[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58352-58354]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23010]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70429; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 30 to the
Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection,
Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an
Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis Submitted by the BATS Exchange, Inc.,
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.

September 17, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 9, 2013, the operating committee (``Operating Committee''
or ``Committee'') \3\ of the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan
Governing the Collection, Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation
and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan''
or ``Plan'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') an amendment to the Plan.\4\ This amendment represents
Amendment No. 30 (``Amendment No. 30'') \5\ to the Plan and proposes to
remove odd-lot transactions from the list of transactions that are not
to be reported for inclusion on the consolidated tape. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The Plan Participants (collectively, ``Participants'') are
the: BATS Exchange, Inc.; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; EDGA
Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange LLC; NASDAQ OMX
BX, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; National
Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC; and
NYSE Arca, Inc.
    \4\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for each of its
Participants. This consolidated information informs investors of the
current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It
enables investors to ascertain from one data source the current
prices in all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves
as the required transaction reporting plan for its Participants,
which is a prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR
20891 (April 26, 2007).
    \5\ The proposal was originally designated as Amendment No. 31.
See Letter from Thomas P. Knorring, Chairman, Nasdaq/UTP Plan
Operating Committee to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated September 9, 2013 (``Transmittal Letter''). On September 17,
2013, the Participants filed a letter to re-designate the proposal
as Amendment No. 30 and to correct a marking error in the Plan
language. See Letter from Thomas P. Knorring, Chairman, Nasdaq/UTP
Plan Operating Committee to Katherine A. England, Assistant
Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated
September 17, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Purpose of the Amendments

    Currently, Section XIII(B) (Transaction Reports) of the Nasdaq/UTP
Plan provides that ``Each Participant shall, during the time it is open
for trading, be responsible promptly to collect and transmit to the
Processor Transaction Reports in Eligible Securities executed in its
Market by means prescribed herein.'' However, that section goes on to
say that ``The following types of transactions are not required to be
reported to the Processor pursuant to the Plan.'' That list includes
odd-lot transactions.
    Because odd-lot transactions account for a not insignificant
percentage of trading volume, the Participants have determined that
including odd-lot transactions on the consolidated tape of Nasdaq/UTP
Plan last sale prices would add post-trade transparency to the
marketplace.
    This amendment proposes to add odd-lot transactions to the
consolidated tape by removing them from Section XIII(B)'s list of
transactions that are not required to be reported for inclusion on the
consolidated tape.
    Due to the lack of economic significance of many individual odd-lot
orders, the Participants do not propose to include odd-lot transactions
in calculations of last sale prices. Therefore, odd-lot transactions
would not be included in calculations of high and low prices and would
not be subject to Limit Up/Limit Down rules. Similarly, including odd-
lot transactions on the consolidated tape would not trigger short sale
restrictions or trading halts. However, odd-lot transactions would be
included in calculations of daily consolidated volume.

    For purposes of allocating revenue among the Participants under the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan, the Participants would include odd-lot transactions in
the Security Income Allocation for each Eligible Security under
Paragraph 2 (Security Income Allocation) of Exhibit 1 to the Nasdaq/UTP
Plan. Just as with round lot transactions, an odd-lot transaction with
a dollar value of $5000 or more would constitute one qualified
transaction report and an odd-lot transaction with a dollar value of
less than $5000 would constitute a fraction of a qualified transaction
report that equals the dollar value of the transaction report divided
by $5000. The Participants do not anticipate that this will produce a
significant shift in revenue allocation among the Participants. This
treatment of odd-lot transactions for revenue allocation purposes does
not require a change to the language of Exhibit 1 to the Nasdaq/UTP
Plan.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Amendment

    All of the Participants have manifested their approval of the
proposed amendment by means of their execution of the amendments.
Subject to Commission approval of the Amendment, the Participants
intend to add odd-lot transactions to the consolidated tape under the
Plan commencing October 21, 2013.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    Not applicable.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The proposed amendment does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act. This change is being proposed and implemented in
parallel with similar changes to the national market system plan
governing the trading of stocks listed on NYSE, Amex, and other markets
(i.e., the CTA Plan). The Participants do not believe that the proposed
plan amendment introduces terms that are unreasonably discriminatory
for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(c)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Written Understanding or Agreements relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    The Participants have no written understandings or agreements
relating to interpretation of the Plan as a result of the amendment.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance with Plan

    Each of the Plan's Participants has executed a written amendment to
the Plan.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Not applicable.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    Not applicable.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

II. Rule 601(a)

A. Equity Securities for which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    As a result of the amendment, each Participant would be required to
report odd-lot transactions to the Nasdaq/UTP Plan's Processor for
inclusion in the consolidated tape.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Odd-lot transactions would not be eligible for inclusion in
calculations of last sale prices and would not be included in
calculations of high and low prices. However, odd-lot transactions
would be included in calculations of daily consolidated volume.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not Applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks general comments on Amendment No. 30.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-24-89 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-24-89. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of
the submission, all written statements with respect to the proposed
Plan Amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed Plan Amendment between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for Web site viewing and printing at
the Office of the Secretary of the Committee, currently located at the
CBOE, 400 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60605. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number S7-24-89 and should be submitted on or
before October 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23010 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT

                                      FOR

                    PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
                      AND NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW

                           EPA Tracking No. 1230.33

                           OMB Control No. 2060-0003

                                 Prepared for:

                            New Source Review Group
                          Air Quality Policy Division
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                          Office of Air and Radiation
                 United States Environmental Protection Agency
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                                 Prepared by:

                                SC&A, Inc.
                         1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 450
                             Chapel Hill, NC 27517

                                   May 2020

                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT

                                      FOR

                    PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
                      AND NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	1
1(a)	TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUST (ICR)	1
1(b)	SHORT CHARACTERIZATION/ABSTRACT	1
2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	2
2(a)	NEED/AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION	2
2(b)	PRACTICAL UTILITY/USERS OF THE DATA	2
3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA	3
3(a)	NONDUPLICATION	3
3(b)	PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB	4
3(c)	CONSULTATIONS	4
3(d)	EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION	4
3(e)	GENERAL GUIDELINES	4
3(f)	CONFIDENTIALITY	5
3(g)	SENSITIVE QUESTIONS	6
4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	6
4(a)	RESPONDENTS/STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) CODES	6
4(b)	INFORMATION REQUESTED	8
4(b)(i) DATA ITEMS, INCLUDING RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS	8
4(b)(ii) RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES	8
5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	9
5(a)	AGENCY ACTIVITIES	9
5(b)	COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT	9
5(c)	SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY	10
5(d)	COLLECTION SCHEDULE	11
6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	11
6(a)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN	11
6(b)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS	12
6(b)(i) ESTIMATING LABOR COSTS	12
6(b)(ii) ESTIMATING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	13
6(b)(iii) CAPITAL/START-UP OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS	14
6(b)(iv) ANNUALIZING CAPITAL COSTS	14
6(c) 	ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST	14
6(d) 	ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COST	14
6(e) 	BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST TABLES	16
6(e)(i) RESPONDENT TALLY	16
6(e)(ii) THE AGENCY TALLY	16
6(e)(iii) VARIATIONS IN THE ANNUAL BOTTOM LINE	16
6(f) 	REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN	16
6(g)	 BURDEN STATEMENT	16
APPENDIX A	22

                                LIST OF TABLES

                                                                          	Page

4-1	Most Numerous Industrial Respondents by Industrial Group	6

4-2	Most Numerous Industrial Respondents by Industrial Group in Indian Country	7

6-1	Industry Respondent Burden and Cost (Annual)	18

6-2	State and Local reviewing authority Burden and Cost (Annual)	19

6-3	Agency Burden and Cost (Annual)	20

6-4	NSR Program Information Collection Burden Summary	21

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUST (ICR)

This report is entitled Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review, EPA ICR No. 1230.33, OMB Control No. 2060-0003.

1(b)	SHORT CHARACTERIZATION/ABSTRACT

The analyses in this document have been performed in support of a renewal of the New Source Review (NSR) Program Information Collection Request (ICR) (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2060-0003; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ICR No. 1230.33). The regulations covered under this ICR are contained in parts 49, 51, and 52 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These requirements govern the state and federal programs for preconstruction review and permitting of major new and modified sources pursuant to part C "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) and part D "Program Requirements for Nonattainment Areas" (nonattainment major NSR or NNSR) of Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which together are commonly referred to as "major NSR." In addition, these requirements govern the state and federal programs for preconstruction of minor new and modified sources pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which is commonly referred to as "minor NSR." The types of information collection activities addressed in this ICR are those necessary for the preparation and submittal of construction permit applications and the issuance of final permits. Thus, the respondents addressed in this ICR are (1) the pollutant-emitting sources that must apply for and obtain permits, and (2) the state and local reviewing authorities that must review the permit applications and issue the permits. Specific burden-producing activities are listed in Appendix A. The administrative, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for industry respondents (permit applicants), state and local implementing agencies and the EPA are summarized in Table 6-4.

