[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55267-55272]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20631]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0565; FRL-9932-84-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Nebraska; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of Nebraska in a letter dated March 30,
2015. This SIP revision provides Nebraska's state-determined allowance
allocations for existing electric generating units (EGUs) in the State
for the 2016 control periods and replaces the allowance allocations for
the 2016 control periods established by

EPA under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR
addresses the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) that requires states to reduce the transport of pollution that
significantly affects downwind air quality. In this final action EPA is
approving Nebraska's SIP revision, incorporating the state-determined
allocations for the 2016 control periods into the SIP, and amending the
regulatory text of the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to
reflect this approval and inclusion of the state-determined
allocations. EPA is taking direct final action to approve Nebraska's
SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the CAA and the CSAPR
requirements to replace EPA's allowance allocations for the 2016
control periods. This action is being taken pursuant to the CAA and its
implementing regulations. EPA's allocations of CSAPR trading program
allowances for Nebraska for control periods in 2017 and beyond remain
in place until the State submits and EPA approves state-determined
allocations for those control periods through another SIP. The CSAPR
FIPs for Nebraska remain in place until such time as the State decides
to replace the FIPs with a SIP revision.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 26, 2015,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October
15, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0565, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2015-0565. 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. 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, 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. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to 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, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the 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
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding legal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. 2016 CSAPR SIPs
III. What is EPA's analysis of Nebraska's submission?
IV. Final Action

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the SIP
submitted by the State of Nebraska in a letter dated March 30, 2015,
that modifies the allocations of allowances established by EPA under
the CSAPR FIPs for existing EGUs for the 2016 control periods.\1\ The
CSAPR allows a subject state, instead of EPA, to allocate allowances
under the SO2 annual, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs to existing EGUs in the
State for the 2016 control periods provided that the state meets
certain regulatory requirements.\2\ EPA issued the CSAPR on August 8,
2011, to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements concerning
the interstate transport of air pollution and to replace the Clean Air
Interstate Rule \3\ (CAIR), which the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded to EPA for
replacement.\4\ EPA found that emissions of SO2 and
NOX in 28 eastern, midwestern, and southern states \5\
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in one or more downwind states with respect to one or more of three air
quality standards--the annual PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in
1997 \6\ (15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\)), the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated

in 2006 \7\ (35 [micro]g/m\3\), and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated
in 1997 \8\ (0.08 parts per million). The CSAPR identified emission
reduction responsibilities of upwind states, and also promulgated
enforceable FIPs to achieve the required emission reductions in each of
these states through cost effective and flexible requirements for power
plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals; August
8, 2011 (76 FR 48208).
    \2\ The CSAPR is implemented in two Phases (I and II) with Phase
I referring to 2015 and 2016 control periods, and Phase II
consisting of 2017 and beyond control periods.
    \3\ Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain
Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; May 12, 2005 (70
FR 25162).
    \4\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \5\ The CSAPR obligations related to ozone-season NOX
emissions for five states were established in a separate rule
referred to here as the Supplemental Rule. Federal Implementation
Plans for Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin and
Determination for Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport of Ozone;
December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80760).
    \6\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852).
    \7\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144).
    \8\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; July 18,
1997 (62 FR 38856).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nebraska is subject to the FIPs that implement the CSAPR and
require certain EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered federal
SO2 annual and NOX annual cap-and trade
programs.\9\ Nebraska's March 30, 2015, SIP revision allocates
allowances under the CSAPR to existing EGUs in the State for the 2016
control periods only. Nebraska's SIP revision includes state-determined
allocations for the CSAPR NOX annual and SO2
Group 2 annual trading programs, and complies with the 2016
NOX allocation and SO2 allocation SIP
requirements set forth at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39, respectively.
Pursuant to these regulations, a state may replace EPA's CSAPR
allowance allocations for existing EGUs for the 2016 control periods
provided that the state submits a timely SIP revision containing those
allocations to EPA that meets the requirements in 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit, issued an opinion
upholding CSAPR, but remanding without vacatur certain state
emissions budgets to EPA for reconsideration. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, slip op. CSAPR implementation
at this time remains unaffected by the court decision, and EPA will
address the remanded emissions budgets in a separate rulemaking.
Moreover, Nebraska's emissions budgets were not among those remanded
to EPA for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this action, EPA is approving Nebraska's March 30, 2015,
SIP revision, incorporating the allocations into the SIP, and amending
the CSAPR FIP's regulatory text for Nebraska at 40 CFR 52.1428 and
52.1429 to reflect this approval and inclusion of the state-determined
allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods. EPA's allocations
of CSAPR trading program allowances for Nebraska for control periods in
2017 and beyond remain in place until the State submits and EPA
approves state-determined allocations for those control periods through
another SIP revision. EPA is not making any other changes to the CSAPR
FIPs for Nebraska in this action. The CSAPR FIPs for Nebraska remain in
place until such time the State decides to replace the FIPs with a SIP
revision. EPA is taking direct final action to approve Nebraska's March
30, 2015, SIP submission because it complies with the CAA and the CSAPR
regulations. Below is a summary of the provisions allowing a state to
submit SIP revisions to EPA to modify the 2016 allowance allocations.
For more detailed information on the CSAPR, refer to the August 8,
2011, preamble and other subsequent related rulemakings referenced
throughout this rulemaking.

II. 2016 CSAPR SIPs

    The CSAPR allows states to determine allowance allocations for the
2016 control periods through submittal of a complete SIP revision that
is narrower in scope than an abbreviated or full SIP submission that
states may use to replace the FIPs and/or to determine allocations for
control periods in 2017 and beyond. Pursuant to the CSAPR, a state may
adopt and include in a SIP revision for the 2016 control period a list
of units and the amount of allowances allocated to each unit on the
list, provided the list of units and the allocations meet specific
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3) and (b)(3) for
NOX and 52.39(d) and (g) for SO2. If these
requirements are met, the Administrator will approve the allowance
allocation provisions as replacing the comparable provisions in 40 CFR
part 97 for the State. SIP revisions under this expedited process may
only allocate the amount of each state budget minus the new unit set-
aside and the Indian country new unit set-aside. For states subject to
multiple trading programs, options are available to submit 2016 state-
determined allocations for one or more of the applicable trading
programs while leaving unchanged the EPA-determined allocations for
2016 in the remaining applicable trading programs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ States can also submit SIP revisions to replace EPA-
determined, existing-unit allocations with state-determined
allocations for control periods after 2016 via a separate process
described at 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), and (b)(5) and
52.39(e), (f), (h), and (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing this procedure, EPA set deadlines for submitting the
SIP revisions for 2016 allocations and for recordation of the
allocations that balanced the need to record allowances sufficiently
ahead of the control periods with the desire to allow state flexibility
for 2016 control periods. These deadlines allow sufficient time for EPA
to review and approve these SIP revisions, taking into account that EPA
approval must be final and effective before the 2016 allocations can be
recorded and the allowances are available for trading. The CSAPR, as
revised, set a deadline of October 17, 2011 or March 6, 2015 (in the
case of allocations of ozone season NOX allowances for
states covered by the Supplemental Rule) for states to notify EPA of
their intent to submit these SIP revisions.\11\ See 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the five states (Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma,
and Wisconsin) covered in the Supplemental Rule in the case of ozone
season NOX, March 6, 2012, was originally the date by
which notifications of intentions to submit state allocations were
due to the Administrator, but that date was later delayed to March
6, 2015. See 76 FR 80760 and 79 FR 71671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twelve states, including Nebraska, notified EPA by the applicable
deadlines of their intentions to submit SIP revisions affecting 2016
allocations.\12\ Pursuant to EPA's December 3, 2014, Interim Final
Rule,\13\ the deadlines to submit these SIPs were delayed by three
years, making the deadline for these twelve states to submit a 2016
allocation SIP revision April 1, 2015, or October 1, 2015, (in the case
of allocations of ozone season NOX allowances for states
covered by the Supplemental Rule). Each state may submit a SIP to
allocate allowances for the 2016 control periods provided it meets the
following requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The docket for today's action contains Nebraska's October
17, 2011, letter notifying EPA of its intention to submit a SIP
revision with respect to allocations of both annual NOX
allowances and annual SO2 allowances.
    \13\ Rulemaking to Amend Dates in Federal Implementation Plans
Addressing Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine Particulate
Matter; December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Notify the EPA Administrator by October 17, 2011 or March
6, 2015 (in the case of allocations of ozone season NOX
allowances for states covered by the Supplemental Rule) of intent to
submit state allocations for the 2016 control periods in a format
specified by the Administrator. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(v)(A),
52.38(b)(3)(v)(A), 52.39(d)(5)(i), and 52.39(g)(5)(i).
     Submit to EPA the SIP revision modifying allowance
allocations for the 2016 control periods no later than April 1, 2015,
or October 1, 2015 (in the case of allocations of ozone season
NOX allowances for states covered by the Supplemental Rule).
See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(v)(B), 52.38(b)(3)(v)(B), 52.39(d)(5)(ii), and
52.39(g)(5)(ii).
     Provide 2016 state-determined allocations only for units
within the State that commenced commercial operation before January 1,
2010. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(i), 52.38(b)(3)(i), 52.39(d)(1), and
52.39(g)(1).
     Ensure that the sum of the state-determined allocations is
equal to or less than the amount of the total state budget for 2016
minus the sum of the

