                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                                      OFFICE OF
                                                            CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
\* MERGEFORMAT
                                                           POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

DATE:	June 17, 2020

SUBJECT:	Response to Public Comments on the Fenbutatin-Oxide Draft Risk Assessment for Registration Review.

PC Code:   104601
DP Barcode: D456088
Decision No:  559170
Petition No.: NA
Registration No.: NA
Regulatory Action:  Registration Review
Risk Assessment Type: NA
Case No.: NA
TXR No.:  NA
MRID No.:  NA
CAS No.: 13356-08-6
40 CFR:  §180.362

FROM:	Amelework Habtemichael, Chemist/Risk Assessor
      Monica Hawkins, Ph.D., M.P.H., Environmental Health Scientist
		Yung Yang, Toxicologist
	Risk Assessment Branch VI
	Health Effects Division (HED) (7509P)

THROUGH:	Julie L. Van Alstine, Branch Chief
	Risk Assessment Branch VI
	Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:	Lauren Weissenborn, Chemical Review Manager
	Melanie Biscoe, Team Leader
	Cathryn Britton, Chief
	Risk Management and Implementation Branch V
	Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

SUMMARY

The EPA received comments on the fenbutatin-oxide draft risk assessment for registration review (A. Habtemichael, 6/27/2019, D412713) from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA).  In this memo, EPA addresses their comments and provides detailed responses to their specific comments below.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Comments from The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), November 29, 2019 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0841-0033):

NAAA Comment

NAAA is concerned that the Tier 1 level is being used in the AgDRIFT drift models for the
risk assessments of Fenbutatin-oxide. The assumptions made in the Tier 1 model do not
accurately reflect how modern agricultural aircraft are setup to apply pesticides.

EPA Response

HED appreciates the information provided by NAAA on standard practices used by aerial applicators, along with the published articles that NAAA cited, to support their comments/recommendations.  The AgDRIFT(TM) model, a modified version of the Agricultural DISPersal (AGDISP(TM)) model, was developed as a collaborative effort between EPA, the USDA Forest Service, and the Spray Drift Task Force.  The model is used to estimate downwind deposition of spray drift from aerial, ground and airblast applications.  NAAA is correct in noting that at Tier 1, EPA relies on conservative assumptions which are intended to be protective, i.e., representative of worst-case scenarios.  While applicator standard practice may include more conservative practices in terms of spray droplet sizes, swath off-sets, and applications during atmospheric inversions, the survey data provided by NAAA indicate that those measures are not ubiquitously practiced; therefore, it would be inappropriate for HED to utilize less conservative assumptions when modeling spray drift.  However, based on the information provided by NAAA, it is clear that the organization and its affiliates are attempting to promote methods to reduce spray drift, and risk managers can consider these efforts along with the other reference materials provided by NAAA. The concerns raised by NAAA are consistent with those expressed by USDA regarding potential restrictions on droplet size leading to increases in application rate to retain the same level of efficacy given the need to ensure that foliar surfaces are properly treated.  HED will consider the information provided by NAAA in future risk assessments; however, risk assessments will continue to rely on conservative assumptions to ensure that such assessments are protective for a broad range of application practices.

NAAA Comment

NAAA questions whether the mixing loading risks for the aerial application of the WSP
formulation to orchards, vineyards, strawberries, and eggplants would realistically be of
concern. NAAA asserts that it is erroneous to assume that simply applying to more acres somehow results in a level of concern compared to applying to fewer acres. NAAA feels that if PPE is used, mixing and loading at higher use rates or treating more acres should not automatically be assumed to increase the exposure to a mixer/loader. NAAA states that, if simply spraying more acres does actually increase risk, it seems to question the use of PPE in the first place.

EPA Response

In determining exposure to occupational handlers HED utilizes "unit exposures" developed from available data sources for each handler "scenario" considered in the assessment that are expressed as mass of pesticide active ingredient (ai) exposure per unit mass of ai handled (e.g., ug/lb ai). Each scenario refers to a specific type of application equipment, formulation type, job function, and level of personal protective equipment (PPE). These unit exposures are then used generically, irrespective of chemical identity, to estimate exposure for each pesticide used in the scenario.

The current recommended unit exposures for standard Agency occupational handler exposure scenarios can be found in the Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table  -  Revised March 2020 (PDF). These values are derived from a number of generic data sources, including Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database Version 1.1 (PHED 1.1), the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) database, and the Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) database, or other available registrant-submitted exposure monitoring studies.  Descriptions of data sources, as well as guidance on their use, can be found at the Agency website.

Potential daily exposures for occupational handlers are calculated by multiplying the unit exposure by the maximum application rate (according to registered label(s)) and the area treated or amount handled (e.g., A/day, gal/day). For example, the same unit exposure values are used for soluble concentrate formulations for mixing/loading for applications via aerial, airblast, and/or groundboom equipment across the various use sites. As noted in the comment, the only thing that is different is the amount of acreage treated per day and/or the application use rate, which both have an impact on the estimated daily exposure for an occupational handler. You can find the occupational handler algorithms in Appendix A of the "Fenbutatin-Oxide: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Registration Review" (D451019, M. Hawkins, 6/27/2019) document which details the exposure calculations.

As previously described, the format of "unit exposures" as a ratio between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled assumes a proportional/linear relationship.  In order to estimate the amount of active ingredient handled for mixer/loaders, the Agency assumes mixer/loaders prepare solutions or loads with an appropriate amount of active ingredient to support a certain amount of area to be treated.  Multiplying that "area treated" assumption by the application rate yields an estimate of the amount of active ingredient handled for mixer/loaders, which is then multiplied by the "unit exposure" to generate an exposure estimate.  Therefore, the Agency appropriately assumes that exposure increases for mixer/loaders as they prepare larger solutions/loads to support larger areas to be treated.