The NSR Program ICR was last renewed in October 2017 (EPA ICR No. 1230.32). The currently approved respondent burden for the NSR program stands at approximately 5.5 million hours per year for nearly 147,000 responses (with associated labor costs of about $425 million), plus about $3.5 million in one-time start-up costs.

This renewal ICR for the NSR program estimates the annual respondent burden at approximately 3.0 million hours (with labor costs of about $234 million) for just over 60,000 responses, plus one-time start-up costs of about $3.4 million. The change (net decrease) in the cost estimate is due largely to a significant reduction in the estimated number of NSR permits issued annually, based on a review of permit activity in recent years.

The estimated annual burden in this renewal ICR consists of approximately 1.4 million hours for industry respondents (with labor costs of about $131 million and start-up costs of about $3.4 million) and 1.6 million hours for state and local reviewing authority respondents (with labor costs of about $103 million). The estimated annual burden for the EPA is about 9,000 hours and $512,000.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	NEED/AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION

Section 110 of the CAA requires all states to submit an implementation plan that contains a preconstruction review program for all new or modified stationary sources, including any provisions necessary for this program to meet the specific requirements of parts C and D of title I of the CAA related to major construction. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires that no new or modified stationary source, in conjunction with existing source emissions in the same area, can interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It further requires that no source can construct without securing a permit to ensure that the objectives of parts C and D of title I of the CAA are met.

Part C of title I of the CAA outlines specific construction requirements for new and modified sources constructing in areas that do not violate the NAAQS. These requirements are more commonly referred to as the "prevention of significant deterioration" or "PSD" rules, which require a prospective major new or modified source to: (1) demonstrate that the NAAQS and increments will not be exceeded, (2) ensure the application of best available control technology (BACT), and (3) protect Federal Class I areas from adverse impacts, including adverse impacts on air quality related values (AQRVs).

Similarly, part D of title I of the CAA specifies requirements for major new and modified sources constructing in areas designated as nonattainment for a NAAQS pursuant to section 107 of the CAA. The part D provisions also apply to major source permitting in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region as established under section 184 of the CAA. The part D rules, which are often referred to as the "nonattainment major NSR" or "NNSR" rules, generally require a prospective major construction project to: (1) ensure the application of controls which will achieve the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER), (2) certify that all major sources in a state which are owned or controlled by the same person (or persons) are in compliance with all air emissions regulations, (3) secure reductions in existing source emissions ("offsets") that comply with specific statutory offset ratios and are otherwise equal to, or greater than, those reductions necessary to show the required progress toward attainment and maintenance of the applicable NAAQS, and (4) conduct an analysis showing that the benefits of the source significantly outweigh its environmental and social costs.

2(b)	PRACTICAL UTILITY/USERS OF THE DATA

Before the owner or operator of a facility can commence construction or modification of its source, it must comply with all applicable construction permit requirements. The owner or operator of a stationary source must develop or collect all relevant information not otherwise available to the federal, state, local, or tribal reviewing authority. The reviewing authority reviews the application materials submitted by the owner or operator and either declares the permit application complete for processing or provides the owner or operator guidance on how to correct the deficiencies in the application. If the application has deficiencies, the applicant collects any additional data identified by the reviewing authority so that the permit application can be deemed "complete." Although sufficient information must be submitted by the applicant before its permit application can be classified as complete, some additional clarifying information might need to be submitted at a later date by the applicant to assist the reviewing authority to finalize the permit.

For major sources to be constructed or modified in attainment areas, the reviewing authority uses the permit application information to determine: (1) whether the source will cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or air quality increments, (2) if the technology the source is proposing is BACT and (3) whether the source's emissions will adversely affect any Federal Class I areas, including AQRVs in these areas. For major sources to be constructed or modified in nonattainment areas, the permit application information is used by the reviewing authority to determine whether: (1) the source will apply LAER, (2) the source will have secured the required emissions offsets, (3) the source has demonstrated that all other of its major sources in the same state are in compliance with all applicable air emissions regulations and (4) the source has demonstrated that its benefits significantly outweigh its environmental and social costs. For minor sources that are large enough to be subject to minor NSR to be constructed or modified in attainment and nonattainment areas, the reviewing authority uses the permit application information to determine whether the source will cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. Minor NSR programs may include a control technology requirement or require ambient air quality modeling to protect the NAAQS.

Once the application is complete, the reviewing authority makes a preliminary determination including a draft permit regarding the approvability of the permit application. For major NSR, this draft permit, along with the application and supporting information, is made available to the public for at least 30 days. The reviewing authority must then respond to public comments and take action on the final permit. Typically, a final major NSR action must be taken on a permit by the reviewing authority within 1 year of receipt of a complete application. For minor NSR, the public comment period and deadline for a final permit action may be shorter.

In addition, the public and other permit applicants may use some of the data collected. The EPA operates a reasonably available control technology (RACT)/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) which contains many BACT and LAER determinations to aid applicants and reviewers in identifying reasonable and available control technologies. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require that the BACT or LAER information in each permit must be gathered by the reviewing authority and submitted for entry into the RBLC database as a reference for making future control technology determinations. Annual reports containing RBLC update information are also available to the public through the National Technical Information Service.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	NONDUPLICATION

The information collection activities required under the NSR regulations are not routinely performed elsewhere by the EPA. However, similar information may be collected during the development of certain environmental impact statements (EIS). In such cases, regulations and policies require that information collected for the EIS and NSR programs be coordinated to the maximum extent possible so as to minimize duplicating the collection of data. Some of the required information also may already be available from states or other federal agencies. However, even when these data are available, they are not generally adequate to address completely the relevant NSR requirements.

3(b)	PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ICR SUBMISSION TO OMB

On February 14, 2020, the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing its intention to submit this ICR to OMB. The notice provided a 60-day public comment period, which ended on April 14, 2020. No public comments were received.

3(c)	CONSULTATIONS

This ICR is a renewal of the existing ICR for the NSR program. It incorporates the same elements of the program that were included in the last renewal, without change.

Prior to this renewal, the EPA contacted Ms. Leslie Sue Ritts, Counsel for the National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) (http://www.nedacap.org), requesting feedback on the burden for industrial facilities to obtain PSD, NNSR, and minor NSR permits. NEDA/CAP is a multi-sector manufacturing coalition of companies that operate facilities across the United States. No input was received from NEDA/CAP.

In addition, for feedback from state and local agency respondents we contacted Ms. Karen Mongoven of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)<PHONE_NUMBER>) and Jason Sloan of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA)<PHONE_NUMBER>). No input was received from AAPCA member agencies. Based on information received from seven NACAA member agencies, the EPA revised upward the burden associated with reviewing and issuing PSD and minor NSR permits.

Also for this renewal, information was obtained from the EPA's 10 Regional Offices on the number of PSD, NNSR, and minor NSR permits issued in the United States in recent years. Based on the information received, the numbers of permits of each type were reduced for this renewal.

3(d)	EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION

The CAA defines the rate of reporting by sources, states, and local entities. Consequently, less frequent collection is not possible.

3(e)	GENERAL GUIDELINES

The OMB's general guidelines for information collections must be adhered to by all federal agencies for approval of any rulemaking's collection methodology. In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5, the EPA believes:

1.	The NSR regulations do not require periodic reporting more frequently than semi-annually.
2.	The NSR regulations do not require respondents to participate in any statistical survey.
3.	Written responses to EPA inquiries are not required to be submitted in less than 30 days.
4.	Special consideration has been given in the design of the NSR program to ensure that the requirements are, to the greatest extent possible, the same for federal requirements and those reviewing authorities who already have preconstruction permitting programs in place.
5.	Confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information necessary for the completeness of the respondent's permit are protected from disclosure under the requirements of section 503(e) and section 114(c) of the CAA.
6.	The NSR regulations do not require more than one original and two copies of the permit application, update, or revision to be submitted to the EPA.
7.	Respondents do not receive remuneration for the preparation of reports required by the CAA or 40 CFR part 49, 51, or 52.
8.	To the greatest extent possible, the EPA has taken advantage of automated methods of reporting.
9.	The EPA believes the impact of NSR regulations on small entities to be insignificant and not disproportionate.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the NSR program do not exceed any of the PRA guide - lines con - tained in 5 CFR 1320.5, except for the guideline which limits reten - tion of records by respondents to 3 years. The CAA requires  - both respondents and state or local agencies to retain records for a period of 5 years. The justification for this exception is found in 28 U.S.C. 2462, which specifies 5 years as the general statute of limitations for federal claims in response to violations by regu - lated entities. The decision in U.S. v. Conoco, Inc., No. 83-1916-E (W.D. Okla., January 23, 1984) found that the 5-year general statute of limitations applied to the CAA.