new unit set-aside and the Indian country new unit set-aside. See 40
CFR 52.38(a)(3)(ii), 52.38(b)(3)(ii), 52.39(d)(2), and 52.39(g)(2).
     Submit the list of units and the 2016 state-determined
allowance allocations as a SIP revision electronically to EPA in the
format specified by the Administrator. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(iii),
52.38(b)(3)(iii), 52.39(d)(3), and 52.39(g)(3).
     Confirm that the SIP revision does not provide for any
changes to the listed units or allocations after approval of the SIP
revision by EPA and does not provide for any change to any allocation
determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart AAAAA,
BBBBB, CCCCC, or DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(iv),
52.38(b)(3)(iv), 52.39(d)(4), and 52.39(g)(4).
    Additionally, these limited SIP revisions for the 2016 state-
determined allocations are required to comply with SIP completeness
elements set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (i.e., conduct
adequate public notice of the submission, provide evidence of legal
authority to adopt SIP revisions, and ensure that the SIP is submitted
to EPA by the State's Governor or his/her designee). If a state submits
to EPA a 2016 CSAPR SIP revision meeting all the above-described
requirements, including compliance with the applicable notification and
submission deadlines, and EPA approves the SIP submission by October 1,
2015 (or April 1, 2016, in the case of allocations of ozone season
NOX allowances for states covered by the Supplemental Rule),
EPA will record state-determined allocations for 2016 by October 1,
2015 (or April 1, 2016) into the Allowance Management System (AMS).
Nebraska's March 30, 2015 SIP submission addresses the aforementioned
requirements allowing a state to allocate 2016 CSAPR allowances for the
annual NOX and Group 2 SO2 trading programs.
EPA's analysis of Nebraska's SIP submission is explained below in
section III.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Nebraska's SIP submission?

    On March 30, 2015, Nebraska submitted a SIP revision intended to
replace the CSAPR FIP allocations of the CSAPR NOX annual
and SO2 Group 2 allowances for the 2016 control periods. For
approval, this SIP revision must meet the specific requirements found
in 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3) and 52.39(g) described above. The following is a
list of criteria under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3) and (b)(3) and 52.39(d) and
(g), described in section II in this document, and the results of EPA's
analysis of Nebraska's SIP revision:

    A. Notification from a State to EPA must be received by October
17, 2011, or March 6, 2015, in the case of ozone season
NOX SIP revisions for states covered by the December 27,
2011 Supplemental Rule (76 FR 80760), of its intent to submit a
complete SIP revision for 2016 existing unit allocations (40 CFR
52.38(a)(3)(v)(A), 52.38(b)(3)(v)(A), 52.39(d)(5)(i), and
52.39(g)(5)(i)).

    On October 17, 2011, Nebraska notified EPA via a letter of the
State's intent to submit complete SIP revisions for allocating TR
NOX Annual and TR SO2 Group 2 allowances \14\ to
existing units (i.e., units that commenced commercial operation before
January 1, 2010) for the second implementation year of the CSAPR
trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The abbreviation ``TR'' in certain legal terms used in the
CSAPR trading programs, including the legal terms for the trading
program allowances, stands for ``Transport Rule,'' an earlier name
for the CSAPR.

    B. A complete SIP revision must be submitted to EPA no later
than April 1, 2015, or October 1, 2015, in the case of ozone season
NOX SIP revisions for states covered by the December 27,
2011 Supplemental Rule (76 FR 80760) (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(v)(B),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52.38(b)(3)(v)(B), 52.39(d)(5)(ii), and 52.39(g)(5)(ii)).

    EPA has reviewed the March 30, 2015 submittal from Nebraska and
found it to be complete. This submittal satisfies the applicable
elements of SIP completeness set forth in appendix V to 40 CFR part 51.

    C. The SIP revision should include a list of TR NOX
Annual, TR NOX Ozone Season, TR SO2 Group 1 or
Group 2 units, whichever is applicable, that are in the State and
commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010 (40 CFR
52.38(a)(3)(i), 52.38(b)(3)(i), 52.39(d)(1), and 52.39(g)(1)).

    As part of Nebraska's SIP revision, the State submitted a list of
units to be allocated TR NOX Annual and TR SO2
Group allowances for the 2016 control periods. The list identifies the
same units as were identified in the notice of data availability (NODA)
published by EPA on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71674). Hence, EPA has
determined that each unit on the list submitted by Nebraska as part of
the SIP revision is located in the State of Nebraska and had commenced
commercial operation before January 1, 2010.

    D. The total amount of TR NOX Annual, TR
NOX Ozone Season, or TR SO2 Group 1 or Group 2
allowance allocations, whichever is applicable, must not exceed the
amount, under 40 CFR 97.410(a), 97.510(a), 97.610(a), or 97.710(a),
whichever is applicable, for the State and the control periods in
2016, of the TR NOX Annual, TR NOX Ozone
Season, TR SO2 Group 1 or Group 2 trading budget minus
the sum of the new unit set-aside and Indian country new unit set-
aside (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(ii), 52.38(b)(3)(ii), 52.39(d)(2), and
52.39(g)(2)).

    As amended, the CSAPR established the NOX annual budget,
new unit set-aside, and Indian country new unit set-aside for Nebraska
for the 2016 control periods as 30,039 tons, 1,772 tons, and 30 tons,
respectively, and established the SO2 Group 2 budget, new
unit set-aside, and Indian country new unit set-aside as 68,162 tons,
2,658 tons, and 68 tons, respectively. Nebraska's SIP revision, for
approval in this action, does not affect these budgets, which are total
amounts of allowances available for allocation for the 2016 control
periods under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs under the
CSAPR FIPs. In short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects
allocations of allowances under the established state budgets.
    The Nebraska SIP revision allocating TR NOX Annual
allowances for the 2016 control period establishes allocations
exceeding, by one (1) allowance due to rounding,\15\ the amount of the
budget under Sec.  97.410(a) minus the sum of the new unit set-aside
and the Indian county new unit set aside (30,039 tons-(1,772 tons + 30
tons)) = 28,237 tons). The Nebraska SIP revision allocates 28,238 TR
NOX annual allowances to existing units in the State.
However, EPA notes that proportionately, one allowance is a tiny
fraction of the overall new unit set-aside budget for new TR
NOX annual units in Nebraska (approximately 0.06%). In
addition, for 2015, the number of TR NOX annual allowances
allocated from Nebraska's 2015 new unit set-aside to new units is well
below the total number of allowances available in that set-aside,\16\
and it appears highly likely this will be the case again in 2016. EPA
therefore does not believe the extra allowance allocated to Nebraska's
existing CSAPR units in 2016 should weigh negatively in EPA's
evaluation of the State's 2016 CSAPR SIP submittal, and will enter
1,771 allowances from the Nebraska CSAPR 2016 budget

(instead of 1,772 allowances) into the TR NOX annual new
unit set-aside for the 2016 control period.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The total of the state-determined TR NOX Annual
allowance allocations to existing units for 2016 under Nebraska's
SIP revision (28,238 allowances) equals the total of the EPA-
determined TR NOX Annual allowance allocations to
existing units for 2016 under the CSAPR as amended. This total
differs by one allowance from the amount of the state's 2016
NOX annual budget minus the sum of the new unit set-aside
and the Indian country new unit set-aside due to rounding, as noted
in the December 3, 2014, Notice of Data Availability regarding the
EPA-determined allocations. See 79 FR 71674.
    \16\ See Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance Year;
July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44882).
    \17\ The quantities of allowances to be allocated through the
new unit set-aside (NUSA) process may differ slightly from the NUSA
amounts set forth in 40 CFR 97.410(a), 97.510(a), 97.610(a), and
97.710(a) because of rounding in the spreadsheet of CSAPR FIP
allowance allocations to existing units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nebraska SIP revision allocating TR SO2 Group 2
allowances for the 2016 control period does not establish allocations
exceeding the amount of the budget under Sec.  97.710(a) minus the sum
of the new unit set-aside and Indian County new unit set-aside (68,162
tons-(2,658 tons + 68 tons)) = 65,436 tons). The Nebraska SIP revision
allocates 65,432 TR SO2 Group 2 allowances to existing units
in the State. EPA will place the four unallocated allowances from the
Nebraska CSAPR 2016 budget into the TR SO2 Group 2 new unit
set-aside for the 2016 control period.

