[Federal Register: March 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10512-10514]
[DOCID:fr01mr06-62]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8038-9; OEI-2006-0014]

New--SORN for Federal Retirement Benefits Calculator

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Establishment of a New System of Records Notice for
Federal Retirement Benefits Calculator--FRB.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5
U.S.C. 552a), the Office of Human Resources is giving notice that it
proposes to establish a new system of records, Federal Retirement
Benefits Calculator. This system of records is an integrated
application that works from one central database that allows employees
to access personal and benefits-related information.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this new system of records Notice
may do so by April 10, 2006. Unless there is a further notice in the
Federal Register, this new system of records will become effective on
April 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Questions regarding this notice should be referred to Rose
Ann Clark, Office of Human Resources, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Ann Clark or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    The Federal Retirement Benefits Calculator (FRB) is a system that
integrates information into one central database. The FRB is an
application that allows EPA employees to access personal and benefits-
related information that will be used by EPA employees to calculate
their retirement benefits. The information in the FRB system includes:
voluntary, early, and

disability retirement benefits; part-time and intermittent service;
deposits and re-deposits owed; Social Security/Federal Employee
Retirement System (FERS) supplement benefits; Civil Service Retirement
System benefits; Thrift Savings Plan benefits; survivor benefits; and
severance pay.
    EPA Employees will be able to use the system to generate either a
``quick'' or a detailed retirement annuity estimate using the FRB
calculator. EPA will provide information to the system in order for the
employee to be able to generate an estimate. Data will be updated each
pay period (bi-weekly).
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2006-0014. The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OEI
Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., 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 Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is
(202) 566-1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,

access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility identified above.

    Dated: February 21, 2006.
Linda A. Travers,
Acting Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer.
EPA-55

System Name: Federal Retirement Benefits Calculator
System Location
    Economic Systems Inc., 3141 Fairview Park Dr., Suite 700, Falls
Church, Virginia 22042-4507.

Categories of Individuals Covered By The System
    Current employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Any
federal employee paid by EPA will be covered by the system.

Categories of Records in the System
    This system contains records related to personnel, basic benefits,
pay, and leave. This includes, but is not limited to, employee
information such as: name(s), date of birth, social security number,
home and mailing addresses, salary, number of hours worked, and service
computation date.

Authority for Maintenance of the System
    5 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Pay Rates and Systems; 5 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.;
5 U.S.C. 1308, 3323, 3595a, 8301, 8331, 8501; 5 U.S.C. 5525 et seq.; 5
U.S.C. 6301 et seq.; Executive Order 9397 (Nov.22, 1943).

Purpose
    The Federal Retirement Benefits Calculator (FRB) is a system that
integrates information into one central database. The FRB is an
application that allows EPA employees to access personal and benefits-
related information that will be used by EPA employees to calculate
their retirement benefits. The information in the FRB system includes:
voluntary, early, and disability retirement benefits; part-time and
intermittent service; deposits and re-deposits owed; Social Security/
Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) supplement benefits; Civil
Service Retirement System benefits; Thrift Savings Plan benefits;
survivor benefits; and severance pay.
    EPA employees will be able to use the system to generate either a
``quick'' or a detailed retirement annuity estimate using the FRB
calculator. EPA will provide information to the system in order for the
employee to be able to generate an estimate. Data will be updated each
pay period (bi-weekly). EPA will provide the necessary information to
the Contractor responsible for the FRB calculator through a secured
site, followed by email notification.
General Routine Uses of EPA Systems of Records
    A. To the Department of Treasury to issue checks, make payments,
make electronic funds transfers, and issue U.S. Savings Bonds.
    B. To the Department of Agriculture National Finance Center to
credit Thrift Savings Plan deductions and loan payments to employee
accounts.
    C. To the Department of Labor in connection with a claim filed by
an employee for compensation due to a job connected injury or illness.
    D. To the Internal Revenue Service; Social Security Administration;
and State and local tax authorities in connection with the withholding
of employment taxes.
    E. To State Unemployment Offices in connection with a claim filed
by former employees for unemployment benefits.
    F. To the Office of Personnel Management and to Health Benefit
carriers in connection with enrollment and payroll deductions.
    G. To the Office of Personnel Management in connection with
employee retirement and life insurance deductions.
    H. To the Combined Federal Campaign in connection with payroll
deductions for charitable contributions.
    I. To the Office of Management and Budget and Department of the
Treasury to provide required reports on financial management
responsibilities.
    J. To the Internal Revenue Service in connection with withholdings
for tax levies.
    K. Information may be disclosed to contractors, grantees,
consultants, or volunteers performing or working on a contract,
service, grant, cooperative agreement, job or other activity for the
Agency and who have a need to have access to the information in the
performance of their duties or activities for the Agency. When
appropriate, recipients will be required to comply with the requirement
of the Privacy Act of 1974 as provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).

Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining,
and Disposing of Records in the System
Storage
    Records are stored in electronic media or paper format within
appropriate individual file folders.

Retrievability
    Individual users will gain access to the system through the use of
a combination Of First Name, Last Name, and the last four numbers of
the Social Security Number.
    User Name: First four letters of first name and first seven letters
of last name.
    Password: Two digit month and day of birth, and last four of Social
Security Number.
    Initially users will log in with identifying data, which will
verify from information provided by the Agency. After verification, the
system will establish a user account and request individual to change
password. Users will be encouraged to immediately change this password.
Only the data pertaining to the specific user will be retrievable via
the newly created password.

Safeguards
    Electronic records are maintained in a secure password-protected
computer system and are accessible only by authorized personnel. Paper
records are maintained in lockable metal file cabinets, or vault,
accessible only by authorized personnel. Separations files are kept at
the National Records Center in St Louis Missouri.

Retention and Disposal
    The retention of data in the system will be in accordance with the
EPA Records Schedule, as approved by the National Archives and Records
Administration.

System Manager(s) and Address
    Acting Director, Office of Human Resources, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Notification Procedure
    Individuals wishing to determine if they are named in this system
or seeking access to records maintained in this system must submit
their requests in writing to the Office of Human Resources, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460. Individuals requesting
records must provide their name, address and a notarized statement
attesting to their identity.

Record Access Procedures
    See ``Notification procedure'' above. Individuals requesting access
will also be required to provide adequate identification, such as a
driver's license, employee identification badge, or other identifying
document.

Contesting Record Procedures
    See ``Notification procedure'' above. Individuals wishing to
contest or amend information maintained in this system should specify
the information being contested, the reason for contesting it, and the
proposed amendment to such information.

Record Source Categories
    Information in this system of records is provided by
    A. EPA People Plus records. (Earning & Leave Records).
    B. The employee about whom the record is maintained.

Exemptions Claimed For The System
    None.

