[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 42975]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0081]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated July 3, 2020, Grenada Railroad, LLC (GRYR)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2019-0081.
    Applicant: Grenada Railroad, LLC, Barbara W. Wilson, President &
CFO, 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404, Boca Raton, FL 33432.
    Specifically, GRYR seeks reconsideration of FRA's May 7, 2020,
decision to deny GRYR's September 18, 2019, proposed discontinuance and
removal of the automatic block signal (ABS) system located from
milepost (MP) 403.0 near Southaven, MS, to MP 617.4 near Grenada, MS.
    In its July 3, 2020, petition, GRYR states that reactivation of the
ABS system, which has been out of service since 2014, is not justified
by current rail operations, and the prohibitive costs of reactivation
will require the use of capital which could be better spent on other
projects to yield stronger safety benefits.
    GRYR further states that under the ownership of RailUSA, GRYR has
worked diligently and invested significantly to revitalize this long-
neglected rail line, re-establish operations on the southern half of
its system, and improve the safety and operations of the northern half
of its system. The committed focus on rail safety and continued
investment in infrastructure is expected to continue to improve the
safety and operations of GRYR's main line and adjacent rail facilities.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by August 31, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. See also
http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-15189 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6307-6308]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2017-0118]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that on November 7, 2017, Denver's Regional
Transportation District (RTDC) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 236. FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0118.
    In accordance with 49 CFR 236.588, RTDC is requesting approval to
perform periodic testing of the Automatic Train Control system (ATC) at
an interval of 92 days for the RTDC fleet of electric multiple unit
equipment (EMUs), numbered RTDC 4001 through RTDC 4066. Currently RTDC
is performing ATC periodic testing at an interval of 60 days as
required by 49 CFR 236.588. In support of this request, RTDC states
that the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Siemens Rail Automation
(formerly PHW, Inc.) has developed the maintenance and testing program
for these vehicles based on a 92-day interval. RTDC has included
relevant portions of this program with its petition. RTDC further
states that to date, there have been no issues with the ATC system
found during periodic testing that would be impacted by increasing the
testing interval to 92 days. RTDC adds that granting the

requested approval would not result in an additional costs and would
allow RTDC to improve efficiency and resource allocation while
complying with the OEM's maintenance requirements.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 30, 2018 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-02867 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Date:		August 25, 2006

Subject:	Minutes to Meeting with the Flexible Packaging Association

		Section 183(e) Controls for Flexible Packaging Printing

EPA Contract No.: 68-D-01-073; EPA Work Assignment No.:  4-15

		RTI International Project No.:  0208220.004.015

From:		Dave Reeves and Roy Neulicht

To:		Paula Hirtz

		OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

		Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

Introduction

The Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) requested a meeting with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain clarifications and
verbally present comments on the proposed control techniques guidelines
(CTG) document under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act for flexible
packaging printing.  The meeting was held on August 25, 2006 at U.S. EPA
facilities in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Attendees

Ram Singhal, Flexible Packaging Association

Howard Hofmeister, Bemis

David Yount, Oracle Packaging

Dan Williams, Sealed Air.

Leslie Ritts, Hogan and Hartson LLP (by telephone)

David Ellison, Alcan Packaging (by telephone)

Brian Galley, Alcan Packaging (by telephone)

Paula Hirtz, U.S. EPA

Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA

David Salman, U.S. EPA

K.C. Hustvedt, U. S. EPA

Ragan Tate, U. S. EPA:OGC

Geoff Wilcox, U.S. EPA:OGC

Roy Neulicht, RTI International

Dave Reeves, RTI International

Discussion

Ms. Paula Hirtz opened the meeting by welcoming the attendees, and brief
introductions were made.  Mr. Singhal and the other industry
representatives gave a brief summary of the flexible packaging industry
and stated their purpose for the meeting was to provide some initial
comments regarding the draft CTG that was recently published in the
Federal Register.  They also indicated that they would be providing
consolidated comments to the docket by the end of the comment period
(September 5, 2006).

Mr. Singhal indicated they had 5 items they wanted to address: 1)
Applicability, 2) Cost effectiveness, 3) Cleaning solvents, 4) Usage of
water-based materials, and 5) The overall emissions standards.

Applicability

The first item that was discussed involved applicability criteria.  The
draft CTG states that it applies to flexible package printing operations
that emit at least 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) VOC before consideration of
controls.   There is concern about the applicability cutoff because most
states with the 15 lb/day limit have it applying to individual lines –
not the overall printing operation.   Mr. Hofmeister commented that much
smaller operations would be included with such a limit and would likely
cause many facilities to change lines or move small print jobs (and
equipment) to other locations.

The second discussion item also related to applicability and the
exception for flexible package printing operations with potential to
emit at least 25 tons per year (tpy) of VOC from inks, coatings, and
adhesives combined before consideration of controls.  Ms. Ritts asked if
both applicability criteria had to be met, or if they were to be
evaluated separately.  Mr. Salman clarified that for any operation
exceeding the 15 lbs VOC emissions per day and having less than 25 tpy
of potential VOC emissions, that facility would only be subject to the
cleaning material requirements.

There were also comments and concerns about the 25 tpy cutoff being much
lower than the typical state (permit) level of 100 tpy, or 50 tpy for
ozone nonattainment areas.  Ms. Ritts stated that if the final CTG still
includes these applicability criteria, all major sources would have to
comply with the CTG (RACT) requirements.  Mr. Hofmeister asked that the
language on applicability be reviewed and clarified.