    E. The list should be submitted electronically in the format
specified by the EPA (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(iii), 52.38(b)(3)(iii),
52.39(d)(3), and 52.39(g)(3)).

    On March 30, 2015, EPA received an email submittal from Nebraska in
the EPA-approved format.

    F. The SIP revision should not provide for any changes to the
listed units or allocations after approval of the SIP revision and
should not provide for any change to any allocation determined and
recorded by the Administrator under subpart AAAAA, BBBBB, CCCCC, or
DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97 (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(iv), 52.38(b)(3)(iv),
52.39(d)(4), and 52.39(g)(4)).

    The Nebraska SIP revision does not provide for any changes to the
listed units or allocations after approval of the SIP revision and does
not provide for any change to any allocation determined and recorded by
the Administrator under subpart AAAAA, BBBBB, CCCCC, or DDDDD of 40 CFR
part 97.
    For the reasons discussed above, Nebraska's SIP revision complies
with the 2016 allowance allocation SIP requirements established in the
CSAPR FIPs as codified at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39. Through this action,
EPA is approving Nebraska's March 30, 2015, SIP revision, incorporating
the allocations into the SIP, and amending the CSAPR FIPs' regulatory
text for Nebraska at 40 CFR 52.1428 and 52.1429 to reflect this
approval and inclusion of the state-determined allowance allocations
for the 2016 control periods. EPA is not making any other changes to
the CSAPR FIPs for Nebraska in this action. EPA is taking final action
to approve Nebraska's March 30, 2015, SIP revision because it is in
accordance with the CAA and its implementing regulations.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Nebraska's March 30, 2015,
CSAPR SIP revisions that provide Nebraska's state-determined allowance
allocations for existing EGUs in the State for the 2016 control periods
to replace the allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods
established by EPA under the CSAPR. Consistent with the flexibility
given to states in the CSAPR FIPs at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39, Nebraska's
SIP revision allocates allowances to existing EGUs in the State under
the CSAPR's NOX annual and SO2 Group 2 trading
programs. Nebraska's SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in
40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39 for allocations for the 2016 control periods of
NOX annual allowances and SO2 Group 2 allowances,
respectively. EPA is approving Nebraska's SIP revision because it is in
accordance with the CAA and its implementing regulations.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 26, 2015
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
October 15, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish
a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in
commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received,
the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 26,
2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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, 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 12, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart CC--Nebraska

0
2. In Sec.  52.1420(e) the table is amended by adding a new entry (28)
at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1420  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Nebraska Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP     geographic area or       State       EPA approval date        Explanation
           provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(28) Cross State Air Pollution   Statewide.........         3/30/15  9/15/15 [Insert     .......................
 Rule--State-Determined                                               Federal Register
 Allowance Allocations for the                                        citation].
 2016 control periods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1428 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1428  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

* * * * *
    (c) Pursuant to Sec.  52.38(a)(3), Nebraska's state-determined TR
NOX Annual allowance allocations established in the March
30, 2015, SIP revision replace the unit-level TR NOX Annual
allowance allocation provisions of the TR NOX Annual Trading
Program at 40 CFR 97.411(a) for the State for the 2016 control period
with a list of TR NOX Annual units that commenced operation
prior to January 1, 2010, in the State and the state-determined amount
of TR NOX Annual allowances allocated to each unit on such
list for the 2016 control period, as approved by EPA on September 15,
2015.

0
4. Section 52.1429 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1429  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide?

* * * * *
    (c) Pursuant to Sec.  52.39(g), Nebraska's state-determined TR
SO2 Group 2 allowance allocations established in the March
30, 2015, SIP revision replace the unit-level TR SO2 Group 2
allowance allocation provisions of the TR SO2 Group 2
Trading Program at 40 CFR 97.711(a) for the State for the 2016 control
period with a list of TR SO2 Group 2 units that commenced
operation prior to January 1, 2010, in the State and the state-
determined amount of TR SO2 Group 2 allowances allocated to
each unit on such list for the 2016 control period, as approved by EPA
on September 15, 2015.

[FR Doc. 2015-20631 Filed 9-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT
 Renewal of Existing Information Collection Request for Confidentiality Rules

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

	1(a)   Title of the Information Collection
Confidentiality Rules (Renewal) EPA ICR No. 1665.13, OMB Control No 2020-0003.

1(b)  Short Characterization (Abstract)

The  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) established the requirements set forth in 40 CFR, Part 2,  Subpart B, "Confidentiality of Business Information" to establish rules to govern business confidentiality claims, i.e., the  handling  by  the Agency of business information which is or may be entitled to confidential treatment, determining whether such  information is entitled to confidential treatment for reasons of business confidentiality and responding to Freedom of Information Act requests pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552 for this information.

This request to renew an existing information collection request (ICR) allows the Agency to continue obtaining the information it requires from submitters of confidential business information (CBI) to make final administrative determinations regarding whether or not the business information covered by a confidentiality claim is entitled to confidential treatment under Subpart B.  Subpart B sets forth:

           the procedures industry must follow to assert and justify confidentiality claims;
           the procedures EPA must follow in reviewing business information claimed as confidential;  notifying and providing affected businesses with an opportunity to comment; reviewing industry substantiations; making final confidentiality determinations; and
           the requirement for signing and maintaining confidentiality agreements by all contractor/subcontractor employees who are given access to confidential information in the course of performing work for EPA.

OMB Terms of Clearance

In the previous ICR renewal, OMB had these terms of clearance, "Prior to resubmission of this request for extension, the Agency should reassess burden taking into account recent experience of respondents and changes in EPA's reporting programs. In addition, the Agency should describe its method for estimating burden."

Agency Response: To obtain current burden estimates, EPA contacted organizations during the fall of 2016 that prepare responses to substantiation requests on behalf of clients.  The burden estimates contained herein are predicated on the recent input from the organizations identified in Section 3(c) of this document and input from EPA staff involved in the substantiation process.  The Agency's method for estimating burden is discussed in Section 6, page 9.

 2.     Need For and Use of the Collection

 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

     EPA administers several environmental protection statutes, e.g., the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.  Environmental information and data are submitted by the regulated industry to EPA in accordance with the requirements of regulations issued under these statutes.  Information is also submitted to the Agency voluntarily by the regulated industry.  In many instances, the information received by the Agency is designated by the submitter as confidential business information (CBI).

     Substantiation of Confidentiality Claims
    In accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, subpart B, when EPA finds it necessary to make a final confidentiality determination (e.g., to respond to a FOIA request or in the course of rulemaking or litigation), it must provide the affected business written notice of that EPA is determining whether the information is entitled to confidential treatment, and is affording the business an opportunity to comment [(i.e., substantiate its confidential filing(s)].  The notice is furnished by certified mail (return receipt requested), by personal delivery, or by other means which allows verification of the delivery and date of receipt.   The business must comment on the items detailed under Section 4(b) of this supporting statement within 15 days of receipt.

