                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
                         Office of Pesticide Programs

                                 Proposal for
Enhancing Stakeholder Input in the Pesticide Registration Review and ESA Consultation Processes and Development of Economically and Technologically Feasible Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives

Purpose of this Document:
      This document is being made available for public review and comment. This document, which was developed jointly by EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the U.S. Department of Interior, provides guidance to agency staff and managers participating in the associated processes. It does not create or confer legal rights or impose any legally binding requirements on the agencies or any other party. This document is distributed solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity for public comment and should not be construed to represent formal dissemination of any agency determination or policy.  As such, the information correction process under the Agency's Information Quality Guidelines does not apply to this document.

Table of Contents:
1	Introduction	2
2	EPA's Registration Review Program	2
Figure 1.  Original Design of the Registration Review Program	3
3	Process Improvement Discussions	3
Earlier involvement of stakeholders in the Registration Review Process	4
Consideration of pesticide use and usage data	5
Increased use of the informal consultation process	6
Figure 2: Revised Design for the Registration Review Process	7
4	Formal Consultation Process	7
5	Conclusion	9

___________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
      This proposal pertains to Federal agency implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  This document describes how the agencies will implement the statutes in the context of pesticide registration review decisions.

      The process of assessing the potential effects of a pesticide to federally listed threatened or endangered species, determining whether further risk reduction measures (i.e., "reasonable and prudent alternatives" or RPAs) are necessary to ensure no jeopardy to these species, and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and implementing such measures requires close coordination across multiple federal agencies and impacts a variety of entities including state pesticide regulatory agencies, pesticide users and pesticide companies. The process of ensuring protection of these species is one that will benefit from input by these entities as well as the general public. There are multiple opportunities for soliciting and considering such input at various points in the process as noted below. Because stakeholders, including state governments, universities, and growers/users, have significant amounts of relevant information and are the ultimate implementers of pesticide labels in the field, it is critical that they have a seat at the table during the development of any needed risk reduction measures to ensure that such measures are technologically and economically feasible.
      Over the past several years, stakeholder groups have increasingly expressed interest in ESA issues involving pesticide registration. Furthermore, Congressional committees have also stressed the importance of an open and transparent process, ensuring that at multiple stages of the process there are opportunities for broader public participation and that the economic impacts on agriculture are more fully integrated into the process before a final decision is made. This paper provides a proposal for how the Federal agencies could clarify and/or modify their processes to address these concerns and increase the robustness of the overall process. This paper specifically describes changes to EPA's registration review process which are intended to facilitate ESA pesticide consultations and coordination across these Federal agencies, and calls for a greater role for USDA.

EPA's Registration Review Program
      The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended FIFRA to include a mandate that EPA establish a new program, called registration review, so that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects.  Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the registration review program, EPA periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can still be used safely. The registration review program challenges EPA to continuously improve its processes, science, and information management while maintaining a collaborative and open process for decision-making.  In general, EPA intends to accomplish its work relative to protection of listed species in the course of its registration review program.  That work will include, where appropriate, consultation with the Services.
      Under EPA's regulations, the registration review program is a multi-stage process, incorporating opportunities for public comment at critical points in the review process.  At the stage where EPA opens the registration review docket, the Agency issues a preliminary work plan and invites the public to provide feedback on how EPA will scope the review (i.e., problem formulation) and what data will be required as part of this review.  Following the completion of that public comment period, EPA reviews the information submitted, develops a response to comments document, and issues a final work plan.  After the required data have been submitted and evaluated, EPA develops a preliminary risk assessment and issues that scientific analysis for public comment.  After reviewing public comments, EPA reviews the risk assessment, develops a response to comments document, and proposes risk reduction measures it believes are necessary to address risk concerns and invites the public to provide feedback on its proposed decision.  It is only after these multiple stages of public comment that the Agency issues its final registration review decision.  Figure 1 provides an overview of the current registration review process.
 Figure 1.  Original Design of the Registration Review Program

      Over the past year, EPA has engaged in significant dialogue with the Services and other stakeholders regarding how to improve the registration review process.  At a summary level, most stakeholder groups have recommended that EPA make changes to its process to accomplish several goals: 1) earlier stakeholder involvement in the scoping of the pesticide's re-evaluation, 2) earlier adoption of risk reduction measures, including incorporation of clarifications and/or new restrictions on product labels, before initiation of any needed consultations with the Services and prior to completion of the registration review, and 3) a more focused consultation process (when and if necessary) that reflects the adoption of such measures.
Process Improvement Discussions

      In May 2011, the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance convened a workshop in Denver, Colorado, with three primary goals:

         *          Provide grower representatives with an understanding of the processes and analyses leading to the identification of risk and risk reduction options by EPA and by the Services.
         *          Identify grower-level data that could potentially refine the risk assessment and enhance the risk identification and risk reduction decision processes.
         *          Initiate discussions on the mechanisms for providing such data.
      Several basic themes emerged from these discussions and have served to inform potential improvements to the registration review and consultation processes:

      What are the appropriate points in the registration review process to initiate discussions with both the registrant and the user community to identify, describe and verify crop specific use and usage information?
      What data sources are most complete and relevant to the risk assessment process?
      How will commodity groups know when to engage in the process and how to ensure that information collected and submitted is considered?
      Subsequent to the workshop, EPA solicited input from its Federal advisory committee, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), regarding potential process changes that would facilitate greater opportunities for public participation and transparency in the registration review process that would have the additional benefit of streamlining any needed Endangered Species Act consultation with the Services.

      After considering this public feedback and advice from the PPDC, EPA could implement several changes to the registration review process, further augmenting opportunities for public involvement in the process.  These changes are described below.

       Earlier involvement of stakeholders in the Registration Review Process

      As part of the registration review process, EPA annually publishes a 4-year outlook schedule for when individual pesticides will enter the registration review program.  To enhance transparency in the process, EPA could begin including information on the specific timeframe within any fiscal year when the pesticide will begin its review.  Having this information available many years in advance would provide early notice for interested stakeholders to provide information to EPA in advance of the pesticide beginning its re-evaluation.

      In addition, during FY12, EPA could begin to hold "Focus" meetings during the early stage of registration review.  Similar to the "SMART" meetings that were held during reregistration, these "Focus" meetings would provide interested stakeholders with opportunities to: 1) identify the uses that the registrant intends to support for registration review, 2) provide an opportunity to address label clarity issues at an early stage of the review process, and 3) based upon previous assessments, provide for early adoption of risk reduction before the registration review begins.

         Purpose #1:  From the Agency's experience during the reregistration program, registrants markets and the economic viability of certain pesticide uses change over time.  Through the "Focus" meetings, EPA would ask the manufacturers to more explicitly indicate for which uses they intend to continue to seek registration.  In essence, this would be an opportunity to begin the process of preliminarily defining the scope of the Federal action that may need to be considered under the Endangered Species Act.