NAAA Comment

NAAA is unclear after reading the human health risk assessment whether the
dataset used to access the risks associated with WSP included the "work practices that the
Agency agreed were inconsistent with the use of water-soluble packaging as an engineering
control intended to reduce exposures." The risk assessment mentions the creation of best
practices for how to properly handle and use WSP, label language to instruct users on these
practices, and a new dataset that excludes monitoring results for inconsistent activities, but it is
not clear to NAAA which data was used for the current risk assessment. NAAA notes that previous paragraph in the risk assessment seems to indicate the older dataset was used for the risk assessment. If it is the older data that includes activities inconsistent with best practices, NAAA recommends redoing the analysis with the newer data since future labels will have instructions on the best practices for handling and using WSP. Furthermore, while NAAA recognizes that water soluble packets are an engineering control, NAAA wonders if EPA considered the use of PPE in these risk assessments in order to reduce the risks of concern.

EPA Response

HED endeavors to use the most current data to assess exposure and risk for occupational pesticide handlers. The WSP data set included in the fenbutatin-oxide addendum memo is the newest data set that was used by HED.  See the Fenbutatin-Oxide.  Addendum Registration Review Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the Preliminary Interim Decision (D457731) for the updated aggregate risk indices (ARIs).

Comments from USDA, November 21, 2019 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0841-0032):

USDA Comment

USDA discusses how, for applications with backpacks and mechanically pressurized handguns, EPA's default assumptions on volume of spray applied per work day may be significant over-estimates of exposure relative to actual usage of fenbutatin oxide. It is USDA's understanding that the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force (AHETF) completed a new survey on pesticide use of hand-held equipment in U.S. greenhouse and nursery facilities, and that this report was submitted to EPA (Thompson, 2019). USDA stated that default assumptions of 1000 gal/day of material handled for handgun application is approximately 2.5 times higher than even the 95th percentile of typical values. USDA requested that EPA account for this and other potential refinements when developing additional risk characterization and crafting a risk management plan for nursery and ornamental uses of fenbutatin oxide.

EPA Response

Based on recent updates to the Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table  -  Revised in March 2020, HED completed a revised occupational handler assessment for fenbutatin-oxide for all registered uses.  See the Fenbutatin-Oxide.  Addendum Registration Review Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the Preliminary Interim Decision (D457731) for the updated aggregate risk indices (ARIs).   The "gallons handled" values for Handguns in Greenhouses was revised from 1000 to 175 gallons per day and Nurseries from 1000 to 300 gallons per day; Backpacks and Manually pressurized handwands in Greenhouses was revised from 40 gallons to 7 gallons and Nurseries was revised from 40 gallons to 15 gallons per day based on AHETF survey.

USDA Comment

For post-application risks driven by hand harvesting, particularly for crops where fenbutatin-oxide usage remains important, USDA suggested that consideration of some revisions of pre-harvest intervals may be more workable for growers than proposing extended re-entry intervals for hand-harvesting activities. USDA states that it understands that pre-harvest intervals are generally driven by dietary/tolerance/residue chemistry considerations, marginally extending PHIs could have the practical impact of reducing worker exposure to residues from hand-harvesting. USDA states that PHI extensions could also reduce confusion among users that is driven by situations where field re-entry intervals are longer than pre-harvest intervals. USDA states that PHI extensions would also obviate the need for growers to post re-entry intervals for every field and would still accomplish the same practical and directionally-correct risk-reduction goals.

EPA Response

The recommended revision of the fenbutatin-oxide restricted entry intervals (REIs) instead of extended Pre-Harvest Intervals (PHIs) are based on several considerations. First, a variety of physical, chemical, and biological factors determine the nature of pesticide residue transformation, dislodgeability, and dissipation in treated fields. These factors include volatilization or evaporation, hydrolysis, oxidation, photolysis, and biodegradation. The relative importance of these mechanisms is dependent on the pesticide's structure and other factors such as site-specific weather conditions in crop growing areas. For some pesticides, one degradation mechanism will predominate, such as hydrolysis or photolysis. For other pesticides, all of the above factors can influence their rate of dissipation and environmental transformation. Dissipation may also be influenced by leaf expansion and plant growth, particularly during the early phases of plant development. Second, EPA conducts post-application exposure and risk assessments assuming the workers are wearing "typical" work clothing  -  long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks. Additional PPE is not considered in these assessments because, under the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides, post-application workers do not receive training in the correct use or maintenance of personal protective equipment that can be used to reduce pesticide exposures. Finally, for fenbutatin-oxide specifically, multiple activities across use sites (not just hand-harvesting) were identified as having post-application risk well beyond the current label-specified REI of two days, which negates the utility of using the PHI to address worker risk from field re-entry. Based on these considerations, HED identified REI extensions instead of PHI extensions as the focal point for risk managers to consider in addressing post-application worker risk.


Monitoring Cost/Benefit Analysis Tool Case Study

I.	Introduction

	The Monitoring Cost/Benefit Analysis Tool was developed to assess the costs and benefits associated with various approaches to monitoring emission units included in new or revised EPA air regulations.  For example, these approaches may range from periodic visible emission inspections, continuous monitoring of the pressure drop on a baghouse, or continuous particulate matter (PM) emissions monitoring from a stack.

	Currently, monitoring costs for a rule are typically calculated together with reporting and recordkeeping costs.  The tool will be used to calculate monitoring costs and benefits separately from reporting and recordkeeping costs for a rule.  It allows users to compare periodic, parametric, and continuous monitoring cost scenarios for selected pollutant and control strategy combinations.  The tool can also calculate benefits due to reduced ill health effects, improved compliance rates, and improved information on the effectiveness of a rule.

	This case study provides a cost/benefit analysis of implementing continuous emissions monitoring as part of a proposed area source rule for cement kilns.  For the purposes of this case study, we evaluated the costs and benefits (reduction in excess emissions) of implementing continuous emissions monitoring on particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOX).  The following sections present the methodology, cost comparison, and benefits results.