3(f)	CONFIDENTIALITY

Confidentiality is not an issue for the NSR program. In accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the information that is to be submitted by sources as a part of their permit applications and updates, applications for revisions, and is a matter of public record. To the extent that the information required for the completeness of a federal permit is proprietary, confidential, or of a nature that it could impair the ability of the source to maintain its market position, that information is collected and handled subject to the requirements of section 503(e) and  section 114(c) of the Act. Information received and identified by owners or opera - tors as confidential business information (CBI) and approved as CBI by EPA, in accordance with title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -- Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2) shall be maintained appropriately. States typically have similar provisions.

3(g)	SENSITIVE QUESTIONS

The consideration of sensitive questions (i.e., sexual, religious, personal, or other private matters) is not applicable to the NSR program. The information gathered for purposes of establishing an NSR permit for a source do not include personal data on any owner or operator.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	RESPONDENTS/STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) CODES

Table 4-1 lists the industrial groups the EPA expects will contain the majority of the industrial respondents affected by the NSR program. These categories were chosen because of their relative incidence in seeking major NSR permits based on a search of the RBLC for the years 2017 through 2019.

     Table 4-1. Most Numerous Industrial Respondents by Industrial Group
                                Industry Group
                                      SIC
                                  NAICS[†]
Electrical Services
                                      491
221111, 221112, 221113, 221114, 221115, 221116, 221117, 221118, 221121, 221122
Industrial Organic Chemicals
                                      286
325110, 325120, 325130, 325180, 325193, 325194, 325199, 325998
Sawmills and Planing Mills
                                      242
321113, 321912, 321918, 321920, 321999, 337215
Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills
                                      331
331110, 331210, 331221, 331222, 332618, 324199
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills
                              261, 262, & 263
322110, 322121, 322122, 322130
Petroleum Refining
                                      291
324110
Gas Production and Distribution
                                      492
221210, 486210
Cement, Hydraulic
                                      324
327310

		† North American Industry Classification System

The respondents also include state and local air regulatory agencies that serve as the reviewing authorities for the NSR program, SIC Code 9511 and NAICS Code 924110. Because of the national scope of the NSR program, these governmental respondents are in all 50 states as well as many U.S. territories. In total, we recognize up to 123 such state and local reviewing authorities, depending on the segment within the overall NSR program.

An exception to the list of affected industries in Table 4-1 applies to the minor NSR program in Indian country. For that program, the industrial groups expected to be most affected are listed in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. Most Numerous Industrial Respondents by Industrial Group in Indian Country

Industry Group
                                     NAICS
Animal food manufacturing
                                    311119
Asphalt hot mix
                                    324121
Auto body refinishing
                                    811121
Beef cattle complex, slaughter house, and meat-packing plant
                                     3116
Casting foundry (iron)
                                    331511
Chemical preparation
                                     3251
Clay and ceramics operations (kilns)
                                     32711
Concrete batching plant
                                    327320
Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction
                                    211111
Dry cleaning and laundry services
                                    812320
Electric power generation
                                     22111
Fabricated metal products
                                     3329
Fabricated structural metal
                                     3323
Fiber glass operations
                                     3279
Gasoline bulk plant
                                    424710
Gasoline station (storage tanks, refueling)
                                     4471
Grain elevator
                                    424510
Machinery manufacturing
                                     33311
Millwork (wood products manufacturing)
                                     32191
Natural gas-distribution systems
                                    221210
Natural gas liquid extraction (major source)
                                    211112
Oil and gas production/operations (minor Oil & Gas)
                                     21111
Other (natural gas-fired boilers)
                                   72112[a]
Printing operations
                                     32311
Professional, scientific, and technical services
                                   54171[b]
Sand and gravel mining
                                    212321
Sand- and shot-blasting operations
                                    238990
Sawmills (minor source)
                                    321113
Sawmills (major source)
                                    321113
Sewage treatment facilities
                                    221320
Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing
                                    321212
Solid waste landfill
                                    562212
Stone Mining and Quarrying
                                     21231
Surface coating operations
                                    332812
Wood kitchen cabinet manufacturing
                                    337110
         [a] NAICS associated with "other" facilities is that for casino-hotels, which was the most frequently mentioned type of "other" facility.
        b This sector included based on natural gas-fired boilers.

4(b)	INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(b)(i) DATA ITEMS, INCLUDING RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

Tables A-1 and A-2 of Appendix A summarize the industry respondent data and information requirements that owners or operators of major sources must include in PSD and NNSR construction permit applications. The tables also include the appropriate references in 40 CFR part 51 for the data and information requirements that govern the way states implement NSR programs. For each reference in part 51, corresponding language will be found in part 52. In this ICR analysis, the minor NSR burden is for owners or operators of minor sources to submit information to demonstrate that they are exempt from the major source construction permit requirements and that they will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS and that they will meet all requirements of the applicable implementation plan. Because state minor NSR programs vary widely in form and requirements, it is not practical to list specific requirements for these programs other than the general requirements found in 40 CFR 51.160. The specific items required by the minor NSR program for Indian country are listed in Appendix A-3.

Table A-4 of Appendix A summarizes the data and information requirements that state and local reviewing authority respondents must meet for major NSR permits. Table A-4 also shows the part 51 references for the specified data and information requirements. Because of the variability of state minor NSR programs, it is not practical to list specific requirements for these programs other than the general requirements found in 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161. The EPA is the reviewing authority for the minor NSR program in Indian country. Thus, state and local agencies are not respondents for that program.

4(b)(ii) RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES

Table 6-1 lists the activities, burden, and estimated costs for industry respondents under the NSR program under 40 CFR parts 49, 51, and 52. For the part C and D programs, these activities include three broad categories: Preparation and Planning; Data Collection and Analysis; and Permit Application. Within each of these categories, further subdivision of a source's activities can be found. The EPA anticipates it will take 127 part C major sources an average of approximately 1,080 hours to complete each PSD application, for a total of 137,160 hours. Each of the 109 part D NNSR sources will require an average of 642 hours, or a total of approximately 69,978 hours each year, to complete part D NNSR applications. Each minor source will require an average of approximately 40 hours to complete its application requirements, for a total of 1,200,000 hours across both state and local minor NSR programs and the minor NSR program in Indian country.

Table 6-2 lists the activities, burden, and estimated costs for state and local reviewing authority respondents under the NSR program. We estimate that it will take these agencies an average of approximately 379 hours to process each of the estimated 127 part C PSD applications, for a total of 48,133 hours annually. For each of the 109 part D NNSR applications, we believe an average of 128 hours will be required, totaling approximately 13,952 hours each year. Each minor NSR application for state and local minor NSR programs will require an average of approximately 50 hours, for an annual total of 1,500,000 hours. State and local agencies do not act as reviewing authorities for minor NSR program in Indian country. In addition, state and local reviewing authority respondents are expected to submit state implementation plan (SIP) revisions to conform their rules to amendments to the major NSR regulations in part 51. We estimate an average of 32 SIP revisions per year, each requiring 40 hours to prepare for a total of 1,280 hours annually.

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

5(a)	AGENCY ACTIVITIES

Table 6-3 lists the EPA's activities associated with NSR permitting. These activities generally involve oversight review of state and local reviewing authorities' major NSR permitting actions and more complicated minor NSR actions to verify that the requirements of the CAA and the implementing part 51 and 52 regulations are being met. In addition, the EPA will have to review the SIP revisions submitted by the reviewing authorities. Finally, the EPA serves as the reviewing authority for the minor NSR program in Indian country.

5(b)	COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

The owners and operators of new or modified stationary sources affected by the NSR regulations will be responsible for submitting construction permit applications to the reviewing authority. The reviewing authority will log in permit applications, store applications in a central filing location at the reviewing authority's offices, notify the Federal Land Manager (FLM) and provide a copy of the application (if applicable), and transmit copies of each application to the EPA. Once construction permits have been approved, the reviewing authority will submit control technology information to the EPA's RBLC database. Because the construction permits and associated control technology determinations are performed on a case-by-case basis, the regulations will not contain additional forms that owners or operators would have to fill out and submit to the reviewing authority. States will likely use their current permit application forms for NSR purposes. The NSR program in Indian country is an exception  -  the EPA has developed application forms for the registrations and permits required under that program.