[FR Doc. E6-2900 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73304-73305]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28975]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9920-27-OA]

 Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB) Agricultural Science Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites public
nominations of scientific experts to be considered for appointment to
the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Agricultural Science Committee
to provide advice to the chartered SAB regarding matters referred to
the SAB that will have a significant direct impact on farming and
agriculture-related industries.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than
January 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nominators unable to submit
nominations electronically as described below may submit a paper copy
to Ms. Stephanie Sanzone, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the
committee, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at
202-564-2067.
    Background: The chartered SAB (the Board) was established in 1978
by the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration
Authorization Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) to provide independent advice to the
Administrator on general scientific and technical matters underlying
the Agency' policies and actions. Members of the SAB and its
subcommittees constitute a distinguished body of non-EPA scientists,
engineers, economists, and social scientists that are nationally and
internationally recognized experts in their respective fields. Members
are appointed by the EPA Administrator, generally for a period of three
years. The SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related
regulations. Generally, SAB meetings are announced in the Federal
Register, conducted in public view, and provide opportunities for
public input during deliberations. All the work of the SAB
subcommittees is performed under the direction of the Board. The
chartered Board provides strategic advice to the EPA Administrator on a
variety of EPA science and research programs and reviews and approves
all SAB subcommittee and panel reports. Additional information about
the SAB

Federal Advisory Committees may be found at http://www.epa.gov/sab.
    Pursuant to section 12307 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L.
133-79), the EPA is establishing a new agriculture-related standing
committee of the SAB. The SAB Agricultural Science Committee will
provide advice to the chartered SAB on matters referred to the Board
that EPA and the Board, in consultation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, determine will have a significant direct impact on farming
and agriculture-related industries. Initial appointments to the
committee will be for a mix of 2 and 3 year terms to ensure rotation
and staggered terms for future years.
    Expertise Sought: The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of
experts to serve on the SAB Agricultural Science Committee with
demonstrated expertise in agriculture-related sciences, including:
Agricultural economics, including valuation of ecosystem goods and
services; agricultural chemistry; agricultural engineering; agronomy,
including soil science; aquaculture science; biofuels engineering;
biotechnology; crop and animal science; environmental chemistry;
forestry; and hydrology. For further information, please contact Ms.
Sanzone, DFO, as identified above.
    Selection criteria include:

--Demonstrated scientific credentials and disciplinary expertise in
relevant fields;
--Willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability
to work constructively and effectively on committees;
--Background and experiences that would contribute to the diversity of
perspectives on the committee, e.g., geographic, economic, social,
cultural, educational backgrounds, and professional affiliations; and
--For the committee as a whole, consideration of the collective breadth
and depth of scientific expertise; and a balance of scientific
perspectives.

    As the committee undertakes specific advisory activities, the SAB
Staff Office will consider two additional criteria for each new
activity: absence of financial conflicts of interest and absence of an
appearance of a loss of impartiality.
    How To Submit Nominations: Any interested person or organization
may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this
advisory committee. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations should
be submitted in electronic format (preferred) following the
instructions for ``Nominating Experts to the SAB Agricultural Science
Committee'' provided on the SAB Web site. Instructions can be accessed
through the ``Nomination of Experts'' link on the blue navigational bar
on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. To be considered, all
nominations should include the information requested. EPA values and
welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse
candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial
and ethnic groups.
    The following information should be provided on the nomination
form: Contact information about the person making the nomination;
contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific
areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vita; and a
biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position,
educational background; research activities; sources of any research
funding over the last two years; and recent service on other national
advisory committees or national professional organizations. Persons
having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to
submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact the
Designated Federal Officer for the committee, as identified above. Non-
electronic submissions must follow the same format and contain the same
information as the electronic form. The SAB Staff Office will
acknowledge receipt of nominations.
    Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the
``Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government
Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency'' (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential
form allows the EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict
between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government
Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a
loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be
viewed and downloaded through the ``Ethics Requirements for Advisors''
link on the blue navigational bar on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    Dated: December 1, 2014.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-28975 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Cryptosporidium Laboratory QA Program Coordinator CSC Biology Studies Group 6101 Stevenson Avenue Alexandria, VA 22304 When your application package has been received and reviewed, you will be notified whether it is complete or has any deficiencies. After your application has been accepted, you will be notified of when you should expect your initial set of PT samples. If you have any questions about the laboratory application materials or evaluation process, please feel free to contact either me at moulton. carrie@ epamail. epa. gov or Jennifer Scheller at jscheller@ csc. com.

Sincerely,

Carrie Moulton Manager, Cryptosporidium Laboratory Approval Program Technical Support Center 26 West Martin Luther King Drive Cincinnati, OH 45268 D 4 APPENDIX E Laboratories Seeking Approval for One Method and Laboratories Seeking Approval for Two Methods Burden Tables E 1 Complete and submit application 0 3 9 1 13 18 238 $

$ 138.00 $ 396.00 $ 15.00 $ 549.00 $

$ $ 72.00 11,364.30 $

Perform and report initial performance tests ( IPT) 0 4 32 4 40 3 120 $

$ 184.00 $ 1,408.00 $ 60.00 $ 1,652.00 $

$ $ 1,400.00 9,156.00 $

Host on site evaluation 0 9 15 1 25 18 458 $

$ 414.00 $ 660.00 $ 15.00 $ 1,089.00 $

$ $ 5.00 20,020.20 $

Perform and report 3 sets of ongoing performance tests ( OPT) 0 5.8 35.3 4.4 45.5 55 2503

$ 266.80 $ 1,553.20 $ 66.00 $ 1,886.00 $

$ $ 1,546.00 188,760.00 $

Task Table 1. Laboratories Seeking Approval for One Method Version Legal $ 55.00/ hour Management $ 46.00/ hour Technical $ 44.00/ hour Clerical $ 15.00/ hour Respondent Hours Labor Costs Capital/ Startup Costs O& M Costs Number of respondents/ year Total hours/ year Total cost/ year E 2 Complete and submit application 0 3 12 1 16 3 53 $

$ 138.00 $ 528.00 $ 15.00 $ 681.00 $

$ 138.00 $ 2,702.70 $

Perform and report initial Performance Tests ( IPT) 0 8 64 8 80 2 160 $

$ 368.00 $ 2,816.00 $ 120.00 $ 3,304.00 $

$ 2,800.00 $ 12,208.00 $

Host on site evaluation 0 12 18 1 31 3 102 $

$ 552.00 $ 792.00 $ 15.00 $ 1,359.00 $

$ 15.00 $ 4,534.20 $

Perform and report 3 sets of ongoing performance tests ( OPT) for two method versions 0 11.2 67.2 8.4 86.8 4 347

$ 515.20 $ 2,956.80 $ 126.00 $ 3,598.00 $

$ $ 2,940.00 26,152.00 $

Number of respondents/ year Total hours/ year Total cost/ year Table 2. Laboratories Seeking Approval for Two Method Versions Task Legal $ 55.00/ hour Management $ 46.00/ hour Technical $ 44.00/ hour Clerical $ 15.00/ hour Respondent Hours Labor Costs Capital/ Startup Costs O& M Costs APPENDIX F Agency Burden Table F 1 Maintain QC and lab audit database 1 0.5 5 6.5 6.5 $ $ 67.74 $ 47.50 $ 310.00 $ 425.24 $ 425.24 Review laboratory applications 1 0.5 4 5.5 22 118.8 $ $ 67.74 $ 47.50 $ 248.00 $ 363.24 $ 5.00 7,953.98 $

