org/files/1426_file_Agreement.pdf"
http://www.ecos.org/files/1426_file_Agreement.pdf ); and at the State
whole-regulatory program-level through the Agency’s State Innovation
Grant Program, EPA has been working effectively with partners to test
innovative approaches to environmental regulation that focus on better
environmental outcomes and better efficiency. Under prior Information
Collection Requests (ICRs), EPA has been gathering data on performance
under the earlier, facility-specific innovation projects identified
under Project XL (http://www.epa.gov/projctxl/). Project experience
gained in these earlier projects is helping the Agency redesign current
approaches in pursuit of improved public health and environmental
protection and more efficient use of limited resources.  Through these
projects, sponsors ( private facilities, multiple facilities, industry
sectors, Federal facilities, communities, universities, Tribes and
States ( are implementing innovative strategies that produce superior
environmental performance, provide flexibility, cost savings, paperwork
reduction or other benefits to sponsors, and promote greater
accountability to the public.

The intent of conducting and supporting innovative pilot projects is to
allow EPA to experiment with untried, potentially promising regulatory
approaches, both to assess whether they provide superior environmental
performance or other benefits, and whether they should be considered for
wider application.  Using this piloting approach, EPA can rely on
carefully controlled, but smaller scale tests to evaluate methodically
the broader applicability of any specific regulatory innovation. This
piloting approach provides EPA with a structured, applied policy
laboratory where tests of innovation at a manageable scale can be
controlled and evaluated carefully much the same as engineering
innovations require component-by component tests and evaluation to bring
an innovation to implementation.  The piloting, or applied policy
laboratory approach allows EPA to propose and adopt changes based upon
an actual assessment of success at a small scale. Thus, the careful
piloting of a regulatory innovation allows EPA to identify possible new
policy approaches within the general statutory directive, and suggest
alternative regulatory approaches aimed at better results and better
efficiency, so long as the alternative proposed is permissible under
statute.

The adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the
context of a pilot project does not, however, signal EPA's willingness
to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even in the context
of other pilot projects. It would be inconsistent with the
forward-looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative
approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining
whether or not they are viable in practice and successful for the
particular projects that embody them. These pilot projects are not
intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs.
Depending on the results of these projects, EPA may or may not be
willing to consider adopting the alternative approach or interpretation
again, either generally or for other specific facilities.  EPA believes
that testing alternative policy approaches and/or interpretations, on a
limited basis (e.g., in a site-specific circumstance or within a
specific, state-managed permitting program) and under the tight control
of a carefully selected pilot project is consistent with the
expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the
environmental statutes (so long as EPA acts within the discretion
allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is a need for
experimentation and research, as well as ongoing reevaluation of
environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of statutory
provisions.

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Innovation (NCEI) receives
proposals for innovative pilot projects through formal mechanisms such
as the State Innovation Grant Program and previously under Project XL,
as well as informally by states, tribes and regulated entities. NCEI and
has been given responsibility for managing a careful program to pilot
test, evaluate and implement select innovations in support of the
Agencies regulatory programs. Since 1995, EPA has implemented pilot
projects to test innovative ideas working with EPA headquarters, EPA
regions, Federal, State, and local government agencies, as well as
individual facilities and whole business sectors.  The renewal of this
ICR is important as it will allow the Agency to continue its work with
regulated entities that are interested in participating in innovative
pilot projects as well as allow the Agency to continue its commitment to
testing innovation and regulatory flexibility with facilities,
communities, States, and Tribes to achieve improved environmental
results.  The renewal of this ICR will allow OEPI to continue to work
with project sponsors on proposals for innovation, including those
directly through EPA, as well as other state-led mechanisms such as the
Joint EPA-State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation.  In addition,
the renewal of this ICR is necessary to allow EPA to continue
information collection supporting  its commitments to current projects
under previous approved ICR amendments (1755.03-1755.07).