Related to the 25 tpy applicability cutoff, several questions were asked
about the cost effectiveness calculations documented in the draft CTG.
Mr. Hofmeister commented that it appeared the range of costs were based
on cutoffs using 50 and 100 tpy.  Mr. Neulicht stated that the
calculations were based on example facilities with 50 and 100 tpy VOC
emissions.  Mr. Hofmeister then stated that they had done some
calculations and had came up with comparable cost effectiveness values
for 50 and 100 tpy.  However, when they did calculations for 25 tpy, the
cost effectiveness increased significantly.  For the simplest approach
using one printing press, the cost effectiveness increased to $6,000/ton
VOC.  When they used an example facility with 4 presses contributing to
the 25 tpy, the cost effectiveness jumped up to $7,400/ton due to the
increased ductwork and hardware costs.

Small-Unit Exemption

Mr. Ellison asked if there could be a small unit exemption – similar
to what they currently have in a lot of their state permits.  He stated
that there are several small printing presses using less than 500 pounds
of VOC per year and they are not vented to an oxidizer currently.  Mr.
Wilcox then asked what the mechanism is for keeping track of the
production or material usage data for such equipment.  Ms. Ritts
commented that many facilities use the same inks on different presses.
Mr. Ellison further commented that the recordkeeping approach is largely
dependent on how the facility is permitted.  Often times, presses are
grouped together and material usage is tracked for the group.

Averaging Provisions

Mr. Hofmeister asked about averaging provisions.  Mr. Wilcox stated that
the Agency has difficulty with averaging provisions for certain
industries where the recordkeeping and calculations are overly
burdensome and end up being nothing more than paper exercises with no
real environmental benefit. Mr. Salman responded that they (EPA)
envisioned some type of daily weighted averaging being allowed on a
single press, but not cross-line or multi-line averaging.

Mr. Hofmeister asked if the recommended level of control for VOC
emissions from coatings, inks, and adhesives and cleaning materials was
an overall control (e.g., 70 or 80 percent), or was the basis for the
overall numbers (cited in the examples) to be included as part of the
recommended control option.  Ms. Hirtz clarified that only the overall
control value should be considered and stated that additional language
will be added to the final CTG to make sure that is understood.

VOC Content Limits

Mr. Williams asked about the alternative compliance option involving VOC
content limits based on different units.  Mr. Salman responded by
stating that the VOC content limit was derived from the 1978 CTG and the
intent of the different units was to have them be equivalent for typical
materials used by the flexible package printing industry.  There was
further discussion of what a typical ink is and the volatile portion
versus the exempt portion.  Mr. Williams commented that waterborne inks
are most compatible for paper substrates, but do not always work on film
or foil.  The proposed limits could drive some applications away from
water-based materials.

Cleaning Materials

Mr. Hofmeister then mentioned some concern with the vapor pressure limit
for clean-up materials.  One of industry’s primary concerns is that
the recommended level of control for cleaning materials is a composite
vapor pressure limit of 25 mm mercury (Hg) at 20º C and several of
their common cleaning solvents used on printing presses, such as ethyl
acetate, have vapor pressures greater than 25 mm Hg.  Acetates tend to
be good cleaners and if industry had to switch to alcohols, cleaning
operations would require more cleaning material and increase disposal
costs.  Mr. Hofmeister commented that the best use of cleaning solvent
is being able to reuse the material in the printing process.  Ms. Ritts
asked how strongly EPA feels about the cleaning material requirements.
Mr. Hofmeister stated that the industry as a whole agrees with the work
practice recommendations.  Mr. Yount also stated the North Carolina
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) regulates
cleaning solvent containers as they sit at the facility and has periodic
inspections.

Mr. Williams stated that many of the newer presses have automatic
solvent reclaim systems and the cleaning solvent is purged through the
lines, captured, and sent back to a holding reservoir.  There was some
additional discussion about total enclosures and other limits used in
different parts of the country.  Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) Rule 820-309 for Specialty Flexible Packaging has the
same vapor pressure limit (25 mm Hg) and a density limit of 7.4 lbs/gal
(880 g/L).  Mr. Ellison commented that such limits have resulted in a
very few flexible packaging facilities remaining in BAAQMD.

Model Rule

The last discussion topic was model rule language.  Ms. Ritts asked if
such language would be included in the final CTG.  Mr. Wilcox stated
that as a general proposition, model rule language associated with a CTG
gets close to actual rule language.  There is a disincentive to have
such language included in the CTGs because of the court-mandated
schedule and potential legal issues.  Several of the industry
representatives expressed their concerns with consistency issues from
state to state and the likely confusion. They then asked if a model rule
might be developed later (after the final CTG) as part of the
implementation effort.  Mr. Moore commented that there is no budget for
any follow-on activities.  Mr. Hofmeister requested that some type of
implementation document be made available to states prior to their SIP
submittal.  He also stated that such RACT rules will likely be
implemented beyond non-attainment states and will have significant
implementation/integration issues.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55030-55032]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23074]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0299; FRL-9933-84-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Kansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision and
2014 Five-Year Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the Kansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted to EPA by the State of Kansas on March 10, 2015, documenting
that the State's existing plan is making adequate progress to achieve
visibility goals by 2018. The Kansas SIP revision addressed the
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) to submit a report describing progress in achieving reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) to improve visibility in Federally designated
areas in nearby states that may be affected by emissions from sources
in Kansas. EPA is taking final action to approve Kansas' determination
that the existing Regional Haze (RH) SIP is adequate to meet the
visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at this time.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0299. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Krabbe, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we'', ``us'', or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 10, 2015, (80 FR 32874), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of