II.	Methodology

	Emissions data were obtained from EPA for cement kilns.  Table 1 summarizes these emissions and other parameters of the case study.  We assumed that PM2.5 comprised 45% of total PM emissions.  For the purpose of this case study, it was assumed that an 83% reduction in total PM emissions (and a 75% reduction in PM2.5 emissions) would be achieved by installing either reverse-air fabric filters on affected emission units (kilns and clinker coolers).  Likewise, a 95% reduction in SO2 would be seen by installing a wet scrubber, and a 40% reduction in NOX would be seen by installing Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) technology on kilns.

Table 1.  Parameters for Estimating Costs and Benefits of Continuous Emissions Monitoring on Cement Kilns

Pollutant	No. Kilns	Control Technology	Uncontrolled Emissions per kiln (tpy)	Emission Reductions per kiln (tpy)	Controlled Emissions per kiln (tpy)	Emissions Monitoring Option

PM	20	Reverse Air FF	300	249	52	Bag Leak Detector (1 sensor)

	20	Reverse Air FF	300	249	52	Bag Leak Detector (1 sensor)

PM2.5	20	Reverse Air FF	135	112	23	Bag Leak Detector (1 sensor)

	20	Reverse Air FF	135	112	23	Bag Leak Detector (1 sensor)

NOX	20	SNCR	1500	600	900	NOX CEMS

SO2	4	Wet Scrubber	7800	7410	390	SO2 CEMS

Cost Analysis

	 The cost function of the tool was used to evaluate costs for a model plant to install and operate continuous emissions monitoring technology on cement kiln controls.  All costs for continuous emissions monitoring of PM, SO2, and NOX were obtained from the CEMS Revised Cost Model (2007).  Costs for the model plant were applied to the facilities expected to be controlled.  Costs may be over- or under-estimated due to variability in plant size, modifications required to install control equipment on emission units, or whether other controls already exist.

Benefits Analysis

	Benefits were calculated using the emissions reductions expected from continuous emissions monitoring.  The methodology developed to calculate benefits for the CAM Regulatory Impacts Analysis was also used in the model.  Table 2 presents the parameters and equations used to calculate benefits.

Equations

	Em = Ec / (T * 60)

	Eu = (T * Te * 60) * Em * Ee

	Eu(CAM) = (T * Te(CAM) * 60) * Em * Ee

	ER = Eu - Eu(CAM)

	Ba = ER / CE

	Note: 60 is to convert hours to minutes

III.	Results

Tables 3 and 4 present a summary of the parameters, costs, and benefits calculated for all applicable sources.  Table 5 presents a cost breakdown of CEMS for an individual cement kiln.  Using the assumptions in Table 2, the emissions reduction benefits are 5.52 tpy for PM2.5 reductions, 12.38 tpy for PM reductions, 9.36 tpy for SO2 reductions, and 108 tpy for NOX reductions.  Cumulative annualized costs are $203,000 for PM and PM2.5 monitoring, $200,000 for SO2 monitoring, and $990,000 for NOX monitoring.  Note that while costs are borne by the facilities, benefits are realized by a larger population.  Any cost savings realized by individual facilities have not been calculated as part of this case study.Table 3.  Industry-wide Costs of Continuous Emissions Monitoring on Cement Kilns

Pollutant	Control Technology	Source Type	Monitoring	Number of Sources Total Initial Costs	Total Annualized Costs

PM	Reverse Air FF	Kiln	BLD CEMS (1 sensor)	20	$490,004	$203,265

 	Reverse Air FF	Clinker Cooler	BLD CEMS (1 sensor)	20	$490,004 $203,265

PM2.5	Reverse Air FF	Kiln	BLD CEMS (1 sensor)	20	$490,004	$203,265

 	Reverse Air FF	Kiln	BLD CEMS (1 sensor)	20	$490,004	$203,265

NOX	SNCR	Kiln	NOX CEMS	20	$2,969,912	$989,873

SO2	Wet Scrubber	Kiln	SO2 CEMS	4	$602,634	$200,031

Table 4.  Health & Environmental Benefits of Continuous Emissions Monitoring on Cement Kilns

	Individual Kiln

Pollutant	Control Technology	Monitoring	Controlled Emissions	Emission Reductions Due to Improved Monitoring	Number of Sources	Type Source Total Controlled Emissions	Emission Reductions Due to Improved Monitoring

PM	Reverse Air FF	BLD CEMS (1 sensor)	52	0.31	20	Kilns	1040	6.24

 	Reverse Air FF	BLD CEMS (1 sensor)	52	0.31	20	Clinker Coolers	1040 6.24

PM2.5	Reverse Air FF	BLD CEMS (1 sensor)	23.4	0.14	20	Kilns	468	2.76

 	Reverse Air FF	BLD CEMS (1 sensor)	23.4	0.14	20	Kilns	468	2.76

NOX	SNCR	NOX CEMS	900	2.34	20	Kilns	18000	108

SO2	Wet Scrubber	SO2 CEMS	390	5.4	20	Kilns	7800	9.36

.

Table 5.  Continuous Emission Monitoring Costs (1 facility)

	Parameter 	Description	NOX	BLD w/ 1 sensor	SO2

Planning	Engineering and managerial labor for reviewing the regulations, resolving questions, reviewing engineering drawings, and inspecting the source	$2,936.02	$753.31	$2,936.02

Equipment Selection and Purchase	Cost of equipment and labor associated with its purchase	$95,046.37	$18,415.59	$97,209.37

Install and Calibrate	Travel costs, fees, and labor to install and calibrate equipment	$18,076.14	$4,535.68	$18,076.14

Performance Test Audits	Performance test of the monitor conducted once every five years.	$10,104.60	$0.00	$10,104.60

QA/QC Plan	Labor associated with developing a QA/QC Plan	$22,332.45 $795.64	$22,332.45

 	Total Capital CEMS	$148,495.58	$24,500.22	$150,658.58

Operation and Maintenance	Labor costs associated with daily activities $9,132.75	$4,148.93	$9,132.75

RATA	Relative Accuracy Test Audit conducted annually	$8,143.80	$0.00 $8,143.80

Cylinder Gas Audits	EPA testing procedure to ensure the accuracy of CEMS data. Known concentrations of specified gases are passed through the CEMS unit and measurements over a period of time are taken and averaged. 	$2,718.55	$0.00	$2,718.55

Recordkeeping and reporting	Annual costs of recordkeeping and reporting  $4,441.05	$235.77	$4,441.05

Annual QA Reviews and Update	Labor associated with annual quality assurance reviews	$3,911.74	$2,289.71	$4,117.74

Capital Recovery	Equipment and calibration costs calculated at a set interest rate over five years.  Factor is .09 for Continuous Monitoring and .24 for Periodic Monitoring	$21,145.77	$3,488.83	$21,453.78

 	CEMS Total Annual	$49,493.66	$10,163.24	$50,007.68

 Email communication with Jeffrey Cole, April 21, 2008.