2. 	Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

The information is needed to allow the Agency to continue its ongoing
work with states, regulated entities, and other stakeholders that are
already engaged in innovative regulatory piloting projects. The
information is of value to the Agency in meeting its commitment to
document and transfer practical innovation and regulatory flexibility
for attainment of compliance and superior environmental results in
partnership with regulated facilities, communities, states and tribes.
The information will support the reporting of improved environmental
results and the analysis of pilot projects to determine their efficacy
and potential for broader use.  States implementing innovative
regulatory pilot tests in projects funded by a State Innovation Grant
are required to report on progress during the operation of a project and
to provide a final project report summarizing outcomes and major
findings of each project.  EPA’s policy on performance measurement in
assistance agreements is an implementation outcome under the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA § 1115 (a)(4) and §1116(c) ).  The
renewal of this ICR will allow OEPI to continue to receive and work with
project sponsors on proposals for innovation as well as document results
from those projects.

Responses related to inquiries by EPA about Project XL pilot projects
are voluntary, as are any responses by state environmental agencies to
EPA’s request for input for the design of the annual competition.
Under this ICR, EPA would be allowed to solicit its co-regulators and
the regulated entities for their best ideas on regulatory innovation,
for pilot projects to test those ideas, and for information that will
document the processes and environmental outcomes of pilot testing.
Potential project sponsors for new projects will continue to submit
proposals to the National Center for Environmental Innovation at EPA.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Uses of the Data

Information collected under this ICR renewal will have two purposes.
First, EPA seeks to document the results of regulatory innovation pilot
projects: to provide accountability reflected in environmental results;
to understand the circumstances under which these innovative approaches
work best; and to fully document the projects and their outcomes in a
way that allows other states or tribes to work with regulated entities
to adopt successful approaches. Second, new project proposals to be
collected pursuant to this renewal will be used to articulate
full-fledged pilot projects and then to document the implementation of
the projects.  The information collection supports the competitive
identification of new innovation as well as supporting the collection of
performance information essential for documenting success in providing
improved environmental results.

A competitive process ensures that EPA can choose from a pool of useful
project ideas.  In the State Innovation Grant Program, EPA has adopted a
simple and flexible proposal format that allows State co-regulators,
working with a diversity of regulated entities, small as well as large
firms, agencies, and communities, to develop proposals. EPA uses the
proposal submissions to screen ideas and select the most promising ones
for further project development.

Similarly, EPA requires states and other project sponsors to report on
results in ways that allow the Agency to characterize the benefits of
the innovation being tested and document the innovation process to allow
for transferability to other states and regulated entities.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) 	Nonduplication

The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by
EPA or any other Federal agency.

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

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
EPA is currently soliciting comments on specific aspects of this ICR.  A
Federal Register (F.R.) notice for this ICR package was first published
in the Federal Register on [     ] 2007, (Volume [   ], Number [    ],
page [    -    ] .  [    ] public comments were received.

3(c)	Consultations

This notice was developed by the National Center for Environmental
Innovation in consultation with EPA Regional personnel.

3 (d)  	General Guidelines

This ICR complies with OMB’s general guidelines for the collection of
information.

3(e)	Confidentiality

The nature of the data being requested as part of this information
collection is not confidential.

3(f) 	Sensitive Questions

The information gathering activities discussed in this ICR do not
involve any sensitive questions.

4.  	The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

EPA works with a variety of  businesses, organizations, and communities
within the regulated community, as well as Federal facilities, states,
tribes, and local governments.  Potential respondents include all
entities regulated by EPA and its co-regulators in state and tribal
agencies pursuant to its authority under the various environmental
statutes who wish to participate in innovative pilot projects.

4(b)	Information Requested

No new proposals are being accepted through Project XL. For new projects
in development, EPA currently relies on its State Innovation Grant
program as the principal mechanism to support and stimulate innovation
testing.  Therefore the information collection activities fall generally
into three categories within this ICR: (1)  results  reporting for
projects in implementation under Project XL and the ECOS-EPA Joint
Agreement on Environmental Innovation; (2) new proposals developed under
the ECOS-EPA Joint Agreement on Environmental Innovation and the State
Innovation Grant Program, and; (3) progress and final reporting under
the State Innovation Grant Program.

For projects in implementation under Project XL and the ECOS-EPA Joint
Agreement on Environmental Innovation, EPA anticipates collection of
information to allow the Agency to document and evaluate the outcomes of
the pilot project, including measurements of environmental outcomes.
For implemented projects underway through the auspices of Project XL or
the ECOS-EPA Joint Agreement on Environmental Innovation, a final
project report, as identified in a Final Project Agreement or a project
workplan will provide the information required to assess the success and
outcomes of each project.