Kansas. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Kansas's progress report
SIP, a report on progress made in the first implementation period
towards RPGs for Class I areas that are affected by emissions from
Kansas sources. This progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter
also included a determination that Kansas's existing regional haze SIP
requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional
haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018.
    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition,
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of
the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The first
progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze SIP. On October 26, 2009, KDHE submitted its regional
haze SIP in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. The
progress report SIP revision was submitted by Kansas on March 10, 2015,
and EPA finds that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
and (h). No comments were received regarding the NPR.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On March 10, 2015, Kansas submitted a SIP revision to describe the
progress made towards the RPGs of Class I areas in and outside Kansas
that are affected by emissions from Kansas' sources. This progress
report SIP also includes a determination of the adequacy of Kansas'
existing regional haze SIP to achieve these RPGs.
    Kansas has no Class I areas within its borders. Kansas notes in its
progress report SIP that Kansas sources were also identified as
potentially impacting four Class I areas in three neighboring states:
Caney Creek Wilderness Area in Arkansas, Hercules-Glades Wilderness
Area in Missouri, Mingo Wilderness Area in Missouri, and Wichita
Mountains Wilderness Area in Oklahoma.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a progress report SIP to
address seven elements. EPA finds that Kansas' progress report SIP
addressed each element under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The seven elements and
EPA's conclusion are briefly summarized in this rulemaking action.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require progress report SIPs to
include a description of the status of measures in the approved
regional haze SIP; a summary of emissions reductions achieved; an
assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state;
an analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within
the state; an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded
progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; an
assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and a
review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy. As explained in
detail in the NPR, EPA finds that Kansas' progress report SIP addressed
each element and has therefore satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(g).
    In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to
submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of
the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of
four possible actions based on information in the progress report. One
possible action is submission of a negative declaration to EPA that no
further substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP
is needed. In its progress report SIP, Kansas submitted a negative
declaration that it had determined that its existing regional haze SIP
requires no further substantive revision to achieve the RPGs for the
Class I areas that are affected by emissions from Kansas's sources. As
explained in detail in the NPR, EPA concludes Kansas has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility data trends at the
Class I areas impacted by Kansas's sources and the emissions trends of
the largest emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants both indicate
that the RPGs for 2018 will be met or exceeded. Therefore, EPA
concludes Kansas' progress report SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(h).

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Kansas' regional haze five-
year progress report and SIP revision, submitted March 10, 2015, as
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 13, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 20, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart R--Kansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.870, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entry (42) at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

                                  EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or     State submittal   EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(42) State Implementation Plan    Statewide..........         3/10/15   9/14/15 [Insert
 (SIP) Revision for the                                                  Federal Register
 Attainment and Maintenance of                                           citation]
 National Ambient Air Quality
 Standards for Regional Haze
 (2014 Five-Year Progress
 Report).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-23074 Filed 9-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 61 (Friday, March 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16033-16034]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06323]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0319; FRL-9960-23-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for VOC Emissions From Petroleum
Refinery Wastewater Systems (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of an existing ICR, which
is currently approved through March 31, 2017. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on May 3, 2016 during a
60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for
public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0319, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)

564-2970; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Protection Agency has
submitted an information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for VOC
Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1136.12, OMB Control No. 2060-
0172), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through March 31, 2017. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (81 FR 26546) on May 3, 2016 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments.
    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that
the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this
ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov, or in
person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of petroleum refinery wastewater
systems are required to keep records of design and operating
specifications of all equipment installed to comply with the standards
such as water seals, roof seals, control devices, and other equipment.
This information is necessary to ensure that equipment design and
operation specifications are met, and the source is in compliance with
NSPS Subpart QQQ.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum refinery wastewater
systems.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 149 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 10,200 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $19,400 in either annualized capital/startup
or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
overall burden in this ICR when compared to the previous ICR. This is
due to a correction from 135 in the previous ICR to 149 in this ICR
renewal in the estimated number of petroleum refineries subject to the
NSPS. This ICR references the most recently available industry
information from the Refinery Sector Rule reconsideration and is
consistent with the source count for NSPS Subpart J for petroleum
refineries. In addition, this ICR assumes all sources will take time to
re-familiarize with the regulation each year.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-06323 Filed 3-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33079-33080]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-24-000]

Dow Intrastate Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

June 4, 2008.
    Take notice that on May 30, 2008, Dow Intrastate Gas Company filed
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a petition
pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations
requesting that the Commission approve its proposed rates for
transportation service being provided pursuant to section 311(a)(2) of
the NGPA.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant.

Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention
or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on
persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 20, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-13026 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.  IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests an extension of the
current  approval for information collection activities associated with
contractor conflicts of interest (COI).  The EPA number for this
collection is 1550.07.  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Information Clearance Request (ICR) number is 2030-0023.

	The collection of this information is required to ensure that the
Agency can effectively identify, evaluate, and take appropriate action
concerning contractor COI.  EPA contractors are required to disclose any
actual or potential COI with regard to its employees, corporate
affiliations, and business relationships.  Contractors will be required
to maintain a database of business relationships and report information
to EPA on either an annual basis or when work is ordered under an Agency
contract.   Additionally, under some contracts, the contractor must
request written approval from the contracting officer to enter into a
proposed contract subject to the restrictions of EPA’s Limitation of
Future Contracting Clause.

2.  NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	a)  NEED/AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

	The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 9.5, requires
contracting officers to analyze acquisitions to identify and evaluate
potential COI, and to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant COI
before contract award.  EPA’s information collection is required not
only to fulfill the requirements of FAR, protecting the Government’s
interests at contract award, but also ensure this protection extends
throughout the performance of Agency contracts.

	EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment.  This
mission involves crosscutting functions such as developing and enforcing
regulations, and performing environmental research.  Since EPA uses
contractor support for all these functions it is imperative that the
Agency maintain rigorous COI standards to protect the integrity and the
public’s trust in our work.  Originally, this ICR was initiated due to
the need to ensure that contractors supporting work under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) or ‘‘Superfund’’ are free from conflict so as not
to prejudice CERCLA clean-up and cost recovery actions.  In the past few
years,  it is clear that the potential for conflict is not limited to
contracts supporting just Superfund activities, but includes other EPA
contracts as well.  Environmental laws,  besides Superfund, that give
the Agency the authority for its programs and regulatory activities
include, but are not limited to, the Clean Water Act (CWA); Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuary Act
(MPRSA); Clean Air Act (CAA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA);  Oil Pollution Act (OPA); Pollution Prevention Act (PPA);
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Superfund
Reauthorization and Amendments Act (SARA); Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA); Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA); National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act (AHERA); and the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable
Battery Management Act (Battery Act).

	FAR Subpart 2.1 states organizational conflict of interest means
“that because of other activities or relationships with other persons,
a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance
or advice to the Government, or the person’s objectivity in performing
the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an
unfair competitive advantage.”  Depending on the contract terms, EPA
requires the contractor to either certify annually or certify each time
work is ordered under the contract that to the best of the Contractor's
knowledge and belief, all actual or potential organizational conflicts
of interest have been reported to EPA.  If the contractor cannot so
certify, the firm must provide a disclosure statement describing all
relevant information concerning any past, present, or planned interests
bearing on whether it may have a conflict of interest.  The contracting
officer and advisers will use this information to evaluate potential
conflicts and to determine the appropriate action necessary to avoid,
mitigate, or neutralize the disclosed conflict.

	Several examples of potential COI follow.  Example 1:  A contractor
which may perform clean-up work at a Superfund site must disclose any
business relationship that firm has with potentially responsible parties
(PRP).  Once PRPs are identified for specific sites, the Agency attempts
to recover costs expended for cleanup through either consent agreements
or litigation.  Because EPA has the dual responsibility of cleanup and
enforcement and because its contractors are often involved in both
activities, it is imperative that EPA contractors are free of conflicts
so as not to prejudice CERCLA response and enforcement/cost recovery
actions.  Example 2:  A contractor which is tasked with evaluating radon
measurement devices must disclose any business relationships it has with
firms manufacturing radon measurement devises.  The contractor’s
objectivity would be questioned if the firm evaluated a radon
measurement device manufactured by a company with which the contractor
has an ongoing business relationship.  Example 3:  A contractor
providing peer review services must disclose if contractor employees
assigned to perform peer review which had been substantially involved in
the product under review.  The individual’s impartiality would be
questioned if he or she contributed to the product under review.

	b)  USE AND USERS OF THE DATA

	If contractors submit a certification stating they have no conflicts of
interest, they contracting officer reviews the certificate and retains
the information in the official contract file.  If contractors disclose
information showing they have an actual or potential conflict of
interest, the contracting officers and advisers (subject matter or
technical experts, legal advisors, and procurement analysts) carefully
review and analyze the disclosure to determine the appropriate course of
action.  EPA staff will use the conflict of interest plan and
certifications as a means to ensure contractors are complying with EPA's
requirements for detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest.

	Contracting officers document their determinations in the official
contract file.  This is also where they retain the original information
collected.

In general, the information collected and the determinations made will
be used by the Agency to ensure that contractors and the EPA are
adequately addressing conflict of interest concerns, and that the Agency
is making determinations consistent with the exercise of common sense,
good judgment, and sound discretion, to protect its programs.

3.   THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

a)	RESPONDENTS/NAICS CODES

Respondents to this information collection activity are Agency
contractors performing work for the Agency which requires protection
from conflicts of interest.  The number of EPA contractors who will be
required to provide information under this collection is approximately
135.

The respondents represent a variety of industries such as: remediation
services (NAICS #56910); environmental consulting services (NAICS
#56920); engineering services (NAICS #541330); research and development
(NAICS #541710); administrative management and general management
consulting services (NAICS #541611); and computer related services
(NAICS #541519).

	b)  INFORMATION REQUESTED

		(i)  DATA ITEMS

	Data to be collected includes: (1) certification on either an annual
basis or when work is ordered that conflicts have been disclosed or that
none exist; (2) disclosure of actual and potential conflicts of interest
under the contract; and (3) requests for authorization to enter into a
certain future contract work, cited in the "Limitation of Future
Contracting Clause” in the applicable contract.

The recordkeeping requirements associated with this request include
corporate recordkeeping consistent with a contractor's system for
identifying, mitigating, and preventing conflicts of interest as
described in its conflict of interest plan submitted to EPA.  This
conflict of interest recordkeeping includes maintaining a database of
corporate clients and contracts in order to identify potential conflicts
and maintaining records of disclosures of conflicts to demonstrate
compliance with a contractor's conflict of interest plan. NOTE: The term
"database" as used in this section includes any system which permits a
contractor to search its records for conflicts of interest and may be
either manual or automated. The critical function of any database is
that it gives the respondent the capability to identify any past,
present, and future work which may be in conflict.