 DRAFT Regulatory Impact Analysis For Revisions To Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Regulation.  September 6, 2007.

	May 30, 2008

 PAGE

 PAGE   7

	May 30, 2008

DRAFT	April 25, 2008

		May 30, 2008


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46549-46552]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18538]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0548; FRL--9842-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: State
Board Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Idaho for parallel processing
on July 16, 2013, for purposes of meeting the state board requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is also proposing to approve the
submittal as meeting the corresponding state board infrastructure
requirements of the CAA for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS). If the final SIP revision submitted by the State to
the EPA is consistent with the July 16, 2013, submittal, the State's
SIP will, upon final approval, contain the required provisions
regarding board composition and disclosure of potential conflicts of
interest.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0548, by any of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office
of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0548. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The State's Submittal
III. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. Evaluation of Board Composition Requirements
    B. Evaluation of Disclosure Requirements
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    CAA section 128, titled ``State Boards,'' requires each SIP ``to
contain requirements that (1) any board or body which approves permits
or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority
of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any
significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders under this chapter, and (2) any potential conflicts
of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an
executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.'' 42
U.S.C. 7428.
    On July 18, 1997, the EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone.\1\ This
action triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure
SIP to address the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)
within three years of issuance of the new or revised NAAQS. CAA section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that each such plan
submittal must meet, including section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which requires
compliance with the state board requirements of CAA section 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The eight-hour averaging period replaced the previous one-
hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from
0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a finding that the State of Idaho had
failed to make a complete submittal to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (73 FR 16205). On September
15, 2008, the State of Idaho made a SIP submittal to the EPA for
purposes of meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS. On April 11, 2012, we proposed to approve the Idaho
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 21702). In the notice, we stated that
Idaho's SIP submission did not address all of the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which requires that infrastructure SIPs meet
the requirements of CAA section 128, and that we would address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) in a separate action (77
FR at 21710). On July 17, 2012, we took final action to approve the
Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M)
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 41916).

II. The State's Submittal

    On July 16, 2013, the State submitted a SIP revision \2\ for
purposes of meeting the state board requirements of CAA section 128 and
the corresponding state board infrastructure SIP requirements for the
1997 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the State submitted Executive Order
2013-06, dated June 26, 2013, and Idaho Code Sec. Sec.  59-701 through
705, Ethics in Government Act, and requested parallel processing on the
submittal. Under the parallel processing procedure, a State submits a
SIP revision to the EPA before final adoption by the State. The EPA
reviews this proposed State action and prepares a notice of proposed
rulemaking. The EPA publishes its notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register and solicits public comment in approximately the same
time frame during which the State is completing its rulemaking action.
For Idaho's SIP submittal, the State provided a schedule for finalizing
the SIP revision, including public review and submittal of the final
SIP package to the EPA. If changes are made to the SIP revision after
this proposal, such changes will be

described in the EPA's final rulemaking action and, if such changes are
significant, the EPA may re-propose the action and provide an
additional public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The letter accompanying the submittal was dated July 9,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are proposing to approve the July 16, 2013,
submittal as meeting the requirements of CAA section 128 and CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, if the final SIP
revision submitted by the State to the EPA is consistent with the July
16, 2013, submittal. The EPA's proposed determination that Idaho's SIP,
as amended, meets the CAA section 128 requirements for purposes of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS is also
applicable to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for other
infrastructure SIP submittals for Idaho. Our evaluation of the State's
submittal is presented below.

III. The EPA's Evaluation

A. Evaluation of Board Composition Requirements

    Idaho Code Sec.  39-107, Board--Composition--Officers--
Compensation--Powers--Subpoena--Depositions--Review, was originally
approved into the Idaho SIP on July 28, 1982 (47 FR 32530), and
subsequently approved on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). Idaho Code
Sec.  39-107(1)(a) establishes compositional requirements of the Idaho
Board of Environmental Quality (Board), namely, that it consist of
seven members who shall be appointed by the governor and further that:

    Each member of the board shall be a citizen of the United
States, a resident of the state of Idaho, and a qualified elector,
and shall be appointed to assure appropriate geographic
representation of the state of Idaho. No more than four (4) members
of the board shall be from any one (1) political party. Two (2)
members of the board shall be chosen with due regard to their
knowledge of and interest in solid waste; two (2) members shall be
chosen for their knowledge of and interest in air quality; two (2)
members shall be chosen for their knowledge of and interest in water
quality; and one (1) member shall be chosen with due regard for his
knowledge of and interest in air, water and solid waste issues.

