Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 77909

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–28355 Filed 12–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03–OAR–2004–VA–0004; FRL–7853–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Excess Volatile Organic Compound 

and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Fee 

Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s (Virginia) 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

ozone. The rule requires major 

stationary sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) in the Virginia portion of the 

Metropolitan Washington D.C. Severe 

Ozone Nonattainment Area to pay a fee 

to the state if the area fails to attain the 

one-hour national ambient air quality 

standard for ozone by November 15, 

2005. The fee must be paid beginning in 

2006, and in each calendar year 

thereafter, until the area is redesignated 

to attainment for the pollutant ozone. 

Virginia submitted this rule on April 19, 

2004, pursuant to the requirements of 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

28, 2005 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by January 28, 2005. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–

2004–VA by one of the following 

methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:/

/www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Agency Web site: http://

www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

C. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.

D. Mail: R03–OAR–2004–VA, Makeba 

Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning 

Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

E. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID No. R03–OAR–2004–VA. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change, and may be made 

available online at http://

www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/,

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through RME, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME 

and the Federal regulations.gov websites 

are an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through RME or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the RME 

index at http://www.docket.epa.gov/

rmepub/. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of material to be incorporated by 

reference are available at the Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Room B108, Washington, DC 20460. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine L. Magliocchetti, (215) 814–

2174, or by e-mail at 

magliocchetti.catherine@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’

‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This 

supplementary information is organized 

as follows.

Table of Contents 

I. What Final Action Is EPA Taking? 

II. Who Has To Pay These Fees? 

III. How Are the Fees Calculated? 

IV. Is Virginia Required To Adopt an Excess 

Emission Fee Rule? 

V. What Are the Exceptions to this Rule? 

VI. What Impact Do Virginia’s Privilege and 

Immunity Statutes Have on This Rule? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Final Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is approving a revision to 

Virginia’s ozone SIP. The SIP revision 

requires major stationary sources of 

VOC and NOX in the Virginia portion of 

the Metropolitan Washington D.C. 

Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area 

(Area) to pay a fee to the 

Commonwealth if the Area fails to attain 

the national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for ozone by 

November 15, 2005. The fee must be 

paid beginning in 2006 and in each 

calendar year thereafter, until the Area 

is redesignated to attainment for ozone. 

The payment is due by August 31 of 

each year. 

We are approving this rule because it 

is consistent with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (Act). 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment, since 

no comments were received during the 

state’s regulatory process. However, in 

the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register, we are publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision if 

adverse comments are filed. This rule 

will be effective on February 28, 2005 

without further notice unless EPA 

receives adverse comment by January 

28, 2005. If EPA receives adverse 

comment, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

77910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

II. Who Has To Pay These Fees? 

This rule applies to major stationary 

VOC and NOX sources located in the 

Virginia portion of the Metropolitan 

Washington DC Severe Ozone 

Nonattainment Area. At this time, the 

counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon, 

and Prince William; and the cities of 

Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, 

Manassas, and Manassas Park in 

Virginia are part of the Area, and are 

subject to this rule. Any owner of a 

major VOC or NOX stationary source, 

which is a stationary source that emits 

or has the potential to emit 25 tons or 

more per year of VOC or NOX, within 

the severe ozone nonattainment area is 

subject to this rule. 

III. How Are the Fees Calculated? 

The fee is initially set at $5,000 per 

ton of VOC or NOX emitted by the 

source during the previous calendar 

year in excess of 80% of the baseline 

amount. The fee is to be adjusted 

annually, beginning in 1991, by the 

percentage by which the consumer price 

index has been adjusted. The baseline is 

the lower of the source’s actual or 

allowable VOC or NOX emissions during 

calendar year 2005. Virginia may 

calculate the baseline amount using a 

period of more than one year, provided 

the determination is consistent with 

Federal requirements. 

IV. Is Virginia Required To Adopt an 

Excess Emission Fee Rule? 

Under sections 182(d)(3), 182(e), and 

185 of the Clean Air Act (the Act), states 

are required to adopt an excess 

emissions fee regulation for ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as severe 

or extreme. This SIP revision requires 

major stationary sources of VOC in the 

nonattainment area to pay a fee to the 

state if the area fails to attain the 

standard by the attainment date set forth 

in the Act. In Virginia, the Northern 

Virginia area that is part of the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone 

nonattainment area is classified as 

severe. 

Section 182(f) of the Act requires 

states to apply the same requirements to 

major stationary sources of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) as are applied to major 

stationary sources of VOC.

V. What Are the Exceptions to This 

Rule? 

As per section 185 of the Clean Air 

Act, the Commonwealth’s SIP revision 

provides for an exception of the fee 

during any year that is treated as an 

extension year under section 181(a)(5) 

of the Clean Air Act. 

VI. What Impact Do Virginia’s Privilege 

and Immunity Statutes Have on This 

Rule? 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec.10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts* * *’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

Clean Air Act, including, for example, 

sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 

enforce the requirements or prohibitions 

of the state plan, independently of any 

state enforcement effort. In addition, 

citizen enforcement under section 304 

of the Clean Air Act is likewise 

unaffected by this, or any, state audit 

privilege or immunity law. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 77911

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4). This rule also does 

not have tribal implications because it 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 28, 

2005. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. 

This approval of the Commonwealth 

of Virginia’s Excess VOC and NOx 

Emission Fee SIP revision, as required 

under Section 185 and 182(f) of the 

Clean Air Act, may not be challenged 

later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: December 14, 2004. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV–Virginia

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the paragraph 

title and paragraph heading, and adding 

entries for ‘‘Code of Virginia’’ and 

‘‘Section 10.1–1316.1A. Through D.’’ at 

the end of the table to read as follows:

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) EPA-Approved Regulations and 

Statutes

EPA–APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES 

State citation (9 VAC 5) Title/subject State effective date 

EPA approval 

date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

* * * * * * * 

Code of Virginia

Section 10.1–1316.1A. Through D Severe ozone nonattainment 

areas; fees.