         Purpose #2: By working with growers and registrants, any confusion regarding label directions could be addressed at an earlier stage in the process so that a risk assessment that more accurately reflects the intended use of the pesticide can be conducted.  Such clarification might include greater specificity on the maximum number and frequency of applications.

         Purpose #3: Previous assessments, conducted either to support reregistration decisions or litigation, may have indicated the potential ecological risks.  Alternatives may have been developed since those initial evaluations which may indicate that the benefits of the pesticide beginning registration review have changed.  There may also be the potential, based upon further field experience with the pesticide, to identify the key efficacious rates critical for crop protection and/or existing conservation practices being employed that could be incorporated into labels as part of "early risk reduction."

      It would be EPA's goal to have any early risk reduction incorporated onto product labels before the pesticide reaches the preliminary risk assessment stage.

       Consideration of pesticide use and usage data

      During the intervening 2-3 years after completion of the final workplan, the registrant is often developing toxicity and exposure data to support the preliminary risk assessment for the pesticide's registration review.  As this information is being submitted to the Agency, if needed, EPA would also solicit updated use and usage information from a variety of reliable sources, including USDA and grower organizations, to help frame the ecological risk assessment.  These data, such as application methods, application rates, frequency of application, and application timing are critical pieces of information in developing the ecological risk assessment and effects determination.  For example, having more complete information on the times of the year when a pesticide is used may enable EPA to more accurately predict the opportunities (or lack thereof) for exposure to listed species.

      EPA would incorporate these data as "best available data" in developing its ecological risk assessment and biological evaluation.  These data, which may be national and/or local in scope, can also serve to help further refine the label, the uses that will be supported for registration review, and adoption of any additional needed risk reduction, with the possibility of reducing or eliminating the number of "may affect" determinations under the ESA.  These data can also be used to describe the situations in which rates higher than "typical" rates are needed and under what conditions, allowing more prescriptive label language to be developed.  An ongoing "pilot project" between NMFS, FWS, USDA, and EPA is an example of such an effort to determine how best to incorporate these data into the evaluation process.

      EPA has a long history of utilizing these data in making pesticide safety determinations.  For example, pesticide usage data collected by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) have been found to be of exceptional quality and reliability in making food safety determinations (i.e., "reasonable certainty of no harm" determinations) under the FQPA.  Congress has directed EPA to use data, such as those developed by NASS when EPA "finds that the data are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide chemical residue," provided that the Agency periodically reevaluates the estimate of the anticipated exposure in light of these data.

      As a result, these data can be used to help refine the biological evaluation and, perhaps, the pesticide label, taking into account use patterns on a more local or regional basis.  Consideration of typical use rates and prescriptive specification on product labels of the conditions under which higher rates may be utilized would further help in clarifying potential ecological exposure scenarios.  Utilizing this information, EPA believes that it could develop additional risk reduction (as necessary) to further reduce concerns for listed species, having the direct result of fewer "may affect" determinations, which could potentially preclude or minimize the need for consultation with the Services

       Increased use of the informal consultation process

      A critical step in developing the biological evaluation is having reliable data on species habitat, range, and behavior.  Where necessary, EPA could utilize the informal consultation process to work with the appropriate Service to gather that information for inclusion in a more refined biological evaluation prior to the initiation of any needed formal consultation.  Reaching out to the Services for this information at an earlier stage in the process has a number of potential benefits, including 1) incorporation of more refined species biology and habitat information into EPA effects determinations prior to formal consultation, 2) a further reduction in the number of "may affect" determinations, and 3) fewer resources (for both EPA and the Services) needed to complete any needed consultation because the best available information has been incorporated into EPA's biological evaluation.  As a result, this assistance would allow EPA to verify any draft conclusions regarding the potential risk to listed species and their habitats and would position EPA to begin discussing potential risk reduction measures with the pesticide registrant.  Additionally, this consultation should position the Services well to undertake any formal consultation that may be necessary later in the process since they will previously have been advised of the assessment, supporting data, species potentially at risk etc.
      As a result of this feedback, EPA proposes to make two significant changes to its registration review process: 1) hold "Focus" meetings at the start of the registration review for each active ingredient and 2) to initiate any needed formal consultations at a subsequent stage in the review process.

      The purpose of the "Focus" meetings will be to multi-fold: 1) to clarify existing label directions, 2) to provide clarification of pesticide usage for the active ingredient, 3) to identify the uses the registrant intends to support for registration review, and 4) to clarify the scope of the re-evaluation effort.  EPA believes that these meetings will increase the efficiency of the process and help to better inform the problem formulation and risk assessment phases of the registration review process.

      In addition, EPA proposes to change the point in the process where any necessary consultations will be initiated with the Services.  Rather than initiate formal consultation during the preliminary risk assessment stage, EPA envisions that it may instead initiate informal consultation at the preliminary risk assessment stage to help in the identification of species-specific information to further refine the biological evaluation.  If necessary, EPA would initiate formal consultation at a later point in the registration review process, perhaps at the proposed decision phase.  Figure 2 shows what such a revised registration review process would look like.

 Figure 2: Revised Design for the Registration Review Process

      One major end result of these process changes is that through public involvement, particularly with growers who are responsible for "on the ground" implementation of labels, risk reduction measures that achieve protection for listed species and designated critical habitat and that are technologically and economically feasible  can be achieved, possibly through changes to labels.  The involvement of growers will insure that the protection measures are workable.

Formal Consultation Process

	Under the Services' ESA regulations, when a Federal agency determines that its proposed action may affect a listed species, the agency is obligated to enter into consultation with the Services to ensure that the action does not result in likely jeopardy to the listed Species.

      Where the Services determine that jeopardy and/or adverse modification is likely, they are obligated to work with EPA and the applicant to identify Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs), to the extent such measures exist, to insure that the action would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing listed species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.  Service regulations require that such measures be both technologically and economically feasible to the action agency and the applicant.  When EPA determines that formal consultation with one or both of the Services is necessary, continued engagement with interested stakeholders is vital.  As part of this process, the "applicant," as defined under the ESA regulations, is identified.  The applicant has certain defined opportunities under the statute and regulations, including the opportunity to submit information during the consultation and review draft biological opinions obtained through the action agency.  The registrant for the pesticides being evaluated is the applicant.

      Upon receiving a request for consultation from EPA, the Service would convene a meeting with EPA and the applicant to identify what additional information  -  beyond that provided by EPA in its package initiating consultation  -  can be provided to develop the draft biological opinion.  During development of a draft biological opinion the Service may discuss with EPA its risk assessment and effects determination to gain a better understanding and they may seek out additional information from other sources.  If the Services believe that changes to the pesticide label may be necessary to avoid or reduce the extent of adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat, they would work with EPA, the applicant, and with the consent of the applicant and EPA, product users, to discuss possible label changes needed to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of any listed species or destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.

      The Services would then prepare a draft biological opinion that would contain the Services' analyses and conclusions regarding whether use of the pesticide is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a federally-listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.  If the Services determine that jeopardy and/or adverse modification is likely, the draft opinion also would include proposed RPAs to the pesticide registration that will avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.  Where the Services anticipate "take" incidental to the proposed action, the draft biological opinion would include proposed measures (Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs)) to minimize the impact of any "take" of listed species.