	For new proposals developed under the ECOS-EPA Joint Agreement on
Environmental Innovation and the State Innovation Grant Program, EPA
generally solicits initial input from states on topic areas to be
included in the annual solicitation and asks states on a voluntary basis
to submit proposals for innovation projects.

For progress and final reporting under the State Innovation Grant
Program, States receiving an assistance agreement supporting an
innovative pilot project under this program are required to prepare a
brief progress report each quarter to synopsize progress on the approved
work plan and report financial expenditures.  States are also required
to provide a final project report to document environmental outcome
measures and steps and impediments involved in implementation of their
project.  A final financial report is also required to document the
expenditure for Federal funds and provide accountability for those
expenditures.

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

5(a) 	Agency Activities

Agency activities associated with the collection of information for
innovative pilot projects include:

Gather information from sponsors regarding innovative ideas during
pre-proposal and final proposal phases;

Evaluate pre-proposal ideas with cross-Agency team;

Gather additional information from sponsor entities regarding innovative
pilot projects ideas to assist sponsor entities in developing proposals;

Distribute proposals across Agency; and

Evaluate proposals with cross-Agency team.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Information Management

For projects implemented through for all projects under Project XL:
progress reports, correspondence, and final reports are submitted by
each project sponsor by email or mail and following review these reports
are kept in project files by EPA project personnel. For projects
submitted under the ECOS-EPA Joint Agreement on Environmental
Innovation, a project final report is generally prepared by the state
and submitted to EPA at the completion or termination of the
state-initiated innovation pilot project.  For projects conducted under
the State Innovation Grant Program, States voluntarily submit brief
pre-proposals under the annual solicitation/ competition.  State’s
with projects selected in the competition must prepare and submit a
final, detailed project workplan/ final proposal, quarterly reports and
a final project report.  All of these progress and final reports are
sent to EPA electronically.  Project pre-proposals and final workplans
are submitted through the Department of Commerce   HYPERLINK
"http://www.grants.gov"  www.grants.gov  website.

5 (c)	Small Entity Flexibility.

Facilities participating in innovation projects under all projects under
Project XL participate on a voluntary basis and entities can choose not
to participate at any time if undue burden exists. Facilities
participating under the ECOS-EPA Joint Agreement for Environmental
Innovation or State Innovation Grant Program may  participate under the
auspices of bot  a voluntary program or in the context of  compliance
with a required permitting program.

5(d)	Collection Schedule.

No new proposals are being accepted through Project XL.  For regulatory
innovation projects in implementation under Project XL, a final project
report is required as specified under their final project agreement
(FPA).  Projects implemented under the ECOS-EPA Joint Agreement on
Environmental Innovation may require a final project accomplishments
report.  Projects implemented by States under the State Innovation Grant
Program are required to provide quarterly progress reports as well as a
final project report within 90 days of project completion or
termination.

6.	Estimating the Burden and the Cost of the Collection

6(a)   Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost

This section presents EPA’s estimates of the burden and costs
necessary to complete the information collection activities associated
with this collection. Burden hours and costs were based upon estimates
provided by EPA staff with extensive experience working with State
agencies funded for projects under the State Innovation Grant Program
and innovative pilot project sponsors in industry.

EPA estimates average hourly respondent labor cost (including fringe and
overhead) for State Innovation Grant solicitation response and reporting
by State agencies to be $61.05 for legal staff, $59.48 for managerial
staff, $34.60 for technical staff, and $22.74 for clerical staff.  EPA
estimates the hourly respondent labor cost for industry staff providing
periodic reporting on best environmental business practices under these
projects to be approximately the same.