7/1/04 12/29/04 ............. Provision authorizes the Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) to collect Federal penalty 

fees from major stationary 

sources if the nonattainment 

area does not attain the ozone 

standard by the statutory attainment date. 

77912 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–28357 Filed 12–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 20, and 43 

[WC Docket No. 04–141; FCC 04–266] 

Local Telephone Competition and 

Broadband Reporting

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission extends 

and modifies the FCC Form 477 local 

competition and broadband data 

gathering program, established by the 

Commission’s Data Gathering Order

published Wednesday, April 12, 2000, 

65 FR 19675.

DATES: The rules in this document 

contain information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

Compliance date: September 1, 2005. 

Providers subject to the requirements 

and regulations adopted herein shall 

complete and file the amended FCC 

Form 477 on the compliance date and 

semiannually thereafter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Burton, Assistant Chief, James 

Eisner, Senior Economist, or Thomas J. 

Beers, Deputy Chief, Industry Analysis 

and Technology Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, at (202) 418–0940. 

For additional information concerning 

the information collection(s) contained 

in this document, contact Judith B. 

Herman at (202) 418–0214, or via the 

Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order (Order) in WC Docket No. 

04–141, adopted on November 9, 2004, 

and released on November 12, 2004. 

The full text of this document is 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

Electronic Comment Filing System and 

for public inspection Monday through 

Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 

Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the 

FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 

445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20554. Alternative formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418–

7426 or TTY (202) 418–7365. The full 

text of the NPRM may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Room CY–B402, 445 Twelfth Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

(202) 488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–

5563, or through www.bcpiweb.com. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This Order contains modified 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It 

will be submitted to OMB for review 

under section 3507(d) of the PRA. 

Summary of the Report and Order 

1. In this Order, we adopt rules and 

a standardized form to improve our 

Form 477 local competition and 

broadband data gathering program, 

including extending the program for five 

years beyond its currently designated 

sunset in March 2005, eliminating 

existing reporting thresholds, and 

gathering more granular data from 

service providers. The information 

collected in the Form 477 program helps 

the Commission and the public 

understand the extent of local telephone 

competition and broadband 

deployment, which is important to the 

nation’s economic, educational, and 

social well-being. The improvements we 

adopt here, which include some but not 

all of the modifications proposed in our 

recent Data Collection NPRM, are 

necessary to ensure that the 

Commission can continue to effectively 

evaluate broadband and local 

competition developments as they affect 

all Americans. At the same time, we 

have acted to minimize, wherever 

possible, the administrative burdens 

imposed on reporting entities by the 

modified Form 477 program. 

2. The Data Gathering Order

established a reporting program (using 

the FCC Form 477) to collect basic 

information about two critical areas of 

the communications industry: the 

deployment of broadband services and 

the development of local telephone 

service competition. The Commission 

concluded that collecting this 

information would materially improve 

its ability to develop, evaluate, and 

revise policy in these rapidly changing 

areas and provide valuable benchmarks 

for Congress, the Commission, other 

policy makers, and consumers. Since 

adoption of the Form 477 in 2000, 

broadband service providers and local 

telephone service providers have 

reported data ten times, and we have 

issued regular reports based in 

significant part on this information. In 

the Data Gathering Order, the 

Commission adopted a sunset provision 

pursuant to which the collection 

program terminates after five years (i.e., 

in March 2005) unless the Commission 

acts to extend it. 

3. Form 477 includes separate 

sections on broadband deployment, 

local telephone service competition, and 

mobile telephone service provision. In 

the Data Gathering Order, the 

Commission required entities to report 

only when they meet or exceed defined 

reporting thresholds, and, then, to 

complete only those portions of the 

form for which they meet or exceed the 

reporting thresholds. The Commission 

required entities that meet a threshold 

to file data on a state-by-state basis. The 

Commission also required facilitiesbased providers of broadband 

connections and local exchange carriers 

(LECs) to report lists of the Zip Codes 

in which they serve end users, for each 

state for which they complete a form. In 

the case of broadband connections, 

reporting entities include incumbent 

and competitive LECs, cable companies, 

operators of terrestrial and satellite 

wireless facilities, municipalities, and 

any other facilities-based provider of 

broadband connections to end users. 

4. In the Data Collection NPRM, we 

proposed to: (1) Extend the data 

collection for an additional five years; 

(2) modify Form 477 to collect moredetailed information about broadband 

connection speeds and the localized 

deployment of broadband technologies; 

(3) collect information about 

subscribership to bundled local and 

interstate long distance telephone 

services; and (4) eliminate or revise 

those local telephone service questions 

that elicit imprecise or infrequently 

used information. We also invited 

comment on whether we should 

eliminate or lower the current reporting 

thresholds; modify our policies for 

publishing or sharing Form 477 data; 

require filers to categorize broadband 

connections according to the 

information transfer rates observed by 

end users; and require filers to report 

numbers of broadband connections in 

service by Zip Code or technology, or, 

alternatively, by Zip Code, technology, 

and speed. 

5. We have considered the record of 

this proceeding, including comment 

about reporting burdens associated with 

current Form 477 reporting 

requirements, potential burdens 

associated with additional reporting 

requirements proposed or otherwise 

noticed for discussion in the Data 

Collection NPRM, and potential burdens 

associated with alternatives suggested 

by the parties, as well as our experience 

with the Form 477 to date. As discussed 

below, in this Order we: (1) Extend the 

Form 477 program for five years beyond