      Once the draft opinion has been developed, the Service would notify EPA and the identified applicants.  Prior to formally transmitting the draft biological opinion to EPA, the Service would provide EPA and the applicant with an opportunity to identify any perceived errors in the description of the proposed action and the effects analysis (e.g., use rates, registered uses, scope of the proposed action).  Subsequent to any errors being corrected, the Service will provide EPA with the draft biological opinion for the purpose of analyzing the reasonable and prudent alternatives.  EPA will make this draft Biological Opinion available for public comment.  All comments will be submitted to EPA, although the applicant may send a copy of its comments directly to the Service.  EPA will organize all of the public comments to aid the Service in their review of the comments and will highlight comments of particular note.  EPA will provide the Services with all of the comments that are submitted in response to the draft Biological Opinion.
      It is anticipated that comments would focus on the analyses leading to the conclusions in the opinion, the conclusions themselves, and the reasonableness and practicality of any Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives in the draft biological opinion.  This would provide another opportunity for the public to provide invaluable input on the RPAs as well as to provide/suggest/propose alternate risk reduction measures that accomplish the same protection goals that are easier/less costly for the grower/user community to implement.
      During this public comment period, EPA and the Services would specifically reach out to growers to engage in what technologically and economically feasible approaches could be implemented that minimize the impact on growers and allow them to meet their pest control needs while achieving the necessary protection goals to avoid jeopardy to threatened and/or endangered species. In particular, this process should offer affected stakeholders an opportunity to provide real world data and to identify practical considerations that affect the viability of different options for mitigating risks to species. EPA will provide a key role by focusing affected entities on the availability of the draft document and timeframes for submission of input.
      Upon receipt of the organized public comments from EPA, the Services will prepare a document and include it in the administration record of the consultation that details how such comments were considered and, if appropriate, how the final document was modified to address the comments.  The public comments could be on the draft Biological Opinion, Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, or Incidental Take Statement (including any comments or concerns raised by EPA that were not identified by the public).  The Services will include this document in its administrative record and will provide it to EPA.  Both the Services and EPA will make the document available to the public upon request.
      EPA would generally seek any necessary extensions to the consultation process where it is determine that the statutory timeframes fail to provide adequate time for consideration of information obtained through this process.  However, if the extension exceeds more than 60 days (i.e., 150 days from formal initiation), EPA and the Services must seek consent of the applicants. It should be recognized, however, that circumstances beyond the government's control (e.g., litigation deadlines or the refusal of an application to agree to an extension) may force the process described above to be more truncated.
      Throughout this process, it is critical that the established expertise of each agency involved in the process is well-recognized: the Services are the expert agencies regarding the species; EPA is the expert agency on pesticide regulation and the enforceability of labels.  USDA could lend its expertise on farming/pest management practices and the technological or economic feasibility of adoption of potential risk reduction strategies.  Therefore, in developing draft RPAs, the Service should only include risk reduction measures that EPA has the authority to impose and should then defer to EPA to implement these measures utilizing its existing statutory authorities.  For example, the Service would identify a level of exposure below which jeopardy would not occur.  In response, EPA would implement changes to the registration that it determines would be reasonably likely to ensure that this level of exposure is not exceeded.
Conclusion
      In summary, the Services, EPA, and USDA intend that these proposed changes will result in greater openness and transparency in the process of developing Biological Opinions for pesticides under the ESA.  Consistent with the statutory mandate to use the best available information, the goal of these changes is to improve the respective agencies' understanding, through greater engagement of affected stakeholders, of how pesticides are used, the ways in which they may affect listed species, and how any risks can be effectively mitigated, while preserving the beneficial uses of the pesticides to the extent possible.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61922-61923]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0025; OMB No. 1660-0017]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Public Assistance Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
information collected for the Public Assistance (PA) program
eligibility determinations, grants management, and compliance with
Federal laws and regulations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2019-0025. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW, 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Hildebrand, Process Improvement
Section Chief, Public Assistance Program Delivery Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
You may contact the Information Management Division for copies of the
proposed collection of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act),
authorizes grants to assist State, Tribal, and local governments and
certain Private Non-Profit entities with the response to and recovery
from disasters following Presidentially declared major disasters and
emergencies. 44 CFR part 206 specifies the information collections
necessary to facilitate the provision of assistance under the Public
Assistance (PA) Program. 44 CFR 206.202 describes the general
application procedures for the PA Program.
    FEMA is seeking a revision to the already existing collection of
information, OMB Control Number 1660-0017, because FEMA proposes
changing the title from ``Request for Appeals and Recommendation/No
Forms'' to ``Request for Appeals or Arbitrations and Recommendations/No
Forms.'' Section 1219 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018,
which amended Section 423(d) of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5189a),
provides a right of arbitration to certain applicants of the PA Program
that have a dispute concerning the eligibility for assistance or
repayment of assistance. Plus, the annual cost to the Federal
Government is increasing from $805,311.96 to $1,891,473. Finally, there
has been a change in the annual burden hours due to a correction of
errors in burden estimates. For example, in the past, FEMA incorrectly
used 1.3 hours to represent 1.5 hours for FEMA Form 009-0-91.

Collection of Information

    Title: Public Assistance Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0017.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form-009-0-49 Request for Public Assistance; FEMA
Form 009-0-91 Project Worksheet (PW); FEMA Form 009-0-91A Project
Worksheet (PW)--Damage Description and Scope of Work Continuation
Sheet; FEMA Form 009-0-91B Project Worksheet (PW)--Cost Estimate
Continuation Sheet; FEMA Form 009-0-91C Project Worksheet (PW)--Maps
and Sketches Sheet; FEMA Form 009-0-91D Project Worksheet (PW)--Photo
Sheet; FEMA Form 009-0-120 Special Considerations Questions; FEMA Form
009-0-121 PNP Facility Questionnaire; FEMA Form 009-0-123 Force Account
Labor Summary Record; FEMA Form 009-0-124 Materials Summary Record;

