Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 205 / Monday, October 23, 2000 / Notices 63251

IP—Effluent Improvements XL Project;

Janet Murray, 202–260–7570, U.S. EPA,

1802, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460

(murray.janet@epa.gov) for the

Progressive Insurance XL Project; John

Moskal, 617–918–1826, U.S. EPA

Region I, SPP, 1 Congress Street, Suite

1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02114–

2023 (moskal.john@epa.gov) for the

IBM—Vermont XL Project; Nina

Bonnelycke, 202–260–3344, U.S. EPA,

1802, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460

(bonnelycke.nina@epa.gov) for the Labs

21 XL Project; Christopher Murphy,

312–886–0172, U.S. EPA Region V,

WA–16J, 77 West Jackson Blvd,

Chicago, Illinois 60604–3507

(murphy.christopher@epa.gov) for the

Clermont XLC Project; Bill Waugh, 202–

260–3489, U.S. EPA, 7403, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460

(waugh.bill@epa.gov) for the Kodak XL

Project; Bill Waugh, 202–260–3489, U.S.

EPA, 7403, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460

(waugh.bill@epa.gov) for the PPG XL

Project; Mark Samolis, 415–744–2331,

U.S. EPA Region IX, SPE–1, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105 (samolis.mark@epa.gov) for the

Yolo County XL Project; Michelle Cook,

404–562–8674, U.S. EPA Region IV, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303–3104 (cook.michelle@epa.gov)

for the Buncombe County XL Project;

Mary Byrne, 303–312–6491, U.S. EPA

Region VIII, 8P–R, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466

(byrne.mary@epa.gov) for the Autoliv

XL Project; Charles Howland, 215–814–

2645, U.S. EPA Region III, 30R00, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103–2029 (howland.charles@epa.gov)

for the Ortho-McNeil XL Project; Steven

J. Donohue, 215–814–3215, U.S. EPA

Region III, 3OR00, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103–2029

(donohue.steven@epa.gov) for the

Pennsylvania Coal XL Project; Adele

Cardenas, 214–665–7210, U.S. EPA

Region VI, 6EN–XP, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202–2733

(cardenas.adele@epa.gov) for the NASA

WSTF XL Project; Chris Rascher, 617–

918–1834, U.S. EPA Region I, SPP, 1

Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston,

Massachusetts 02114–2023

(rascher.chris@epa.gov) for the NBC XL

Project; William Glasser, 206–553–7215,

U.S. EPA Region X, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington 98101

(glasser.william@epa.gov) for the PSNS

ENVVEST Project; Chris Menen, 215–

814–2786, U.S. EPA Region III, 3EI00,

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103–2029

(menen.chris@epa.gov) for the Virginia

Landfills XL Project; Sam Kerns, 212–

637–4139, U.S. EPA Region II, 290

Broadway, New York, New York 10007–

1866 (kerns.sam@epa.gov) for the IBM—

Fishkill XL Project; and Mike Hill, 617–

918–1398, U.S. EPA Region I, CHW, 1

Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston,

Massachusetts 02114–2023

(hill.michael@epa.gov) for the Lead-Safe

Boston XL Project. In addition public

files on each of the projects are located

at each of the EPA Regional or

Headquarters offices listed. Additional

information on Project XL, XLC, and

ENVVEST, including documents

referenced in this document, other EPA

policy documents related to Project XL,

Regional and Headquarters contacts,

application information and

descriptions of existing XL projects and

proposals are available via the Internet

at ‘‘http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final

Project Agreements are voluntary

agreements developed by project

sponsors, stakeholders, the State in

which the project is located and EPA.

Project XL including XL projects for

government agencies regulated by

EPA—ENVVEST and XL for

Communities, announced in the Federal

Register on May 23, 1995 (60 FR 27282)

and November 1, 1995 (60 FR 55569)

respectively give regulated sources the

opportunity to develop alternative

strategies that will replace or modify

specific regulatory requirements on the

condition that they produce greater

environmental benefits. Any legal

implementing mechanism intended to

be used in a project is described in the

project’s FPA.