	(ii)  RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES

To properly respond to EPA’s conflict of interest disclosure requests
requires the contractor to first maintain a list of all current
contracts they are working under and the nature of the work they are
performing under the contract.  Then, the contractor must analyze
interrelations between the work the firm will be performing under the
current contract and any work performed under other contracts which may
cause the contractor to be unable to render impartial assistance or
advice to EPA, impair the firm’s objectivity, or give the firm an
unfair competitive advantage.  For example, if EPA wants the contractor
to assist with research on pesticide products, the contractor would
check the work they currently perform to ensure it doesn’t involved
work for pesticide manufactures.  A third party would question the
objectivity of the contractor’s research if the contractor’s work
involved a pesticide manufactured by a firm with which the contractor
does a significant amount of business  If the firm discovers no
conflicts of interest, then it certifies this fact to the contracting
officer.  If the firm discovers an actual or potential problem, then the
facts of the situation will be reported to the contracting officer for
his or her response.  The steps involved in this process would include:

	1)  Create information

		(a)  prepare conflict of interest plan; (CBP = 50%)

	2)  Gather information; (CBP = 80%)

		(a) create a database

	3)  Process, compile, and review information;

		(a)  search database and records (CBP = 25%) and

		(b)  maintain records

	4)  Complete written forms or other paperwork;

		(a)  prepare annual certification, or

		(b)  prepare certification when work is ordered

	5)  Identify a potential conflict of interest;

		(a) make decision and notify EPA contracting officer (CBP = 10%)

	6)  Record disclosure or display information; (CBP = 10%) and

	7)  Request approval to enter a future contract that may have a
conflict of interest.

"Customary and usual business practice" (CBP) efforts identified above
were based on analysis of interviews with Agency contractors, Agency
contracting staff, and historical data on handling conflicts of
interest.

Public Notice

	In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), the Agency notified the public through a Federal Register notice
on the submission of this ICR on April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20534) with
comments due on June 25, 2007.  One nonsubstantial comment was received.

4.   THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

(a)  AGENCY ACTIVITIES

The Agency anticipates performing the information collection activities
listed below, in conjunction with conflict of interest requirements.
(See 6(b) for calculations of the Agency's cost estimates.)

(1)  Analyzing the contract scope and inserting appropriate conflict of
interest clauses in contracts;

(2)  Collecting conflict of interest certifications or disclosures, or
requests to review future contracts from the contractor;

(3)  When a conflict is disclosed or a request for a future contract is
made, analyzing the information provided and determining the appropriate
measures to avoid, neutralize or mitigate the conflict; and

(4)  Filing certifications of no conflict or documenting action on
potential conflict of interests disclosures in the in the contract file.

		(b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

		The original information collected will go directly to the Contracting
Officer who has responsibility for making conflict of interest
determinations.  The information and determinations will be filed in the
specific contract files as the official record of the Agency decision.
Most respondents will prepare their submissions electronically.
Submissions are accepted in any format so long as the required
information is provided.

		(c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

	Based on fiscal year 2006 figures, roughly one third of the Agency’s
contracts are awarded to small businesses.  Only the minimum information
necessary to ensure that conflicts of interest do not exist is
requested.  Because the information requested is vital to monitoring
contractor performance under Agency contracts, separate or simplified
procedures cannot be developed for small businesses.

	EPA considered alternatives to the information collection, such as
establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or
simplifying the requirements for small entities. EPA also considered
exempting small entities from all or part of the rule.  However separate
or further simplified requirements are not practical, because the stated
objectives cannot be met under such alternatives.  An undisclosed
conflict of interest poses the same risk to EPA whether it is a conflict
involving a large or small business contractor.  EPA believes the
information collection, along with other established internal controls
within the Agency, will prevent conflicts of interest that may
jeopardize future actions.

		Although the information collection requirements for small and large
business are the same, we anticipate that the burden will be less for
small businesses because they generally have less complex organizational
structures and less data to maintain and search than large businesses.

	(d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE AND EFFECT OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

		This information collection requires contractors to certify, either
annually or when EPA orders work under their contract, that they have no
conflict of interest.  If the contractor detects an actual or potential
conflict, then the firm must disclose the nature of the conflict.  The
annual certification requirement is possible where the nature of the
work the contractor is performing is sufficiently known in advance to
allow certifying for an entire year.  More frequently, EPA requires its
contractors to certify or disclose with each order for work under the
contract.  This requirement for reporting when specific work is ordered
is essential under contracts with a wide scope where it is not possible
to know in advance the exact type of work needed or the exact location
the work will be performed.  For example, most Superfund contracts are
performed at multiple sites and there is little or no advance notice of
where such work will be assigned because of our changing cleanup
priorities.  Therefore, a contractor is in a better position to identify
its conflicts or potential contracts when work is ordered compared to
when the basic contract is awarded.  We are unable to further reduce
this requirement without handicapping our ability to ensure our
contractors do not work in areas where their objectivity may be
impaired, or where their contractors actions may adversely affect
enforcement actions or cost recovery from polluters.

	There is also no set schedule for submission of requests for
authorization to enter into a contract for non-EPA work cited in the
"Limitation of Future Contracting Clause."  This clause identifies
outside work that could pose a significant conflict of interest with
work performed for EPA and may impair EPA contractor performance or harm
enforcement actions.  These requests are required to be submitted if and
when a contractor wants to request authorization to enter into such high
risk contracts.  Such requests are essential in order that EPA has the
opportunity to protect its enforcement actions from an unacceptable risk
of prejudice before it occurs.  This is essential to protecting the
Government interests.