FEMA Form 009-0-125 Rented Equipment Summary Record; FEMA Form 009-0-
126 Contract Work Summary Record; FEMA Form 009-0-127 Force Account
Equipment Summary Record; FEMA Form 009-0-128 Applicant's Benefits
Calculation Worksheet; FEMA Form 009-0-111, Quarterly Progress Report;
FEMA Form 009-0-141, FAC-TRAX System.
    Abstract: The information collected is utilized by FEMA to make
determinations for Public Assistance grants based on the information
supplied by the respondents.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,012.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 398,068.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 466,025.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $29,601,921.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: N/A.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: N/A.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $1,891,473.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Deputy Director, Information Management Division, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019-24719 Filed 11-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33360-33363]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13715]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0153; FRL-9682-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee:
Knoxville; Determination of Attaining Data for the 1997 Annual Fine
Particulate Matter Standards and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two determinations, one regarding the
Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 annual fine particulate (PM2.5)
nonattainment area and one regarding the Knoxville-Sevierville-La
Follette, Tennessee, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment area
(both areas have the same geographic boundary and will hereafter be
collectively referred to as the ``Knoxville Area'' or ``Area''). First,
EPA is proposing to determine that the Area has attained the 1997
annual average PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS or ``standard''). Second, EPA is proposing to determine that the
area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These
proposed determinations of attaining data are based upon complete,
quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2009-
2011 period, showing that the Area has monitored attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
If EPA finalizes these proposed determinations of attaining data, the
requirements for the Area to submit attainment demonstrations and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable
further progress (RFP) plans, contingency measures, and other planning
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the
standards shall be suspended so long as the Area continues to attain
the respective PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0153, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0153, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0153. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or Joel Huey, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Waterson may be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mr. Huey may be reached by phone at (404) 562-
9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What actions is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for these actions?
III. Does the Knoxville Area meet the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS?
    A. Criteria
    B. Knoxville Area Air Quality
    C. Has the Knoxville Area met the 1997 annual PM2.5
air quality standard?
IV. Does the Knoxville Area meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS?
    A. Criteria
    B. Knoxville Area Air Quality
    C. Has the Knoxville Area met the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
air quality standard?
V. What is the effect of these actions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Knoxville Area (comprised of
Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties in their entireties and a
portion of Roane County) have monitored attaining data for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The proposal is based
upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring
data for the 2009-2011 monitoring period.

II. What is the background for these actions?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA
published its air quality designations and classifications for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from
those monitors for calendar years 2001-2003. These designations became
effective on April 5, 2005. The Knoxville Area was designated
nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR
81.343.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a 24-hour
NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile
of 24-hour concentrations. The process for designating areas following
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section
107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA and state air quality
agencies initiated the monitoring process for the PM2.5
NAAQS in 1999 and began operating all air quality monitors by January
2001. On November 13, 2009, EPA published its air quality designations
and classifications for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years
2006-2008 (74 FR 58688). Those designations became effective on
December 14, 2009. The Knoxville Area was designated nonattainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 81).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On February 3, 2011, EPA made a technical correction to the
name of the Knoxville, Tennessee, nonattainment area included in the
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), Federal Register action designating
nonattainment areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
name of the Knoxville, Tennessee, nonattainment area for this NAAQS
was changed at 40 CFR 81.343 to be the Knoxville-Sevierville-La
Follette, Tennessee, nonattainment area to correspond with the name
of the Core Based Statistical Area and to provide an accurate area
name in the CFR. See 76 FR 6056, February 3, 2011. The geographic
boundaries of the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette nonattainment
area for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are the same as for the
Knoxville nonattainment area for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to legal challenges of the annual NAAQS promulgated in
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) remanded this NAAQS to EPA for further consideration.
See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers
Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). However, given
that the 1997 and 2006 annual NAAQS are essentially identical,
attainment of the 1997 annual NAAQS would also indicate attainment of
the remanded 2006 annual NAAQS.
    On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), EPA promulgated its
PM2.5 implementation rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart Z, in which the Agency provided guidance for state and tribal
plans to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This rule, at 40
CFR 51.1004(c), specifies some of the regulatory consequences of
attaining the NAAQS, as discussed below. While 40 CFR 51.1004(c) was
promulgated as part of a set of regulations addressing the
PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, EPA believes that the same
approach is warranted with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS
promulgated in 2006. See ``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),'' March 2, 2012, available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_guide.html.

III. Does the Knoxville Area meet the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS?

A. Criteria

    Today's proposed rulemaking assesses whether the Knoxville Area has
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the most
recent three years of quality-assured data. Under EPA regulations at 40
CFR 50.7, the 1997 annual primary and secondary PM2.5
standards are met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than
or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant monitoring sites in the
subject area.

B. Knoxville Area Air Quality

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Knoxville
Area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N.
All data considered have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded
in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. The 2009-2011 data are used
for the determination of attaining data because that is the most recent
period of certified data available to EPA.
    Table 1 and the related discussion below show that the Area is
attaining the standard based on available data for 2009-2011. Less than
75 percent of the data were collected at the Bearden Middle School site
for the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter for 2010. EPA
performed a quarterly maximum data substitution test using 40 CFR part
50 Appendix N and the April 1999 Guideline on Data Handling Conventions
for the PM NAAQS (www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf) for
the Bearden Middle School monitor for the quarters with less than 75
percent complete data. Less than 75 percent of the data were collected
at the Air Lab site for the first quarter of 2010. Coarse particular
matter (PM10) data substitution, using the April 1999
Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS (www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf), was applied at the Air Lab site
because a PM10 sampler is co-located at the site.
PM10 data substitution was used instead of max value
substitution because the substituted values were higher. The three-year
annual design values both with and without data substitution are
provided in Table 1 below. EPA's review of these data indicates that
the Knoxville Area has met the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

  Table 1--2009-2011 Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations for Monitors in the Knoxville, Tennessee Nonattainment
                                                      Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Annual average    Annual average
                                                                                concentration     concentration
                         Location                               Site No.        ([mu]g/m\3\)      ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                                                without data        with data
                                                                                substitution      substitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sevier Elementary School..................................       47-009-0011              11.0               N/A
Bearden Middle School.....................................       47-093-0028              11.6              12.4
Air Lab...................................................       47-093-1013              12.3              12.9
Rule High School..........................................       47-093-1017              12.1               N/A

Spring Hill Elementary School.............................       47-093-1020              11.3               N/A
Webb Drive................................................       47-105-0108              11.7               N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A--Not Applicable.

    The Bearden Middle School monitor has a preliminary 2009-2011
PM2.5 annual design value of 11.6 [mu]g/m\3\. Since the
monitor had incomplete quarters during the second quarter of 2009 and
fourth quarter of 2010, quarterly maximum data substitution was
conducted. The annual mean was recalculated, and the resulting 2009-
2011 PM2.5 annual design value with data substitution is
12.4 [mu]g/m\3\. The Air Lab monitor has a preliminary 2009-2011
PM2.5 annual design value of 12.3 [mu]g/m\3\. The monitor
had one incomplete quarter during the first quarter of 2010, and
PM10 data substitution was conducted. The annual mean was
recalculated, and the resulting 2009-2011 PM2.5 annual
design value with data substitution is 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\. Because the
design values with data substitution are below the 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
standard, both monitors are considered to be attaining the 1997 annual
NAAQS. The official design values of the monitors are 11.6 [mu]g/m\3\
and 12.3 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. On the basis of this review, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Knoxville Area has attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Has the Knoxville Area met the 1997 annual PM2.5 air quality
standard?

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM2.5, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
part 50 and recorded the data in the EPA AQS database, for the
Knoxville Area. Based on EPA's review of the data for 2009-2011, EPA
proposes to determine that the Area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Does the Knoxville Area meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS?