    Confidentiality Agreements
     When EPA utilizes contractor/subcontractor services for activities involving CBI, the contractor/subcontractor must ensure that all its employees who will be given access to CBI have signed confidentiality agreements.  These agreements state that employees shall use the confidential information only for the work in the contract/subcontract, shall refrain from disclosing the information, and shall return all copies of the information to EPA upon request or completion of the project.  The contractor/subcontractor company must also maintain a file of these confidentiality agreements.

     The procedures laid out in 40 CFR, Part 2, subpart B, derive their authority from FOIA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552, the Trade Secrets Act, as amended, 18 U.S.C. 1905, the Federal housekeeping statute, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 301, the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq., and the confidentiality provisions of environmental statutes administered by EPA, as follows:

     §114, 206, 208, 301, and 307, Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7525, 7542, 7601, 7607)
     §§308, 501, and 509(a), Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1318, 1361, 1369(a))
     §13, Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4912)
     §§1445 and 1450, Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300j-4, 300j-9)
     §§2002, 3001, 3007, and 9005, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921, 6927, 6991d)
     §§8(c), 11, 12(b), and 14, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended (15 U.S.C. 2601, 2607(c), 2610, 2611(b), 2613)
     §§10, 12, and 25, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, (7 U.S.C. 136h, 136j, 136w)
     §408(i), Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 346a(i))
     §§104(f) and 108, Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1414(f), 1418)
     §§104 and 115, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9604, 9615)

	2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

         EPA will use the information received from industry to inform its decision for determining whether or not the subject information is entitled to confidential treatment; whether the Agency needs to make a formal confidentiality determination; and/or whether the information in question can be withheld pursuant to Exemption 4 of FOIA when a FOIA request has been filed for the information.

 3.	Non-Duplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria

 3(a)	Non-Duplication

 		This information is not elsewhere collected from businesses.

 3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

         EPA published a notice of the renewal of the existing information collection request for confidentiality rules in the Federal Register on September 13, 2016 (81 FR 62883) and invited public comment.

         EPA received one comment which stated that the Agency is using outdated information.  EPA consulted with six businesses and the revised information is included in Section 6.

 3(c)	Consultations

         To update its burden estimates, EPA consulted with the following businesses.  These businesses are subject to the environmental statutes administered by EPA and prepare CBI substantiations.  Input from the firms below (and the named individuals) was used to determine whether the burden to businesses who must prepare preparing CBI substantiations had changed since the issuance of the last ICR.  The Agency determined that the burden calculations required updating according to the information provided when the organizations below were contacted:

            Guy J. Musto
            ExxonMobile Company
            52 Beacham Street
            Everett, Massachusetts  02149
<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Sid Trant
            Brandley Arant Boult Cummings
            One Federal Plaza
            Birmingham, Alabama 35207
<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Marcia Levinson
            Covestro
<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Adam Bickel
            BASF
<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Jonathan Gerber
            3M
<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Richard Glaze
            Blach & Bingham
            30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, Suite 700
            Atlanta, Georgia 30308
<PHONE_NUMBER>

 	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

 		Not applicable.

 	3(e)	General Guidelines

         Only one provision of this collection exceeds the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5(d) (2).  This collection calls for responses to be furnished to EPA within 15 working days after the business receives the letter requesting substantiation.  Under 5 CFR 1320.5(d) (2) (ii), EPA must justify why the response needs to be prepared within a period shorter than 30 days after receipt of the collection.  In the context of addressing the time frame for determinations under the FOIA, EPA "tentatively" determined that 15 days is "a reasonable period for the business to furnish comments and substantiating data concerning its claim."  40 FR 21987, 21988, 21989 (May 20, 1975) and 41 FR 36902, 36908 (September 1, 1976).  EPA has found through experience in the years since these regulations were promulgated (40 CFR Part 2) that 15 days fits well with the general timetable of FOIA responses.

 	3(f)	Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

    1.  Confidentiality

            Under EPA's current CBI regulations (40 CFR Part 2, subpart B), respondents may claim substantiations submitted to EPA as confidential.

         2.  Sensitive Questions

            Not applicable.  This information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature.  Only the information returned by the respondents may be of a sensitive nature.

 4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

 	4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

         Respondents can potentially include any business submitting a document to EPA that it claims as CBI.  EPA receives such information from both the manufacturing (SIC codes 20-39) and non-manufacturing sectors (no SIC codes identified).

 	4(b)	Information Requested

    A.	Substantiation of confidentiality claim

         Whenever EPA finds it necessary to determine the confidentiality of information that has been claimed as CBI (e.g., in response to a FOIA request or in connection with rulemaking or litigation, or with regard to an advance confidentiality determination under 40 CFR 2.204 (a), (c) and (d), 2.206), it must notify affected businesses orally and in writing and provide them with an opportunity to comment (40 CFR 2.204(e)).

         With this renewal ICR, EPA is proposing to use the five attached "Request for Substantiation" letters.  The letters address different situations which require EPA to determine the confidentiality of information claimed CBI:  Letter A addresses the situation where confidential business information in EPA possession is responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Letter B requests a generic substantiation.  Letter C covers FOIA requests for FIFRA records.  Letter D is for FIFRA not related to a FOIA request.  Letter E is related to TSCA.

 		1.	Data Items

 			The written notice from EPA (40 CFR 2.204(e) (1) and (4)) invites the business's comments (substantiation) on the following:

            (i)	The portions of the information which are alleged to be entitled to confidential treatment;
            (ii)	The period of time for which confidential treatment is desired by the business (e.g., until a certain date, until the occurrence of a specified event, or permanently);
            (iii)	The purpose for which the information was furnished to EPA and the approximate date of submission, if known;
            (iv)	Whether a business confidentiality claim accompanied the information when it was received by EPA;
         	(v)	Measures taken by the business to guard against undesired disclosure of the information to others;
         	(vi)	The extent to which the information has been disclosed to others, and the
                precautions taken in connection therewith;
            (vii)	Pertinent confidentiality determinations, if any, by EPA or other Federal agencies; and a copy of any such determination, or reference to it, if available;
            (viii)	Whether the business asserts that disclosure of the information would be likely to result in substantial harmful effects on the business's competitive position, and if so, what those harmful effects would be, why they should be viewed as substantial, and an explanation of the causal relationship between disclosure and such harmful effects; and
            (ix)	Whether the business asserts that the information is voluntarily submitted information as defined in 40 CFR §2.201(i), and if so, whether and why disclosure of the information would tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar information in the future.

 		2.	Respondent Activities

 		To respond to the written notice, the respondent must:

 Read EPA's request for comments;
 Review the information it claimed as confidential; and
 Prepare and submit the substantiation to EPA
         			or
 Read EPA's request for comments;
 Review the information it claimed as confidential; and
 Decide not to submit the substantiation to EPA

    B.	Designation by Business of Addressee for Notices and Inquiries

         Pursuant to 40 CFR 2.213, a business may elect to designate an official contact for inquiries and notices concerning confidentiality claims.

         1.	Data Items

            Name and address of the business making the designation, and the name and address of the designated person or office.

         2.	Respondent Activities

            To review subject materials and decide whether to respond to EPA's request for comments.

    C.	Confidentiality agreements

         When EPA utilizes the services of contractors/subcontractors, all contractor/subcontractor employees who may be given access to confidential information must first sign confidentiality agreements stating that they will honor the terms of the contract/subcontract which requires protection of CBI.  See 40 CFR 2.301(h) (2) (ii).

         1.	Data Items

 			Signed confidentiality agreements.

 		2.	Respondent activities

 			The contractor must:
            Require each employee given access to CBI to read and sign a confidentiality agreement; and
 			b.	Maintain a file of such agreements.  See 40 CFR 2.301(h) (2) (IV).

    In addition to the information collections discussed above, when EPA intends to disclose CBI to contractors/subcontractors, other federal agencies or Congress, EPA generally notifies affected businesses.  During a specified period of time prior to disclosure, businesses may submit comments.  Industry has rarely submitted comments to EPA under these circumstances.

 5.	The Information Collected  -  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

 	5(a)	Agency Activities

         1.	Review and make a preliminary determination of whether business information may be entitled to confidential treatment.  This review would be undertaken in response to a FOIA request or when EPA desires to determine the confidentiality of information within its possession for other purposes (e.g., rulemaking, litigation or an advance confidentiality determination).  It would involve determining whether a business confidentiality claim exists or whether a Federal court or an EPA legal office has previously determined that the information in question is entitled to treatment as CBI.