Qualified personnel who work for the reviewing authority will perform permit reviews and check the quality of data submitted by the applicant on a case-by-case basis. The applicant will be required to submit information on how the data were obtained (e.g., indicate whether emissions data were obtained through the use of emissions factors or test data) and how the calculations were performed. The reviewing authority personnel will check data quality by reviewing test data and checking engineering calculations, and by reviewing control technology determinations for similar sources. The RBLC and other sources will be reviewed for information on control technology determinations made for sources similar to the sources included in the permit application. Confidential information submitted by the applicant will be handled according to the reviewing authority's confidential information handling procedures. The public will be provided the opportunity to review a permit application and other materials relevant to the reviewing authority's decision on issuing the permit, including FLM findings, by obtaining a copy from the reviewing authority or by attending the public hearing. The NSR regulations will not require information through any type of survey.

5(c)	SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires regulatory agencies, upon regulatory action, to assess that action's potential impact on small entities (businesses, governments, and small non-governmental organizations) and report the results of the assessments in (1) an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), (2) a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and (3) a Certification. For ICR approval, an agency must demonstrate that it "has taken all practicable steps to develop separate and simplified requirements for small businesses and other small entities" (5 CFR 1320.6(h)). In addition, the agencies must assure through various mechanisms that small entities are given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.

A Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis (RFASA) developed as part of a 1994 draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and incorporated into the September 1995 ICR renewal analysis reported an initial regulatory flexibility screening analysis showed that the changes to the NSR program due to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments would not have an adverse impact on small entities.2 This analysis encompassed the entire universe of applicable major sources that were likely to also be small-businesses. The Agency estimates there are approximately 50 "small business" major sources.3 Because the administrative burden of the NSR program is the primary source of the NSR program's regulatory costs, the analysis estimated a negligible "cost to sales" (regulatory cost divided by the business category mean revenue) ratio for this source group. Currently, there is no economic basis for a different conclusion.

The Agency may not, under any circumstances, exempt a major source of air pollution. Since the impacts of NSR regulations which may impact small entities are predominantly to major sources, little room exists for regulatory flexibility to avert the impact of the proposed rulemaking on small entities through exemption.

Even though the NSR program is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on a significant number of small businesses, measures are in place to assist in those incidental exceptions. Implementation of small business stationary source technical and environmental compliance assistance programs, as called for in section 507 of the CAA (at the federal and state levels) can reduce the reporting burden of small entities which are subject to major NSR. These programs may significantly alleviate the economic burden on small sources by establishing: (1) programs to assist small businesses with determining what CAA requirements apply to their sources and when they apply and (2) guidance on alternative control technology and pollution prevention for small businesses. In addition, under the minor NSR program in Indian country, the EPA has developed general permits and permits by rule for some source categories to simplify the permitting process, as well as a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to cover true minor sources in the oil and natural gas segment.

5(d)	COLLECTION SCHEDULE

Respondents are not subjected to a collection schedule per se under NSR permitting regulations of parts 49, 51, and 52. In general, each affected source is required to submit an application as a prerequisite to receiving a construction permit. Preparation of a construction permit application is a one-time-only activity for each project involving construction of a new source or modification of an existing source. The applicable SIP typically states the time period that is necessary to process a permit application and issue a permit; consequently, a prospective source would be obliged to work backward from the planned commencement of construction to determine the optimum submittal date for the application. The NSR permit regulations will not require periodic reporting or surveys.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN

Table 6-1 identifies the average burden by activity for the industrial respondents. The average burden for an industrial respondent remains unchanged since the previous ICR renewal at 1,080 hours per PSD permit application. An estimated 6 percent of the part C PSD permit applications, or eight applicants, will require preconstruction air quality monitoring. The associated direct start-up cost is estimated at $427,474 per source. This value was derived by applying the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS') online inflation calculator to the value determined in 2011 dollars for a previous renewal ($366,006). The industry respondent burden for each part D NNSR permit also remains unchanged from the last renewal at 642 hours per NNSR permit application.

As in previous ICR renewals, the burden for industry respondents for the minor NSR program in Indian country is combined with the state/local minor NSR program burden. Taken together, the average minor NSR burden for an industry respondent is about 40 hours. This averages the expected burden across all types of minor NSR permits, including new minor sources, new synthetic minor sources, synthetic-based modifications, true minor modifications, netting-based minor modifications, registrations, requests for coverage under a general permit, notifications of coverage under a permit by rule, and minor/administrative permit revisions.

Table 6-2 identifies the average burden by activity for the state and local reviewing authority respondents. Changes were made for this renewal pursuant to consultation with NACAA member agencies to more accurately reflect the burdens of these activities, with the per-permit burden for a PSD permit increased to 379 hours. The burden for a part D permit remains unchanged from the last renewal at 128 hours per permit. For state and local reviewing authority respondents, we estimate 50 hours per permit for minor NSR permits, which is an increase from the previous renewal. Note that the EPA, rather than state and local agencies, acts as the reviewing authority under the minor NSR program in Indian country, so the reviewing authority burden for that program does not fall on state and local reviewing authority respondents.

6(b)	ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS

6(b)(i) ESTIMATING LABOR COSTS

In this ICR, nearly the entire burden for all respondents (and the EPA) is treated as a labor cost. The explanation for the absence of capital and operations and maintenance costs appears below in sections 6(b)(ii) and 6(b)(iii). There is only an annual value of the costs of the ICR burden, which is equal to the cost of the first yearly outlay. The same annual ICR burden and cost are reported for each year because the EPA projects that the yearly average number of permit applications will be constant over the term of the ICR.

In order to improve the accuracy of cost estimates, this renewal ICR updates the wage rates to values in 2019 dollars. To derive the labor rate for industry respondents, we obtained the mean hourly wage for Environmental Engineers of $44.54 from a recent BLS Occupational Employment Statistics, which gives wages as of May 2018. We escalated the hourly wages to September 2019 using the BLS Employment Cost Index (ECI) for private industry workers, resulting in hourly wages of $46.25. The escalation calculation for Environmental Engineers is as follows:

WageSept2019=WageMay2018xECISept2019ECIJune2018

WageSept2016=$44.54x137.9132.8=$46.25

Finally, to determine the total labor rate, we assumed a 100 percent factor to account for benefits and overhead, which we believe to be representative. The resultant rate was rounded to the nearest dollar, yielding $93.00 per hour in 2019 dollars. This labor rate was applied to all industry respondent burden hours to calculate the sources' labor costs.

Assuming that approximately 6 percent of the industrial respondents submitting part C PSD permit applications will conduct preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring, we estimated that eight applicants will be required to conduct such monitoring. The average cost for this activity is estimated to be $427,474, which is the inflation-adjusted figure based on the value of $366,006 included in the 2012 ICR renewal. As note previously, this inflation adjustment was made using the BLS' online inflation calculator.

The updated labor rate used for reviewing authority respondents in this ICR renewal was determined similarly to that above for industry respondents. For reviewing authorities, we assumed that permit engineers are all Environmental Engineers, but experience tells us that these positions are typically filled by younger engineers, early in their careers. For this reason, we selected the 25[th] percentile hourly wage of $32.02 for Environmental Engineers from the same recent BLS Occupational Employment Statistics publication that we used for industry respondents. We escalated this May 2018 hourly wage to Sept 2019 as discussed above using the ECI for state and local government workers, resulting in hourly wages of $33.15. As above, we assumed a 100 percent factor to account for benefits and overhead and rounded the resultant rate to the nearest dollar, yielding $66.00 per hour in 2019 dollars.

6(b)(ii) ESTIMATING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Even if an applicant is a brand new company and the prospective source is a "greenfield" source (the EPA estimates less than 1 percent of the combined number of major and minor industrial respondents fit that description) most, and perhaps all, of the equipment needed to prepare permit applications (for example, the computers and basic software) will be part of the source's business operation inventory. Furthermore, much of the data and regulatory and policy information for making technology determinations and even models for performing ambient air impact analyses are available in electronic form from several different EPA web sites for just the communication charges, which are typically absorbed in routine business overhead expenses.

Since the purchase of capital equipment is believed to be an insignificant factor in permit application preparation, the EPA assumes the operation, maintenance, or services for same are negligible. Further, once a permit is issued, there is no operations and maintenance cost associated with it. It remains unaltered unless the source or the reviewing authority discovers specific reasons to reexamine it and change any conditions or specifications. If purely administrative, the changes are handled exclusively by the reviewing authority. If changes have the potential for environmental consequences, the action may be significant enough to be counted as a separate and new application, to which a new burden and cost may be ascribed.