Prepare and distribute spiking suspensions for IPTs 0.5 0.5 1 2 5 10 $ $ 33.87 20.11 $ $  $ 62.00 $ 115.98 $ 330.00 2,229.90 $

Review IPT data 1 0.5 3 4.5 5 22.5 $ $ 67.74 $ 47.50 $ 186.00 $ 301.24 $ 5.00 1,531.20 $

Prepare and distribute spiking suspensions for OPTs for each lab for each method version 0.5 0.5 3 4 75 300 $ $ 33.87 20.11 $ $  $ 186.00 $ 239.98 495.00 $ 55,123.50 $

Review OPT data for each lab for each method version 0.5 0.5 5 6 75 450 $ $ 33.87 $ 47.50 $ 310.00 $ 391.37 $ 5.00 29,727.75 $

Conduct and review on site evaluations 4 0.25 45 15 50 114 22 2467.8 $ $ 270.96 4,950.00 $ $ 1,425.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 9,745.96 2,500.00 $ 264,512.74 $

Prepare, generate, and distribute reports on laboratory status 1.5 1.5 9 12 12 $ $ 101.61

$ $ 103.62 $ 558.00 $ 763.23 5.00 $ 768.23 $

Total 362,272.54 $

Technical $ 62.00/ hr Task Legal GS 15 $ 79.70/ hr Management GS 14 $ 67.74/ hr Technical GS 11 $ 40.22/ hr Expert $ 110.00/ hr Number of Labs Total hrs/ yr Total Costs per Year Agency Burden Agency hrs/ yr/ resp Labor cost/ yr/ resp Capital Startup Cost O & M Costs Clerical GS 3 $ 17.47/ hr Management $ 95.00/ hr APPENDIX G Total Respondent and Agency Burden Tables G 1 Number of respondents Number of Activities Total hours/ year Total Labor cost/ year Total Annual Capital costs Total Annual O& M Costs Total Annualized Cost One Method labs 55 4 3318 $ 138,661.40  $ 90,639.10 $ 229,300.50 $ Two Method labs 10 4 662 27,732.00 $  $ 17,864.90 $ 45,596.90 $ Total Burden 65 8 3980 166,393.40 $  $ 108,504.00 $ 274,897.40 $

Number of respondents Number of Activities Total hours/ year Total Labor cost/ year Total Annual Capital costs Total Annual O& M Costs Total Annualized Cost Total Burden 1 8 3388 268,984.54 $  $ 93,783.00 $ 362,272.54 $ Total Agency Burden Total Respondent Burden APPENDIX H Federal Register Notice Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program/ Information Collection Request [ Published June 3, 2005] H 1 [ Federal Register: June 3, 2005 ( Volume 70, Number 106)] [ Notices] [ Page 32607 32609] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [ wais. access. gpo. gov] [ DOCID: fr03jn05 73]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OW 2002 0011, FRL 7921 1] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA ICR Number 2067.02, OMB Control Number 2040 0246 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a continuing Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2005. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 2, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OW 2002 0011, to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to ow docket@ epamail. epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, W 01 17 Comment Clerk, Water Docket ( MC 4101), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Conley, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Stop 4607M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202 564 1781; fax number: 202 564 3767; e mail address: conley. sean@ epa. gov. For technical inquiries, contact Carrie Moulton, EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive ( MS 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; fax number: ( 513) 569 7191; e mail address: moulton. carrie@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OW 2002 0011, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, 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. H 2 Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information ( CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are public and private water testing laboratories. EPA estimates that a total of 65 laboratories ( approximately 22 laboratories per year) will seek EPA recognition under the Laboratory QA Program.

Title: Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Abstract: In September 2000, the Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory Committee ( Committee) signed an Agreement in Principle ( Agreement) ( 65 FR 83015, Dec. 29, 2000) ( EPA, 2000) with consensus recommendations for two future drinking water regulations: the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT2ESWTR) and the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. The LT2ESWTR will address risk from microbial pathogens, specifically Cryptosporidium. The Committee recommended that the LT2ESWTR require public water systems ( PWSs) to monitor their source water for Cryptosporidium using EPA Method 1622 or EPA Method 1623. Additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for public water systems ( PWSs) would be based on the source water Cryptosporidium levels. EPA took into account the Committee's recommendations as it developed the proposed LT2ESWTR, which was published on August 11, 2003, ( 68 FR 47639), and is taking the recommendations into account as it develops the final regulation. In the LT2ESWTR proposed rule, EPA indicated that PWSs would be required to use approved laboratories when conducting Cryptosporidium monitoring under the LT2ESWTR. EPA also indicated that laboratories approved to analyze Cryptosporidium samples under the rule must meet the criteria in the Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program ( Lab QA Program) described in this notice. The purpose of the Lab QA Program is to identify laboratories that can reliably measure for the occurrence of Cryptosporidium in surface water. Other existing laboratory approval programs do not include Cryptosporidium analysis.

EPA initiated the Lab QA Program prior to promulgation of the final LT2ESWTR to provide the time necessary to approve a sufficient number of laboratories to assure adequate capacity for LT2ESWTR monitoring. Early initiation of the Lab QA Program was also necessary to conform with the Agreement recommendation that water systems with    historical'' Cryptosporidium data that are equivalent to data that will be collected under the LT2ESWTR be afforded the opportunity to use those    historical'' data in lieu of collecting new data under LT2ESWTR. In the LT2ESWTR proposed rule, EPA proposed such provisions to allow water systems to    grandfather'' the historical data.

EPA anticipates the data generated by laboratories which meet the evaluation criteria would be very high quality, thus increasing the likelihood that such data would warrant consideration as acceptable    grandfathered'' data. However, laboratory evaluation would not guarantee that data generated will be acceptable as H 3    grandfathered'' data, nor would failure to meet evaluation criteria necessarily preclude use of    grandfathered'' data. For these reasons, EPA established the Lab QA Program as a discretionary and voluntary program under the Safe Drinking Water Act, section 1442 ( 42 U. S. C. 300j 1( a)). Through today's notice, EPA is inviting comment on the continuation of the Lab QA Program. Under the Lab QA Program, EPA evaluates laboratories on a case by case basis through evaluating their capacity and competency to reliably measure for the occurrence of Cryptosporidium in surface water using EPA Method 1622 or EPA Method 1623. To obtain approval under the program, the laboratory must submit an application package and provide a demonstration of availability of qualified personnel and appropriate instrumentation, equipment and supplies; a detailed laboratory standard operating procedure for each version of the method that the laboratory will use to conduct the Cryptosporidium analyses; a current copy of the table of contents of their laboratory's quality assurance plan for protozoa analyses; and an initial demonstration of capability ( IDC) data for EPA Method 1622 or EPA Method 1623, which include precision and recovery ( IPR) test results and matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate ( MS/ MSD) test results for Cryptosporidium.