A. Criteria

    Today's proposed rulemaking assesses whether the Knoxville Area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the most
recent three years of quality-assured data. Under EPA regulations at 40
CFR 50.13, the 2006 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5
standards are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than
or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant monitoring sites in the
subject area.

B. Knoxville Area Air Quality

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Knoxville
Area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N.
All data considered have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded
in EPA's AQS database. The 2009-2011 data are used for the
determination of attaining data because that is the most recent period
of certified data available to EPA.
    Table 2 and the related discussion below show that the Area is
attaining the standard based on available data for 2009-2011. Less than
75 percent of the data were collected at the Bearden Middle School site
for the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter for 2010. EPA
performed a quarterly maximum data substitution test using 40 CFR part
50 Appendix N and the April 1999 Guideline on Data Handling Conventions
for the PM NAAQS (www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf) for
the Bearden Middle School monitor for the quarters with less than 75
percent complete data. Less than 75 percent of the data were collected
at the Air Lab site for the first quarter of 2010. Coarse particulate
matter (PM10) data substitution, using the April 1999
Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS (www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf), was applied at the Air Lab site
because a PM10 sampler is co-located at the site.
PM10 data substitution was used instead of max value
substitution because the substituted values were higher. The three-year
annual design values both with and without data substitution are
provided in Table 2 below. EPA's review of these data indicates that
the Knoxville Area has met the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

 Table 2--2009-2011 24-Hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations for Monitors in the Knoxville, Tennessee Nonattainment
                                                      Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Annual average    Annual average
                                                                                concentration     concentration
                         Location                               Site No.        ([mu]g/m\3\)      ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                                                                without data        with data
                                                                                substitution      substitution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sevier Elementary School..................................       47-009-0011                21               N/A
Bearden Middle School.....................................       47-093-0028                24                27
Air Lab...................................................       47-093-1013                24                29
Rule High School..........................................       47-093-1017                24               N/A
Spring Hill Elementary School.............................       47-093-1020                23               N/A
Webb Drive................................................       47-105-0108                24               N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A--Not Applicable.

    The Bearden Middle School monitor has a preliminary 2009-2011
PM2.5 24-hour design value of 24 [mu]g/m\3\. Since the
monitor had incomplete quarters during the second quarter of 2009 and
fourth quarter of 2010, quarterly maximum

data substitution was conducted. The 24-hour mean was recalculated, and
the resulting 2009-2011 PM2.5 24-hour design value with data
substitution is 27 [mu]g/m\3\. The Air Lab monitor has a preliminary
2009-2011 PM2.5 24-hour design value of 24 [mu]g/m\3\. The
monitor had one incomplete quarter during the first quarter of 2010,
and PM10 data substitution was conducted. The 24-hour mean
was recalculated, and the resulting 2009-2011 PM2.5 24-hour
design value with data substitution is 29 [mu]g/m\3\. Because the
design values with data substitution are below the 35 [mu]g/m\3\
standard, both monitors are considered to be attaining the 2006 24-hour
NAAQS. The official design values of the monitors are 24 [mu]g/m\3\ and
24 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. On the basis of this review, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Knoxville Area has attained the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Has the Knoxville Area met the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 air quality
standard?

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM2.5, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
part 50 and recorded the data in the EPA AQS database, for the
Knoxville Area. Based on EPA's review of the data for 2009-2011, EPA
proposes to determine that the Area attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. What is the effect of these actions?

    If these proposed determinations of attaining data are made final,
the requirements for the Knoxville Area to submit attainment
demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures,
and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of either the 1997
annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended
for so long as the Area continues to attain the applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). Notably, as described
below, any such determination would not be equivalent to the
redesignation of the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual or 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If these proposed rulemakings are finalized and EPA subsequently
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal
Register, that the Area has violated either the 1997 annual or 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the
specific requirements would no longer exist for the Knoxville Area for
the NAAQS (i.e, the 1997 annual or the 2006 24-hour NAAQS) which was
violated, and the Area would thereafter have to address the applicable
requirements for that particular NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).
    Finalizing these proposed actions would not constitute a
redesignation of the Area to attainment of the 1997 annual or 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA.
Further, finalizing these proposed actions does not involve approving a
maintenance plan for the Area as required under section 175A of the
CAA, nor would it find that the Area has met all other requirements for
redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes the proposed actions, the
designation status of the Knoxville Area would remain nonattainment for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time
as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment and takes action to redesignate the Area.
    If the Knoxville Area continues to monitor attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the Knoxville Area
to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan,
contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS will remain suspended.
Further, if the Knoxville Area continues to monitor attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the Knoxville
Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS will remain
suspended.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    These actions propose to make determinations of attaining data
based on air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension
of certain federal requirements, and it would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these
proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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). In addition,
these proposed 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
determinations for the Knoxville Area do not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

For purposes of judicial review, the two determinations proposed by
today's action are severable from one another.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 17, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-13715 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


~ E~~~~~~~ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENWP T HC; REGION 111 1650 Arch Street 2mJQCT 3 I & I$: 20 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 2029 Mr. Richard Brewster, Program Manager Lead Poisoning Prevention Division Environmental Health Administration 825 North Capitol Street MAY 3 id38 Washington, DC 20002 SENT VIA FAX Dear Mr. Brewster,

I am writing to provide to you a summary of the information that EPA considers to still be required from the District of Columbia in order to process the District s application for Lead Program Authorization. This includes:

1. Enforcement Resources  Areas where clarification is still needed:

, [ A] Page 12 of the Program Description lists seven positions associated with the District s Lead Program. However, functions and duties are not listed. Please list:

 all enforcement personnel individually,  each individual sjob function,  associated salaries and fringe costs ( and indirect costs if these are applied to either personnel or fringe),  percentage of each individual s time associated with lead inspections and enforcement, and  source of fimding, by individual grant or other source.

This was requested in the February 22, 1999 teleconference between officials of Region 111EPA and the District.

[ B] Positions listed above, if fimded by EPA grants, should be associated with deliverables to conduct enforcement under those respective grants. The application states that the one of the two Compliance Monitors is funded out of the EPA/ HUD grant. However, the pending HUDEPA grant does not appear to list any enforcement responsibilities for the  Comp1iance Monitor  nor are inspectiondenforcement listed in the grant as an output. Please identify where in the pending EPA/ HUD grant the hctions related to inspections and/ or enforcement are described.

[ C] Appendix B, Fiscal Impact Statement, may be missinga page. Page 1ends with   expected to range fiom  and page 2 ( unnumbered) begins with a new paragraph,   Total revenue from certification...

Customer Service Hotline: 1 800 438 2474 The anticipated revenues associated with certification of individuals are listed in the table that is included in page 2( unnumbered), but these total $ 83,800 and not $ 84,000, which is listed as the total in this chart. Neither figures are consistent with the $ 106,500that is listed on the top of this page as   revenue from certification of individuals.  Please correct these inconsistencies.