EPA announced the availability and

requested comments on FPA’s in the

Federal Register for the following XL,

ENVVEST and XL Communities projects

on: February 15, 2000 (65 FR 7547)

USPS; May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25327)

Mayport; December 29, 1999 (64 FR

73047) Steele County; May 8, 2000 (65

FR 26606) Georgia-Pacific; May 16, 2000

(65 FR 31120)IP—Effluent

Improvements; June 27, 2000 (65 FR

39614) Progressive Insurance; June 16,

2000 (65 FR 37780) IBM—Vermont;

August 17, 2000 (65 FR 50200) Labs 21;

August 16, 2000 (65 FR 49983)

Clermont; August 14, 2000 (65 FR

49571) Kodak; August 22, 2000 (65 FR

50987) PPG; August 29, 2000 (65 FR

52426) Yolo County; July 28, 2000 (65

FR 46456) Buncombe County; August

14, 2000 (65 FR 49571) Autoliv;

September 1, 2000 (65 FR 53297) OrthoMcNeil; August 30, 2000 (65 FR 52751)

Pennsylvania Coal; September 8, 2000

(65 FR 54519) NASA WSTF; August 29,

2000 (65 FR 52425) NBC; August 31,

2000 (65 FR 53008) PSNS; September 8,

2000 (65 FR 54520) Virginia Landfills;

September 1, 2000 (65 FR 53298) IBM

Fishkill; and September 7, 2000 (65 FR

54265) Lead-Safe Boston. Descriptions

of the projects are contained in each of

the Federal Register notices. EPA did

not receive adverse comment on any of

these FPAs.

Dated: October 17, 2000.

George Wyeth,

Acting Director, Office of Environmental

Policy Innovation.

[FR Doc. 00–27153 Filed 10–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) information

collection requirements contained in its

Alternative Fuel Rule. The FTC is

soliciting public comments on the

proposal to extend through November

30, 2003 the current PRA clearance for

information collection requirements

contained in the Rule. That clearance

expires on November 30, 2000.

DATES: Comments must be filed by

November 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office Building,

Room 10202, Washington, DC 20503,

ATTN.: Desk Officer for the Federal

Trade Commission, and to Secretary,

Federal Trade Commission, Room H–

159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580. All comments

should be captioned ‘‘Alternative Fuel

Rule: Paperwork comment.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for copies of the collection of

information and supporting

documentation should be addressed to

Neil Blickman, Division of Enforcement,

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal

Trade Commission, Room S–4302, 601

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

16, 2000, the FTC sought comment on

the information collection requirements

associated with the Alternative Fuel

63252 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 205 / Monday, October 23, 2000 / Notices

Rule (‘‘Rule’’), 16 CFR part 309 (Control

Number: 3084–0094). See 65 FR 49987.

No comments were received.

The Rule, which implements the

Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102–

486, requires disclosure of specific

information on labels posted on fuel

dispensers for non-liquid alternative

fuels and on labels on Alternative

Fueled Vehicles (AFVs). To ensure the

accuracy of these disclosures, the Rule

also requires that sellers maintain

records substantiating product-specific

disclosures they include on these labels.

Burden Statement

‘‘Burden’’ for PRA purpose is defined

to exclude effort that would be

expended regardless of any regulatory

requirement. 5 CFR 1320.2(b)(2). It is

common practice for alternative fuel

industry members to determine and

monitor fuel ratings in the normal

course of their business activities. This

is because industry members must know

and determine the fuel ratings of their

products in order to monitor quality and

to decide how to market them.

Moreover, as originally anticipated

when the Rule was promulgated in

1995, many of the information

collection requirements and the

originally-estimated hours were

associated with one-time start up tasks

of implementing standard systems and

processes.

Other factors also limit the burden

associated with the Rule. Certification

may be a one-time event to require only

infrequent revision. Disclosure labels on

fuel dispensing systems for electric

vehicles may be usable for several years.

(Label specifications were designed to

produce labels to withstand the

elements for several years.) Nonetheless,

there is still some burden associated

with posting labels. There also will be

some minimal burden associated with

new or revised certification of fuel

ratings and recordkeeping. The burden

on vehicle manufacturers to develop or

revise labels is limited because

manufacturers produce very few new

models each year. Finally, there will be

come burden, also minor, associated

with recordkeeping requirements.

Estimated total annual hours burden:

1,500 total burden hours, rounded.