After the laboratory submits to EPA an application package including supporting documentation, EPA and the laboratory conduct the following steps to complete the process: 1. EPA contacts the laboratory for follow up information and to schedule participation in the performance testing program. 2. EPA sends initial proficiency testing ( IPT) samples to the laboratory ( unless the laboratory has already successfully analyzed such samples under EPA's Protozoan PE program). IPT samples packets consist of eight spiked samples shipped to the laboratory within a standard matrix. 3. The laboratory analyzes IPT samples and submits data to EPA. 4. EPA conducts an on site evaluation and data audit. 5. The laboratory analyzes ongoing proficiency testing ( OPT) samples three times per year and submits the data to EPA. OPT sample packets consist of three spiked samples shipped to the laboratory within a standard matrix. 6. EPA contacts laboratories by letter within 60 days of their laboratory on site evaluation to confirm whether the laboratory has demonstrated its capacity and competency for participation in the program.

The procedure for obtaining an application package, the criteria for demonstrating capacity and competency, and other guidance to laboratories that are interested in participating in the Lab QA Program, are provided at http:// www. epa. gov/ safewater/ lt2/ cla_ final. html.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The EPA is soliciting comments to: ( i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; ( ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ( iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ( iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The burden estimate for the Lab QA Program H 4 information collection includes all the burden hours and costs required for gathering information, and developing and maintaining records associated with the Lab QA Program. The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated for a total of 65 respondents. For each respondent, an average of 19 hours is estimated per response, with 3.3 responses per year, for a total of 3,980 hours at a cost of $ 166,393. The average cost per response is estimated at $ 776 per response. The proposed frequency of responses is three times a year for analysis and reporting of PT samples and once every three years for the on site evaluation. This estimate assumes that laboratories participating in the Lab QA program have the necessary equipment needed to conduct the analyses. Therefore, there are no start up costs. The estimated total annual capital costs is $ 0.00. The estimated Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) costs is $ 108,504.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. APPENDIX I Comments on Federal Register Notice I 1 Comments and Responses on Federal Register Notice Comment: Beyond OPT testing, the program does not include a component for ongoing demonstration of adequately skilled staff after the initial submission of staff qualifications. Given the demand for skilled staff when LT2ESWTR is promulgated, there will be considerable pressures on laboratory staff that could lead to high turnover rates that will impact laboratory performance.

Response: EPA recognizes that there may be a turnover during the LT2 . The PT program and the on site evaluations as well as the ongoing QC required by the method will provide a measure of ongoing laboratory performance. EPA is evaluating programs for providing analyst training including on line microscopy modules and train the trainer programs.

EPA is also working with UK laboratories that have had similar increases in capacity as is anticipated for LT2 to identify strategies for training and retaining laboratory staff. The laboratories' training SOPs are reviewed during the on site evaluation to ensure that the laboratories have appropriate procedures in place to train new staff.

Comment: The initial and ongoing proficiency testing samples and lab audit slides are not sufficiently challenging to distinguish competent microscopists from those that are not. Ideally, these slides should closely resemble actual sample slides.

Response: EPA is investigating the possibility of adding confounding organisms to PT samples and/ or audit slides to make them more challenging. EPA currently adds Tennessee River sediment to the PT samples to provide a more realistic sample.

Comment: The program lacks any metrics for or controls to prevent laboratory performance degradation as the volume of samples increases dramatically with ongoing LT2ESWTR implementation. I 2 Response: The PT program will provide an ongoing assessment of laboratory performance in addition to the ongoing QC that is required by Method 1622/ 1623. Ongoing QC requirements include analysis of ongoing precision and recovery samples, method blanks, and staining controls every week that LT2 samples are analyzed to ensure the analytical process is in control and development and use of QC charts to assess ongoing performance.

Comment: The program is not open to the performance based nature of EPA Method 1622 / 1623, and rigid adherence to a defined method will likely result in loss of valid samples. Consistent, high quality method performance is clearly critical, but given the acceptable performance range for the method it is important to retain reasonable flexibility.

Response: Laboratories are allowed to make modifications to the method as long as equivalent performance is demonstrated as described in Section 9.1.2 of the method. During the QA/ QC application process, PT program and on site evaluation, EPA has seen many laboratories that have made modifications as described in Method 1622/ 1623.

Comment: Frequency of lab audits is inadequate as some laboratories were audited several years ago and personnel and facilities have changed.

Response: EPA will be re auditing laboratories and will focus on those laboratories that are anticipated to analyze the most samples for LT2 and those that have undergone significant changes in personnel and facilities.

Comment: Modify initial proficiency test ( IPT) and ongoing proficiency test ( OPT) samples to include confounding factors such as algae, debris, and organisms that are similar in appearance to Cryptosporidium oocysts. Sample modification should begin with the next round of samples distributed by the laboratory approval program.

Response: EPA is investigating the possibility of adding confounding organisms to PT samples and/ or audit slides to make them more challenging. I 3 Comment: Modify audit procedures to provide for increased laboratory auditing frequency. There should be a regular audit schedule so that the audit captures current practice and expectations. The audit program should place a particular focus on laboratories where facilities have changed ( or require a re certification process for laboratories that experience dramatic " change" such as significant turnover in laboratory management or key personnel, significant physical changes in the laboratory facilities, etc.). Laboratories experiencing dramatic surges in processing capacity also deserve focused attention by the audit program.

Response: EPA will be re auditing laboratories and will focus on those laboratories that are anticipated to analyze the most samples for LT2 and those that have undergone significant changes in personnel and facilities. Another comment recommends less frequent audits. EPA believes current frequency is adequate in light of extensive QC requirements.

Comment: Require that laboratory owners / operators to state the number of Method 1622/ 1623 samples that the laboratory is capable of processing per week within its existing equipment, personnel, and quality assurance / quality control plan each quarter. This should be required when the laboratory submits its OPR samples.

a. This estimate should either be compared to or based on an EPA determined metric that reflects the requirements of Method 1622/ 1623, LT2ESWTR requirements, sound laboratory practice and QA/ QC expectations.

b. This submittal could be treated as Confidential Business Information ( CBI).

c. EPA should use this submittal as a measure of whether analytical performance within that laboratory is under appropriate control.

d. In using this measure EPA would have to allow enough flexibility for laboratories to demonstrate how they've streamlined the method if they have done so.

Response: EPA has been collecting information on laboratory capacity of the number of samples laboratories analyze per month as part of the audit application and plans to collect this information with increased frequency after implementation.

EPA will request that laboratories submit with their PT data the average number of samples they are currently analyzing per week. This information will be considered confidential. I 4 Comment: Ongoing communication with laboratories and on site evaluations should recognize that modification of the method is anticipated by the EPA:

" In recognition of advances that are occurring in analytical technology, the laboratory is permitted to modify certain method procedures to improve recovery or lower the costs of measurements, provided that all required quality control ( QC) tests are performed and all QC acceptance criteria are met. Method procedures that can be modified include front end techniques, such as filtration or immunomagnetic separation ( IMS). The laboratory is not permitted to use an alternate determinative technique to replace immunofluorescence assay in this method ( the use of different determinative techniques are considered to be different methods, rather than modified version of this method). ..." ( EPA Method 1623, Section 9.1.2, page 11) [ emphasis added]

Response: EPA agrees that communication with the laboratories is important and acknowledges that laboratories are allowed to modify Method 1623 as stated in section 9.1.2.

Comment: What efforts are made by epa that once approved the lab standards will not fail? where is the annual testing to be sure standards are kept?