Please provide a brief ( Le. less than one page) itemization of costs associated with the $ 747,824 that is listed on page 1 of Appendix B to runthe Program. From this total, please identify which itemized costs are enforcement related. This was requested in the February 22, 1999teleconference between officials of the District and EPA Region 111. Enforcement costs should correlate with those listed in [ A] above. [ If there are significant equipment or other costs related to enforcement and the District would prefer to provide this itemization by task ( already delineated in EPA grants), rather than by personnel and fringe costs in order to more accurately show the percentage of the $ 747,824 that is associated with enforcement, that would be fine].

[ D] Plans should be included in the application to address how the District expects to continue to support inspectors after the Enforcement and EPA/ HUD grants expire. These are eligible costs for hture 404( g) hnding so the District may make this commitment contingent upon receipt of future 404( g) funds.

[ E] work? The two organizational charts in Appendix E do not show this. In what offices do the individuals listed on page 12of the Program Description 2. Tracking Tips and Complaints, TargetingInspections, Follow. upto Inspection Reports, and Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement [ Sections 327( c) 4)( 7)]  [ A] At the February 22 conference call, EPA informed the District that a chart of all different violations with assigned penalties for different violations ( the   penalty matrix ) is needed. This is not included in the revised application. This chart should include current penalties, even if an amendment is anticipated that addresses minimum penalties.

[ B] Section 327( c)( 6) of the regulations requires the state to   demonstrate... ability to process and follow up on inspection rep0rts...  Page 21 of the Program Description lists the tools available   to the Mayor  to take enforcement action against violators, but an outline or flow chart that identifies protocols to follow to identify which option to invoke is not included. When, for example, does an enforcement officer decide to issue a notice of vioIation instead of referring a case to Corporation Counsel in court? The flow of this process should be outlined on page 29, under   Follow up to Inspection Reports.

3. Training of Inspection and Enforcement Personnel [ A] Will training to state inspectors include chain of custody and methods of obtaining consent to perform inspections?

2 3 [ B] Why are training requirements for inspectors, risk assessors, supervisors and project designers listed on pages 25 27 of the Program Description Section?  Section 327( c)( 1) is supposed to address training of District Inspection and Enforcement personnel  not the individuals that the District regulates.

4. Sampling Techniques  Section 327( c)( 3) requires the state program to   implement a quality assurance program that ensures appropriate quality of laboratory personnel and protects the integrity of analytical data.  Region I11has explained on numerous occasions that we interpret this to mean that an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan ( QAPP), or equivalent, is required. EPA Region 111uses the Region III Guidancefor Preparing Lead Monitoring Project PZans as the criteria to ensure that a lead project and/ or Lead Program conforms with quality assurance and quality management requirements. The paragraph on Page 28 and Appendices J and K do not conform to the Region I11 Guidance. Although Appendices J and K begin to address quality assurance requirements, either these should be submitted as part of a separate document that is structured to undergo QAPP review by the Region or the entire authorization application must be held up ( or the application disapproved) while the appendices are fixed to conform with Regional Guidance. We strongly urge the District to submit a separate Quality Assurance Plan within four weeks of receipt of this letter so that this does not hold up EPA review of the District s application for authorization. A commitment from the District to submit the draft QAPPno later than May 31 and to revise the QAPP within 30 days of receipt of EPA comments should be included in the discussion of Sampling Techniques on page 28.

5. Third Pary Exam  Region I11 is still awaiting confirmation from the District that a third party exam is available for individuals seeking certification. This was due to Region I11 by the end of March.

6. Certzjkation ofIndividuals and Firms  Page 37 of the Program Analysis, item 6, refers to the date after which LBP activity may not be performed without certification at 745.( a)( 5)   to be amended to 8/ 31/ 98 . This should be explained in the Program Description under Program Element # 2. Has the District amended its rules to establish a date after which performance of a LBP activity is considered a violation? If so, that date should be set forth in the application in both the Program Analysis and Program Description Sections. Furthermore, page 27 of the Program Description should describe the District s plans to communicate this deadline to the regulated community as part of compliance assistance. If such an amendment has not passed to date, please describe, in the Program Analysis and Program Description Sections, how the District s current Program is   as protective  as the federal program as it pertains to current performance of a LBP activity without certification.

Similarly, page 39 of the Program Analysis, items 1 and 7 under Certification Based on Prior Training, and items 1 and 5 under Certification of Firms, indicate   Date to be 3 amended  with no explanation in the Program Description nor in a footnote. Has this amendment been passed? If so, please update these charts and provide the amendment as part of the application; if not, please explain in the Program Description and in a footnote to this table and outline activities to communicate the current deadlines to the regulated community.

In EPA s letter to the District dated February 16, 1999, a timeline which reflects implementation of the District s Lead Program from March 1, 1999 was requested. This has not been received in the Region. The information requested in Item 9, herein, relates to that request.

7. Program Description  Page 6, line 1  Something is wrong with this sentence.

8. Progress Reporting  Please include, on page 30, a commitment to submit the first progress report on or before August 17, 1999, which is one year after the District self certified and thereby was deemed authorized. Subsequent progress reports also will be due August 17 of ensuing years.

9. OrganizationaZ Chart [ A] The   Organization Order Number 5  that is included in this section appears to be a draft, as question marks are included on pages 4and 5 of this document. Please provide a final copy. The   Organization Order Number 5  document has no reference to the Lead Poisoning Prevention Division which leads the reader to wonder why this is included at all.

[ B] different from each other, and only one chart includes the Lead Poisoning Prevention Two organizational charts are included in this tabbed section, but they are Division. Please include one, correct chart that outlines where the District s Lead Program resides in the Environmental Health Administration or explain why two charts and the   Organization Order Number 5  are provided.

10. Lead Based Paint TaskForce ( Tabbed Section F of Application)  Please provide a copy that does not have the right side cut off. Does this Task Force still exist? If so, has the Department of Health become a formal partner in the Task Force? Please provide documentation, on page 13 of the application, on the Department of Health s role in the Task Force.

11. Notzjkgtion  Pages 28 and 29 refer to   lead activity  as something that is fully addressed through the permit process. However, according to DC Law 11 221, Section 8, a permit ( which involves notification) is only required for abatements and not for inspections, risk assessments, and project designs. If DC has a process for monitoring compliance of inspectors, risk assessors, and project designers, this should be outlined in the above respective sections, or else, the word   lead activity  should be changed, it appears, to   lead abatements.

4 Please note that we are still considering other issues that have been discussed, such as the limited criminal penalties and the lack of a minimum civil penalty as part of the District's Enforcment Response Policy. Meanwhile, a revised application from the District is required to address the above 11 items. I suggest that this be provided within ten days, with a copy of this letter with notations in the margin that show page numbers in the rev'ised application that respond directly to each item listed above. This will expedite processing of the revised application. Of course, no pages that have no changes need to be resubmitted.

Please call me at 215 814 2084 to discuss a schedule for providing the above information to EPA and to discuss any questions related to authorization of the District. Thankyou.