6(b)(iii) CAPITAL/START-UP OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS

Capital/start-up and O&M costs are non-labor related costs. One-time capital/start-up costs are incurred with the purchase of durable goods needed to provide information. According to the PRA, capital/start-up cost should include among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software, monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment. As a practical matter, these costs are not typical of the costs associated with preparing a major or minor source permit application. For the same reason, the O&M costs associated with start-up capital equipment are zero for most of the sources for this ICR. However, as shown in Table 6-1, 8 of the 127 part C PSD permit applications each year are projected to require preconstruction air quality monitoring, which costs a total $3,419,792. This one-time cost includes pre-application monitoring of air quality via contract services.

6(b)(iv) ANNUALIZING CAPITAL COSTS

Typically, annualized capital cost would be derived from a discounted net present value of the stream of costs that would occur over the life of the permit, or the ICR, whichever is shorter. However, in the case of NSR, there are only labor costs for preparing and processing permit applications. Labor costs are expensed when incurred and not amortized. Therefore, the capital costs for NSR permitting are zero.

6(c) 	ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

Staff in the EPA's Regional Offices typically review major NSR permits and more complicated minor NSR permits issued by state and local reviewing authorities. In addition, Regional Office staff also serve as the reviewing authority for the minor NSR program in Indian country. The EPA expects its review of NSR permits to comprise the tasks listed in Table 6-3. The cost estimate uses a "loaded" labor rate of $56 per hour. The rate reflects the assumption that the staff reviewing permits are classified as Grade 12 Step 5. The corresponding salary is loaded with benefits at the rate of 60 percent.

6(d) 	ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COST

For the purpose of estimating burden in this ICR, the respondent universe is defined by the annual number of permit applications prepared by major and minor sources, and the annual number of permit applications processed by state and local reviewing authorities. The estimate for part C PSD permits has decreased to 127 permits per year since the last renewal, while the estimate for part D NNSR permits has decreased to 109 permits per year. In both cases, the revised estimates are based on the 3-year average of the number of permits from 2017-2019 as reported by the EPA Regional Offices. The estimate for minor NSR permits has significantly decreased to 30,000 per year based on the annual average reported by the EPA Regional Offices from 2018-2019 (2017-2019 for minor NSR permits in Indian country).

The number of reviewing authorities is unchanged from the previous ICR renewal. For that renewal, a review of the EPA Regional Office websites found that the number of reviewing authorities varies by program as follows: 123 for minor NSR, 118 for NNSR, and 86 for PSD. This analysis also uses the appropriate source count for individual permit-related items (e.g., attending pre-application meetings with the source). The resulting number of responses for this ICR renewal is then estimated to be as follows:

 127 part C PSD permit applications prepared by industry.
 109 part D NNSR permit applications prepared by industry.
 30,000 minor NSR permit applications prepared by industry.
 127 part C (PSD) permit applications processed by state and local reviewing authorities.
     109 part D (NNSR) permit applications processed by state and local reviewing authorities.
 30,000 minor NSR permit applications processed by state and local reviewing authorities.

For each category of permit application, the total number of responses is twice the number of permit applications (i.e., one "response" by the applicant and one by the reviewing authority for each permit). In addition, many reviewing authorities must submit changes to their existing SIP programs or demonstrate that their existing programs are at least equivalent to the EPA's new requirements. Over the next 3 years, we estimate that 95 SIP revisions will be submitted, covering revisions for purposes of the Project Emissions Accounting Rule, NSR Error Corrections Rule, and the 2015 Ozone Implementation Rule. Rounding upward to be conservative, this comes to an average of 32 per year.

 The total annual effort for industry respondents submitting part C PSD permit applications is 137,160 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $16,175,672. The total annual effort for industry respondents submitting part D NNSR permit applications is 69,978 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $6,507,954. The total annual effort for industry respondents submitting minor NSR permit applications is 1,200,000 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $111,600,000. For industry respondents, the overall total annual effort is 1,407,138 hours and $134,283,626.

The total annual effort for state and local reviewing authority respondents processing part C PSD permit applications is 48,133 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $3,176,778. The total annual effort for state and local respondents processing part D NNSR permit applications is 13,952 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $920,832. The total annual effort for state and local reviewing authority respondents processing minor NSR permits is 1,500,000 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $99,000,000. State and local respondents also will spend approximately 1,280 hours for SIP revisions, at an annual cost of $84,480. For the state and local respondents, the overall total annual effort is 1,563,365 hours and $103,182,090.

6(e) 	BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST TABLES

6(e)(i) RESPONDENT TALLY

Table 6-4 summarizes the estimated burden and cost to industry respondents, state and local agency respondents, and the EPA for submittal and processing of NSR permit applications and the issuance of the permits. For industry and state and local agency respondents, the overall total annual burden is 2,970,503 hours and $237,465,716.

6(e)(ii) THE AGENCY TALLY

The total annual effort for the EPA for processing part C PSD permit applications is 2,032 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $113,792. The total annual effort for the EPA for processing part D NNSR permit applications is 1,744 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $97,664. The total annual effort for the EPA for reviewing complex minor NSR permits in state/local programs and for serving as the reviewing authority for the minor NSR program in Indian country is 5,200 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $291,200. The total annual effort for the EPA for reviewing SIP revisions is 160 hours, and the corresponding annual cost is $8,960. For the EPA, the overall total annual effort is 9,136 hours and $511,616.

6(e)(iii) VARIATIONS IN THE ANNUAL BOTTOM LINE

The annual burden and cost are not projected to vary significantly over the 3-year period of this ICR. The NSR program overall is now mature. While the actual number of permit actions can be expected to vary from year to year, no systematic variation or trend is expected.

6(f) 	REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN

In terms of hours, there is a significant decrease in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB because the estimated number of all types permits has decreased since the previous ICR renewal. In terms of dollars, the burden similarly has decreased significantly since the previous renewal due to the decline in the estimated number of permits.

The decrease in annual burden and cost is primarily driven by the very significant decrease in the estimated number of minor NSR permits, from 73,000 per year in previous ICR renewal to the current estimate of 30,000 per year. The larger estimate of minor NSR permits was carried forward in several previous renewals without being reexamined. For this renewal, the number of minor NSR permits was reassessed through consultation with the EPA Regional Offices to arrive at the current estimate. The EPA is confident that this estimate better reflects the actual number of such permits issued annually.

6(g)	 BURDEN STATEMENT

The average burden on an industrial respondent submitting a part C PSD permit application is 1,080 hours. The average burden on an industrial respondent submitting a part D NNSR permit application is 642 hours. The average burden on an industrial respondent submitting a minor NSR permit application is about 40 hours.

The average burden on a state or local reviewing authority respondent processing a part C PSD permit application is 379 hours. The average burden on a state or local reviewing authority respondent processing a part D NNSR permit application is 128 hours. The average burden on a state or local agency respondent processing a minor NSR permit application is about 50 hours. The average burden on a state or local reviewing authority submitting a SIP revision is 40 hours.

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

For those interested in commenting on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0901, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select "search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0901 and OMB control number 2060-0003 in any correspondence.

                                  APPENDIX A

                           INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

                    TABLE A-1. INDUSTRY RESPONDENT DATA AND
                          INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
                     PREPARING PART C PSD CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
 Requirement
 Regulation Reference
 All information necessary to perform any analysis or make any determination required
 40 CFR 51.166(n)(1)
 Description of the nature, location, design capacity, and typical operating schedule
 40 CFR 51.166(n)(2)(i)
 Detailed schedule for construction
 40 CFR 51.166(n)(2)(ii)
 Description of continuous emission reduction system, emission estimates, and other information needed to determine that BACT is used
 40 CFR 51.166(n)(2)(iii)
 Air quality impact, meteorological, and topographical data
 40 CFR 51.166(n)(3)(i)
 Nature and extent of, and air quality impacts of general commercial, residential, industrial, and other growth in area of source
 40 CFR 51.166(n)(3)(ii)
 Use of air quality models to demonstrate compliance with NAAQS and increment
 40 CFR 51.166(k) & (l)
 Air quality monitoring data
 40 CFR 51.166(m)
 Impairment of visibility, soils, and vegetation
 40 CFR 51.166(o)(1)
 Air quality impact resulting from general commercial, residential, industrial, and other growth associated with source
 40 CFR 51.166(o)(2)
 Written notice of proposed relocation from portable source
 40 CFR 51.166(i)(1)(iii)(d)
 Description of the location, design construction, and operation of building, structure, facility, or installation
 40 CFR 51.160(c)(2)
 Description of the nature and amounts of emissions to be emitted
 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1)
 Description of the air quality data and dispersion or other air quality modeling used
 40 CFR 51.160(f)
 Sufficient information to ensure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS
 40 CFR 51.160(c)-(e),     40 CFR 51.161-163