Response: EPA requires ongoing proficiency testing ( OPTs) every four months for the laboratories participating in the program. This ensures that laboratories are maintaining method performance. Ongoing QC requirements of Method 1622/ 1623 include analysis of ongoing precision and recovery samples, method blanks, and staining controls for every 20 samples every week that LT2 samples are analyzed to ensure the analytical process is in control and development and use of QC charts to assess ongoing performance.

Comment: EPA currently estimates that the burden of this information collection request will be 72 hours per respondent annually, where the respondent burden is described as the total time, effort, or I 5 financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for the agency under this program. This estimate significantly underestimates the burden of the current program. The program requires:

1. Submission of an extensive application every 3 years;

2. Processing of eight initial proficiency testing ( IPT) samples per version of EPA Method 1622 and 1623 employed in a respondent laboratory;

3. Submission to an on site evaluation of the laboratory at least once;

4. Correction of deficiencies noted in the on site evaluation;

5. Notice to EPA when an employee is added to the laboratory with required EPA Method 1622/ 1623 training.

6. Processing of three ongoing proficiency testing ( OPT) samples approximately every four months per version of EPA Method 1622 and 1623 employed in the respondent laboratory;

7. Preparation of detailed laboratory standard operating procedures for each version of the method used for routine Cryptosporidium analyses; and 8. Preparation of a summary of percent recoveries for all OPR and MS samples analyzed at the laboratory for the past six months.

Response: EPA feels that the burden estimate is appropriate. The estimate was derived with input from the laboratories.

Laboratories will only need to submit an application prior to their audit. If it is a re audit, the laboratories will only be required to submit SOPs that have changes since their last audit. Only laboratories that are not currently participating in the PT program will be required to analyzed eight initial proficiency testing samples. The estimate does not include preparation of SOPs and the laboratory Quality Assurance Project Plan, which are part of formal quality assurance program as required by Method 1622/ 1623 and are not specific requirements of this program. Laboratories are only required to submit a summary of the percent recoveries for OPR and MS samples as part of their application which is required no more than once every three years. I 6 Comment: This program provides an independent third party evaluation of protozoan testing laboratories, filters and method modifications. The program is a valuable tool for laboratories as well as their clients and we believe that it is appropriate that EPA continue to provide this service.

Response: Thank you.

Comment: Considering the complexity of the Cryptosporidium analytical methods and the variability that can occur from lab to lab, it is important to retain a lab certification/ approval process to assist the labs in collecting high quality data and to assist the customers of the labs in selecting labs wherein they can have confidence in the results. The EPA's Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program is important to maintain until the States obtain their own capabilities to manage a similar program and add Cryptosporidium to their list of certified parameters. In our opinion, after a few modifications as stated above, the Lab QA Program is highly beneficial and has been worth our lab's investment to achieve and maintain approval for Cryptosporidium data collection.

Response: Thank you.

Comment: We have found the Lab QA Program to be valuable and beneficial, and support its continuation. We found most helpful the on site evaluation. The EPA sent qualified and knowledgeable auditors who provided good feedback to improve our laboratory's work. If a similar audit is done every 3 5 years by such qualified, lab based staff as we have already experienced then it will continue to provide a benefit to the many labs that are audited.

Response: Thank you. EPA will be re auditing laboratories and will focus on those laboratories that are anticipated to analyze the most samples for LT2 and those that have undergone significant changes in personnel and facilities.

Comment: The ongoing laboratory proficiency testing has also been helpful, especially in placing in context the information about our lab with information from other laboratories and from other methods being used. This provides a benchmark. I 7 However, three times a year for proficiency testing is excessive considering the quality control already included in the method. We suggest that a frequency of once a year would be adequate.

Response: EPA feels that three sets of OPTs are necessary to ensure continuing acceptable performance especially as the volume of samples analyzed by laboratories increases during LT2 monitoring.

Comment: Given the LT2ESWTR timeline, under which most surface water systems will conduct sampling within a year or two of rule promulgation, it is difficult to ascertain from this Federal Register notice the availability of sufficient laboratory capacity. Without sufficient capacity of appropriately qualified laboratories that results in high quality Cryptosporidium data, systems could be subject to inappropriate LT2ESWTR treatment requirements.

Response: EPA realizes the importance of laboratory capacity. EPA continuously evaluates the capacity as more laboratories are approved to perform the method. EPA is evaluating programs for providing analyst training, including online microscopy modules and train the trainer programs, to allow for increased laboratory capacity. EPA is also working with UK laboratories that have had similar increases in capacity as is anticipated for LT2 to identify strategies for training and retaining laboratory staff.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9788-9791]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04572]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 22c-2, SEC File No. 270-541, OMB Control No. 3235-0620.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.