         2.	Notify the affected business orally and in writing that the Agency is determining the confidentiality of the information and provide the business with an opportunity to comment.

         3.	Review the substantiation received (if any) and make a final determination whether the business information in question is entitled to confidential treatment.  This determination will be made by the appropriate EPA legal office as described in 40 CFR 2.205.  Not all business choose to submit substantiation to the Agency.

 	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

         The types of information that are requested are described under 4(b) above.  EPA notifies affected businesses orally and in writing that it is determining the confidentiality of information they have submitted and affords them the opportunity to comment.  Affected businesses may submit comments by the date specified in the notice (i.e., postmarked or hand delivered no later than the specified date); or if a request for an extension of the comment period is made by the business and approved by the EPA legal office before the comments are due, the comment period may be extended (40 CFR 2.205(b) (2)).

         Confidential information that is submitted to EPA is protected in accordance with the policies and procedures discussed in (1) Chapter 8, "Information Security," of EPA's Information Resources Management (IRM) Policy Manual, Directive 2100, revised December 20, 1999; (2) the EPA Information Security Manual, Directive 2195A1, December 20, 1999; and (3)  information security procedures issued by EPA organizations with statutory authority for the information [e.g., EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances has developed specific procedures for protecting the confidentiality of information obtained under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)].

 	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

         EPA does not have the flexibility to waive the need for substantiations from small entities for several reasons: (1) EPA is required to disclose information that is requested under FOIA, unless the information is specifically exempt; (2) if EPA discloses information that is entitled to confidential treatment, the Federal government could be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act and individual Federal employees could be subject to criminal liability under the Trade Secrets Act and other statutes, and (3) the submitter of the information is in the best position to explain why particular information should be entitled to confidential treatment.

 	5(d)	Collection Schedule

         The request for substantiations occurs on a case-by-case basis, as needed.

 6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	Annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden: 5.6 hours per response
	Estimated Number of Respondents: 6
	Frequency of Response: 1 response per respondent annually
	Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:  14.6 hours
 	      Estimated Total Annual Cost:  $876.00 includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

 	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

         The burden estimates were developed after consultations with the firms identified under Section 3(c), above.

    A.	Substantiation of confidentiality claim
 		EPA receives approximately 300 FOIA requests for information that is claimed as CBI each year.  However, many of the requests do not require EPA to contact the affected business (es).   EPA may find that a federal court or EPA legal office has previously determined that the information in question is entitled to confidential treatment, and further examination of the information may not be required; or, after consulting with an individual who requested information under FOIA, the Agency may be able to provide the information that is of most interest to the requester without disclosing any CBI.  In these cases, no request for substantiation is issued.

         In accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 2, subpart B, the Agency notifies approximately 300 businesses annually that it is making a final confidentiality determination on information the business has previously claimed as CBI (or which could be expected to be CBI) is being made, and provide them with an opportunity to submit comments explaining why previously submitted information should be treated as confidential.  Each affected business has an opportunity to submit comments explaining why the information should be protected.

         6(b) Estimating Respondents Cost
         Over the past year, approximately 21% or 64 of the 304 businesses submitted comments to EPA and spent approximately 6 hours on each substantiation type reviewing the information, preparing the response and mailing the response back to the Agency (3.00 attorney hrs. + 3.00 manager hrs.)

         Burden for 64 respondents = 358 hours

         EPA estimates the cost per substantiation (64) to be approximately $17,063.42.
         which includes reviewing the information, preparing the response and mailing the response back to the Agency ($60.00 attorney hr. + $35.22 manager hr.).

         Burden cost for respondents = $17,063.42.

 	B.  Confidentiality agreements

         When EPA utilizes the services of contractors/subcontractors in implementing 40 CFR, Part 2, subpart B, all contractor/subcontractor employees who may be given access to confidential information must first sign confidentiality agreements stating that they will honor the terms of the contract which requires the protection of CBI.  In addition, the contractor/subcontractor businesses must maintain a file of all such agreements.  EPA estimates that there are approximately 130 businesses that have contracts with the Agency that require CBI access.  These businesses are estimated to employ approximately 650 employees who must sign confidentiality agreements each year.

         Signing Confidentiality Agreements
         Burden hours:  Each of the 650 employees is estimated to require 0.10 hours to review and sign the agreement.  The total burden to review and sign confidentiality agreements = 65.00 hours annually.

         Burden costs:  EPA estimates the cost incurred to review and sign the agreement per employee to be $3.50 in labor (0.10 time @ $35.00/hr.).  The total costs for 650 employees to review and sign agreements = $2,275 annually.

         Performing Recordkeeping Requirements
         Each of the 130 businesses is required to maintain records of all confidentiality agreements.

         Burden hours:  EPA estimates that it requires 0.50 hours annually for 130 businesses to maintain confidentiality agreement files for 650 employees.  The total burden for the 130 businesses to maintain records for the 650 employees = 65.00 hours annually.

         Burden costs:  It is estimated that burden costs for the 130 businesses to maintain records for the 650 employees to be $8.53 (0.50 clerical time @ $17.05 clerical hr.) = $1,108.90 annually.

    C.  	Overall Respondent Burden

 			Annual respondent burden is anticipated to be 844 respondents, 488 hours, at a labor cost of $20,447.

 6(b)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

         The burden on EPA to evaluate confidentiality claims, notify affected businesses, and make final confidentiality determinations varies depending on the complexity of the claim.  In some cases, the information that industry claims as confidential is specific and easily identified; yet in other cases, entire reports may be claimed as confidential.  In the latter case, a significant amount of time may be required to review the information in question.  In other cases, EPA may be able to satisfy a FOIA request without going through the entire substantiation process, if after conferring with a requestor, the Agency is able to provide the information of interest without releasing CBI.

         (EPA estimates that of the 304 letters mailed to businesses, approximately 64 businesses will respond.)

 		Initial Activities
         Burden hours: Based on past experience, EPA estimates that on average, it requires approximately 9 hours (6 attorney hrs. + 2 technical hrs. + 1 clerical hr.) to conduct an initial review of a confidentiality claim and prepare and mail a substantiation to a submitter.

         Burden costs:  Burden costs are estimated to be $387.84 per letter ($47.39 attorney hr. @ GS-14, Step 5 + $40.10 technical hr. @ GS-13, Step 5; and $23.25 clerical hr. @ GS-9, Step 5).

         Total burden to review the subject information and prepare 304 substantiation requests annually = 2736 hours at a total labor cost of $117,903.36.

         Making Confidentiality Determinations
         Burden hours: After industry comments are received, approximately 8 hours (6 attorney hrs. and 2 technical hrs.) are required to review the comments and determine whether the information that is claimed as confidential is indeed entitled to confidential treatment.

         Burden costs:  Burden costs to review and make final confidentiality determinations on 64 responses are estimated to be $364.59($47.39 attorney hr. @ GS-14, Step 5 + $40.10 technical hr. @ GS-13, Step 5).

         Total burden to review and make final confidentiality determinations on 64 substantiations = 512 hours at a total labor cost of $2,916.54.

         The total Agency burden to perform initial activities and make final confidentiality determinations on 304 responses = 3,48 hours at a total labor cost of $120,819.90 annually.

 6(c) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs
 Task
 Activity
 Burden Hours
 Total  Annual Burden Hours
 Burden Costs
 Total  Annual Burden Costs

                                     AGENCY
 Perform Initial activities
 Review, preliminary determination & mail 304  substantiation  letters

 9 hours per letter
 2,736
 $387.84
  per letter
 $117,903.36

 Make final confidentiality determinations
 Review comments and make final confidentiality determination on 64 letters
 8 hours per letter
 512
 $364.59
  per letter
 $2,916.72
 Overall Agency Burden
 3,248

 $120,820.08

                                  RESPONDENTS
 Respond to request from EPA

 64

 5.6 hours per substantiation
 358.4
 (5.6 hrs x 64 respondents)
 $266.62
  per substantiation
 $17,063.42
 ($266.62 x 64)
 Sign Confidentiality Agreements

 650

 .10 hour
 65.00
 (.10 hrs x 650 respondents)
 $3.50
  per employee
 $2,275.00
 ($3.50 x 650)
 Recordkeeping
 130 businesses maintain records
 .50 hours
 65.00
 (.50 hrs x 130)
 $8.53
 $1,108.90
 (8.53 x 130 respondents)

 Overall Respondent Burden
 488.40

 $20,447.32
 Annual

 844 respondents

488 hours
               $20,447

    5.	Variations in the Annual Bottom Line
            Variations in the annual burden on EPA and respondents could potentially occur due to changes in:

            the number of FOIA requests that EPA receives for information that has been claimed as confidential;
            the number of times that EPA determines that a formal confidentiality determination is necessary and notifies affected businesses, providing them with an opportunity to comment; and
            the number of times that affected businesses decide to submit substantiations.