    To meet the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1), Idaho has
submitted Executive Order 2013-06, dated June 26, 2013, which orders
that ``the appointment of members to the Idaho board of environmental
quality shall be made in conformance with the requirements of Idaho
Code section 39-107(1)(a), and section 128 of the Clean Air Act.'' The
EPA believes that Executive Order 2013-06 meets the requirements of CAA
section 128(a)(1). Thus, if the final SIP revision submitted by Idaho
is consistent with the July 16, 2013, submittal, the EPA proposes to
find that Idaho's SIP revision meets the requirements of that CAA
section 128(a)(1) and the corresponding board infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA notes, however, that as provided in Idaho Code Sec.  67-
802, executive orders in Idaho cease to be effective four calendar
years from the date of issuance unless an earlier termination date is
specified in the order or unless the order is renewed by subsequent
executive order. Because Executive Order 2013-06 does not specify an
earlier termination date, it will expire on June 26, 2017, unless it is
renewed by subsequent executive order. The EPA therefore notes that if
Executive Order 2013-06 is not renewed, or if it is not replaced with
legislation or some other legal authority meeting the requirements of
CAA section 128(a)(1) and submitted to and approved by EPA as a SIP
revision, Idaho's SIP will no longer meet the requirements of CAA
section 128(a)(1). At that time, the EPA will consider appropriate
action.

B. Evaluation of Disclosure Requirements

    The July 16, 2013, submittal also includes the Idaho statutes
governing disclosure of conflicts of interest for public officials,
specifically, Idaho Code Sec. Sec.  59-701 through 59-705, Ethics in
Government. Idaho Code Sec.  59-704 is the heart of these disclosure
provisions and establishes required action in the case of conflicts of
interest. That section provides that ``A public official shall not take
any official action or make a formal decision or formal recommendation
concerning any matter where he has a conflict of interest and has
failed to disclose such conflict as provided in this section.'' Under
Idaho Code Sec.  59-703(10), ``public official'' is defined to include
``any person holding public office of a governmental entity by virtue
of formal appointment as required by law'' and ``any person holding
public office of a governmental entity by virtue of employment, or a
person employed by a governmental entity on a consultive basis.'' Thus,
the disclosure requirements in Idaho Code Sec.  59-704 apply to Board
members and the Director of the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ). In conjunction with the definition of ``official
action'' in Idaho Code Sec.  59-703(1), the EPA believes that Idaho
Code Sec.  59-704 requires the disclosure of conflicts of interest by a
member of the Board or the Director of the IDEQ in their approvals of
permits and enforcement orders and is thus consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 128(a)(2). Therefore, if the final SIP
revision submitted by Idaho is consistent with the July 16, 2013,
submittal, the EPA proposes to approve Idaho's final SIP revision as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(2) and the corresponding
board infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to CAA sections 110 and 128, if the final SIP revision
submitted by Idaho to address the requirements of CAA section 128 is
consistent with Idaho's July 16, 2013, submittal, the EPA is proposing
to approve Idaho's SIP revision as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 128 and also the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This approval, once finalized, would also
serve as a determination that Idaho meets the CAA section 128
requirements for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for other
infrastructure SIP submittals for Idaho.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 25, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-18538 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9376-9377]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2004-19608]
RIN 2126-AB26

Hours of Service

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public listening session.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it will hold a fifth public listening
session (in addition to the four sessions held in January 2010) to
solicit comments and information on potential hours-of-service (HOS)
regulations. Specifically, the Agency wants to know what factors,
issues, and data it should be aware of as it prepares to issue a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on HOS requirements for property-carrying
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. This session will be held in
the Louisville, Kentucky area in conjunction with the Mid-America
Trucking Show. The listening session will allow interested persons to
present comments, views, and relevant research on revisions FMCSA
should consider in its forthcoming rulemaking. All comments will be
transcribed and placed in the rulemaking docket for the FMCSA's
consideration.

DATES: This listening session will be held on Friday, March 26, 2010,
in Louisville, Kentucky. It will begin at 10 a.m. local time and end at
6 p.m., or earlier, if all participants wishing to express their views
have done so.

ADDRESSES: The listening session will be held at the Mid-America
Trucking Show at the Kentucky Exposition Center, South Wing Room B101,
937 Phillips Lane, Louisville, Kentucky 40209-1331. The Kentucky
Exposition Center may be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER> for directions.
Each person attending may attend the trucking show and the listening
session free of charge, if they pre-register online with the Mid-
America Trucking Show organizer at http://truckingshow.com/attendee/attendee-registration. Attendees pre-registering must print out their
confirmation page after registering and present it at the Kentucky
Exposition Center door to be admitted free. Otherwise, admission to the
trucking show on March 26 will be $5.00.
    You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2004-19608 using any of the following
methods.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the hours-
of-service rules, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier
Operations

Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For sign language interpretation services, contact the Regulatory
Development Division at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by March
17, 2010, to allow us to arrange for such services. There is no
guarantee that interpreter services requested on short notice can be
provided.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 26, 2009, Public Citizen, et al. (Petitioners) and FMCSA
entered into a settlement agreement under which the parties agreed to
seek to hold Petitioners' petition for judicial review of the November
19, 2008 Final Rule on drivers' hours of service in abeyance pending
the publication of an NPRM. The settlement agreement states that FMCSA
will submit the draft NPRM to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
within nine months, and publish a Final Rule within 21 months, of the
date of the settlement agreement. The current rule will remain in
effect during the rulemaking proceedings.
    On January 5, 2010, FMCSA announced its plans to hold three public
listening sessions concerning the HOS rulemaking (75 FR 285). On
January 15, 2010, FMCSA announced its plans to hold a fourth public
listening session (75 FR 2467). FMCSA now announces a fifth public
listening session to solicit additional written and/or oral comments
and information on potential revisions to the HOS rule. The Agency will
provide further opportunity for public comment when the NPRM is
published.

II. Meeting Participation

    This listening session is open to the public. Speakers' remarks
will be limited to 10 minutes each. The public may submit material to
the FMCSA staff at each session for inclusion in the public docket,
FMCSA-2004-19608.

III. Questions for Discussion During the Listening Sessions

    In preparing their comments, meeting participants should consider
the following questions about possible alternatives to the current HOS
requirements. These scenarios are merely set forth for discussion;
FMCSA will not necessarily include them in an NPRM but would request
similar information and data in an NPRM. Answers to these questions
should be based upon the experience of the participants and any data or
information they can share with FMCSA.