    Rule 22c-2 (17 CFR 270.22c-2) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the ``Investment Company Act'' or ``Act'')
requires the board of directors (including a majority of independent
directors) of most registered open-end investment companies (``funds'')
to either approve a redemption fee of up to two percent or determine
that imposition of a redemption fee is not necessary or appropriate for
the fund. Rule 22c-2 also requires a fund to enter into written
agreements with their financial intermediaries (such as broker-dealers
and retirement plan administrators) under which the fund, upon request,
can obtain certain shareholder identity and trading information from
the intermediaries. The written agreement must also allow the fund to
direct the intermediary to prohibit further purchases or exchanges by
specific shareholders that the fund has identified as being engaged in
transactions that violate the fund's market timing policies. These
requirements enable funds to obtain the information that they need to
monitor the frequency of short-term trading in omnibus accounts and
enforce their market timing policies.
    The rule includes three ``collections of information'' within the
meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\1\ First, the
rule requires boards to either approve a redemption fee of up to two
percent or determine that imposition of a redemption fee is not
necessary or appropriate for the fund. Second, funds must enter into
information sharing agreements with all of their ``financial
intermediaries'' \2\ and maintain a copy of the written information
sharing agreement with each intermediary in an easily accessible place
for six years. Third, pursuant to the information sharing agreements,
funds must have systems that enable them to request frequent trading
information upon demand from their intermediaries, and to enforce any
restrictions on trading required by funds under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    \2\ The rule defines a Financial Intermediary as: (i) Any
broker, dealer, bank, or other person that holds securities issued
by the fund in nominee name; (ii) a unit investment trust or fund
that invests in the fund in reliance on section 12(d)(i)(E) of the
Act; and (iii) in the case of a participant directed employee
benefit plan that owns the securities issued by the fund, a
retirement plan's administrator under section 316(A) of the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(16)(A) or any person
that maintains the plans' participant records. Financial
Intermediary does not include any person that the fund treats as an
individual investor with respect to the fund's policies established
for the purpose of eliminating or reducing any dilution of the value
of the outstanding securities issued by the fund. Rule 22c-2(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collections of information created by rule 22c-2 are necessary
for funds to effectively assess redemption fees, enforce their policies
in frequent trading, and monitor short-term trading, including market
timing, in omnibus accounts. These collections of information are
mandatory for funds that redeem shares within seven days of purchase.
The collections of information also are necessary to allow Commission
staff to fulfill its examination and oversight responsibilities.
    Rule 22c-2(a)(1) requires the board of directors of all registered
open-end management investment companies and series thereof (except for
money market funds, ETFs, or funds that affirmatively permit short-term
trading of its securities) to approve a redemption fee for the fund, or
instead make a determination that a redemption fee is either not
necessary or appropriate for the fund. Commission staff understands
that the boards of all funds currently in operation have undertaken
this process for the funds they currently oversee, and the rule does
not require boards to review this determination periodically once it
has been made. Accordingly, we expect that only boards of newly
registered funds or newly created series thereof would undertake this
determination. Commission staff estimates that 42 funds (excluding
money market funds and ETFs) are newly formed each year and would need
to make this determination.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This estimate is based on the number of registrants filing
initial Form N-1A or N-3. This estimate does not carve out money
market funds, ETFs, or funds that affirmatively permit short-term
trading of their securities, so this estimate corresponds to the
outer limit of the number of registrants that would have to make
this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on conversations with fund representatives,\4\ Commission
staff estimates that it takes 2 hours of the board's time as a whole
(at a rate of $4465 per hour) \5\ to approve a redemption fee or make
the required determination on behalf of all series of the fund. In
addition, Commission staff estimates that it takes compliance personnel
of the fund 8 hours (at a rate of $66 per hour) \6\ to prepare trading,
compliance, and other information regarding the fund's operations to
enable the board to make its determination, and takes internal
compliance counsel of the fund 3 hours (at a rate of $345 per hour) \7\
to review this information and present its recommendations to the
board. Therefore, for each fund board that undertakes this
determination process, Commission staff estimates it expends 13 hours
\8\ at a cost of $10,493.\9\ As a result, Commission staff estimates
that the total time spent for all funds on this process is 546 hours at
a cost of $440,706.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Unless otherwise stated, estimates throughout this analysis
are derived from a survey of funds and conversations with fund
representatives.
    \5\ The estimate of $4465 per hour for the board's time as a
whole is based on conversations with representatives of funds and
their legal counsel.
    \6\ The $66 per hour figure for a compliance clerk is from
SIFMA's Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and
inflation, and multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead.
    \7\ The $345 per hour figure for internal compliance counsel is
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-
hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
    \8\ This calculation is based on the following estimates: (2
hours of board time + 3 hours of internal compliance counsel time +
8 hours of compliance clerk time = 13 hours).
    \9\ This calculation is based on the following estimates:
($8,930 ($4,465 board time x 2 hours = $8,930) + $528 ($66
compliance time x 8 hours = $528) + $1,035 ($345 attorney time x 3
hours = $1,035) = $10,493).
    \10\ This calculation is based on the following estimates: (13
hours x 42 funds = 546 hours); ($10,493 x 42 funds = $440,706).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 22c-2(a)(2) also requires a fund to enter into information-
sharing agreements with each of its financial intermediaries.
Commission staff understands that all currently registered funds have
already entered into such agreements with their intermediaries. Funds
enter into new relationships with intermediaries from time to time,
however, which requires them to enter into new information sharing
agreements. Commission staff understands that, in general, funds enter
into information-sharing agreement when they initially establish a
relationship with an intermediary, which is typically executed as an
addendum to the distribution agreement. The Commission staff
understands that most shareholder information agreements are entered
into by the fund group (a group of funds with a common investment
adviser), and estimates that there are currently 850 currently active
fund groups.\11\ Commission staff estimates that, on average, each
active fund group enters into relationships with 3 new intermediaries
each year. Commission staff understands that funds generally use a
standard information sharing agreement, drafted by the fund or an
outside entity, and modifies that agreement according to the

requirements of each intermediary. Commission staff estimates that
negotiating the terms and entering into an information sharing
agreement takes a total of 4 hours of attorney time (at a rate of $392
per hour) \12\ per intermediary (representing 2.5 hours of fund
attorney time and 1.5 hours of intermediary attorney time).
Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that it takes 12 hours at a
cost of $4704 each year \13\ to enter into new information sharing
agreements, and all existing market participants incur a total of
10,200 hours at a cost of $3,998,400.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ICI, 2017 Investment Company Fact Book at Fig 1.8 (2017)
(https://www.ici.org/research/stats/factbook).
    \12\ The $392 per hour figure for attorneys is from SIFMA's
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013,
modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year
and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits and overhead.
    \13\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (4
hours x 3 new intermediaries = 12 hours); (12 hours x $392 =
$4,704).
    \14\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (12
hours x 850 fund groups = 10,200 hours); (10,200 hours x $392 =
$3,998,400).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, newly created funds advised by new entrants
(effectively new fund groups) must enter into information sharing
agreements with all of their financial intermediaries. Commission staff
estimates that there are 47 new fund groups that form each year that
will have to enter into information sharing agreements with each of
their intermediaries.\15\ Commission staff estimates that fund groups
formed by new advisers typically have relationships with significantly
fewer intermediaries than existing fund groups, and estimates that new
fund groups will typically enter into 100 information sharing
agreements with their intermediaries when they begin operations.\16\ As
discussed previously, Commission staff estimates that it takes 4 hours
of attorney time (at a rate of $392 per hour) \17\ per intermediary to
enter into information sharing agreements. Therefore, Commission staff
estimates that each newly formed fund group will incur 400 hours of
attorney time at a cost of $156,800 \18\ and that all newly formed fund
groups will incur a total of 18,800 hours at a cost of $7,369,600 to
enter into information sharing agreements with their
intermediaries.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ICI, 2017 Investment Company Fact Book at Fig 1.8 (2017)
(https://www.ici.org/research/stats/factbook).
    \16\ Commission staff understands that funds generally use a
standard information sharing agreement, drafted by the fund or an
outside entity, and then modifies that agreement according to the
requirements of each intermediary.
    \17\ The $392 per hour figure for an attorney is from SIFMA's
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013,
modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year
and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits and overhead.
    \18\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (4
hours x 100 intermediaries = 400 hours); (400 hours x $392 =
$156,800).
    \19\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (47
fund groups x 400 hours = 18,800 hours) ($392 x 18,800 = 7,369,600).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 22c-2(a)(3) requires funds to maintain records of all
information-sharing agreements for 6 years in an easily accessible
place. Commission staff understands that most shareholder information
agreements are stored at the fund group level and estimates that there
are currently approximately 850 fund groups.\20\ Commission staff
understands that information-sharing agreements are generally included
as addendums to distribution agreements between funds and their
intermediaries, and that these agreements would be stored as required
by the rule as a matter of ordinary business practice. Therefore,
Commission staff estimates that maintaining records of information-
sharing agreements requires 10 minutes of time spent by a general clerk
(at a rate of $59 per hour) \21\ per fund, each year. Accordingly,
Commission staff estimates that all funds will incur 141.67 hours at a
cost of $8,358.53 \22\ in complying with the recordkeeping requirement
of rule 22c-2(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ICI, 2017 Investment Company Fact Book at Fig 1.8 (2017)
(https://www.ici.org/research/stats/factbook).
    \21\ The $59 per hour figure for a general clerk is derived from
SIFMA's Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013 modified to
account for an 1800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by
2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead.
    \22\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (10
minutes x 850 fund groups = 8,500 minutes); (8,500 minutes/60 =
141.67 hours); (141.67 hours x $59 = $8,358.53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, Commission staff estimates that to comply with the
information sharing agreement requirements of rule 22c-2(a)(2) and (3),
it requires a total of 29,141.67 hours at a cost of $11,403,358.53.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This estimate is based on the following calculations:
(10,200 hours + 18,800 hours + 141.67 hours = 29,141.67 hours);
($3,998,400 + $7,369,600 + $8,358.53 = $11,403,358.53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff estimates that on average, each fund group
requests shareholder information once a week, and gives instructions
regarding the restriction of shareholder trades every day, for a total
of 417 responses related to information sharing systems per fund group
each year, and a total 354,450 responses for all fund groups
annually.\24\ In addition, as described above, the staff estimates that
funds make 42 responses related to board determinations, 2,550
responses related to new intermediaries of existing fund groups, 4,700
responses related to new fund group information sharing agreements, and
850 responses related to recordkeeping, for a total of 8,142 responses
related to the other requirements of rule 22c-2. Therefore, the
Commission staff estimates that the total number of responses is
362,592 (354,450 + 8,142 = 362,592).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (52 +
365 = 417); (417 x 850 fund groups = 354,450).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff estimates that the total hour burden for rule
22c-2 is 29,687.67 hours at a cost of $11,817,056.50.\25\ Responses
provided to the Commission will be accorded the same level of
confidentiality accorded to other responses provided to the Commission
in the context of its examination and oversight program. Responses
provided in the context of the Commission's examination and oversight
program are generally kept confidential. Complying with the information
collections of rule 22c-2 is mandatory for funds that redeem their
shares within 7 days of purchase. 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 control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (546
hours (board determination) + 29,141.67 hours (information sharing
agreements) = 29,687.67 total hours); ($440,706 (board
determination) + $11,376,350.53 (information sharing agreements) =
$11,817,056.50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: March 1, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04572 Filed 3-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37939-37940]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP15-554-000; CP15-554-001; CP15-555-000]