            At this time, EPA does not foresee any significant changes in the annual burdens outlined above.

 	6(d)	Reasons for Change in Burden

         The estimated burden decreased by 1,045 hours based upon consultations with the submitter community identified in Section 3(c). The number of respondents increased by 616, which was due to accounting for the 650 individual employees who sign confidentiality agreements.

 	6(e)	Burden Statement

         The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information are estimated to average about half an hour per response. 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; training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; searching data sources; completing and reviewing the collection of information; and transmitting or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

         To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2013-0565, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the OEI Docket and the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  Once in the system, select "search," then key in the docket ID number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17[th] Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (EPA-HQ-OEI-2013-0565) and OMB control number (2020-0003) in any correspondence.


Minutes of the February 27, 2007 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Conference Room S-4370

2777 Crystal Drive – Potomac Yard One, South

Arlington, VA 22202

Attendees

Name	Association

Allan F. Rose	Valent U.S.A. Corporation

Amy Ritter	Waterborne Environmental Inc.

Andy Newcombe	LFR Inc.

Chris Holmes	Waterborne Environmental Inc.

Cliff Hasig	Exponent

Clifford Rice	USDA/ARS

Dirk Young	USEPA/OPP

Elizabeth Behl	USEPA/OPP

Fiona K. Lau	Rohm and Haas Company

Greg Orrick	USEPA/OPP

James Breithaupt	USEPA/OPP

James L Kunstman	PBI/Gordon Corporation

Jennifer Long	USDA/FAS

Jim Warren	USDA/APHIS

Jim Wolf	USEPA/OPP

Joe Massey	Mississippi State University

John Weeks	SC Johnson

Jonathan Angier	USEPA/OPP

Julie Callahan	USDA/Foreign Ag. Service

Katherine Carr	Monsanto Company

Keara Moore	USEPA

Kenneth W. Chisholm	Nichino America, Inc.

Linda Abbott	USDA

Lisa Eisenhauer	USEPA/OPP

Lizanne Avon	Health Canada, PMRA

Lucy Shanaman	USEPA/OPP

Marietta Echeverria	USEPA/OPP

Mark Cheplick	Waterborne Environmental Inc.

Mark Corbin	USEPA/OPP

Mark J. Schocken	Chemtura Corporation

Mary Nett	Water Quality Consulting

Michael Barrett	USEPA/OPP

Michael Winchell	Stone Environmental, Inc.

Mohammed Ruhman	USEPA/OPP

Nasser Assaf	Valent Biosciences Corporation

Natalia Peranginangin	Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.

Nicole Buffa	LW

Pamela Rao	Farmworker Justice

Patrick L. Havens	Dow AgroSciences LLC

Paul Hendley	Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.

Paul Paquin	Hydroqual

Qingli Ma	Environmental & Turf Services, Inc

Ralph L. Warren	DuPont Crop Protection

Reuben Baris	Environmental & Turf Services, Inc

Robert C Everich	Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc.

Ronald Parker	USEPA/OPP

Russell Jones	Bayer CropScience

Scott Jackson 	BASF Corporation

Stuart Cohen	Environmental & Turf Services, Inc

Subijoy Dutta	USEPA/OPP

Tammara L. Estes	Stone Environmental Inc.

Teung Chin	USDA/FAS

Tharacad Ramanarayanan	Bayer CropScience

Uwe Wanner	Chemtura Corporation

Wenlin Chen	Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.

William P. Eckel	USEPA/OPP

Dial In Participants

Name	Association

Adrian Wadley	Stone Environmental, Inc.

Ann Pitchford	U.S. EPA, NERL/ESD/LEB

Cecil Dharmasri	Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.

Christopher S. Warren	ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.

Elise D.G.-McCoy	FMC Corporation

James Cooper	FL DACS

Jim McFadden	Wellmark International

Jimmy Williams	USDA/ARS

John Troiano	CA DPR

Joseph K. Bagdon	USDA /NRCS

Julie Wagner	Safer Pest Control Project, IL

Kelly Moran	TDC Environmental

Kevin L. Armbrust	State of Mississippi, MSU

Monica A. Ball	DuPont Crop Protection

Roy W. Meyer	NJ Dept of Env Prot, SFIREG

Susan Hunter Youngren	Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Welcome and Introductions

The USEPA/OPP/EFED hosts triannual meetings that are open to the public
to provide a forum for presentation and discussion between EFED and
stakeholders with similar technical expertise of current issues related
to pesticide exposure modeling in support of risk assessment.  This
meeting did not include an overarching theme or general topic.  Greg
Orrick (USEPA/OPP/EFED) chaired the meeting in the capacity of co-chair
of the Water Quality Tech Team (WQTT).

The agenda, minutes, and presentations for the February 27, 2007 EMPM
are posted in the docket (ID # EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0994), which can be
accessed at  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
http://www.regulations.gov/   The docket ID # is reported on the EMPM
webpage:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/emwg_top.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/emwg_top.htm

Brief Updates

Tier I Rice Model v1.0

The Interim Rice Model is being replaced by the Tier I Rice Model v1.0,
which uses the same formula.  The only change in approach is that the
assumed organic carbon content of sediment, which is 2% for the Interim
Rice Model, is being lowered to 1% to reflect the average organic carbon
content of rice paddies in submitted paddy dissipation studies conducted
in the Southeastern U.S. and California.  Once the Tier I Rice Model
v1.0 documentation is finalized, it will be posted on the Water Models
webpage:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm

FIRST v1.1.0

An update to FIRST (v1.1.0) that allows incorporation of ground spray
applications and converts units carrying more significant figures than
v1.0 is under review.  The updated model will be posted on the Water
Models webpage when it is released.

PRZM v3.12.2, EXAMS v<IP_ADDRESS>, and pE5

Issues exist with the QA of model updates to PRZM and EXAMS and the pE5
shell.  Estimates of when the QA issues will be resolved are elusive.

Presentations

Degradation Influenced by Soil Temperature under Cropped and Bare Soil
Conditions: A Conceptual Model Approach (Dr. Natalia Peranginangin,
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.)

Dr. Peranginangin and Dr. Chen presented an analysis of the effects of
soil temperature on degradation of two pesticides and related this to
the performance of PRZM in simulating the degradation / dissipation of
the pesticides.  This was performed without calibration (i.e., the
temperature adjustments were based upon laboratory data, not on the
field results the PRZM model was compared to).  They further tested the
impact of foliar washoff coefficient adjustment (in this case, based
upon some literature recommendations, but not on specific data for the
two pesticides in this study).

The temperature routine modeled closely followed field measurements of
soil temperature at different depths.  No specific statistical tests
were proposed or utilized for the goodness of fit of modeled dissipation
compared to measured dissipation.  Nonetheless, the graphics presented
do appear to show that utilization of specific heat transfer
coefficients (calibrated from site-measured soil temperature) for a
pesticide along with modeled soil temperature has the potential for
substantially improving the accuracy of predicted dissipation patterns
of pesticides.  Improved accuracy in the inputs for foliar wash off can
significantly increase the accuracy of the prediction of the timing and
magnitude of peak residues in soil (and presumably also in pesticide
runoff, although this was not examined in this study).  The authors
hypothesize that their analysis supports the conclusion that “aerobic
soil degradation half-lives are considered valid under both laboratory
and field conditions and that laboratory measured Koc may underestimate
soil adsorption under actual field condition (as it ages in soil).”