Sincerely,

Gerallyn Valls Region 111Lead ProgramCoordinator 3WC33 cc. Shana Arnold ( 2245A) Paul Cestone ( 7404) Mary Coe ( 3RC30) Dan Gallo ( 3WC33) Sandra Handon ( DC DOH)

5 5


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25789-25790]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-110-000.
    Applicants: Hog Creek Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of EWG Status of Hog
Creek Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20170526-5304.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-111-000.
    Applicants: Mineral Point Energy LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of Mineral Point Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-112-000.
    Applicants: Wrighter Energy LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of Wrighter Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.

    Accession Number: 20170530-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2964-013.
    Applicants: Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status for Selkirk
Cogen Partners, L.P.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-204-003.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association Formula Rate Compliance Filing to be effective
1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1720-002.
    Applicants: Invenergy Energy Management LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 23, 2016 Triennial Report for
the Northwest Region of Invenergy Energy Management LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1381-001.
    Applicants: AEM Wind, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revisions to Tariff to be effective
6/7/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1699-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Unexecuted LGIA with Regents
of the University of California (SA 344) to be effective 7/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/26/17.
    Accession Number: 20170526-5284.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1700-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Wholesale Market
Participation Agreement No. 4707; Queue No. AC1-199 to be effective 5/
8/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1701-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 4704;
Queue No. AA2-057/AA2-165 to be effective 5/3/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1703-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing re: LGIA
(SA2334) NYISO, NMPC & Copenhagen Wind Farm to be effective 5/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1704-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Wholesale Market
Participation Agreement No. 4708; Queue No. AC1-200 to be effective 5/
8/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1705-000.
    Applicants: Electric Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised and Restated Cost-
Based Power Contract to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1706-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MR1 Revisions to Permit Use
of Five-Minute Revenue Quality Meter Data to be effective 8/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1707-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC
Interconnection LLC, Dairyland Power Cooperative.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-05-30_SA 3013 ITC-DPC
TIA to be effective 7/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1708-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Blountstown NITSA and NOA
Filing to be effective 5/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1709-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Wholesale Market
Participation Agreement No. 4709; Queue No. AC1-201 to be effective 5/
8/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR17-4-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Report of North American Electric Reliability
Corporation of Comparisons of Budgeted to Actual Costs for 2016 for
NERC and the Regional Entities.
    Filed Date: 5/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170530-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 30, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11534 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 67983]
[DOCID:fr04no10-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0098]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Evaluation of Potential Data Sources
for the Sentinel Initiative

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Evaluation of Potential Data
Sources for the Sentinel Initiative'' has been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 4, 2009
(74 FR 45858), the agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0657.
The approval expires on February 28, 2013. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 25, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27848 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58851-58852]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24434]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Monday, September
26, 2011 at 10 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the
Closed Meeting.

    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday,
September 26, 2011 will be:
    Institution and settlement of an administrative proceeding.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 19, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24434 Filed 9-20-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4291-4293]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[DOT-OST-2023-0010]

Solicitation for Annual Combating Human Trafficking in
Transportation Impact Award

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The annual Combating Human Trafficking in Transportation
Impact Award (the award) seeks to raise awareness among transportation
stakeholders about human trafficking and increase training and
prevention to combat it. The award is a component of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Transportation Leaders Against Human Trafficking
initiative. Additional information regarding the Department's counter-
trafficking activities can be found at www.transportation.gov/stophumantrafficking. The award serves as a platform for transportation
stakeholders to creatively develop impactful and innovative counter-
trafficking tools, initiatives, campaigns, and technologies that can
help stop these heinous crimes. The award is open to individuals and
entities, including non-governmental organizations, transportation
industry associations, research institutions, and state and local
government organizations. Entrants compete for a cash award of up to
$50,000 to be awarded to the individual(s) or entity selected for
creating the most impactful counter-trafficking initiative or
technology. DOT intends to incentivize individuals and entities to
think creatively in developing innovative solutions to combat human
trafficking in the transportation industry, and to share those
innovations with the broader community.

DATES: Submissions accepted January 24, 2023 through midnight EST on
March 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information, and to register
your intent to compete individually or as part of a team, visit
www.transportation.gov/stophumantrafficking, email [email protected],
or contact Maha Alkhateeb in the Office of International Transportation
and Trade at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Award Approving Official: The Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary).
    Subject of Award Competition: The Combating Human Trafficking in
Transportation Impact Award will recognize impactful and innovative
approaches to combating human trafficking in the transportation
industry.

Problem

    As many as 27.6 million men, women, and children are held against
their will and trafficked into forced labor and commercial sex.
Transportation figures prominently in human trafficking enterprises
when traffickers move victims, which uniquely positions the industry to
combat the crime.

Challenge

    The Combating Human Trafficking in Transportation Impact Award is
looking for the best innovators to develop original, impactful, and
unique human trafficking tools, initiatives, campaigns, and
technologies that can help stop these heinous crimes in the
transportation industry.

Eligibility

    To be eligible to participate in the Combating Human Trafficking in
Transportation Impact Award competition, private entities must be
incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United
States, and individuals must be citizens or permanent residents of the
United States. There is no charge to enter the competition.

Rules, Terms, and Conditions

    The following additional rules apply:
    1. Entrants shall submit a project to the competition under the
rules

promulgated by the Department in this Notice;
    2. Entrants must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Federal
Government from and against all third-party claims, actions, or
proceedings of any kind and from any and all damages, liabilities,
costs, and expenses relating to or arising from participant's
submission or any breach or alleged breach of any of the
representations, warranties, and covenants of participant hereunder.
Entrants are financially responsible for claims made by a third party;
    3. Entrants may not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting
within the scope of employment;
    4. Entrants may not be an employee of the U.S. Department of
Transportation;
    5. Entrants shall not be deemed ineligible because an individual
used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a
competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all
individuals participating in the competition on an equitable basis;
    6. The entries cannot have been submitted in the same or
substantially similar form in any other previous Federally sponsored
promotion or Federally sponsored competition;
    7. Entrants previously awarded first place are not eligible to
reenter for the same or substantially similar project;
    8. Entries which, in the Department's sole discretion, are
determined to be substantially similar to another entity's entry
submitted to this competition may be disqualified;
    9. The competition is subject to all applicable Federal laws and
regulations. Participation constitutes the entrants' full and
unconditional agreement to these rules and to the Secretary's
decisions, which are final and binding in all matters related to this
competition;
    10. Entries must be original, be the work of the entrant and/or
nominee and must not violate the rights of other parties. All entries
remain the property of the entrant. Each entrant represents and
warrants that:
     Entrant is the sole author and owner of the submission;
     The entry is not the subject of any actual or threatened
litigation or claim;
     The entry does not and will not violate or infringe upon
the intellectual property rights, privacy rights, publicity rights, or
other legal rights of any third party; and
     The entry does not and will not contain any harmful
computer code (sometimes referred to as ``malware,'' ``viruses,'' or,
``worms'').
    11. By submitting an entry in this competition, entrants agree to
assume any and all risks and waive any claims against the Federal
Government and its related entities (except in the case of willful
misconduct) for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue
or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from
their participation in this competition, whether the injury, death,
damage, or loss arises through negligence of otherwise. Provided,
however, that by registering or submitting an entry, entrants and/or
nominees do not waive claims against the Department arising out of the
unauthorized use or disclosure by the agency of the intellectual
property, trade secrets, or confidential information of the entrant;
    12. The Secretary or the Secretary's designees have the right to
request additional supporting documentation regarding the application
from the entrants and/or nominees;
    13. Each entrant grants to the Department, as well as other Federal
agencies with which it partners, the right to use names, likeness,
application materials, photographs, voices, opinions, and hometown and
state for the Department's promotional purposes in any media, in
perpetuity, worldwide, without further payment or consideration;
    14. If selected, the entrant and/or nominee must provide written
consent granting the Department and any parties acting on their behalf,
a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to
display publicly and use for promotional purposes the entry
(``demonstration license''). This demonstration license includes
posting or linking to the entry on Department websites, including the
Competition website, and partner websites, and inclusion of the entry
in any other media, worldwide;
    15. Applicants which are Federal grant recipients may not use
Federal funds to develop submissions;
    16. Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract
to develop applications or to fund efforts in support of a submission;
and
    17. The submission period begins on January 24, 2023. Submissions
must be sent by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on March 27, 2023. The
timeliness of submissions will be determined by the postmark (if sent
in hard copy) or time stamp of the recipient (if emailed). Competition
administrators assume no responsibility for lost or untimely
submissions for any reason.