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.;
Notice of Request for Extension of Time

    Take notice that on June 16, 2020, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
(Atlantic) and Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.(DETI) (collectively,
applicants) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grant an extension of time, until October 13, 2022, to
construct and place into service the facilities that comprise
Atlantic's Atlantic Coast Pipeline and DETI's Supply Header Project as
described in the original certificate authorization issued on October
13, 2017 (Certificate Order). The Certificate Order required Atlantic
and DETI to construct and place the facilities in service by October
13, 2020.
    Applicants assert that due to unforeseen delays in permitting,
additional time is needed to complete construction of the authorized
facilities. Applicants state that they have encountered delays
resulting from decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit related to U.S. Forest Service Record of Decision and
Special Use Permit, including the crossing of the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail, its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and
Incidental Take Statement, and the air permit for the compressor
station in Buckingham, Virginia. Applicants state they have been
working diligently and in good faith to re-obtain all approvals
required for the construction of Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
Header Project as soon as possible. Applicants project that the
necessary approvals for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header
Project are anticipated by year-end. Accordingly, applicants request an
extension of time until October 13, 2022 to complete construction of
the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project facilities.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Atlantic's and DETI's
request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or
answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Only motions to intervene from entities that were party to
the underlying proceeding will be accepted. Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 39 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural
Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order
issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,\2\ the
Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\3\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension.\4\ The Commission will not consider arguments that re-
litigate the issuance of the certificate order, including whether the
Commission

properly found the project to be in the public convenience and
necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for the
certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\5\ At
the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance.\6\ The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on all of those extension requests that
are uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2019).
    \3\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \4\ Id. at P 40.
    \5\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
    \6\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, The Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and three copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 2, 2020.

    Dated: June 17, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13559 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1141-1144]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33098]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783; FRL-9940-79-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New
Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step
2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that are now inconsistent with
federal laws due to intervening decisions by the United States Courts
and EPA rulemaking. This submittal establishes Minor New Source Review
permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and includes
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting provisions for
sources that are classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a
PSD permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions. The PSD
permitting provisions also require a PSD permit for modifications of
otherwise major sources because they increased only GHG above
applicable levels. Additionally, we are proposing to disapprove
severable portions of SIP submittals for the States of Arkansas, New
Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing the EPA's July 20, 2011 rule deferring
PSD requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
bioenergy and other biogenic sources (``Biomass Deferral''). We are
proposing to disapprove the provisions adopting the Biomass Deferral
because the deferral has expired, so the provisions are no longer
consistent with federal laws. The EPA is proposing this disapproval
under section 110 and part C of the Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 10,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2015-0783, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214)
665-2115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

A. The February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP Submittal

    On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma submitted revisions to the Oklahoma
permitting programs for approval by the EPA into the Oklahoma SIP,
including new Minor New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements for
GHG emissions at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and revisions to the Oklahoma PSD
program at OAC 252:100-8-31 (the definition of ``subject to
regulation'') to require PSD permits for sources solely because of GHG
emissions. In addition, the submittal included many other updates to
the Oklahoma SIP, unrelated to GHG permitting, which the EPA is
addressing in separate actions. However, today's action only addresses
the provisions for GHG permitting that are inconsistent with federal
laws.

B. The November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal

    On November 6, 2012, Arkansas submitted revisions to the Arkansas
Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's Regulations, Chapters 2, 4
and 9 for approval by the EPA into the Arkansas SIP. The EPA finalized
our approval of the submitted revisions to the Arkansas PSD program at
Regulation 19, Chapter 9 that provide the State of Arkansas with the
authority to issue PSD permits governing GHG emissions on April 2,
2013, at 63 FR 19596. The EPA finalized approval of the other parts of
the submittal on March 4, 2015, with the exception of the severable
components of the submittal at Regulation 19, Chapter 4 specific to the
Arkansas Minor NSR program, and the severable portion of the definition
of ``CO2 Equivalent Emissions'' implementing the Biomass
Deferral at Regulation 19, Chapter 2. Today's action only addresses the
severable portion of the definition of ``CO2 Equivalent
Emissions'' at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 submitted on November 6, 2012.
The EPA will address the revisions to the Arkansas Minor NSR program at
Regulation 19, Chapter 4 in a separate action, at a later date.

C. The January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP Submittal

    On January 8, 2013, New Mexico submitted regulations specific to
the New Mexico PSD permitting program for approval by the EPA into the
New Mexico SIP. The EPA finalized approval of a portion of this
submittal pertaining to plantwide applicability limits for GHGs on
December 11, 2013, at 78 FR 75253. The submittal also included
revisions to the PSD permitting provisions that were adopted on January
7, 2013, at 20.2.74 NMAC to defer the application of the PSD
requirements to CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other
biogenic stationary sources consistent with the Biomass Deferral. The
revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC to adopt the Biomass

Deferral that are the subject of today's rulemaking are the only
portions of the submittal remaining before the EPA for review and
approval.