A. Rest and On-Duty Time

    1. Would mandatory short rest periods during the work day improve
driver alertness in the operation of a CMV? How long should these rest
periods be? At what point in the duty cycle or drive-time would short
rest periods provide the greatest benefit? What are the unintended
consequences if these short rest periods are mandatory? Should the on-
duty period be extended to allow for mandatory rest periods?
    2. If rest or other breaks from driving improve alertness, could a
driver who chooses to take specified minimum breaks be given scheduling
flexibility--the ability to borrow an hour from another driving day
once a week, for example--if that flexibility would not increase safety
risks or adversely impact driver health?
    3. How many hours per day and per week would be safe and healthy
for a truck driver to work?
    4. Would an hours-of-service rule that allows drivers to drive an
hour less when driving overnight improve driver alertness and improve
safety? Are there any adverse consequences that could arise from the
implementation of a separate nighttime hours-of-service regulation?

B. Restart to the 60- and 70-Hour Rule

    1. Is a 34-consecutive-hour off-duty period long enough to provide
restorative sleep regardless of the number of hours worked prior to the
restart? Is the answer different for a driver working a night or
irregular schedule?
    2. What would be the impact of mandating two overnight off-duty
periods, e.g., from midnight to 6 a.m., as a component of a restart
period? Would such a rule present additional enforcement challenges?
    3. How is the current restart provision being used by drivers? Do
drivers restart their calculations after 34 consecutive hours or do
drivers take longer periods of time for the restart?

C. Sleeper Berth Use

    1. If sleeper-berth time were split into two periods, what is the
minimum time in each period necessary to provide restorative sleep?
    2. Could the 14-hour on-duty limitation be extended by the amount
of some additional sleeper-berth time without detrimental effect on
highway safety? What would be the appropriate length of such a limited
sleeper-berth rest period?

D. Loading and Unloading Time

    1. What effect has the fixed 14-hour driving ``window'' had on the
time drivers spend waiting to load or unload? Have shippers and
receivers changed their practices to reduce the amount of time drivers
spend waiting to load or unload?

E. General

    1. Are there aspects of the current rule that do not increase
safety risks or adversely impact driver health and that should be
preserved?

    Issued on: February 24, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-4293 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36502-36503]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1052-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: EQT temporary release to Range to be effective 6/16/
2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1053-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Revised Formula-Based Negotiated Rates Effective 3-1-
2014 to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1054-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Neg Rate 2014-06-18 A&R NC BP to be effective 6/19/
2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.

    Accession Number: 20140618-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/14.

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

    Dated: June 19, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15067 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


species stage year impinged. est entrained. est notes comments junk junk  99  99  99 junk junk herring. spp larvae 1978 0 2121700 # 21949, table 4 page 20 common. carp larvae 1978 0 4770600 # 21949, table 4 page 20 minnow. spp larvae 1978 0 111249300 # 21949, table 4 page 20 sucker. spp larvae 1978 0 183400 # 21949, table 4 page 20 catfish. spp larvae 1978 0 82400 # 21949, table 4 page 20 white. bass larvae 1978 0 82400 # 21949, table 4 page 20 yellow. perch larvae 1978 0 481100 # 21949, table 4 page 20 sauger. walleye larvae 1978 0 478200 # 21949, table 4 page 20 percid. spp larvae 1978 0 147000 # 21949, table 4 page 20 unidentified larvae 1978 0 61622200 # 21949, table 4 page 20 unidentified egg 1978 0 983500 # 21949, table 4 page 20 gizzard. shad age01 1978 8140 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 northern. pike age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 goldfish age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 common. carp age01 1978 65 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 silver. chub age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 golden. shiner age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 emerald. shiner age01 1978 1786 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 mimic. shiner age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 bluntnose. minnow age01 1978 49 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 minnow. spp age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 quillback age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 white. sucker age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 northern. hog. sucker age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 silver. redhorse age01 1978 82 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 golden. redhorse age01 1978 82 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 redhorse. spp age01 1978 24 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 sucker. spp age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 white. catfish age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 yellow. bullhead age01 1978 24 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 brown. bullhead age01 1978 41 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 channel. catfish age01 1978 726 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 catfish. spp age01 1978 24 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 flathead. catfish age01 1978 33 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 troutperch age01 1978 33 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 white. bass age01 1978 163 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 temperate. bass. spp age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 rock. bass age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 green. sunfish age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 pumpkinseed age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 bluegill age01 1978 269 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 longear. sunfish age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 lepomis. sunfish age01 1978 33 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 spotted. bass age01 1978 49 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 largemouth. bass age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 sunfish. micropterus age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 white. crappie age01 1978 302 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 black. crappie age01 1978 24 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 centrarchidae. sunfish age01 1978 24 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 yellow. perch age01 1978 16 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 logperch age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 darter. spp age01 1978 8 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 sauger age01 1978 65 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 freshwater. drum age01 1978 237 0 see ohio. db, kammer imp. worksheet, Based on annual total estimate of 12,520 Worksheet Description losses01 Reported impingement & entrainment losses at Kammer Assumed age01 for all spp. for impingement.

Data QC for tables in this file done by Michelle Barron, August 2001, and AGRET Sept. 2001 Impingement and entrainment losses for Kammer Power Plant Workbook compiled for use in fish impingement/ entainment loss model. Amy Beaulieu, 6/ 13/ 01; AGRET 09/ 03/ 01


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22537-22538]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-409-000; PF17-1-000]

DTE Midstream Appalachia, LLC; Notice of Application for
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