5.  NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS & OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

		(a) NONDUPLICATION

		The collection of information is not duplicative of information
otherwise accessible to the Agency.  The data is unique to each firm’s
contract or order for work under a contract and is not available from
any other source.  EPA provisions have the same general objectives of
identifying, mitigating and avoiding conflicts of interest as FAR
Subpart 9.5.  However, unlike the FAR, the EPA provisions include
reporting and certification requirements to ensure that actual and
potential conflicts of interest are reviewed not only prior to contract
award, but also during the period of contract performance and after
contract performance to ensure enforcement actions are not prejudiced.
It is only in this way that EPA can evaluate whether a contractor's work
efforts, which may be initiated during the EPA contract performance
period or in some cases, after contract completion, may present an
unacceptable risk to the Agency.

	(b)   CONSULTATIONS

	For this ICR, informal consultations were conducted with the following
EPA contractors who provide information under EPA's conflict of interest
disclosure requirements.

The firms contacted were:

	Name			Phone				Affiliation

	Ed Greutert<PHONE_NUMBER>  		Booz, Allen, & Hamilton

	Ules Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>			Battelle

	Leigh Roller<PHONE_NUMBER>			ERG

	Ed Sussenguth<PHONE_NUMBER> 			Tetra Tech

The process each firm used for tracking contract work, reviewing the
scope of work, and certifying there are no conflicts or disclosing the
nature of an actual or potential conflict were virtually identical.  The
amount of effort involved varied on the size of the business, the number
of affiliates, and the amount of contracting they do.

(c) CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

	Some of the information submitted in response to our information
request is confidential business information (CBI).  The Agency will
protect CBI from release, and will disclose it only to the extent
consistent with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Agency regulations, and the
contract terms.

	This information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1978 and
OMB Circular A-108, as revised and incorporated into OMB Circular A-130.
 We have identified no sensitive questions.

(d) Public notice required prior to ICR Submission to OMB: The Federal
Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments in
this collection of information was published on April 25, 2007.  One,
nonsubstantial comment was received.

6.  ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	(a)  ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COSTS

		(i) General Notes

Respondent burden in complying with the COI information collection is
broken down into the following tasks.  Each task will be separately
addressed in the narrative, and the all tasks will be summarized in the
table at the end of this section:

	1.  Prepare  Conflict of Interest Plan (one-time burden)

	2.  Create a Database (one-time burden)

	3.  Storage and Maintenance of Records  (recurring burden)

	4.  Search Data Base Records for Possible COI  (recurring burden)

5.  Identify Potential COI, Record Decision, and Notify EPA (recurring
burden)

6.  Request Approval for Future Contract (recurring)

EPA’s conflict of interest information requirements have been in
effect since 1994.  Additionally, the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) Subpart 9.5 also has rules and procedures in place to identifying,
evaluating, and resolving organizational and consultant conflicts of
interest.  Firms doing business with the Federal Government as prime
contractors or subcontractors must meet the FAR requirements for
identifying conflicts of interest.  Given EPA’s long history with
requiring conflict of interest information, the vast majority of EPA
contractors have established systems for tracking the work they perform
and identifying areas which may raise issues concerning the
contractors’ impartiality or objectivity

One time costs, such as COI plan development and creation of a database
were discussed in prior requests and continue to apply to only to
contractors who have never done any work as either a prime contractor or
subcontractor on a Government contract involving a potential for
conflict of interest.

EPA’s initial request for information collection clearance, which was
submitted in 1994, utilized a seven year period to allocate one time,
non-recurring costs associated with COI plan development and database
creation.  The seven year period was chosen because most Agency
Superfund contracts average seven years.  Now that the seven years has
passed, and burden hours for the seven years were covered in EPA’s
initial and first renewal ICR, none of the original allocation of
one-time costs remain.  Any burden associated with tasks 1 and 2 will
only be incurred by contractors and subcontractors who have never
contracted with EPA.

The customary and usual business practices (CBP) in this ICR are based
on knowledge of the business practices of anticipated respondents and
from a review of information received from EPA contractors (potential
respondents) who provided data in response to our consultations.  In our
burden calculations, the CBP is subtracted from the overall total burden
to show the new estimated burden anticipated for this requirement.  The
calculations for CBP are described below for each category of effort.

In accordance with the provisions of FAR Part 31, EPA anticipates that
costs incurred in complying with this information collection request
will be chargeable to Government contracts.

	(ii) Labor Costs:  	For all tasks below, the hours are allocated among
labor categories in the same manner as the original ICR hours: 25%
Management, 50% Technical, and 25% Clerical.

(1)  Prepare Conflict of Interest (COI) Plan. (Non-recurring one-time
effort) In its initial request, EPA estimated 1,170 hours per plan as a
non-recurring one-time cost, because once contractors have prepared a
COI Plan, it will only be necessary to update and/or modify it.   We
continue to utilize the estimate of 1,170 hours per plan for any firms
who have never previously done business with EPA or been a prime or
subcontractor on a Federal Government contract involving conflict of
interest provisions.  For new respondents, we retain the original CBP of
50%.  This results in an estimate of 585 hours for each of the 10 new
respondents.  In order to allocate the 585 hours across the seven year
period of performance, we have divided the 585 by 7 to arrive at an
average 84 hours per respondent per year to prepare the initial COI
plan.  Total burden per year for the 10 new respondents is 840.

		 	BURDEN:	84 hours X 10 new respondents = 840 hours

(2)  Create Data Base.  (Non-recurring one-time effort) Our estimate of
700 hours reflects EPA's best estimate based on information received
from respondents.  The CPB for this line item is 80%, resulting in total
hours of 140.  This line item is also a non-recurring one-time burden.
Also, as described in task 1 above, these hours are allocated over a
seven year period of performance. The Agency anticipates approximately
10 new respondents per year.  This is lower from 15 in the previous ICR
because many contractors now have experience meeting  Federal and EPA
conflict of interest requirements.  Therefore, our estimate includes 140
hours per response for new respondents, divided by 7 years which equals
20 hrs per year, times 10 respondents or 200 hours total for new
respondents.