                    TABLE A-2. INDUSTRY RESPONDENT DATA AND
                          INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
                   PREPARING PART D NNSR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
 Requirements
 Regulation Reference
 Documentation that LAER is being applied
 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2);
 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A;
 40 CFR 52.24(k)

 Documentation that all sources owned or operated by same person are in compliance

 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2);
 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A;
 40 CFR 52.24(k)

 Documentation that sufficient emissions reductions are occurring to comply with specific offset requirements and to ensure RFP

 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3);
 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A;
 40 CFR 52.24(k)

 Documentation that benefits of proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification

 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)

 Description of the location, design construction, and operation of building, structure, facility, or installation

 40 CFR 51.160(c)(2)

 Description of the nature and amounts of emissions to be emitted

 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1)

 Description of the air quality data and dispersion or other air quality modeling used

 40 CFR 51.160(f)

 Sufficient information to ensure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS

 40 CFR 51.160(c)-(e)
 40 CFR 51.161
 40 CFR 51.162
 40 CFR 51.163

                    TABLE A-3. INDUSTRY RESPONDENT DATA AND
                          INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
                   PREPARING TRIBAL MINOR NSR PERMIT ACTIONS

 Requirement
 Regulation Reference
 Application for a source-specific permit including information on source operations, emissions units, control techniques, existing emission limitations and stack characteristics
 40 CFR 49.154(a)(2)(i)-(x)

 Request for coverage under a General Permit

 40 CFR 49.156(e)(1)

 Documentation demonstrating completion of the screening processes specified for consideration of threatened and endangered species and historic properties

 40 CFR 49.156(f)(6)(iii)
 40 CFR 49.104

 Notification of coverage under a Permit by Rule

 40 CFR 49.156(f)(6)(iv)
 40 CFR 49.162(d)(1)(i)
 40 CFR 49.163(d)(1)(i)
 40 CFR 49.164(d)(1)(i)

 Application for a new or modified synthetic minor source

 40 CFR 49.158(a)

 Application for an administrative permit revision

 40 CFR 49.159(f)

 Registration of sources including information on source operations, emissions units, control techniques and existing emission limitations

 40 CFR 49.160(c)(1)(iv)
 40 CFR 49.160(c)(2)

 Notification of relocation, change in ownership or closure

 40 CFR 49.160(d)
 40 CFR 49.162(d)(5)(i)-(iii)
 40 CFR 49.163(d)(5)(i)-(iii)
 40 CFR 49.164(d)(5)(i)-(iii)

                       TABLE A-4. PERMITTING AGENCY DATA
                          AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

 Requirement
 Regulation Reference
 Early FLM notification and opportunity to participate in meetings
 40 CFR 51.166(p)(1)(ii)
 Submission of all permit applications to EPA
 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1)
 Submission of notice of application, preliminary determination, degree of increment consumption, and opportunity for public comment
 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv)
 Submission to FLM of permit applications
 40 CFR 51.166(p)(1)
 Submission of written request to exempt sources from review
 40 CFR 52.21(i)(4)(vi)
 Written request for use of innovative control technology
 40 CFR 51.166(s)
 Establishing and operating a permitting program for all new sources
 40 CFR 51.160
 Provide notice to EPA of all permits
 40 CFR 51.161(d)
 Provide for public comment for all NSR permits
 40 CFR 51.161


[Federal Register: March 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 11401-11405]
[DOCID:fr17mr09-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257; Notice No. 52]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Working Group Activity Update

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Working Group Activities.

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

SUMMARY: The FRA is updating its announcement of RSAC's Working Group
activities to reflect its current status.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Woolverton, RSAC Coordinator,
FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Grady Cothen,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice serves to update FRA's last
announcement of working group activities and status reports of August
29, 2008 (73 FR 51041). The 37th full RSAC Committee meeting was held
December 10, 2008, and the 38th meeting is scheduled for April 2, 2009,
at the Washington Marriott Hotel located at 1221 22nd Street, NW., in
Washington, DC.
    Since its first meeting in April of 1996, the RSAC has accepted 30
tasks. The status for each of the open tasks (neither completed nor
terminated) is provided below:

Open Tasks

    Task 96-4--Tourist and Historic Railroads. Reviewing the
appropriateness of the agency's current policy regarding the
applicability of existing and proposed regulations to tourist,
excursion, scenic, and historic railroads. This Task was accepted on
April 2, 1996, and a Working Group was established. The Working Group
monitored the steam locomotive regulation task. Planned future
activities involve the review of other regulations for possible
adaptation to the safety needs of tourist and historic railroads.
Contact: Grady Cothen,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 03-01--Passenger Safety. This task includes updating and
enhancing the regulations pertaining to passenger safety, based on
research and experience. This Task was accepted on May 20, 2003, and a
Working Group was established. Prior to embarking on substantive
discussions of a specific task, the Working Group set forth in writing
a specific description of the task. The Working Group reports planned
activities to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting,
including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward
completion. At the first meeting, held September 9-10, 2003, a
consolidated list of issues was completed. At the second meeting, held
November 6-7, 2003, four task groups were established: Emergency
Preparedness; Mechanical; Crashworthiness; and Track/Vehicle
Interaction. The task forces met and reported on activities for Working
Group consideration at the third meeting, held May 11-12, 2004, and a
fourth meeting was held October 26-27, 2004. The Working Group met on
March 21-22, 2006, and again on September 12-13, 2006, at which time
the group agreed to establish a task force on General Passenger Safety.
The full Passenger Safety Working Group met on April 17-18, 2007,
December 11-12, 2007, and November 13, 2008. The next meeting is to be
scheduled in June 2009. Contact: Charles Bielitz,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (Emergency Preparedness Task Force) At the Working Group meeting of
March 9-10, 2005, the Working Group received and approved the consensus
report of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force related to emergency
communication, emergency egress and rescue access. These
recommendations were presented to and approved by the full RSAC
Committee on May 18, 2005. The Working Group met on September 7-8,
2005, and additional, supplementary recommendations were presented to
and accepted by the full RSAC on October 11, 2005. The Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published on August 24, 2006, (71 FR
50275) and was open for comment until October 23, 2006. The Working
Group agreed upon recommendations for the final rule, including
resolution of final comments received, during the April 17-18, 2007,
meeting. The recommendations were presented to and approved by the full
RSAC on June 26, 2007. The Passenger Train Emergency Systems final
rule, focusing on emergency communication, emergency egress, and rescue
access, was published on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6370). The Task Force
met on October 17-18, 2007, and reached consensus on draft rule text
for a followup NPRM on Passenger Train Emergency Systems, focusing on
low-location emergency exit path marking, emergency lighting, and
emergence signage. The Task Force presented the draft rule text to the
Passenger Safety Working Group on December 11-12, 2007, and the
consensus draft rule text was presented to and approved by full RSAC
vote during the February 20, 2008, meeting. At its most recent meeting,
held May 13-14, 2008, the Task Force recommended clarifying the
applicability of backup emergency communication system requirements in
the February 1, 2008, final rule, and FRA announced its intention to
exercise limited enforcement discretion for a new provision amending
instruction requirements for emergency window exit removal. The Working
Group ratified these recommendations on June 19, 2008. No additional
Task Force meetings are currently scheduled. Contact: Brenda Moscoso,
(202) 493-6282.
    (Mechanical Task Force) (Completed) Initial recommendations on
mechanical issues (revisions to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 238) were approved by the full Committee on January 26,
2005. At the Working Group meeting of September 7-8, 2005, the Task
Force presented additional perfecting amendments and the full RSAC
approved them on October 11, 2005. An NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on December 8, 2005, (70 FR 73070). Public comments were due
by February 17, 2006. The final rule was published in the Federal
Register on October 19, 2006, (71 FR 61835) effective December 18,
2006.
    (Crashworthiness Task Force) Among its efforts, the Crashworthiness
Task Force provided consensus recommendations on static end strength
that were adopted by the Working Group on September 7-8, 2005. The full
Committee accepted the recommendations on October 11, 2005. The Front-
End Strength of Cab Cars and Multiple-Unit Locomotives NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007, (72 FR 42016) with
comments due by October 1, 2007. A number of comments were entered into
the docket, and a Crashworthiness Task Force meeting was held September
9, 2008, to resolve comments on the NPRM. Based on the consensus
language agreed to at the meeting, FRA has prepared the text of the
final rule incorporating the resolutions made at the Task Force meeting
and the final rule language was adopted at the Passenger Safety Working
Group meeting, held on November 13, 2008. The language was presented
and approved at the December 10, 2008, full RSAC meeting and the rule
will go forward with a target publication date of April 2009. Contact:
Gary Fairbanks,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (Vehicle/Track Interaction Task Force) The Task Force is developing
proposed revisions to 49 CFR parts 213 and 238 principally regarding
high-speed passenger service. The Task Force met on October 9-11, 2007,
and again on November 19-20, 2007, in Washington, DC and presented the
final Task Force Report and final recommendations and proposed rule
text for approval by the Passenger Safety Working Group at the December
11-12, 2007, meeting. The final report and the proposed rule text were
approved by the Working Group and was presented to and approved by full
RSAC vote during the February 20, 2008, meeting. The group last met on
February 27-28, 2008, and FRA is currently crafting an NPRM with a
target publication date of September 2009. No additional Task Force
meetings are currently scheduled. Contact: John Mardente, (202) 493-
1335.