    Take notice that on May 1, 2017, DTE Midstream Appalachia, LLC (DTE
Midstream), 333 Technology Drive, Suite 255, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania
15317, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an
abbreviated application under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act
requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
authorizing DTE Midstream to construct, install, own, operate and
maintain a new interstate natural gas pipeline known as the Birdsboro
Pipeline Project. DTE Midstream requests issuance of blanket
certificates Pursuant to Part 284, Subpart G and Part 157, Subpart F of
the Commission's regulations.
    The project will have an initial design capacity of 79,000
Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) and will transport natural gas from a single
receipt point at an interconnection with a Texas Eastern Transmission
LP (Texas Eastern) interstate pipeline to a single delivery point at a
new gas-fired generating facility (Birdsboro Facility), all in Berks
County, Pennsylvania. DTE Midstream proposes initial recourse rates and
requests approval of its pro forma Tariff as well as approval of
certain non-conforming terms in the proposed negotiated rate agreement,
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the
last three digits in the docket number field to access the document.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Questions regarding this application may be directed to Kenneth
Magyar, DTE Midstream Appalachia, LLC, 333 Technology Drive, Suite 255,
Canonsburg, PA 15317; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, DTE Midstream proposes 13.19 miles of 12-inch
diameter pipeline; installation of a new pig receiver at the Birdsboro
Facility; installation of one new meter site adjacent to the Texas
Eastern right-of-way, one new pig launcher at the Texas Eastern
interconnect; two new taps on the Texas Eastern pipeline; and four
valves along the pipeline route spaced to meet the requirements of the
U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration. DTE Midstream requests Commission issue the
requested authorizations by December 15, 2017, in order to meet the
June 30, 2018, proposed in-service date. The total cost of the Project
is estimated to be approximately $47,276,982.
    On October 28, 2016, the Commission granted DTE Midstream's request
to utilize the Commission's Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket
Number PF17-1-000 to staff activities involved in the above referenced
project. Now, as of the filing of the May 1, 2017 application, the Pre-
Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this
proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP17-409-000, as noted in
the caption of this Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 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 NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    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 original and five 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 May 30, 2017.

    Dated: May 9, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09805 Filed 5-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12125-12127]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03971]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68928; File No. SR-ICC-2013-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Update Chapter 26 and Remove Schedule
502 of the ICE Clear Credit Rules

February 14, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 31, 2013, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to update Chapter 26
(Cleared CDS Products) of the ICC Rules and remove Schedule 502 (List
of Pre-Approved Products) from the ICC Rules. The proposed rule change
also includes a conforming edit within Chapter 5 (Risk Committee) of
the ICC Rules. This update will provide direct reference within the ICC
Rules to the cleared products list always available on the ICC Web site
(``Approved Products List'') and add additional standards for certain
ICC cleared products. ICC notes that rule submissions for updates to
ICC's cleared product offering will be required under certain
circumstances (e.g., certain financial single names, additional single-
name constituents of the Emerging Markets Index, and High Yield single
names).

    ICC proposes to amend Chapter 26 of its rules to update the
definitions of Eligible CDX.NA Untranched Index (Rule 26A-102),
Eligible SNAC Reference Entities (Rule 26B-102), Eligible SNAC
Reference Obligations (Rule 26B-102), Eligible CDX.EM Untranched Index
(Rule 26C-102), Eligible SES Reference Entities (Rule 26D-102) and
Eligible SES Reference Obligations (Rule 26D-102) to include the
requirement that the products must be determined by ICC to be eligible.
    ICC proposes to amend Chapter 26 of its rules to update the
definitions of List of Eligible CDX.NA Untranched Indexes (Rule 26A-
102), List of Eligible SNAC Reference Entities (Rule 26B-102), List of
Eligible CDX.EM Untranched Indexes (Rule 26C-102) and List of Eligible
SES Reference Entities (Rule 26D-102) to include the reference that the
Approved Products List will be maintained, updated and published on the
ICC Web site.
    ICC proposes to amend Chapter 26 of its rules to add the definition
of Eligible SNAC Sector in Rule 26B-102 of the ICC Rules. The listed
Eligible SNAC Sectors are: Basic Materials, Consumer Goods, Consumer
Services, Energy, Financials, Healthcare, Industrials, Technology,
Telecommunications Services, and Utilities. The requirement to list the
Eligible SNAC Sector on the List of Eligible SNAC Reference Entities is
also added to the definition of List of Eligible SNAC Reference
Entities in Rule 26B-102.
    ICC proposes to amend Chapter 26 of its rules to include within the
definition of List of Eligible SES Reference Entities in Rule 26D-102
the requirement to list the Sector, Government, in the List of Eligible
SES Reference Entities.
    ICC proposes to remove Schedule 502 from the ICC Rules as Schedule
502 provides information available in the Approved Products List on the
ICC Web site. The Approved Products List provides the information
currently available in Schedule 502 as well as all additional product
information listed in the definitions of List of Eligible CDX.NA
Untranched Indexes (Rule 26A-102), List of Eligible SNAC Reference
Entities (Rule 26B-102), List of Eligible CDX.EM Untranched Indexes
(Rule 26C-102) and List of Eligible SES Reference Entities (Rule 26D-
102).
    ICC proposes to make one conforming amendment to Chapter 5 of its
rules, specifically Rule 502(a), to change a reference to Schedule 502
of the ICC Rules to reference the Approved Products List on the ICC Web
site.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed changes to the ICC Rules will provide direct reference
within the ICC Rules to the cleared products list available on the ICC
Web site and add additional standards for certain ICC cleared products.
The proposed rule changes do not require any changes to the ICC risk
management framework including the ICC margin methodology, guaranty
fund methodology, pricing parameters and pricing model.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions. ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F),\4\
because ICC believes that providing direct reference within the ICC
Rules to the Approved Products List available on the ICC Web site and
adding additional standards for certain ICC cleared products will
facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of swaps and contribute
to the safeguarding of securities and funds associated with swap
transactions which are in the custody or control of ICC or for which it
is responsible. ICC is updating Chapters 5 and 26 and Schedule 502 of
the ICC Rules to provide direct reference to the Approved Products List
available on the ICC Web site and to add additional standards for
certain ICC cleared products in order to assure Clearing Participants
are informed of the ICC approved products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2013-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2013-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site
at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/regulatory_filings/ICEClearCredit_20130131.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2013-01
and should be submitted on or before March 14, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03971 Filed 2-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6181-6182]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4630-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Kentucky; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4630-DR), dated
December 12, 2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued December 12, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated December 12, 2021, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky resulting from severe storms, straight-line
winds, flooding, and tornadoes

beginning on December 10, 2021, and continuing, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation
throughout the Commonwealth, and any other forms of assistance under
the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of
Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, John Brogan, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Caldwell, Fulton, Graves, Hopkins, Marshall, Muhlenberg, Taylor,
and Warren Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Caldwell, Fulton, Graves, Hopkins, Marshall, Muhlenberg, Taylor,
and Warren Counties for debris removal and emergency protective
measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program.
    All areas within the Commonwealth of Kentucky are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02232 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


U.S. EPA MONTREAL PROTOCOL AWARDS NOMINATION FORM

Introduction

The Stratospheric Protection Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations for the U.S. EPA Montreal Protocol Awards. This award program was established in 1990 to recognize outstanding contributions to the protection of the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer.