			BURDEN:	20 hours X 10 new respondents = 200 hours

(3)  Storage and Maintenance of Records.  The previous estimate was
1,100 hours.  Our revised estimate is 484 hours.  The CBP for this line
item remains at is 80% to reflect that most firms routinely keep lists
of their contract work and have experience in keeping conflict of
interest records for Federal contracts.  Therefore, a total of 154 hours
of storage and maintenance of records activity is associated with this
collection request.

			BURDEN:   154 hours

(4)  Search Data Base Records for Possible COI   The number of times
work is ordered under an EPA contract varies greatly; however, for
purposes of this ICR we retain the estimate that 75 work orders will be
issued in a given year.  Of this number, approximately 16% will be for
the same Superfund site for which a previous work order has been issued.
 Since contractors are not required to submit more than one
certification or disclosure per Superfund site, then contractors will
only do certifications or disclosures for 63 work orders.

The average time required to perform each search is estimated to be 8
hours.    The previous ICR estimated 14 hours.  In our interviews with
contractors, we found firms typically perform a key word search (key
words such as type of work, location, names of affiliates) in an
automated database.  The database search would take less than an hour;
however,  an employee with the appropriate expertise must review the
search findings for accuracy.  Eight hours includes the database search
time, ensuring the findings are appropriate, and possibly querying
contractor project staff as well as records.  Based on interviews with
contractors, the CBP for this line item is reduced from 25% to 10%.  Few
public sector contracts require searching the previous conflict of
interest records; however, some state or local contracts may require it.
Therefore, the hours associated with this collection request for data
base searches is 7 hours.

			BURDEN:	7 x 63 = 441 hours

(5)  Identify Potential COI, Record Decision. Execute Work Order or the
Annual Certification, and Notify the EPA of the Decision.  This category
reflects the management and technical activity in the search and
certification effort that a contractor must perform. In accordance with
the contract terms, the contractor is required to submit either a one
time certification or individual certifications when work is ordered
under the contract. Of the 63 worker orders requiring certification or
disclosure, approximately 17% of cases (11 work orders per year), only
an annual certification is required.  The remaining 52 order will
require individual certification or disclosure.

		Our previous estimate for this task was 40 hours.  Our revised
estimate is 28 hours to complete an annual certification (in 11 cases)
and 4 hours to complete a per work order review (in 52 cases).  The CBP
factor for this task is very low because most of this effort is
associated solely with EPA requirements. The estimate of 10% for CBP is
associated with an identification of a conflict of interest on a private
contract which requires management attention but may not require the
documentation and certification process required by EPA.

			BURDEN:	11 x 28 = 308 (annual certification)

					52 x 4   = 208 (work order certifications)

				       		    516 hours

(6)  Request Approval to Contract.  The estimate utilized is identical
to that provided in the ICR for the proposed rule and for previous
renewals.  It is based upon an average estimate of five requests per
respondent per year with an associated effort of 20 hours per request,
or 100 hours per respondent.  This review and approval  time has
remained fairly constant over the years, and is not expected to change
during  the three year period covered by this renewal.  This is
exclusively a requirement for the Federal Government and therefore no
CBP is assigned.

			BURDEN:	100 hours

Summary of Annual Time Burden

Total annual respondent burden for new respondents, which includes all
tasks, is 2,251 hours times 10 new respondents for a total of 22,510
hours.

Total annual respondent burden for respondents which are not new, i.e.,
performing only tasks 3 through 6, is 1,211 hours times 125 respondents
for a total of 151,375 hours

Annual time burden for all respondents, all tasks, is 153,626 hours.
Estimated burden is (total hours divided by all 135 respondents) is
1,138.

Breakdown of Costs Burden

The following chart shows the labor costs associated with the burden
hours discussed in the previous section.  The base hourly labor rates
are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  For business/financial
management the rate was $51.25; for natural resource professionals
(technical) the rate was $29.35; and service industry (administrative)
the rate was $15.51.  To calculate a fully loaded rate, an overhead of
100% was added to the hourly rate.  As discussed in the previous
section, for each task it is calculated 25% of the effort would be
managerial, 50% would be technical, and 25% would be administrative.

Hourly		Effort 		Cost

					Rate		(Hours)

New Respondents Only

Task I 	Prepare COI Plan

Management			$102.50	21		$2,152.50

	Technical			$58.70		42		$2,465.40

	Administrative			$31.02		21		$   651.42

					Subtotal	84		$5,269.32

Task 2 	Create Database

Management			$102.50	5		$512.50

	Technical			$58.70		10		$587.00

	Administrative			$31.02		5		$155.10

					Subtotal	20	          $1,254.60

All Respondents

Task 3	Storage & Maintenance	$102.50	38.5		$3,946.25

	Management			$58.70		77		$4,519.90

	Technical			$31.02		38.5		$1,194.27

	Administrative			Subtotal	154		$9,660.42

Task 4 	Search Database

Management			$102.50	110.25		$11,300.63

	Technical			$58.70		220.5		$12,943.35

	Administrative			$31.02		110.25		$  3,419.96

					Subtotal	441		$27,663.94

Task 5	Certify/Disclose		$102.50	129		$13,222.50

	Management			$58.70		258		$15,144.60

	Technical			$31.02		129		$  4,001.58

	Administrative			Subtotal	516		$32,368.68

Task 6 	Request Approval to Contract

Management			$102.50	25		$2,562.50

	Technical			$58.70		50		$2,935.00

	Administrative			$31.02		25		$   775.50

					Subtotal	100		$6,273.00

New respondent costs for tasks 1 and 2 are  $6,523.92 x 10 responses=
$65,239.20

For respondents performing tasks 3 through  6, the total annual costs
are $75,966.04, times 125 responses is 9,495,575.  The total cost for
all respondents is $9,560,994.20.  For each respondent, the cost is
$70,822.18.

	     ii) Capital/Start-up Costs

Because it will not be necessary for respondents to acquire any capital
goods to provide the requested information, EPA has estimated no
incurred capital/start-up costs.