Development of MUSS (Dr. Jimmy Williams, USDA/ARS)

Dr. Williams presented a history of the development of the erosion
simulation models based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).  His
group at USDA/ARS modified the USLE to predict soil erosion on a single
storm basis rather than the original multi-year basis.  The new Modified
Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) methodology used a factor based on
the product of the runoff volume times the runoff peak rate rather than
on the original erosivity (R) factor.  The formula was based upon data
from almost 800 runoff events in eighteen watersheds that varied in
slope from 1 to 6 percent.  The MUSLE equation and its derivatives are
currently used in the USDA models ALMANAC, APEX, EPIC and SWAT as well
as EPA’s PRZM.

The second major version of MUSLE was based on converting the equation
to metric units and to a per-unit-area basis.  In this formulation,
almost all of the erosion is sheet and rill erosion and very little is
channel erosion.

The next major step was the development of MUSS.  This model was based
on a subset of the rainfall events used in MUSLE and only the watersheds
with surface areas of less than 71 hectares and no defined channel.

The group then developed a theoretical version which they named MUST.
This version was based on the ratio of the peak rate to the volume of
runoff for each storm and kept the original K, C, P and LS factors.

Additional work could still be done using the 3695 rainfall events and
63 watersheds in 7 states which are now available.  New work would
include development of separate equations for sheet erosion, transport
and gully erosion and might also include collection of additional data
for model validation.

High Priority Changes for PRZM (Dr. Dirk Young, USEPA/EFED)

Dr. Dirk Young gave an overview of discussions between the EPA Office of
Pesticides and the EPA Office of Research and Development on changes to
PRZM that would improve PRZM's usability for risk assessments.  These
changes include the ability for a user to have more control over
processes such as erosion, irrigation, and contaminant interaction with
soil.  Some of the work may involve answering research questions such as
how does runoff interact with surface soils and how does partitioning of
organic compounds to surface soils differ from partitioning to eroding
soils.  The consultations with ORD will continue in an effort to
maximize the usefulness of PRZM towards pesticide exposure assessments.

Sediment Concentrations: Implications of the Current Conceptual Model
(Dr. Paul Hendley, Syngenta Crop Protection Inc.)

Dr. Hendley presented the following collection of issues with the
current conceptual model for estimation of sediment concentrations with
PRZM-EXAMS.  The constant mass of sediment in EXAMS versus the gradual
deposition/burying of sediment in real world water bodies leads to
overestimates of residues of relatively persistent compounds in pond
sediments.  Background data were presented on erosion and sedimentation
in water bodies.  For example, sediment is the most common reason for
TMDL listings.

Another issue raised is that all edge-of-field adsorbed residues from
PRZM are instantly transferred to the water body in EXAMS with assumed
instant desorption and distribution of the adsorbed material between
water column and the sediment bed being forced by the PRBEN parameter.
Water and sediment leaving the field do not enter the pond; and this
outcome may not be appropriate for compounds of high Koc.  Also, some
PRZM scenarios predict unreasonably high edge-of-field losses of
sediment, which can lead to overestimation of exposure to adsorbed
residues in sediment and/or pore water.  Furthermore, neither
differential deposition of sediment nor the increase in suspended
sediment concentrations is addressed in EXAMS.  These deficiencies in
the current static aquatic water body conceptual model can cause
sensitivity analyses on EXAMS to be misleading.

Topics for further consideration include sediment sampling, which is
orders of magnitude more error prone than water sampling; the organic
content of suspended sediment; the ability of NHD+ to address these
issues; sediment transport in irrigation return flow; and variation of
Koc due to the “age” of sediments.  Furthermore, consideration of a
variable TSS, variable sediment depth, variable volume pond and/or
flowing water body is encouraged as a science issue, not a policy issue.
 Model users are encouraged to re-examine PRZM inputs when sediment
losses are unreasonable and when residue concentrations rank by year.

Factors Impacting Pesticide Runoff from Warm-Season Turf (Dr. Joe
Massey, MSU)

Dr. Joe Massey described a multi-state effort to improve pesticide
runoff estimations from managed turf grasses.  Presently the project is
in the pre-modeling, and dataset development stage where two cool season
(MN, MD) and two warm season (MS, OK) locations have been selected for
conducting field studies.  This presentation covered only the field
studies on warm-season turf conducted in Mississippi.  The overall goal
of the project is to generate datasets that will improve estimation of
pesticide runoff from warm-season turf.  The specific objectives were to
determine how pesticide runoff is impacted by the following:

1.	Mowing height (0.5 in. vs. 2.0 in.)

2.	Grass species (Bermuda vs. Zoysia)

3.	Plot size (four turf plot sizes ranging from 40 ft2 to 5000 ft2)

The site contained Brooksville silty clay soil, Hydrologic soil group:
Group D (high runoff potential), with an average infiltration rate of
0.7 ± 0.3 cm h-1 (N = 78), and slope: 3% with no cross-slope.  Thirty
different plots with were used with varying grass (Bermuda and Zoysia)
heights and plot size.  Considering a wide range of runoff potential and
relative ease of analysis, dicamba DMA, 2,4-D DMA, MCPP DMA, flutolanil,
and chlorpyrifos were selected as the test chemicals/pesticides for the
study.  A number of Quality Control measures were undertaken such as
washing and covering of diverters, troughs, and flumes prior to chemical
applications, verifying the rainfall rate by installing rain gauges
around the plots, and application monitoring.

Results from the study showed that chemicals behaved differently, as
expected.  The species effect (flutolanil) and mowing height interaction
(chlorpyrifos) could not be attributed to differences in water flow,
suggesting that retention mechanisms were the dominant factor in runoff
behavior of these chemicals.  It was observed from the data from the
different plot sizes that smaller plots which allowed direct collection
of runoff had the highest concentrations of flutolanil and chlorpyrifos.

It was concluded from the study that – (a) the effects of grass
species, mowing height, and plot size were compound-dependent; (b)
differences in retention rather than differences in water flow appeared
to govern pesticide behavior in these grasses; (c) runoff from Bermuda
grass turf was ‘scalable’ across a range of chemicals and plot
sizes; and (d) ‘micro’ plots may be most appropriate for low
solubility compounds since they may reduce sorption to plastic
collection components that were necessary for larger plot sizes.

Kinetic Analysis of Metabolism Data (Dr. William Eckel, USEPA/EFED)

Dr. William Eckel presented work completed to date on the harmonization
between USEPA and Canada’s PMRA, of degradation kinetics calculations.
 The basic problem is that metabolism data sets that do not obey
first-order kinetics must be used to derive first-order rate constants
for model input.  The approach taken is to divide the problem into two
tracks: Descriptive and Model Input.  The Descriptive track seeks to
reproduce the data as accurately and simply as possible, and uses
non-first order techniques if necessary.  The Model Input track seeks to
find the best compromise first-order fit to the data, while minimizing
over- or under-prediction of concentrations.

Status Report on Field Evaluation and REMM Modeling of a Pesticide
Runoff Buffer (Dr. Rob Everich, Makhteshim-Agan of North America)

Dr. Robert Everich gave a presentation on the status of the Riparian
Ecosystem Management Model (REMM).  The REMM model was developed at the
Tifton, GA USDA-ARS lab by Don Wauchope and Richard Lowrance.  REMM is
intended to model the effectiveness of a pesticide runoff buffer to
reduce water and chemical loss.  The chemical studied was novaluron, an
insect growth regulator (IGR) that inhibits chitin synthesis.  Novaluron
is stable to hydrolysis and photolysis, essentially immobile in soil and
sediment, and degrades by metabolism in aerobic soil and water-sediment
systems.  A study is being conducted in Greenville, MS to provide data
for modeling of a cotton field with a Bermuda grass buffer.  The
objectives of the study are to quantify the volume of runoff from a
representative typical field, quantify the efficacy of the vegetative
buffer for chemical removal, and estimate edge of field concentrations
for use in risk assessment.  For the model to be used in risk
assessment, an interface between PRZM and REMM must be created, as well
as an interface between REMM and EXAMS.

Forest Canopy Delivery of Pesticides to a Riparian Buffer Area (Dr.
Cliff Rice, USDA/ARS)

Riparian buffers are used for their ability to limit the escape of
nutrients and agricultural chemicals from sites of application.  They
cause runoff water to enter the shallow ground water pool where sorption
and degradation can occur more rapidly.  Vegetative canopies of riparian
areas can sorb pesticides that are drifted or volatilized from treated
areas, and then release the pesticides when rainfall events occur.
Sampling of rainfall using rain buckets in open areas, under trees, or
from water flowing down tree trunks has demonstrated this phenomenon.
Concentrations of atrazine, metolachlor, and degradates of each were
lowest in direct rainfall from open areas, followed by rainfall falling
through the tree canopy, and stem flow.  Metolachlor was found in higher
concentrations in stem flow than atrazine, and stem flow had higher
metolachlor concentrations than rain falling through the canopy or
rainfall in open areas.  Riparian buffers that are near sites of
application can receive considerable loading of pesticides through
atmospheric pathways.