D. The January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP Submittal

    On January 18, 2013, Oklahoma submitted revisions to the Oklahoma
regulations for approval by the EPA into the Oklahoma SIP that included
provisions in the general definitions at OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC
252:100-8-31 to defer the application of the PSD requirements to
biogenic CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic
stationary sources that are the subject of today's rulemaking. The
submittal also included many other updates to the Oklahoma SIP which
the EPA is addressing in separate actions.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. Oklahoma SIP Submission Addressing Permitting of GHG Emissions in
Oklahoma

    On February 6, 2012, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality submitted a revision to the Oklahoma SIP that included, among
other things, provisions to regulate the emissions of GHGs in
construction permitting programs. The revisions to the Oklahoma Minor
Source Permitting Program at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 establish a mechanism
for sources in Oklahoma to take enforceable emissions limitations on
GHGs to avoid becoming a major source for GHG emissions under the
Oklahoma PSD program. The revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program at OAC
252:100-8-31 adopted a new definition of ``subject to regulation'' to
identify when emissions of GHGs would be regulated under the PSD
program. The revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program submitted were
consistent with the EPA's June 3, 2010, final rule ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule''
(75 FR 31514) (hereafter referred to as the ``Tailoring Rule'').
    The Tailoring Rule phased in permitting requirements for GHG
emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V
permitting programs. In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on
January 2, 2011, the EPA limited application of PSD and title V
requirements to sources of GHG emissions only if they were subject to
PSD or title V ``anyway'' due to their emissions of pollutants other
than GHGs. These sources are referred to as ``anyway sources.'' In Step
2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, the PSD and title
V permitting requirements under the CAA applied to some sources that
were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based
solely on their GHG emissions or potential to emit GHGs, and to
modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit
because they increased only GHG emissions above the level in the EPA
regulations. We generally describe the sources covered by PSD during
Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as ``Step 2 sources.''
    On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing
the application of PSD and title V permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs
as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a
source is a major source (or a modification thereof) and thus required
to obtain a PSD or title V permit. The Court also said that the EPA
could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT). With respect to PSD, the ruling effectively upheld PSD
permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring
Rule for ``anyway sources,'' and invalidated PSD permitting
requirements for Step 2 sources.
    In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the DC
Circuit) issued an Amended Judgment vacating the regulations that
implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that
implement Step 1 of that rule. With respect to Step 2 sources, the DC
Circuit's amended judgment ordered that the EPA regulations under
review (including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v))
be vacated ``to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a
PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the
source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major
source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions
increase from a modification.''
    The EPA promulgated a final rule on August 19, 2015, removing the
PSD permitting provisions for Step 2 sources from the federal
regulations that the DC Circuit specifically identified as vacated (40
CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)). Consistent with our August
19, 2015 final rule, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the submitted
revisions at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100-8-31 that pertain to the
minor source permitting of GHGs and the PSD permitting of Step 2
sources.

B. SIP Submissions Addressing the GHG Biomass Deferral in Arkansas, New
Mexico and Oklahoma

    On July 20, 2011, the EPA finalized a rulemaking entitled
``Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other
Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Title V Programs''. (76 FR 43490) (``Biomass Deferral'').
This rule deferred (for three years) the applicability of PSD and title
V requirements CO2 emissions from biogenic sources.\1\ On
July 12, 2013, the DC Circuit, in Center for Biological Diversity v.
EPA, 722 F.3d 401, vacated the provisions of the Biomass Deferral. Due
to a series of extension requests and rehearing proceedings, the court
did not issue its mandate making the vacatur effective until August 10,
2015. However, the Biomass Deferral expired by its own terms on July
21, 2014. For both reasons, the Biomass Deferral is no longer
applicable under federal laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Emissions of CO2 from a stationary source
directly resulting from the combustion or decomposition of
biologically-based materials other than fossil fuels and mineral
sources of carbon (e.g., calcium carbonate) and biologically-based
material (nonfossilized and biodegradable organic material
originating from plants, animals or micro-organisms [including
products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry
and related industries as well as the nonfossilized and
biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes,
including gases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of non-
fossilized and biodegradable organic material]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis, available in our Technical Support Document in the
rulemaking docket, finds that the States of Arkansas, New Mexico and
Oklahoma each adopted and submitted as revisions to their respective
SIPs, provisions that were substantively consistent with the
requirements of the EPA's now-expired Biomass Deferral. However,
because the deferral expired on July 21, 2014, and the court issued its
mandate, these provisions are no longer available for use under federal
PSD regulations and should not be approved into a state's PSD SIP. For
that reason, we are proposing to disapprove these provisions.

C. Evaluation of the Submitted Revisions Under Section 110 of the CAA

    The EPA has an obligation under section 110 of the CAA to act on
submitted SIP revisions unless these revisions are withdrawn by the
State. Because these provisions have not yet been withdrawn from our
consideration, the EPA has a duty to act on the

submitted provisions pertaining to the PSD permitting of Step 2 sources
in the Oklahoma SIP and the provisions incorporating the now-expired
Biomass Deferral into the Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma SIPs. Our
proposed action today will disapprove these provisions because the
provisions are no longer valid under federal law or consistent with
federal regulations; as such, our action today will not undermine the
respective SIPs, PSD programs, or any other requirement of the CAA.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to disapprove severable portions of the February
6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal establishing GHG permitting requirements
for minor sources and Step 2 PSD sources. The EPA has made the
preliminary determination that these revisions to the Oklahoma SIP
should be disapproved because they establish permitting requirements
that are inconsistent with federal laws. Therefore, under section 110
and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented above, the EPA is
proposing to disapprove the following revisions:
     Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing
Minor NSR GHG permitting requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted
on February 6, 2012; and
     Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC
252:100-8-31 establishing PSD permitting requirements for Step 2
sources at paragraph (E) of the definition of ``subject to regulation''
as submitted on February 6, 2012.
    We are also proposing to disapprove severable portions of the
November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP submittal, the January 8, 2013 New Mexico
SIP, and the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP submittal that include the
Biomass Deferral in the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma PSD
programs. The EPA has made the preliminary determination that these
revisions to the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be
disapproved because the Biomass Deferral has expired and adoption or
implementation of these provisions is no longer consistent with federal
regulations for PSD permitting. Therefore, under section 110 and part C
of the Act, and for the reasons presented above, the EPA is proposing
to disapprove the following revisions:
     Substantive revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of
``CO2 Equivalent Emissions'' at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to
implement the Biomass Deferral as submitted on November 6, 2012; and
     Substantive revisions to the New Mexico SIP definition of
``Subject to Regulation'' at <IP_ADDRESS> (AZ)(2)(a) NMAC to implement the
Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 8, 2013.
     Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP definitions of
``carbon dioxide equivalent emissions'' at OAC 252:100-1-3 and
``subject to regulation'' at OAC 252:100-8-31 as submitted on January
18, 2013.
    The EPA is proposing to disapprove the revisions listed because the
submitted provisions are no longer consistent with federal laws. There
will be no sanctions or punitive measures taken as a result of our
finalization of this proposed disapproval.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal
requirements for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action
proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer
consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer
consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action proposes
to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with
federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and
therefore will have no impact on small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action proposes to disapprove provisions of
state law that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the
regulation and permitting of GHG emissions; there are no requirements
or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it disapproves state permitting
provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation
and permitting of GHG emissions.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive
Order 12898 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are
inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 17, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-33098 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P