    (General Passenger Safety Task Force) At the Passenger Safety
Working Group meeting on April 17-18, 2007, the Task Force presented a
progress report to the Working Group. The Task Force met on July 18-19,
2007, and afterwards, it reported proposed reporting cause codes for
injuries involving the platform gap, which were approved by the Working
Group by mail ballot in September 2007. The full RSAC approved the
recommendations for changes to 49 CFR part 225 accident/incident cause
codes on October 25, 2007. The Task Force continues work on passenger
train door securement, ``second train in station,'' trespasser
incidents, and System-Safety based solutions by developing a regulatory
approach to System Safety. The General Passenger Safety Task Force
presented draft guidance material for management of the gap that was
considered and approved by the Working Group during the December 11-12,
2007, meeting and was presented to and approved by full RSAC vote
during the February 20, 2008, meeting. The group met April 23-24, 2008,
and December 3-4, 2008. The next meeting is scheduled for April 21-23,
2009. Contact: Dan Knote,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 05-01--Review of Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) Issues. This
Task was accepted on January 26, 2005, to review 49 CFR part 214,
subpart C, Roadway Worker Protection, and related sections of Subpart
A; recommend consideration of specific actions to advance the on-track
safety of railroad employees and contractors engaged in maintenance-of-
way activities throughout the general system of railroad
transportation, including clarification of existing requirements. A
Working Group was established and reported to the RSAC any specific
actions identified as appropriate. The first meeting of the Working
Group was held on April 12-14, 2005. The group drafted and accepted
regulatory language for various revisions, clarifications, and
additions to 32 separate items in 19 sections of the rule. However, two
parties raised technical concerns regarding the draft language
concerning electronic display of track authorities. The Working Group
reported recommendations to the full Committee at the June 26, 2007,
meeting. The FRA, through the NPRM process, is to address this issue
along with eight additional items on which the Working Group was unable
to reach a consensus. Comments were received and were considered during
the drafting of the NPRM. In early 2008, the external working group
members were solicited to review the consensus text for errata review.
In order to address the heightened concerns raised with the current
regulations for adjacent-track on-track safety, an NPRM was published
on July 17, 2008, that focused on this element of the RWP rule alone.
As this was an NPRM, FRA sought comment on the entire proposal,
including those portions that FRA sought to clarify. However, on August
13, 2008, the NPRM was withdrawn to permit further consideration of the
RSAC-reported consensus language. FRA has decided to separately issue a
second proposed rule on adjacent track protection, which will be
handled on an accelerated basis. The second NPRM concerning adjacent
controlled track safety is under final review and is expected to be
published by mid-year 2009. The remaining larger NPRM for the various
revisions, clarifications, and additions to 31 separate items in 19
sections of the rule and FRA's recommendations for the eight non-
consensus items is planned for late 2009. Contact: Christopher Schulte,
(610) 521-8201.
    Task 05-02--Reduce Human Factor-Caused Train Accident/Incidents.
This Task was accepted on May 18, 2005, to reduce the number of human
factor-caused train accidents/incidents and related employee injuries.
The Railroad Operating Rules Working Group was formed and the Group
extensively reviewed the issues presented. The final Working Group
meeting devoted to developing a proposed rule was held February 8-9,
2006. The Working Group was not able to deliver a consensus regulatory
proposal, but did recommend that it be used to review comments on FRA's
NPRM, which was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2006,
(FR 71 60372) with public comments due by December 11, 2006. Two
reviews were held, one on February 8-9, 2007, the other on April 4-5,
2007. Consensus was reached on four items and those items were
presented and accepted by the full RSAC Committee at the June 26, 2007,
meeting. A final rule was published in the Federal Register on February
13, 2008 (73 FR 8442) with an effective date of April 14, 2008. FRA
received four petitions for reconsideration of that final rule. The
final rule that responded to the petitions for consideration was
published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008, and concluded the
rulemaking. Working group meetings were held September 27-28, 2007,
January 17-18, 2008, May 21-22, 2008, and September 25-26, 2008. The
Working Group has considered issues related to issuance of Emergency
Order No. 26 (prohibition on use of certain electronic devices while on
duty) and ``after arrival mandatory directives,'' among other issues.
The working group continues to work on After Arrival Orders and at the
September 25, 2008, meeting voted to create a Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Task Force to review highway-rail grade crossing accident
reports regarding incidents of crossing warning systems providing
``short or no warning'' resulting from or contributed to ``by train
operational issues'' with the intent to recommend new accident/incident
reporting codes that would better explain such events, and which may
provide information for remedial action going forward. A follow-on task
is to review and provide recommendations regarding supplementary
reporting of train operations-related, no-warning or short-warning
incidents that are not technically warning system activation failures
but which result in an accident/incident or a near miss. The Task Force
has been formed and is scheduled to meet in the May/June 2009
timeframe. Contact: Douglas Taylor,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 06-01--Locomotive Safety Standards. This task was accepted on
February 22, 2006, to review 49 CFR Part 229, Railroad Locomotive
Safety Standards, and revise as appropriate. A Working Group was
established with the mandate to report any planned activity to the full
Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, to include milestones
for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The first
Working Group meeting was held May 8-10, 2006. Working Group meetings
were held on August 8-9, 2006, September 25-26, 2006, and October 30-
31, 2006, and the Working Group presented recommendations regarding
revisions to requirements for locomotive sanders to the full RSAC on
September 21, 2006. The NPRM regarding sanders was published in the
Federal Register on March 6, 2007 (72 FR 9904). Comments received were
discussed by the Working Group for clarification, and FRA published a
final rule on October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59216). The Working Group is
continuing the review of Part 229 with work in the areas of locomotive
cab temperature standards, alerters, remote control locomotives, and
critical locomotive electronics with a view to proposing further
revisions to update the standards. The Working Group met on January 9-
10, 2007, November 27-28, 2007, February 5-6, 2008, May 20-21, 2008,
August 5-6, 2008, October 22-23, 2008, and January 6-7, 2009. The next
meeting is scheduled for April 15-