GeoSTAC: GEOSpatial Tools and ACess (Dr. Patrick Havens, Dow
AgroSciences LLC, on behalf of the CropLife America Environmental
Exposure Working Group (CLA EEWG))

Dr. Havens presented and demonstrated the GeoSTAC (GEOSpatial Tools and
Access) product that was developed to overcome difficulties with the use
of geospatial information by providing a standard, freely distributable
set of citable data and tools.  Most of the data in GeoSTAC are federal:
National Atlas, HUCS, NHD, NLCD (USGS); AgCensus, NRCS land resource
layers, NASS (USDA); Bailey’s Ecoregions (USFS); USGS gauge locations
(NWIS); ERFI v.2 watersheds (USEPA); and more.  Additional preprocessed,
“value-added” datasets are also included.  The full data set takes
over 75 GB of disk space and the data are contained in
logically-arranged ESRI personal geodatabases.

The analysis tools component of GeoSTAC is designed to increase
efficiency for routine analyses.  The tools were developed in ESRI
ArcGIS 9.1 (Service Pack 1+) format on the ArcView level and the source
code is freely available to CLA members and government agencies; code is
available to others upon request with CLA approval.  Five tools are
currently available; demonstrations accompany the presentation.  All of
the tools automatically produce new metadata for any datasets they
produce.

1.	The Feature and Attribute Extraction tool is a complex query tool
with multiple input layers that can, for example, isolate counties where
a given crop is grown.

2.	The Table Join tool automates joining Excel or other tabular data to
geospatial layers, along with some simple error checking.

3.	Doane’s Aggregation/Disaggregation tool can aggregate county-level
market research data to the CRD level and reapportion based on land use.

4.	The Data Aggregation and Summary tool aggregates and summarizes
datasets over a spatial dataset with different features (e.g.,
intersecting county sales estimates with salmon ESUs).

5.	The Linear Feature Summary tool summarizes the length and density of
linear features using polygon features, such as approximating the total
NHD stream length within a HUC.

GeoSTAC is currently being ported to ArcGIS 9.2.  The data are refreshed
annually and tool updates are under development.  Submission of the
GeoSTAC package to USEPA is planned for the first half of calendar 2007.
 A Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) analysis of the data and
tools has been completed by the Research Triangle Institute.  The QA
report for the currently available data and tools will also be submitted
to USEPA within the year.

Wrap up

EFED is looking into dates for the next meeting and will announce the
date through the “empmlist” forum on the LYRIS list server at:
HYPERLINK "https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/"
https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61740]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-71-002]

Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation; SCG Pipeline, Inc.; South
Carolina Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Tariff Cancellation

October 12, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2006, SUG Pipeline, Inc. (SUG)
tendered for filing a tariff sheet to cancel its FERC Gas Tariff,
including its rate schedules. SCG requests that the cancellation be
effective November 1, 2006.
    SCG states that any charges or customer credits that are
attributable to the service provided by SCG prior to November 1, 2006,
but not settled as of November 1, 2006, will be charged or paid as soon
after November 1 as practicable.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 17, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17460 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                      US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD
                       APRIL 2014 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

               Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center
                 Lobby Level - One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)
                  2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

                            Tuesday, April 8, 2014

                  HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/
                       Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                  Docket Number: EPA - HQ - ORD - 2014 - 0189

10:00 AM*	Convene Public Meeting  -  Jim Downing, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Human Studies Review Board, Office of the Science Advisor
            Introduction of Board Members  - Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH, HSRB Chair
	Welcome - Glenn Paulson, Ph.D., Science Advisor, EPA
	Opening Remarks  -  Mr. William Jordan, Deputy Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA
	Follow-up on Previous HSRB Recommendations  -  Mr. William Jordan, Deputy Director, OPP, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA

Session 1:	AEATF-II Protocol: A Study for Measurement of Potential Dermal and Inhalation Exposure During Manual Pouring of Two Solid Formulations Containing an Antimicrobial

10:20 AM 	EPA Science Review  -  Mr. Tim Leighton (OPP, EPA)
10:50 AM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
11:00 AM	EPA Ethics Review - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
11:20 AM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
11:30 AM 	Public Comments
11:40AM	Board Discussion

   If the AEATF-II study proposal AEA07 is revised as suggested in EPA's science and ethics reviews and if the research is performed as described:

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Is this research is likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for assessing the exposure of those who pour solid formulation antimicrobial pesticide products?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

12:30 PM 	Lunch

Session 2:	AEATF-II Protocol: A Study for Measurement of Potential Dermal and Inhalation Exposure During Application of Latex Paint Containing an Antimicrobial Pesticide Product Using a Brush and Roller for Indoor Surface Painting

1:30 PM 	EPA Science Review  -  Mr. Tim Leighton (OPP, EPA)
2:00 PM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
2:10 PM	EPA Ethics Review - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
2:30 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
2:40 PM 	Public Comments
2:50 PM	Board Discussion

   If the AEATF-II study proposal AEA09 is revised as suggested in EPA's science and ethics reviews and if the research is performed as described:

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Is this research is likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for assessing the exposure of those who apply latex paint containing an antimicrobial pesticide using a brush or roller?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

3:35 PM	Break

Session 3: 	AEATF Protocol: Determination of Removal Efficiency of 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (BIT) from Hand Surfaces Using an Isopropyl Alcohol/Water Wipe and Wash Procedure

3:45 PM 	EPA Science Review  -  Mr. Tim Leighton (OPP, EPA)
4:10 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
4:20 PM	EPA Ethics Review - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
4:40 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
4:30 PM 	Public Comments
4:40 PM 	Board Discussion

   If the AEATF-II study proposal AEA08 is revised as suggested in EPA's science and ethics reviews and if the research is performed as described:

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Is this research likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for determining the removal efficiency of BIT from the hands due to dermal exposure associated with the use of latex paint and non-paint liquid solutions containing containing BIT?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

5:30 PM* 	Adjourn

                      US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD
                       APRIL 2014 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

               Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center
                 Lobby Level - One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)
                  2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

                           Wednesday, April 9, 2014

                  HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/
                       Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                  Docket Number: EPA - HQ - ORD - 2014 - 0189

9:30 AM*	Convene Public Meeting  -  Jim Downing, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Human Studies Review Board, Office of the Science Advisor
           Introduction of Board Members  - Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH, HSRB Chair
           Follow-up on Previous Day's Discussion  -  Mr. William Jordan, Deputy Director, OPP, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA

Session 1:	Laboratory Evaluation of Bite Protection From Repellent Impregnated Clothing for the United States Military

9:40 AM 	EPA Science Review  -  Mr. Kevin Sweeney (OPP, EPA)
10:25 AM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
10:40 AM	EPA Ethics Review - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
11:00 AM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA, Principal Investigator/Sponsor
11:10 AM	Public Comments
11:20 AM	Board Discussion

   If the study proposal is revised as suggested in EPA's science and ethics reviews and if the research is performed as described:

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Is the protocol "Laboratory Evaluation of Bite Protection From Repellent Impregnated Clothing for the United States Military" likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for estimating the level of mosquito bite protection provided by two different textiles treated with etofenprox?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

12:15 PM	Lunch

Session 2:	Background presentation on the Repellency Awareness Graphic and possible implications for the HSRB.

1:15 PM 	Presentation  -  Ms. Rose Kyprianou and Ms. Kelly Sherman, (OPP, EPA)
1:35 PM 	Board Questions of Clarification - Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair)

Session 3:	Report from the HSRB Work Group of the Return of Individual Research Results.

2:00 PM 	HSRB Work Group on Return of Individual Research Results Report Presentation  -  Sean Philpott, Ph.D., Work Group Chair
2:20 PM 	Board Discussion - Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair)
2:50 PM	Topics for next HSRB Meeting (June 10-12, 2014)  -  Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
3:00 PM		Adjourn