Non-Liquid Alternative Fuels

Certification: Staff estimates that the

Rule’s fuel rating certification

requirements affect approximately 350

industry members (compressed natural

gas producers and distributors and

manufacturers of fuel dispensing

systems for electric vehicles) and

consume approximately one hour each

per year for a total of 350 hours.

Recordkeeping: Staff estimates that all

1,600 industry members are subject to

the Rule’s recordkeeping requirements

(associated with fuel rating certification)

and that compliance will require

approximately one-tenth hour each year

for a total of 160 hours.

Labeling: Staff estimates that labeling

requirements affect approximately nine

of every ten industry members (or

roughly 1,400 members), but that the

number of annually affected members is

only 280 because labels may remain

effective for several years (staff assumes

that in any given year approximately

20% of 1,400 industry members will

need to replace their labels). Staff

estimates that industry members require

approximately one hour each per year

for labeling their fuel dispensers for a

total of 280 hours.

Sub-total: 790 hours (160+350+280).

AFV Manufacturers

Recordkeeping: Staff estimates that all

58 manufacturers will require 30

minutes to comply with the Rule’s

recordkeeping requirements for a total

of 29 hours.

Producing labels: Staff estimates 2.5

hours as the average time required of

manufacturers to produce labels for

each of the five new AFV models

introduced among them each year for a

total of 12.5 hours.

Posting labels: Staff estimates 2

minutes as the average time to comply

with the posting requirements for each

of the approximately 20,000 new AFVs

manufactured each year for a total of

667 hours.

Sub-total: approximately 708 hours

(29+12.5+667).

Thus, total burden for these industries

combined is approximately 1,500 hours

(790+708).

Estimated labor costs: $27,000,

rounded.

Labor costs are derived by applying

appropriate hourly cost figures to the

burden hours described above.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics

staff, the average compensation for

producers and distributors in the fuel

industry is $19.42 per hour and $8.42

per hour for service station employees;

the average compensation for workers in

the vehicle industry is $19.14 per hour.

Non-Liquid Alternative Fuels

Recordkeeping: Only 1⁄6 of the total

160 hours will be performed by the

producers and distributors of fuels; the

other 5⁄6 is attributable to service station

employees (1⁄6 = 27 hours × $19.42 =

$524.34 + (5⁄6 + 133 hours × $8.42 =

$1,119.86) = $1,644.20, for an estimated

labor cost to the entire industry of

$13,878.80.

Certification and labeling: Generally,

all of the estimated hours except for

recordkeeping will be performed by

producers and distributors of fuels.

Thus, the associated labor costs would

be $12,234.60 (630 hours × $19.42).

AFV Manufacturers

The maximum labor cost to the entire

industry is approximately $13,551.12

per year for recordkeeping and

producing and posting labels (708 total

hours × $19.14/hour).

Thus, estimated total labor cost for

both industries for all paperwork

requirements is $27,000 ($13,878.80 +

$13,551.12) per year, rounded to the

nearest thousand.

Estimated annual non-labor cost

burden: $8,000, rounded.

Non-Liquid Alternative Fuels

Staff believes that there are no current

start-up costs associated with the Rule,

inasmuch as the Rule has been effective

since 1995. Industry members,

therefore, have in place the capital

equipment and means necessary,

especially to determine automotive fuel

ratings and comply with the Rule.

Industry members, however, incur the

cost of procuring fuel dispenser and

AFV labels to comply with the Rule.

The estimated annual fuel labeling cost,

based on estimates of 360 fuel

dispensers (assumptions: an estimated

20% of 900 total retailers need to

replace labels in any given year given an

approximate five-year life for labels—

i.e., 180 retailers—multiplied by an

average of two dispensers per retailer) at

thirty-eight cents for each label (per

industry sources), is $136.80.

AFV Manufacturers

Here, too, staff believes that there are

no current start-up costs associated with

the Rule, for the same reasons as stated

immediately above regarding the nonliquid alternative fuel industry.

However, based on the labeling of an

estimated 20,000 new and used AFVs

each year at thirty-eight cents for each

label (per industry sources), the annual

AFV labeling cost is estimated to be

$7,600. Estimated total annual non-labor

cost burden associated with the Rule,

therefore, would be $8,000 ($136.80 +

$7,600.00), rounded to the nearest

thousand.

Debra A. Valentine,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–27158 Filed 10–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M