16, 2009. Contact: George Scerbo,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 06-02--Track Safety Standards and Continuous Welded Rail
(CWR). Section 9005 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59), the
2005 Surface Transportation Authorization Act, requires FRA to issue
requirements for inspection of joint bars in CWR to detect cracks that
could affect the integrity of the track structure (49 U.S.C. 20142(e)).
FRA published an interim final rule (IFR) establishing new requirements
for inspections on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66288). On October 11, 2005,
FRA offered the RSAC a task to review comments on this IFR, but the
conditions could not be established under which the Committee could
have undertaken this with a view toward consensus. Comments on the IFR
were received through December 19, 2005. FRA reviewed the comments, and
on February 22, 2006, the RSAC accepted this task to review and revise
the CWR related to provisions of the Track Safety Standards, with
particular emphasis on reduction of derailments and consequent injuries
and damage caused by defective conditions, including joint failures, in
track using CWR. A Working Group was established, and the first Working
Group meeting was held April 3-4, 2006, at which time the Working Group
reviewed comments on the IFR. The second Working Group meeting was held
April 26-28, 2006. The Working Group also met May 24-25, 2006, and July
19-20, 2006. The Working Group reported consensus recommendations for
the final rule that were accepted by the full RSAC Committee by mail
ballot on August 11, 2006. The final rule was published in the Federal
Register on October 11, 2006 (71 FR 59677). The Working Group continued
review of Section 213.119 with a view to proposing further revisions to
update the standards. The Working Group met January 30-31, 2007, April
10-11, 2007, June 27-28, 2007, August 15-16, 2007, October 23-24, 2007,
and January, 8-9, 2008. The Working Group reported consensus
recommendations for revisions to Section 213.119 regulations to the
full RSAC Committee on February 20, 2008, and the recommendations were
accepted. FRA published an NPRM on December 1, 2008, and is preparing a
final rule with a target publication date of April 2009. See task 07-01
and 08-03, below. Contact: Ken Rusk,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task 06-03--Medical Standards for Safety-Critical Personnel. This
task was accepted on September 21, 2006, to enhance the safety of
persons in the railroad operating environment and the public by
establishing standards and procedures for determining the medical
fitness for duty of personnel engaged in safety-critical functions. A
Working Group has been established and will report any planned activity
to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including
milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion.
The first Working Group meeting was held December 12-13, 2006. The
Working Group has held follow-on meetings on the following dates:
February 20-21, 2007, July 24-25, 2007, August 29-30, 2007, October 31-
November 1, 2007, December 4-5, 2007, February 13-14, 2008, March 26-
27, 2008, and April 22-23, 2008. At the latest meeting, FRA announced
that the agency would prepare an NPRM draft based on the discussions to
date and schedule a further meeting for review of the document. The
draft NPRM is currently in FRA coordination and the language is being
revised based on comments. The draft NPRM will be presented to the RSAC
Medical Standards Working Group when completed. A Doctors Task Force,
established by the Working Group in May 2007, is proceeding to develop
accompanying medical guidelines which will be used to provide
consistent criteria for determining the medical fitness for duty of the
safety-critical positions. These guidelines will be presented for
Working Group consideration when complete. When accepted by the Medical
Standards Working Group, the two parts of the rulemaking will be
presented to the full RSAC for approval. The target date for publishing
the NPRM is May, 2009. The Task Force of Physicians has had meetings or
conference calls on July 24, 2007, August 20, 2007, October 15, 2007,
October 31, 2007, June 23-24, 2008, September 8-10, 2008, October 8,
2008, November 12-13, 2008, December 8-10, 2008, January 27-28, 2009,
and February 24-25, 2009. The next meeting of the Task Force is
scheduled for March 11-12, 2009. Contact: Dr. Bernard Arseneau, (202)
493-6002.
    Task 07-01--Track Safety Standards. This task was accepted on
February 22, 2007, to consider specific improvements to the Track
Safety Standards or other responsive actions, supplementing work
already underway on continuous welded rail (CWR) specifically to:
review controls applied to reuse of rail in CWR ``plug rail''; review
the issue of cracks emanating from bond wire attachments; consider
improvements in the Track Safety Standards related to fastening of rail
to concrete ties; and ensure a common understanding within the
regulated community concerning requirements for internal rail flaw
inspections. The tasks were assigned to the Track Safety Standards
Working Group. The Working Group will report any planned activity to
the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including
milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion.
The first Working Group meeting was held on June 27-28, 2007, and the
group met again on August 15-16, 2007, and October 23-24, 2007. Two
Task Forces were created under the Working Group: The Concrete Ties and
Rail Integrity Task Forces. The Concrete Ties Task force met on
November 26-27, 2007, February 13-14, 2008, April 16-17, 2008, July 9-
10, 2008, and September 17-18, 2008. The Concrete Ties Task Force
finalized consensus language regarding concrete crossties (49 CFR Part
213) and presented a recommendation to the Track Standards Working
Group at the November 20, 2008, Working Group meeting. The language was
approved by both the Working Group and the December 10, 2008, RSAC
meeting and the Task Force was dissolved. FRA is preparing an NPRM with
a target publication date of April, 2009. Contact: Ken Rusk, (202) 493-
6236.
    Task 08-03--Track Safety Standards Rail Integrity. This task was
accepted on September 10, 2008, to consider specific improvements to
the Track Safety Standards or other responsive actions designed to
enhance rail integrity. The Rail Integrity Task Force was created in
October 2007 under Task 07-01 and first met on November 28-29, 2007.
The Task Force met on February 12-13, 2008, April 15-16, 2008, July 8-
9, 2008, September 16-17, 2008, and February 3-4, 2009. Consensus has
been achieved on bond wires and a common understanding on internal rail
flaw inspections has been reached; however, more work remains before a
recommendation for possible regulatory action is made. The next Rail
Integrity Task Force meeting is scheduled for June 16-17, 2009.
Contact: Ken Rusk,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task No. 08-04--Positive Train Control (PTC). This task was
accepted on December 10, 2008, to provide advice regarding development
of implementing regulations for PTC systems and their deployment under
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA, Pub. L. 110-432). The
task included a requirement to convene an initial meeting not later
than January 2009 and to report recommendations back to the RSAC no
later than April 24, 2009. The PTC Working Group was

created in December 2008 by Working Group member nominations from
Committee member organizations under Task 08-04, and the kickoff
meeting was held on January 26-27, 2009. The group met again on
February 11-13, 2009, and February 25-27, 2009. The next meeting is
scheduled for March 17-19, 2009. Contact: Grady Cothen,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task No. 08-05--Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance. This task was
accepted on December 10, 2008, to develop a draft rule encompassing the
requirements of Section 417, of the RSIA (Division A), Railroad Bridge
Safety Assurance. This Section directs the Secretary of Transportation
to promulgate regulations, not later than 12 months after the October
16, 2008, date of enactment, requiring owners of track carried on one
or more railroad bridges to adopt a bridge safety management program to
reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental damage, and
disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system that would
result from a catastrophic bridge failure. The Railroad Bridge Working
Group created under Task 08-01 was directed to reconvene and the
kickoff meeting was held January 28-29, 2009. The working group also
met on February 23-24, 2009, where they reached agreement on consensus
language covering all but two issues that remain to be resolved pending
comments on the NPRM. The group will present the draft language to the
full committee at the April 2, 2009, meeting. Contact: Gordon Davids,
(202) 230-6320.
    Task No. 08-06--Hours of Service Recordkeeping and Reporting. This
task was accepted on December 10, 2008, to develop revised
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for hours of service of
railroad employees. The Hours of Service Working Group was formed in
January 2009 by member nominations from committee member organizations
and the first meeting was held on January 22-23, 2009. The working
group met again on February 4-6, 2009, and February 18-20, 2009, and is
scheduled to meet for the final time on March 23-25, 2009. Contact:
Mark McKeon,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Task No. 08-07--Conductor Certification. This task was accepted on
December 10, 2008, to develop regulations for certification of railroad
conductors, as required by the RSIA, and to consider any appropriate
related amendments to existing regulations and report recommendations
for the proposed or interim final rule (as determined by FRA in
consultation with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the
Office of Management and Budget) by October 16, 2009. The Conductor
Certification Working Group will be officially formed at a later date
by nominations from member organizations and work will begin as time
and schedules will permit in 2009 after other Congressional RSAC
priorities are met.

Completed Tasks

    Task 96-1--(Completed) Revising the Freight Power Brake
Regulations.
    Task 96-2--(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the
Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213).
    Task 96-3--(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the
Radio Standards and Procedures (49 CFR Part 220).
    Task 96-5--(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to
Steam Locomotive Inspection Standards (49 CFR Part 230).
    Task 96-6--(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to
miscellaneous aspects of the regulations addressing Locomotive Engineer
Certification (49 CFR Part 240).
    Task 96-7--(Completed) Developing Roadway Maintenance Machines (On-
Track Equipment) Safety Standards.
    Task 96-8--(Completed) This Planning Task evaluated the need for
action responsive to recommendations contained in a report to Congress
entitled, Locomotive Crashworthiness & Working Conditions.
    Task 97-1--(Completed) Developing crashworthiness specifications
(49 CFR Part 229) to promote the integrity of the locomotive cab in
accidents resulting from collisions.
    Task 97-2--(Completed) Evaluating the extent to which
environmental, sanitary, and other working conditions in locomotive
cabs affect the crew's health and the safe operation of locomotives,
proposing standards where appropriate.
    Task 97-3--(Completed) Developing event recorder data survivability
standards.
    Task 97-4 and Task 97-5--(Completed) Defining Positive Train
Control (PTC) functionalities, describing available technologies,
evaluating costs and benefits of potential systems, and considering
implementation opportunities and challenges, including demonstration
and deployment.
    Task 97-6--(Completed) Revising various regulations to address the
safety implications of processor-based signal and train control
technologies, including communications-based operating systems.
    Task 97-7--(Completed) Determining damages qualifying an event as a
reportable train accident.
    Task 00-1--(Task withdrawn) Determining the need to amend
regulations protecting persons who work on, under, or between rolling
equipment and persons applying, removing or inspecting rear end marking
devices (Blue Signal Protection).
    Task 01-1--(Completed) Developing conformity of FRA's regulations
for accident/incident reporting (49 CFR Part 225) to revised
regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), U.S. Department of Labor, and to make appropriate revisions to
the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports (Reporting
Guide).
    Task 08-01--(Completed) Report on the Nation's Railroad Bridges.
    Please refer to the notice published in the Federal Register on
March 11, 1996, (61 FR 9740) for more information about the RSAC.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-5676 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P