Only final reporting is anticipated for a small number of the Project XL
pilots. In these cases, EPA estimates that facility operators
(principally private sector) have an average hourly labor rate of $85.42
for legal staff, $70.16 for managerial staff, $24.06 for technical
staff, and $18.51 for clerical staff.  To derive these estimates, EPA
considered the general ICR announcement, “Agency Information
Collection Activities: Request for Comments on Thirty-One Proposed
Information Collection Requests (ICRs)”, from March 9, 2007 [Docket ID
Numbers EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0032 to 0035, 0043 to 0065 and 0125 to 0128;
FRL-8285-8] and on the 2005 Employment Cost Indexes developed by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In using this analysis EPA considered that some respondents will be
asked to provide information related to certification of compliance with
permit requirements and that activity is covered under ICRs relating to
compliance reporting across the many EPA programs.  Other facilities
will be asked to report to States on the success of adopting best
environmental business practices for their business sector.  In both
instances, facilities reporting to States under the State Innovation
Grant Program, or directly to EPA under project XL have some expected
value attached with their participation.  Not unlike a contracts-based
Request for Proposals, one would not expect a response from any entity
where the burdens associated with preparing the response outweigh the
expected benefits to the sponsor.

EPA anticipates final project reports from 18 XL Projects during the
lifetime of this ICR that will provide information key to closing out
and documenting the results of these projects and evaluating the further
applicability of the ideas tested in these demonstrations.

No capital expenditures are needed by the respondent to complete the
interview since the responses can be made using existing equipment
(e.g., telephone). Moreover, no operating and maintenance costs are
needed since the activities (reviewing instructions, writing,
discussions, and submissions of proposals) can be conducted in with
existing equipment (e.g., phone, computer).

For final reporting on XL Projects, EPA projects that each project will
require up to 20 hours to compile, compose and edit material to fulfill
the commitment made by the project sponsors in the Final Project
Agreement to report fully on the outcomes of these voluntary projects.
Thus, approximately 360 hours will be required over the lifetime of this
ICR (120 hours annually) for these reports.   The cost of this is
estimated to be $2,714 annually.

For activities related to the collection of State input into the design
of the innovation grants solicitation target areas, EPA anticipates that
States and Tribes may expend up to 16 hours each to develop and submit
comment to the Agency for a total annual burden of 768 hours costing
approximately $36,193.

For activities related to the collection of progress reports and final
reports for projects under the State Innovation Grant Program, EPA
estimates that States and participating facilities may expend up to
6,860 hours in total costing approximately  $290,000.

The total burden over the lifetime of this ICR is expected to be
approximately 7748 hours with an estimated cost of $331,460.

Staff in the Office of Environmental Policy Innovation that work on the
development of innovative pilot projects have reviewed the cost findings
of the report and found them to be reasonable and sound estimates of
current and future costs.

Table 1.  Average Annual Burden and Cost to Respondents

Table 1.  Average Annual Burden and Cost to Respondents

	Collection Activity

	Burden Hours and Individual Costs per Recipient

	Total Costs

Hours per Respondent per Activity

	Costs per

	Respondent

	per Activity

	Total Hours

	for all

	Respondents

	Total Costs

	for all

	Respondents

	Legal

	Mgmt

     Tech

	Cler

STATE INNOVATION GRANT SPONSORS: PRE-PROPOSAL PHASE

Preliminary discussions with EPA on projects and solicitation strategic
focus

8

8

16

$1,508.08

768

    $36,193

TOTAL

8

8

16

$1,508.08

768

    $36,193

STATE INNOVATION GRANT SPONSORS: PROGRESS AND OUTCOME REPORTING PHASE

Collection of Annual Compliance and Other Performance Information By
Participating Facilities to Report to State Agencies (Assumes 1200
Facilities Annually)

      1

      1

     2

     $195.73

   4,800

   $234,876

Quarterly and Final Project Reporting on State Innovation Grant Projects
 (140 annually)

     1

     2

     8

   2

    $322.28

   1,820

   $ 45,119

Final Project Reports on State Innovation Grant Projects  (4 annually)

      4

     16

     32

   8

   $2,493.00

      240

   $   9,972

TOTAL

      6

    19

      42

   10

   $2,714.01

    6,860

   $ 289,967

PROJECT XL FINAL REPORTING

Compile project information and develop final project report and
closeout  (assume 6 annually)

2

6

8

2

$805.26

108

$4,831.56

Consult with EPA to resolve any questions on final report and respond to
brief evaluation survey for closeout activities (assume 6 annually)

2

$78.12

12

$468.72

TOTAL

2

6

10

2

$883.38

120

$5,300

EXTERNAL BURDEN TOTAL

16

33

68

12

$5106

7748

$331,460

6(b)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

Agency burden hours and costs were based upon estimates provided by EPA
staff with extensive experience working with innovative pilot project
sponsors and States to assess innovative pilot project ideas and
proposals. The rate EPA used to estimate agency hourly wage was based
upon 2005 GS-13/01 salary of $79,397 (or $38.17) with overhead of and
additional 1.33 factored in, resulting in $88.94/hour.