Submission Requirements

    Applicants must submit entries via email or by mail. Electronic
packages may be transmitted by email to: [email protected]. Hard
copies should be forwarded with a cover letter to the attention of:
Combating Human Trafficking in Transportation Impact Award (Room W88-
121), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Expression of Interest: While not required, entrants are strongly
encouraged to send brief expressions of interest to the DOT prior to
submitting entries. The expressions of interest should be sent by
February 23, 2023 to [email protected], and include the following
elements: (1) Name of entrant/s; (2) Telephone and email address; and
(3) A synopsis of the concept, limited to no more than two pages.
    Please ensure your submission package includes EACH of the
following ten elements:

1. Entity

    The (1) name of the individual(s) or organization being nominated,
(2) their title, (3) phone, (4) email, (5) website URL, and (6) mailing
address. If the point of contact for the project is different, also
specify their name, title, phone, and email.

2. Background

    Brief background regarding the submitting individual(s) or
organization(s) that includes relevant counter-trafficking expertise.

3. Eligibility Statement

    A statement of eligibility by private entities indicating that they
are incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the
United States, or a statement of eligibility by individuals indicating
that they citizens or permanent residents of the United States.

4. Mode(s)

    Specify which transportation mode(s) the project will focus on.

5. Title

    The project title.

6. Project Summary (1 Paragraph)

    A detailed synopsis of the proposed project, including how efficacy
will be measured and its anticipated impact.

7. Project Overview and Impact/Measurability (1-2 Pages)

    A description of the project that presents a logical approach and
workable solution to addressing the issue of human trafficking in the

transportation industry. Include responses to the following questions:
Is the concept unique? Are the anticipated beneficiaries clearly
identified? Were human trafficking survivors consulted in the
development of the project and/or how will survivor input be included
in project implementation? Are the anticipated resources and costs
outlined in detail? Can the project be implemented in a way requiring a
finite amount of resources (e.g., the submission has fixed costs, low
or no marginal costs, and a clear path to implementation and scale
beyond an initial investment)? For impact and measurability, include a
description of how the project will be evaluated, and its potential
impact on human trafficking in the transportation industry. Include
responses to the following questions: How will the project's impact be
measured? How will the project contribute to counter-trafficking
efforts in the transportation sector? If not a national project, can
the project be scaled nationally?

8. Partners

    If applicable, list the partners who will be engaged in project
development and/or implementation, including a brief background for
each.

9. Letters of Support

    You may submit supporting letters, which may be from subject matter
experts or industry, and may address the technical merit of the
concept, originality, impact, practicality, measurability and/or
applicability.

10. Supporting Documents (No Page Limit)

    The paper(s) and/or technologies, programs, video/audio files, and
other related materials, describing the project and addressing the
selection criteria. As applicable, this can include a description of
success of a previous or similar project and/or documentation of
impact. DOT may request additional information, including supporting
documentation, more detailed contact information, releases of
liability, and statements of authenticity to guarantee the originality
of the work. Failure to respond in a timely manner may result in
disqualification.
Initial Screening
    The Office of International Transportation and Trade will initially
review applications to determine that all required submission elements
are included, and to determine compliance with eligibility
requirements.
Evaluation
    After the Initial Screening, the Office of International
Transportation and Trade, with input from the relevant Operating
Administrations, will judge entries based on the factors described
below: technical merit, originality, impact, practicality,
measurability, and applicability. All factors are equally important and
will be given consideration.
    The Secretary will make the final selection.
    The Department reserves the right to not award the prize if the
selecting officials believe that no submission demonstrates sufficient
potential for sufficient transformative impact.

Technical Merit

     Presents a clear understanding of the issue of human
trafficking in the transportation industry and utilizes a trauma-
informed, victim-centered approach.
     Presents a logical and workable solution and approach to
addressing human trafficking in the transportation industry.
     Survivors of human trafficking were consulted in the
development of the project concept and survivor input is outlined in
the description of project implementation.

Originality

     The concept is new or a variation of an existing idea.
     The concept possesses and clearly describes its unique
merits.

Impact/Measurability

     The project can make a significant impact and/or
contribution to the fight against human trafficking in the
transportation industry.
     The project clearly describes the breadth of impact.
     The submission clearly outlines how the project will be
measured.
     The project will result in measurable improvements.

Practicality

     The project clearly identifies anticipated beneficiaries
of the project.
     The project clearly outlines anticipated resources and all
costs to be incurred by executing the concept.
     The project can be implemented in a way that requires a
finite amount of resources (specifically, the submission has fixed
costs, low or no marginal costs, and a clear path to implementation and
scale beyond an initial investment).

Applicability

     The project is national and/or can be scaled nationally.

Award

    Up to three winning entries are expected to be announced. The
first-place winner will receive up to a $50,000 cash prize. A plaque
with the first-place winner(s) name and the date of the award will be
on display at the U.S. Department of Transportation, and a display copy
of the plaque(s) will be sent to the first-place award winner's
headquarters. At the discretion of the Secretary, up to two additional
plaques may be awarded to recognize two runners up. At the Department's
discretion, DOT may pay for invitational travel expenses to Washington,
DC for up to two individuals or representatives of the first-place
winning organization and runners up organizations, should selectees be
invited to present their project(s) for DOT officials.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3719 (America COMPETES Act).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2023.
Carol Annette Petsonk,
Assistant Secretary, Aviation and International Affairs, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2023-01324 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P