Background & Organization

Since 1990, over 500 awards have been presented to outstanding individuals and teams, dedicated companies, forward-thinking organizations, and visionary government institutions from 54 countries. Awards are particularly prestigious because nominees compete globally against the accomplishments of many other potential awardees, and recipients are selected by previous awardees and EPA.

EPA seeks nominations for the following accomplishments: originality and public purpose; leadership and corporate responsibility; global perspective and implication; actual elimination of ozone-depleting substance emissions; success in eliminating substances that deplete the ozone layer and contribute to climate change or in transitioning to alternatives with reduced environmental impact; or leadership in improving awareness of the harmful health effects of overexposure to UV radiation. Award recipients are leading by example. Their demonstrated commitment and extraordinary contributions inspire other individuals and organizations to make a difference in protecting the environment and public health. Their significant contributions help mitigate the health and environmental risks of ozone depletion, which include skin cancer, suppression of the immune system, cataracts, and damage to marine life and crops, as well as the health and environmental risks of climate change, which include air quality problems and damage to agricultural crops.

Awards Panel & Selection of Award Recipients

EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program consults an international panel of judges about the nominations. The judges represent government, industry, and non-governmental organizations.  EPA makes the final selections.

Instructions

All nominations must include an official cover letter from the nominator, a completed application form, and a one-page summary of accomplishments. Electronic submissions are preferred. Because the judges will not be able to conduct on-site visits, applicants are encouraged to submit supporting materials such as photographs, videos, technical descriptions, news clippings, and press releases. Please note that all submissions are final, and the application and supporting materials will not be returned.

Nominations must be mailed, faxed or e-mailed no later than December 31.

E-Mail (preferred<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Regular Mail:

U.S. EPA Montreal Protocol Awards

Attn: Kristinn Vazquez

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6205J)

Washington, D.C. 20460, USA

Express Delivery (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.)

U.S. EPA Montreal Protocol Awards

Attn: Kristinn Vazquez

Stratospheric Protection Division

1310 L Street, NW, Room 1032

Washington, D.C. 20005, USA

Questions?

For more information, visit:   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ozone/awards/"  www.epa.gov/ozone/awards/

or contact Kristinn Vazquez at 1<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at <EMAIL_ADDRESS>The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.5 hours per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the completed form to this address.

U.S. Environmental protection agency montreal protocol Award nOMINATION

Award Category

  FORMCHECKBOX   Individual  	  FORMCHECKBOX   Organization/Association/Group  	  FORMCHECKBOX   Corporate 	  FORMCHECKBOX   Government	  FORMCHECKBOX   Team

Title of project or activity

(if applicable)

	Approximate date project began

(if applicable)

	Project status:

(if applicable)	  FORMCHECKBOX   Ongoing	  FORMCHECKBOX   Complete

Information about the nominee

Name of award nominee

(primary contact; include other names and info as well)

	Address	(if company or organization, use headquarters address)

City

State/

Province

ZIP/Postal Code

	Country

	Phone

E-mail

	Contact (if nominee is an organization)

	Contact phone

Contact

e-mail

information about nominator

Nominated by:

Affiliation

	Address

	City

State/

Province

ZIP/Postal

Code

	Country

	Phone

E-mail

References

Please identify two independent experts who can verify the accomplishment(s) of the person or organization nominated for the award.

Name

Affiliation

	E-mail

Phone

	Address

	Name

Affiliation

	E-mail

Phone

	Address

Summary of Accomplishments

Please summarize the nominee’s accomplishment in the space below, or attach a one-page summary (no longer than 600 words).

Signature of Nominator

I certify that my answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.

Signature

Date

	Please note- no signature necessary if form sent electronically from nominator’s e-mail account.

Eligibility

Candidates may be from anywhere in the world.

Individuals and organizations may work for the public or private sector.

Candidates may be either self-nominated or nominated by a third party.

nOMINATION Process

Nominations should include a standard nomination form, a cover letter from the nominating individual/organization, a one-page summary of the candidate’s accomplishments, and supporting materials.

Selection Criteria

Award recipients must demonstrate one or more of the following criteria:

originality and public purpose;

leadership and corporate responsibility;

global perspective and implication;

success in eliminating substances that deplete the ozone layer and contribute to climate change or in transitioning to alternatives with reduced environmental impact; or

leadership in improving awareness of the harmful health effects of overexposure to UV radiation.

Actual (as opposed to anticipated) results/reductions are preferred.

Judging Process

Nominations will be screened by a panel of judges selected for their expertise.  Past awardees also serve on the judging panel.  EPA makes the final selection of award recipients.

Presentation of Awards

Award recipients will be announced at the annual Awards Ceremony in the fall at a location to be determined.

Recipient Benefits

Past recipients of the Award have noted their appreciation of the benefits that accompany this award. Those selected can expect to enjoy: the honor of receiving this prestigious, international environmental award; increased name recognition; improved employee morale; and personal satisfaction and affirmation of having made a real difference.

	OMB Control Number: 2060-NEW

Expiration Date: 6/30/13

EPA Form # xxxx-xxx, Revised 06/10