To perform the necessary activities associated with this information
collection, EPA estimates that it will require the Agency 232 hours and
cost the Agency $20,636 per year.

Staff in the Office of Environmental Policy Innovation that work on the
development of innovative pilot projects have reviewed the cost findings
of the report and found them to be reasonable and sound estimates.

Table 2.  Annual Average Burden and Cost to Agency

	Collection Activity

	Costs

	Labor

	Total Hours

        Total

	Costs

	Hours

	Costs

EPA

Gather information from potential sponsor entities regarding

innovative idea during pre-proposal phase through discussions (assume 30
State and Tribal responses annually)

2

$155

60

$4,643

Evaluation of State Innovation Grant Pre-proposals  (assume 20 annually)

        8

         $619

           160

   $12,380

Evaluation of State Innovation Grant Project Progress Reports (assume
140 quarterly annually)

       1

     $  77

        140

    $10,780

Evaluation of State innovation Grant Final Reports (assume 4 annually)

        8

     $616

           40

     $ 2,464

Evaluate Project XL and ECOS Joint Agreement Final Reports (assume 6
annually)

16

     $1,232

96

     $ 7,392

INTERNAL BURDEN TOTAL

18

$1,367

232

      $20,636

6(c) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

EPA estimates that, annually, 30 State, Tribal, local and other
stakeholder respondents will be involved in pre-proposal concept
information collection activities prior to the release of a grants
solicitation and that EPA will expend approximately 60 hours to analyze
that information at a cost of $4,643.  Similarly, based upon its
experience in five previous competitions under the State Innovation
Grant Program, EPA estimates that approximately 20 States will respond
annually to the solicitation and that EPA will expend 160 hours of time
evaluating those pre-proposals at a cost of $12,380.

EPA currently has 35 projects funded through the Grant Program and their
quarterly reporting will provide 140 short progress reports to the
Agency and 4 final project reports annually based upon the projected
terms of the projects under the assistance agreements for the next 3
years. EPA estimate that it will expend 140 hours annually at a cost of
$10,780 to review those quarterly reports and 40 hours annually to
review  the final project reports at a cost of $2,464.

Similarly for projects implemented under earlier categories of
regulatory innovation, notably Project XL, EPA anticipates that project
sponsors will expend approximately 96 hours to meet their final
reporting commitments to the Agency under those project agreements at a
cost to the Agency of approximately $7,392.  EPA(s cost to collect,
analyze and manage information under all parts of this ICR will be
approximately $20,636 for an estimated 232 hours of labor.

6(d) Reasons for Burden Hour Change

OMB currently has approved XX,XXX burden hours for EPA to solicit ideas
and formal proposals to develop innovative pilot projects.  This total
also includes annual burden hours approved as part of three amendments
to ICR (1755.02).  EPA requires XXX hours annually (XXXX hours over the
lifetime of the ICR to perform information collection activities
described in the ICR amendments (1755.03, 1755.04, and 1755.05, 1755.06,
and 1755.07).  With the renewal of this ICR, total annual hours needed
to conduct information collection activities described in this ICR, as
well as in the three ICR amendments listed above, will be reduced by
XX,XXX hours.  This difference is largely a result of our ability to
refine the estimates based upon 10 years of experience promoting
regulatory innovation and a better understanding of the burden
requirements necessary to develop and submit proposals for innovative
pilot projects, and an improved understanding of innovative pilot
projects and how to develop them.

7. Burden Statement

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes

the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection
techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20460; and to the Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.
Include the EPA ICR number (1755.06) and OMB control number (2010-0026)
in any correspondence.

 PAGE

 PAGE  11