(iii) Operating and Maintenance Costs

Operating and maintenance costs, which include such items as file
storage, photo copying, and postage, are negligible.

(b) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

	The Agency based it burden estimates on actual experience in
collecting, reviewing, and approving contractors’ conflict of interest
submissions.  EPA has recognized a need to collect conflict of interest
information from more than just our Superfund contracts.  This resulted
in an increase in the number of respondents from 80 in the last ICR to
135 for this ICR.  Additionally, we note in this ICR that EPA does not
keep conflict of interest certifications or disclosures centrally.  This
information is collected, reviewed, and documented in the contract file
by the cognizant contracting officer.

	Due to the complexity of the task, as well as the experience and skill
required in reviewing contractors’ conflict of interest submissions,
it is estimated that the this effort will be performed by Grade 14
contracting personnel.  The contracting personnel who review the
submissions also document their findings in the contracting file.
Contract files contains CBI, so there are no additional measures
required for the conflict of interest information collected.  No
administrative support is used in this effort.  The first task,
reviewing the contractor’s conflict of interest plan is done before
the contract is awarded on a one time basis.  (In Section 6 of this ICR,
this was task one for contractors.)  Tasks 2 and 3 below are recurring
efforts.  The second task, reviewing certifications and disclosures,
includes annual and by work order certifications and disclosures as well
as requests.  (This was task 5 for contractors.)  The third task is
reviewing requests for approval of future contract.  (This was task 6
for contractors.)

	The hourly rate for a step five, GS-14 is $42.24 (according the Office
of Personnel Management Salary Table 2006-GS) a rate of 65% or $27.46,
was added to cover overhead costs.  The loaded rate equals $69.70 per
hour.

ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES

Collection Activity				Burden Hours per year		Cost (based

										on rate of $69.70)

1.  Answer Respondent Questions			250			$17,425

2.  Reviewing the contractor’s conflict of		240			$16, 728

	interest plan

3.  	a.  Reviewing annual certifications or 	22			   $1,533

	disclosures and documenting the file

	(11x2=22)

	b.  Reviewing work order certifications or 	14,040			$978,588

	disclosures and documenting the file

	52x135=7,020 responses

	7020x2 hours

4.  Reviewing requests for approval for future 	100			$6,970

contracting and documenting the contract file

					TOTAL:	14,652			$1,021,244

	c)  REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

	The last information collection clearance request approved by OMB
contained 145,640 burden hours for 80 responses for an estimated average
of 1,821 hours per respondent.  This ICR contains 153,626 burden hours
for 135 responses for an average burden of 1,138.  Overall, the
respondent burden has increased by 7,986 hours.  The total burden has
increased because EPA expanded conflict of interest information
collection from just Superfund contracts to any EPA contract which may
have conflict of interest issues.  The average burden per respondent has
decreased due to efficiencies resulting for experience in collecting,
retrieving, and reviewing conflict of interest data and the use of
automated systems.

	d)  BURDEN STATEMENT

         Burden Statement:  The annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 1,138 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort,
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OARM-2007-0341, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information is
(202) 566-1752.  An electronic version of the public docket is available
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .  This
site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When
in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number
identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2007-0341 and
OMB Control Number 2030-0023 in any correspondence.

  PAGE   3

  PAGE   8

  PAGE   15


From:	"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> To:	Cindy Newberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc:	Jeremy Arling/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ross

Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, JohnB Chamberlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:	12/01/2009 08:29 AM

Subject:	RE: passback on pre-charged products frm

Hi Cindy, looks good.  I'm opening ROCIS right now.  Thanks!  Amanda

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:23 AM

To: Lee, Amanda I.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: passback on pre-charged products frm

Amanda-

Per our conversation, this version is version includes what we discussed

last night -- matching the bullet on allocation with the date change,

and using 'in the United States would'.  We'll plan to load this in

ROCIS this morning. Thanks with your help!

Best-

Cindy

(See attached file: 2010_PCA-SAN_5052_Final_Rule_11302009_redline post

discussion.doc)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cindy Newberg

Branch Chief

Alternatives & Emissions Reduction Branch Stratospheric Protection

Division US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W.  6205J Washington, D.C.  20460

ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  From:       "Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  To:         Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

  Cc:         Cindy Newberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ross

Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeremy Arling/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

  Date:       11/30/2009 04:50 PM

Subject:    passback on pre-charged products frm

Hi Julius,

Please find attached suggested edits on the pre-charged products FRM.

Happy to chat about them.

Amanda(See attached file: 2010_PCA-SAN_5052_Final_Rule_11302009.doc)


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 26, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1995-219

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROMEXPRESS, S.A. de C.V.
                                 Date Filed:  August 5, 2002

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, all-cargo service between
Mexico City, Mexico, and Atlanta, Georgia.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  August 8, 2001, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative(s):  William C. Evans,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.			       			                              Action
date:  August 26, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  August 26, 2002, through August
26, 2003.

Basis for approval:  United States-Mexico Air Transport Services
Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp