[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 21634]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08632]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Order of Suspension of Trading; in the Matter of Integrity
Bancshares, Inc.

April 9, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Integrity Bancshares, Inc. (``Integrity'') because Integrity has not
filed any reports since its Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2007, filed November 13, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of Integrity.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of
Integrity is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 9,
2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 22, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Lynn M. Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08632 Filed 4-9-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4177-4178]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01258]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0077; FRL-10427-01-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1596.11,
OMB Control No. 2060-0226) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
August 31, 2023. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 27, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0077, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to [email protected] or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Thompson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, (Mail Code 6205A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Information collected under this rulemaking is necessary
to implement the requirements of the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program for evaluating and regulating substitutes for
ozone-depleting substances (ODS) being phased out under the
stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and globally under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer. Under CAA section 612, EPA is authorized to identify and
restrict the use of substitutes for class I and class II ODS (listed in
40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendices A and B) where EPA determines
other alternatives are available or potentially available that reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment. Any producer of a new
substitute must submit a notice of intent to introduce a substitute
into interstate commerce 90 days prior to such introduction. The
producer must also provide EPA with information covering a wide range
of health and environmental factors. The SNAP program, based on
information collected from the manufacturers, formulators, and/or
sellers of such substitutes, identifies acceptable substitutes.
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory under section
612 for anyone who sells or, in certain cases, uses substitutes for an
ODS after April 18, 1994, the effective date of the final rule.
Measures to protect confidentiality of information collected under the
SNAP program are based on EPA's confidentiality regulations (40 CFR
2.201 et seq., or Subpart B). Submitters may designate all or portions
of their forms or petitions as confidential. EPA requires the

submitters to substantiate their claim of confidentiality. Under CAA
section 114(c), emissions information may not be claimed as
confidential.
    To develop the lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes,
the Agency must assess and compare ``overall risks to human health and
the environment'' posed by use of substitutes in the context of
particular applications. EPA requires submission of information
covering a wide range of health and environmental factors. These
include intrinsic properties such as physical and chemical information,
atmospheric effects including ozone depleting potential and global
warming potential, toxicity, and flammability, and use-specific data
such as substitute applications, process description, environmental
release data, exposure data during use of a substitute, environmental
fate and transport, and cost information of the substitute. Once a
completed submission has been received, the SNAP program will commence
its review. Any substitute which is a new chemical must also be
submitted to the Agency under the Premanufacture Notice program under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Alternatives that will be used
as sterilants must be filed jointly with EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs and with SNAP.
    Form Numbers: 1264-14;1265-14.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers, importers,
formulators and processors of substitutes for ODS.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 82.176).
    Estimated number of respondents: 154 (per year).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 4,855 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $444,249, which includes $22,912 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is a decrease of 702 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. The Agency anticipates the number of submissions to the SNAP
program to remain the same as the previous ICR during the next 3 years.
Many of the recent SNAP submissions, and those anticipated over the
next three years, are for chemicals previously found acceptable for
other SNAP applications or for blends of alternatives already found
acceptable. For the expected submissions, the burden of developing
supporting information for the majority of these submissions is
expected to decrease because it is easier to find and review
information for substitutes that have been reviewed previously. EPA
estimates a reduction in the number of respondents responsible for
recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions and
narrowed use limits. The increased availability of alternatives reduces
the need for industry to use alternatives previously listed as
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.

Cynthia A. Newberg,
Director, Stratospheric Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-01258 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60247]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket FAA No. FAA-2007-27911; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hailey, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50046), Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8,
FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27911. In that rule, an error was made in the
legal description for Hailey, ID. Specifically, the longitude
referencing Friedman Memorial Airport, ID stated ``* * *long.
114[deg]17'45'' W.'' instead of ``* * *long.114[deg]17'44'' W.'' This
action corrects that error.

DATES: Effective Date:
    0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register
approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 30, 2007, a final rule for Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8,
FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27911 was published in the Federal Register (72
FR 50046), establishing Class E airspace in Hailey, ID. The longitude
referencing Friedman Memorial Airport, ID was incorrect in that the
longitude stated ``* * *114[deg]17'45'' W.'' instead of ``* *
*long.114[deg]17'44'' W.'' This action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal
description as published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2007 (72
FR 50046), Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8, FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27911,
and incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
On page 50047, correct the legal description for Hailey, ID, to read as
follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM ID, E5 Hailey, ID [Corrected]

Friedman Memorial Airport, ID
    (lat. 43[deg]30'14'' N., long. 114[deg]17'44'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 5.5-mile radius of Friedman Memorial Airport, and within 2
miles west and 5.5 miles east of the 328[deg] bearing from the
airport extending from the 5.5-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of
the airport, and within 2 miles west and 4 miles east of the
159[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 5.5-mile radius
to 15.5 miles southeast of the airport; that airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning
at lat. 44[deg]00'00'' N., long. 114[deg]55'00'' W., thence to lat.
44[deg]00'00'' N., long. 113[deg]53'00'' W., thence to lat.
43[deg]00'00'' N., long. 113[deg]49'00'' W., thence to lat.
43[deg]00'00'' N., long. 114[deg]55'00'' W., thence to point of
beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 5, 2007.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E7-20796 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 8, 2007

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET DOT-OST-2005-22737

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   COMAIR, INC. (Comair),  filed 10/10/07, for:

XX  Renewal for two years of exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide
the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Cincinnati, Ohio, and the terminal point
Cancun, Mexico, and to integrate this authority with Comair’s existing
certificate and exemption authority.  Comair states that it provides
seasonal service in the market as a “Delta Connection” carrier.

Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Linda L.
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: November 8, 2007, through
November 8, 2009.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX  The holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2, and the notice requirements for seasonal/intermittent
services as set forth in Order 96-11-24, at 5.

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all
applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route
integration authority granted should be construed as

- see next page -

conferring upon Comair rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights), to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Comair notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any such carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that
are included in Comair’s authority by virtue of the route integration
authority granted here, but that are not then being used by Comair, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for Comair in a competitive carrier selection
proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the
authority at issue.

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov

				APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

11/06


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52990-52991]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20935]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August
29, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.

    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    an adjudicatory matter; and
    other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 22, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20935 Filed 8-23-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 8, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-26525

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION (JETBLUE) filed 12/1/06 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Boston, Massachusetts and Cancun, Mexico and to integrate this
authority with its existing authorities.  JetBlue proposes to commence
this service on March 2, 2007.

Applicant rep: Jonathan B. Hill<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst: Thuy
H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted request for exemption authority (subject to conditions, see
below)

XX  Dismissed request for route integration authority

The above action was effective when taken: December 8, 2006, through
December 8, 2008, or until 90 days after final Department action on
JetBlue’s corresponding application for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity in Docket OST-2006-26524, whichever occurs
earlier.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the United States-Mexico
air services agreement.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Conditions: The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period will begin on March 2, 2007, JetBlue’s proposed start-up date
for the above-mentioned service.

Remarks: We acted on this application without awaiting expiration of the
15-day answer period with the consent of all parties served with the
application.

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

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or dismissed, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

											        11/2006

 By Order 2006-1-1, the Department awarded the carrier a blanket route
integration certificate.


[Federal Register: March 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14438-14440]
[DOCID:fr25mr10-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0947; FRL-9130-2; EPA ICR No. 1857.05; OMB Control No.
2060-0445]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; NOX Budget Trading Program To Reduce the
Regional Transport of Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on September 30, 2010. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0947, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0947. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public

docket without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen VanSickle, Clean Air Markets
Division, Office of Air and Radiation, (6204J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0947, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the 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 in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested In?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
those which participate in the NOX Budget Trading Program to
Reduce the Regional Transport of Ozone.
    Title: NOX Budget Trading Program to Reduce the Regional
Transport of Ozone.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1857.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0445.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September
30, 2010. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The NOX Budget Trading Program is a market-
based cap and trade program created to reduce emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) from power plants and other large combustion
sources in the eastern United States. NOX is a prime
ingredient in the formation of ground-level ozone (smog), a pervasive
air pollution problem in many areas of the eastern United States. The
NOX Budget Trading Program was designed to reduce
NOX emissions during the warm summer months, referred to as
the ozone season, when ground-level ozone concentrations are highest.
In 2009 the program was replaced by the Clean Air Interstate Rule Ozone
Season Trading Program (CAIROS). Although the trading program was
replaced after the 2008 compliance season, this information collection
is being renewed for two reasons. First, some industrial sources in
certain States are still required to monitor and report emissions data
to EPA under these rules, so we will account for their burden. Second,
the Agency may at some future time, reinstitute the NOX
Budget Trading Program. For example, this might happen if both the CAIR
and CAIR replacement rules were vacated by the

Court. All data received by EPA will be treated as public 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
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 41
hours 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 which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 700.
    Frequency of response: Varies by task.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 2.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 516,562.
    Estimated total annual costs: $58,944,478. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $30,665,678 and an estimated cost of
$28,278,800 for capital investment or maintenance and operational
costs.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: March 15, 2010.
Larry F. Kertcher,
Acting Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6619 Filed 3-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Reader’s Guide Clofentezine

CRM: Joy Schnackenbeck

EPA/OPPTS/OPP/SRRD

Reader’s Guide to Clofentezine Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0240

Publication Date: March 28, 2007

EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to
the Clofentezine Docket.  This docket formally announces and opens the
registration review of clofentezine and announces a public comment
period.  Included in this docket is the Clofentezine Registration Review
Summary document, the clofentezine usage analysis, the label data
report, and recently completed risk assessments for recently granted
uses.

Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Item 1.	Pesticide Registration Review; New Dockets Opened for
Review and Comment

This document formally and publicly announces the establishment of a
registration review docket and opens the public comment period for the
registration review of clofentezine.

Docket Item 2. 	Reader’s Guide to the Clofentezine Docket #
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0240

This document annotates all the documents in the clofentezine Docket.

Docket Item 3.	Clofentezine: Registration Review Summary Document

This 50 page document summarizes the current status of Clofentezine and
discusses potential risk assessment and data needs necessary for the
registration review of Clofentezine.

Docket Item 4.	Clofentezine Screening-Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

This document lists estimates for clofentezine usage data on
agricultural crops in the United States.

Docket Item 5.	Appendix A Label Data Report – clofentezine

This document summarizes the current label language including
application rates and REIs.

Docket Item 6.	A Comparison of Clofentezine Tolerances among the United
States, Codex, Canada and Mexico

This document compares clofentezine tolerances in table form among the
three regulatory bodies – U.S., Codex, Canada, and Mexico

Docket Item 7.	Clofentezine Registrations

This document lists the four current clofentezine registrations
including registration numbers, names, status and registrants.

Docket Item 8.	EFED Environmental Risk Assessment for Clofentezine New
Uses: Persimmons and Grapes.

This is the ecological risk assessment, completed in 2005, that assess
two additional uses of clofentezine - grapes and persimmons.

Docket Item 9.	Clofentezine in/on Grapes, Persimmons, Almonds

(Label Amendment), and Stone Fruit (Label Amendment). Health Effects
Division (HED) Risk Assessment.

This is the human health risk assessment, completed in 2005, that assess
health effects of clofentezine use on grapes, persimmons, almonds, and
stone fruit.


Renewal of an Information collection request for Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project XL OMB Control No. 2010 0026 EPA ICR No. 1755.06 The United States Environmental Protection Agency April 2002 Table of Contents Title Page 1. Identification of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. The Respondents and The Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ( I) Data items, including record keeping requirements ( II) Respondent Activities 5. The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6( b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6( c) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6( d) Reason for Burden Hour Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project XL ( ICR) (# 1755.06)

1. Identification of the information collection 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project XL, ICR No. 1755.06, OMB Control No. 2010 0026.

1( b) Short Characterization This is a request for renewal of currently approved ICR No. 1755.05, which authorizes the solicitation of proposals for innovative pilot projects. A 60 day comment period for this ICR renewal in the Federal Register concluded on January 8, 2002, during which no comments were received. In 1995, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) began to solicit innovative pilot projects in response to a challenge to transform the environmental regulatory system to better meet the needs of a rapidly changing society while maintaining the nation's commitment to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment. Through site specific agreements with project sponsors, EPA is gathering data and project experience that is helping the Agency redesign current approaches in pursuit of improved public health and environmental protection and more efficient use of limited resources.

The intent of innovative pilot projects is to allow EPA to experiment with untried, potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether they provide superior environmental performance and other benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects allow EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible when undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a site or state specific basis, that represent one of several possible policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.

The adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the context of a given project does not, however, signal EPA's willingness to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even in the context of other pilot projects. It would be inconsistent with the forward looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining whether or not they are viable in practice and successful for the particular projects that embody them. These pilot projects are not intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs. Depending on the results of these projects, EPA may or may not be willing to consider 2 adopting the alternative approach or interpretation again, either generally or for other specific facilities. EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and/ or interpretations, on a limited, site or state specific basis and in connection with a carefully selected pilot project is consistent with the expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the environmental statutes ( so long as EPA acts within the discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing reevaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of statutory provisions.

Innovative pilot project proposals are collected by EPA's Office of Environmental Policy Innovation ( OEPI) [ formerly the Office of Reinvention], which has been given responsibility for implementation of this program. Since 1995, EPA has implemented pilot projects to test innovative ideas working with EPA headquarters, EPA regions, Federal, State, and local government agencies. The renewal of this ICR is important as it will allow the Agency to work with additional regulated entities who are interested in participating in innovative pilot projects as well as allow the Agency to continue its commitment to innovation and regulatory flexibility with facilities, communities, States, and Tribes in achieving environmental results. The renewal of this ICR will allow OEPI to continue to receive and work with project sponsors on proposals for innovation, including those directly through EPA and those through the Joint EPA State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation. In addition, the renewal of this ICR is necessary to allow EPA to continue its commitments to current projects, including three specified in recently approved ICR amendments: the NYSDEC ICR amendment ( 1755.03), the US Filter ICR amendment ( 1755.04) and the POTWs ICR amendment ( 1755.05).

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The information is needed to continue to allow the Agency to work with additional regulated entities who are interested in participating in innovative pilot projects as well as allow the Agency to continue its commitment to innovation and regulatory flexibility with facilities, communities, States and Tribes in achieving environmental results. Under this ICR, EPA is to solicit its regulated entities for their best ideas on regulatory innovation, and for pilot projects to test those ideas. Potential project sponsors will continue to submit completed proposals to the Office of Environmental Policy Innovation at EPA.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Uses of the Data The proposals to be collected pursuant to this renewal are used to develop full fledged pilot projects and then to document the implementation of the projects. A competitive process ensures that EPA can choose from a pool of useful project ideas. Moreover, the simple and flexible proposal format used allows a diversity of regulated entities, small as well as large firms, agencies, and communities, to develop proposals. EPA uses the proposal submissions to screen ideas and select the most promising ones for further project development. 3 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by EPA or any other Federal agency.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR 3( c) Consultations This notice was developed by a team consisting of EPA headquarters personnel.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection For proposal solicitation, there will be sufficient time between information requests related to innovative pilots to reflect actions taken in response to participant and stakeholder comments. There are no technical or legal obstacles to reducing the burden.

3 ( e) General Guidelines This ICR complies with OMB's general guidelines for the collection of information.

3( f) Confidentiality The nature of the data being requested as part of this information collection is not confidential.

3( g) Sensitive Questions The information gathering activities discussed in this ICR do not involve any sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes EPA works with a variety of businesses, organizations, and communities within the regulated community, as well as Federal facilities, States, Tribes, and local governments. Potential 4 respondents include all entities regulated by EPA pursuant to its authority under the various environmental statutes who wish to participate in innovative pilot projects.

4( b) Information Requested Information collection activities fall generally into two categories: the Pre proposal phase and the Proposal development phase.

During the Pre proposal phase, sponsors typically engage in the following information collection activities:

° Review innovative pilot project proposal instructions. This will contain information about how to apply to obtain EPA approval in order to test an innovative idea, requiring EPA approval, as well as details and requirements regarding EPA's innovative pilot program.

° Discuss innovative pilot project pre proposal idea with EPA and the appropriate State or Tribe. EPA encourages sponsors to engage in substantive dialogues with EPA and the appropriate State or Tribe before fully developing a proposal to be formally submitted for EPA consideration. During these dialogues, EPA expects to ask the sponsor to discuss:

General information such as the facility, nearby community, geographic area, as well as facility contact information.

A general description of the innovative idea including a summary or overview of the potential project and specific project elements.

How the potential project meets specific innovative pilot project criteria such as superior environmental performance, cost savings, stakeholder involvement, innovation or pollution prevention, transferability, feasibility, evaluation, monitoring, accountability, and shifting of risk burden.

A description of the flexibility from regulations that the sponsor is requesting ( if necessary), an enforcement and compliance profile and project schedule information.

During the Proposal development phase, sponsors typically engage in the following information collection activities:

° Conduct innovative pilot project proposal development discussions with EPA and the appropriate State or Tribe. During these discussions, EPA expects sponsors to provide more details regarding how the potential innovative pilot project will be implemented; and how the sponsor will meet innovative pilot project program criteria. These discussions will enable the sponsor to better understand how an innovative pilot project could realistically be structured, and therefore, develop a proposal that will more likely gain acceptance by EPA. Further, these discussions will enable the entity to better understand how the innovative pilot 5 project idea aligns, or could be aligned, with the appropriate State's or Tribe's environmental priorities.

° Write the project proposal. EPA has no pre determined format for proposals. However, EPA expects that sponsors will formally describe relevant entity background information, the innovative pilot project idea, how the idea fits criteria for EPA innovative pilot projects, and expected timeframe of the potential project.

° Conduct internal project proposal review. Project sponsors typically seek approval from key decision makers within the sponsor organization and make necessary modifications.

° Send the pilot project proposal. At the conclusion of proposal development, the sponsor will make the proposal available to EPA and the appropriate State or Tribe.

As mentioned above, States or Tribes may ask for, and provide, information during both the preproposal and proposal development phases.

Many more entities will discuss their pre proposal ideas for innovative pilot projects than those who actually gain EPA's and the State's or Tribe's acceptance to move forward on developing a formal proposal for EPA consideration.

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

5( a) Agency Activities Agency activities associated with the collection of information for innovative pilot projects include:

° Gather information from sponsors regarding innovative ideas during pre proposal phase;

° Evaluate pre proposal ideas with cross Agency team;

° Gather additional information from sponsor entities regarding innovative pilot projects ideas to assist sponsor entities in developing proposals;

° Distribute proposals across Agency; and ° Evaluate proposals with cross Agency team.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Information Management The collection process for proposal solicitation and development is as follows. EPA places this solicitation in the Federal Register. EPA also distributes copies upon request, and participates where invited in workshops designed to assist potential project proponents in development of 6 proposals. Sponsors engage in discussions with EPA to gauge whether their ideas require approval by EPA and/ or the appropriate State or Tribe before moving forward, and, if so, whether their ideas could realistically gain approval by EPA and the appropriate State or Tribe. If, based upon these discussion, a sponsor determines that a full proposal should be submitted to EPA, the sponsor may then develop, and then submit the proposal to EPA. Proposals are sent to an EPA docket where they are logged in and catalogued. Additional copies are then sent to OEPI for screening, reference purposes, and distribution to a cross agency committee for proposal review.

5 ( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

The flexible proposal process described earlier is designed to be useful to large as well as small entities. Innovative pilot projects are voluntary and entities can choose not to participate at any time if undue burden exists. It was designed to be simple to respond to, with no undue burden on entities without full time environmental managers, etc.

5( d) Collection Schedule.

The collection schedule for proposal solicitation and development is on a rolling basis. EPA maintains an open solicitation for proposals that was initiated in 1995 with the publication of the initial notice and has no set end date.

6. Estimating the Burden and the Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost This section presents EPA's estimates of the burden and costs necessary to complete the information collection activities associated with this collection. Burden hours and costs were based upon estimates provided by EPA staff with extensive experience working with innovative pilot project sponsors and States to assess innovative pilot project ideas and proposals.

EPA estimates average hourly respondent labor cost ( including fringe and overhead) of $ 106 for legal staff, $ 83 for managerial staff, $ 55 for technical staff, and $ 29 for clerical staff. To derive these estimates EPA referred to the Supporting Statement for ICR # 801.14 entitled" Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System" ( January 31, 2002: http:// www. epa. gov/ icr/ icrs/ icrpages/ 0801ss14. htm). These estimates were " based on industry consultations conducted by EPA several years ago and updated to 2001 levels using Employment Cost Indexes developed by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."

To estimate State and Tribe cost, the hourly wage was based upon 2002 GS 9/ 10 salary of $ 49,924 ( or $ 24.00) with overhead of 110% factored in, resulting in $ 50/ hour.

In using this analysis it should be remembered not only that all responses to this solicitation are voluntary, but that sponsors have some expected value attached with their participation. Not unlike a contracts based Request For Proposals, one would not expect a response from any entity where 7 the burdens associated with preparing the response outweigh the expected benefits to the sponsor.

EPA expects a range of entities   facilities, companies, Federal facilities, municipalities, States, or Tribes   to provide EPA with up to 80 pre proposal ideas per year over the life of this ICR. From these 80, EPA expects 40 formal proposals to be submitted to EPA each year over the life of this ICR. Further, EPA expects that approximately half of the pre proposal ideas formally discussed ( 40 of 80) with EPA and half the proposals formally submitted ( 20 of 40) to EPA will have multi facility, multi company, multi Federal facility, multi State, or multi community sponsors. EPA expects that multi facility proposal will average five sponsors per pre proposal idea or formal proposal.

No capital expenditures are needed by the respondent to complete the interview since the responses can be made using existing equipment ( e. g., telephone). Moreover, no operating and maintenance costs are needed since the activities ( reviewing instructions, writing, discussions, and submissions of proposals) can be conducted in with existing equipment ( e. g., phone, computer).

Assuming that sponsors provide EPA with 80 pre proposal ideas per year, EPA expects that engagement in Pre proposal phase activities described above will require 6,480 hours of sponsor time and cost sponsors $ 524,880 per year.

Assuming that sponsors provide EPA with 40 formal proposals per year, EPA expects that engagement in proposal development activities described above will require 51,840 hours of sponsor time and cost sponsors $ 3,955,080 per year.

EPA expects that consultations conducted by the appropriate State or Tribe with sponsors for both Pre proposal phase activities as well as proposal development phase activities, will require 2,520 hours of State or Tribal time and cost the States and Tribes $ 337,800 per year.

It is important to keep in mind that many more sponsors will discuss their pre proposal ideas for innovative pilot projects than those who actually gain EPA and the State or Tribe's acceptance to move forward on developing a formal proposal for EPA consideration. Further, some pre proposal ideas and formal proposals will have multiple sponsors. These considerations have been incorporated into the development of burden and cost estimates described in the table below. Staff in the Office of Environmental Policy Innovation that work on the development of innovative pilot projects have reviewed the cost findings of the report and found them to be reasonable and sound estimates of current and future costs. 8 Table 1. Average Annual Burden and Cost to Respondents Collection Activity Burden Hours and Individual Costs per Recipient Total Costs Hours per Respondent per Activity Costs per Respondent per Activity Total Hours for all Respondents Total Costs for all Respondents Legal Mgmt Tech Cler SPONSORS: PRE PROPOSAL PHASE Review innovative pilot project proposal instructions 3 3 3 $ 729 2160 $ 174,960 Discuss pre proposal idea with EPA 3 3 3 $ 729 2160 $ 174,960 Discuss pre proposal idea with State/ Tribe 3 3 3 $ 729 2160 $ 174,960 TOTAL 9 9 9 $ 2,187 6480 $ 524,880 SPONSORS: PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT PHASE Proposal development discussions with EPA 12 3 12 $ 2,169 3240 $ 260,280 Proposal development discussions with State/ Tribe 20 20 20 $ 4,860 7200 $ 583,200 Writing project proposal 80 10 120 5 $ 15,930 25800 $ 1,911,600 Internal proposal review 40 40 40 $ 9720 14400 $ 1,166,400 Send proposal 10 $ 280 1200 $ 33,600 TOTAL 152 73 192 15 $ 32,959 51840 $ 3,955,080 STATE/ TRIBE: CONSULTATION WITH PROPOSAL SPONSORS Pre proposal discussions with sponsor 9 3 9 $ 1,689 1680 $ 135,120 Proposal development discussions with sponsor 9 3 9 $ 1,689 840 $ 202,680 TOTAL 18 6 18 $ 3,378 2520 $ 337,800 6( b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Agency burden hours and costs were based upon estimates provided by EPA staff with extensive experience working with innovative pilot project sponsors and States to assess innovative pilot project ideas and proposals. The rate EPA used to estimate agency hourly wage was based upon 2002 GS 13/ 01 salary of $ 66,229 ( or $ 31.84) with overhead of 110% factored in, resulting in $ 67/ hour.

To perform the necessary activities associated with this information collection, EPA estimates 1EPA expects that 80 pre proposal ideas will be submitted annually. EPA estimates that, of these, 40 of these will most likely have multiple sponsors. EPA estimates that the number of sponsors for each " multi sponsor" pre proposal will equal five. This brings the number of pre proposal respondents to 240 (= 200+ 40).

2 EPA expects that 40 formal proposals will be submitted annually. EPA estimates that, of these, 20 will most likely have multiple sponsors. EPA estimates that the number of sponsors for each " multi sponsor" proposal will equal five. This brings the number of pre proposal respondents to 120 (= 100+ 20).

9 that it will require the Agency 13,960 hours and cost the Agency $ 935,320 per year. It is important to remember that EPA will work with fewer sponsors after screening out initial preproposal ideas. Further, some ideas and formal sponsor will be associated with several sponsors. These considerations have been incorporated into the estimates below.

Staff in the Office of Environmental Policy Innovation that work on the development of innovative pilot projects have reviewed the cost findings of the report and found them to be reasonable and sound estimates.

Collection Activity Costs Labor Total Hours Total Costs Hours Costs EPA Gather information from sponsor entities regarding innovative idea during pre proposal phase through discussions 24 $ 1,608 1920 $ 128,640 Evaluate pre proposal with cross Agency team 30 $ 2,010 2400 $ 160,800 Gather additional information from sponsor entities regarding innovative pilot projects ideas to assist sponsor entities in developing proposals 180 $ 12,060 7200 $ 482,400 Distribute proposals across Agency 1 $ 67 40 $ 2,680 Evaluate proposal with cross Agency team 60 $ 4,020 2400 $ 160,800 TOTAL 13960 $ 935,320 6( c) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs EPA estimates that, annually, 240 respondents1 will be involved in pre proposal idea information collection activities. To complete these associated activities, EPA estimates that it will cost each respondent $ 2,187 per year and require 27 hours. EPA estimates that, annually, 120 respondents2 will be involved in proposal development information collection activities. To complete these associated activities, EPA estimates that it will cost each respondent $ 32,959 per year and require 432 hours.

EPA estimates that States and Tribes will be involved in 120 consultations with sponsors submitting innovative ideas ( 80) and proposals ( 40) each year. Total burden hours for any State or Tribe participating in consultation regarding innovative ideas will cost each State or 10 Tribe $ 1,689 per year and require 1,680 hours. Total burden hours for any State or Tribe participating in consultation regarding the submission of formal proposals for innovative will cost each State or Tribe $ 1,689 per year and require 21 hours.

The total number of respondents including those submitting ideas and proposals and those providing consultation ( States and Tribes) equals 480. Total annual burden hours for these respondents equals 60,840 at a cost of $ 4,817,760 annually.

6( d) Reasons for Burden Hour Change OMB currently has approved 236,130 burden hours for EPA to solicit ideas and formal proposals to develop innovative pilot projects. This total also includes annual burden hours approved as part of three amendments to ICR ( 1755.02). EPA requires 11,458 hours annually to perform information collection activities described in the ICR amendments ( 1755.03, 1755.04, and 1755.05). With the renewal of this ICR, total annual hours needed to conduct information collection activities described in this ICR, as well as in the three ICR amendments listed above, will reduce by 163,832 hours. This difference is a result of a better understanding of the burden requirements necessary to submit proposals for innovative pilot projects, and an improved understanding of innovative pilot projects and how to develop them.

7. Burden Statement The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 18 hours per response for sponsors submitting pre proposal ideas to EPA, and 432 hours per response for sponsors submitting formal proposals to EPA. Further, these information collection activities are expected to result in 21 hours per response for States or Tribes consulting on pre proposal ideas submitted to EPA, and 21 hours per response for States and Tribes consulting on proposals formally submitted to EPA.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 11 burden estimates, and any suggested methods in any correspondence.


                        PGP State Face-to-Face Meeting
                            September 27, 28, 2010
                                     DAY 1

      PARTICIPANTS					AFFILIATION
EPA HQ:

      Linda Boornazian 					OW/OWM/WPD
      Allison Wiedeman 					 OW/OWM/WPD
      Jack Faulk 						OW/OWM/WPD
      Jennifer Chan 						OW/OWM/WPD
      Prasad Chumble 					OW/OWM/WPD
      Jordan Page 						OW/OWM/WPD
      Hema Subramanian 					OW/OWM/WPD
      Susan Lewis 						OPP/BEAD
      Arnet Jones 						OPP/BEAD
      Tim Kiely 						 OPP/BEAD
      Elizabeth Hill 						 OPP/BEAD
      Nicole Berckes						OPP/BEAD
      Bill Jordan 						OPP
      Kevin Minoli 						 OGC/WLO
      Mindy Kairis 						OGC/WLO
      Michele Knorr						OGC/Pesticides
      Cheryl Rose 						OECA
      Melissa Katz 						 OECA
      Mathew Dobbins 					OECA

EPA Regions: (5)

      Kimberly Heil 						R7
      David Rise 						R8
      Colleen Gillespie					R8
      Darcy O'Conner						R8
      Pete Weber 						 R3
      Sergio Bosques 						R2
      Andrea Szylvian 					 R1
      George Papadopoulos					R1
      Maureen Krudner 					R2

States: (14)

      Elise Doucette 						Minnesota PCA
      Steven Goans 						Nebraska DEQ
      Bruce Fielding 						Louisiana DEQ
      Melvin Mitchell 					Louisiana DEQ
      Steven Dwinell 						Florida Dept. of Ag. & Cons.
      Jeff Schardt						 Florida F & W Cons.  Comm.
      Daveki Keymoore 					New Jersey Div. of WQ
      Phil Coram 						Florida DEP
      Bill Meredith 						Delaware DNREC
      Hank Uhden 						Wyoming Dept. of Ag.
      Sharmon Stambaugh 					Alaska DEC/Division of Water
      David Priebe 						Oregon Dept. of Ag.
      Beth Moore 						Oregon Dept. of EQ
      Charles Maguire 					Texas Comm. on EQ
      David Villareal 						Texas Dept. of Ag.
      Bobby Simoneaux 					Louisiana Dept.of Ag. & F.
      Cary Hamilton  						New Mexico Dept. of Ag.
      Courtney Cswercko 					Iowa DNR
      Elleanore Daub 						Virginia DEQ  -  Water Permits
      Ed Stone 						Maryland Dept. of Environment
      Leah Krafft 						Wyoming Dept. of EQ
      Jill Bingham 						Georgia EPD

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS:

SCOPE:

   * Steve (NE)  -  Fungicides in cranberry farms, is it covered in PGP?
         o Steve (Fl)  -  These are FIFRA labels for fungicides but they do not fall into the weed or animal category.

   * David (R8)  -  In northeast Montana there are a lot of prairie potholes. It is difficult for an aerial applicator to avoid pesticide applications.

   * Bill (DE)  -  Can you provide some specific examples for Federal Facility (option e in permit scope of coverage)?
            o          Jack F  -  Rangelands, pest control over very large areas. Larger than State and private applications
            o          Bill (DE)  -  When spraying for grass hoppers, do they not stop over open waters?
            o          Jack F  -  The challenge is conveyance and intermittent streams. Generally can turn off nozzles but in large areas is difficult. May require permit coverage. The concern is that they are going to get sued.

   * Cary (NM)  -  In rangeland there are many dry stream beds, which contain invasive species.
         o Allison W  -  States can make their permits more stringent to include additional waters.
         o Cary (NM)  -  Concern over ditches. In NM over 6000 miles. Not all continually provide conveyances. When dry , no return flow to source.

   * Charles (TX)  -  Ag. Requested to be included in permit coverage. Especially crop dusting and group applications. General view in Texas  -  want some kind of coverage BUT do not want to be called out.

   * Elise (MN)  -  Runoff from cranberry farms were considered irrigation return flow. Do not want to control ditches prior to fields.
         o Allison W  -  Only talking about crops grown in "waters of the US" (WOUS)

   * Bill (DL)  -  Concern about ditches. In Delaware, ditches in the fields always have water. Need to better define conveyances that would need coverage.
         o Kevin M  -  Difficult to define "point soure". If conveyance does not reach "WOUS" do not need permit.
         o Bill (DL)  -  It is impossible to spray without contact to conveyance. If only connected during stormwater discharge, is that exempt?
         o Allison W  -  There is a difference between runoff from field that has pesticide and runoff from conveyances.
         o Bill (DE)  -  EPA need better clarification.

   * Steve (Fl)  -  Prairie Potholes?
         o Allison W  -  Not addressed directly. If applying pesticide to WOUS then need a permit. Will not call out specifically.

   * Steve (NE)  -  We will cover dry swales because they are "waters of the State." Will will be doing 2 permits. 1) by water body types and 2) by flowing waters.

   * Courtney (IA)  -  Road side managers are concerned about dry ditch applications. If applied when dry , need coverage?
         o Linda B  -  Some things are challenging. Don't have ready answers based on case law.

   * Steve (Fl)  -  Ag. Is making a mistake by not asking to be covered. They will see unavoidably pest application to WOUS. It is easy for them to be covered under the permit and they should do so.

   * Elise (MN)- Ditch managers know they do not apply terrestrial pesticides in waters. Looking at Washington State permit.
         o Allison W  -  Should only pesticides applied to water be covered?
         o Elise (MN)  -  Yes, crop dusters can avoid waters, only dealing with aquatic pesticides.

   * Cary (NM)  -  All our water is applied to farms through gravity feeding, there is no return flow. If covered, the thresholds should be increased.

   * Courtney (IA)  -  What about seasonally dry pesticides? We would like only aquatic pesticides. Will those need application?
         o Bill J  -  	1) Some pesticide labeling approved for not getting in water therefore don't apply to lake, rivers, streams. That would be a FIFRA violation. OPP definition of "don't apply to water" not the same as the Clean Water Act definition.
                  2) Pesticide Office does not look at risk to aquatic systems, even though applied to terrestrial sites. We use different risk assessment models as opposed to the direct water applied risk assessment.

   * David (R8)  -  Ag. applies to "entire field." They cannot shut off near waters, canals, ditches. They are going to be opening themselves up for litigation.
         o Allison W  -  For crop/Ag. need to take baby steps.
                     # Options - 	1) "Opt-In Category"
                                    2) Different Permit
		What do you feel about those? EPA, politically, cannot add Ag. not.
         o Steve (NE)  -  Right now they take action if applied to water. For grasshoppers, label  says do not apply directly to water. For dry ditches, not directly applied to water so follow FIFRA.
         o Jack F  -  Different definitions of water under FIFRA and Clean Water Act.

   * Charles (TX)  -  We are writing permit with WOUS, typically we do "waters of the State." We will include all water bodies. We can pullout states specific playa lake.

   * Bill (DL)  -  There are many complications. Could EPA add a category for use criteria?
         o Kevin M  -  There is flexibility

                                     POLLS

      Terrestrial Application for Agricultural Pesticides

      1) Coverage for Non WOUS crop Ag. under PGP: TX, LA
      2) Opt In Category: MN, FL, DE, NJ, NM
      3) Second General Permit: None
      4) No Coverage: IA, OK, AK, VA WY
      5) Against Editorial Title Change: VA, NM

            Scope Options (a-e)

      a) DON'T AGREE: VA, NM
      b) AGREE: TX, FL, OR, IA, DE, NJ, LA
      c) AGREE:  MN, FL, IA, DE, AK, LA, TX
      d) AGREE:  None
      e) AGREE:  No Vote

IMPAIRED WATERS:

   * Elleanore (VA)  -  Should we look at all impairments?
         o Jack F  -  There is flexibility for States

   * Elleanore (VA)  -  Some waters are impaired for copper but need to use copper pesticides. Will they need individual permit?
         o Jack F  -  You have flexibility

   * Phil (FL)- If discharge is done upstream are they not eligible?
         o Jack F  -  We were looking at direct discharges.

TIER 3 WATERS:

   * Steve (NE)  -  We have Tier 3 waters. Timing is crucial. In state parks mosquito control is needed for public health. For restorative purposes, 4-5 state agencies are envolved. We will cover Tier 3 in longer permit.

   * Elleanore (VA)  -  Our proposed permit allows temporary discharges to Tier 3 waters.

   * Pete (R3)- Applications to control gypsy moths is needed to protect Tier 3 waters.

   * Bill (DE)  -  Concerned about public health issues. Should be covered under PGP.

   * Leah ?(WY)  -  no discharge to Tier 3 in State regulations.  Most Tier 3 are in high population areas. Need mosquito control to ensure public health.

   * Daveki (NJ)  -  Long list of Tier 3 wasters in NJ. Right now they are being sprayed for mosquitoes and gypsy moths.  Not enough time for individual permit.

   * Jack F  -  Looking at this issue from a legal stand point.

NOI & THRESHOLD:

   * Steve (NE)- Concerned about NOI for mosquitoes. Already keeping records and doing IPM. Throwing in an extra NOI would be duplicative.

   * Eleanore (VA)  -  NOI means nothing to DEQ. Only a piece of paper. No staff to process. Want people to have coverage without NOI submission.
         o Allison W- How would you conduct inspection or regulate?
         o Eleanore (VA)- Don't have any reports of problems in the past. They should report adverse impacts annually. They should record but not have to send it in for review.

   * Steve (FL)  -  There are too many for-hire applicators. Will be a big burden. If trying to limit, this is the wrong approach.

   * Ed (MD)  -  Goal is to limit to a manageable level. EPA should consider no submittal of NOI.

   * Bill (DE)  -  For mosquito control 6400 acres should exclude most smaller municipalities. Pay attention to larvicide threshold. Consider not requiring NOI for people who only apply larvicide.

   * Andrea (R1)  -  Concurs with Steve (FL) above, too many for-hire applicators.
         o Jack F  -  Should there be a certain threshold for for-fire applicators?
         o Steve (Fl) No. If trying to capture large-scale, go after governmental entities. If for-hire is doing control, they are doing it under a government contract.

   * Phil (FL)  -  Like the concept of moving away from threshold. EPA should try to get away from weed/algae threshold.
   * Courtney (IA) - To require NOI from all drainage districts is reasonable. Should strike out (ii) under (d) (1) (NOI sheet) because you are outside of drainage district. Agree about (ii) (c) (NOI sheet). There should be 2 different thresholds for larvicide and adulticide.

   * Charles (TX)  -  Texas tried not to permit same entity twice. For TX NOI means fees. Instead of NOI have a "self certification letter."

   * Bill (DE)  -  You should add "irrigation and drainage district" to (i) & (ii) of (d) (1). EPA should define "control district."

   * Steve (NE)  -  EPA should also think about " major and minor districts"

   * Bill (DE)  -  There are small companies that do aquatic animal control. This might discourage small companies from doing this service.
               o             Jack F  -  Provide small info. is not a big burden. Trying to separate our responsibility.

                                     POLLS

		Who will your State be permitting?

      1) Focus on Applicators : WY, NJ
      2) Focus on Landowners / Decision-makers  -  MN, TX, NM, IA, OR, AK, DE, FL, GA
      3) Permit both (multiple approaches)  -  TX, MN

            Assuming both applicator & decision-makers are permitted, who should be required to submit an NOI?

      a) Only applicators: WY
      b) Only decision-makers: TX, IA, OR, FL, AK, MN, DE
      c) From either applicators or decision-makers: NM, NJ, NE, MN
      d) Should be required of both applicators and decision-makers  -  NONE
      e) Should be required from no one: "vast majority"

STATE PERMITTING & SCHEDULES:

   * Steve (NE)  -  NE will have 2 permits.
                  1) Permit by rule  -  covers non-flowing waters or isolated waterbodies, and non-endangered species areas.
                  2) General permit  -  covers endangered species areas.
      IPM before permit decision is not a bad idea but is not a permitting rule. General permit will have discussion about IPM.
               o             Linda B  -  Consider putting IPM as an eligibility requirement.
               o             Steve (NE)  -  The biggest districts are dealing with flowing waters, IPM is not enforceable in a permit.
   * Elise (MN)  -  Our plant and algae control permit is significantly different than EPA's. There is a big universe for this.

   * Leah? (WY)  -  WY's permit will be consistent with state regulations. Will permit discharges to tier 3 due to health risks. Will be permitting applicators and require them to fill out a form consisting of thresholds and densities.

   * Elise (MN)  -  Is permit going to say "you must follow FIFRA"
         o Jack F  -  Our permit will not mention FIFRA
         o Kevin M  -  Don't want to open FIFRA label to litigation.
         o Allison W  -  We recommend State do not mention FIFRA.
         o Mindy  -  Just mentioning FIFRA will not be adequate.
         o Allison W-  If you have strong justification then we will need that.

   * Bill (DE)  -  Will the six EPA states not be required to submit PDMP to EPA?
         o Jack F  -  yes that's correct.
         o Bill (DE)- Can that information be FOIA'd?
         o Linda B  -  If somebody requests, EPA will request it from entity.R1) -
         o Bill (DE)  -  Private entities are concerned about their info. being available to everone.
         o Linda B  -  We have CBI.
         o Allison W  -  When the states develop a plan, is that automatically not publically available?

   * Charles (TX)  -  Response from EPA on state permit is important. Regions will have 90 days to look at permit and the EPA has another 30 days. How is Region + EPA HQ organized to look at the state permits?
         o Allison W  -  We do not have contractor resources, will have to tightly coordinate with Regions.

   * Andrea (R1)  -  If we include Ag. they would not want info. publicly available. What is the fall back position if Ag. is in?
         o Allison W  -  Right now, Ag. is not  in plan.

   * Ed (MD)  -  Would EPA be open to having NOI to be open in phases?
         o Linda B  -  Vessels  -  NOI received 1 year later. We have done it , but cannot delay requirements.
         o Ed (MD)  -  Is there a vehicle when compliance schedule be allowed?
         o Linda B  -  2 things??????

   * Beth (OR)  -  We have a 2 prong approach
                  1) Cover the PGP scope
                  2) Going out to irrigation districts

   * Sharmon (AK)  -  We will use R10 general permit. AK not a big pesticide state.


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

04/23/2008 05:55 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: Pb- Compare of Secondary section to ANPR

Heidi,

Attached is a compare version of the discussion of the secondary standard in the ANPR and the draft NPR that you received on April 15.    We have already made a few changes to this section of the draft NPR, but for the sake of clarity I am sending you this comparison.   Let me know if you need anything else.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22879-22880]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08242]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2392-041]

Ampersand Gilman Hydro, LP; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and
Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2392-041.
    c. Date filed: March 29, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Ampersand Gilman Hydro, LP.
    e. Name of Project: Gilman Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Connecticut River and
straddles the Village of Gilman, within the Town of Lunenburg, Essex
County, Vermont, and the Town of Dalton, Coos County, New Hampshire.
The project does not occupy any federal or tribal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Sayad Moudachirou, Licensing Manager, 717
Atlantic Avenue, Suite 1A, Boston, MA 02111; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email: [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Ousmane Sidibe, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: May 31, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. All filings must clearly identify the
project name and docket number on the first page: Gilman Hydroelectric
Project (P-2392-041).
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Gilman Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A 324.5-foot-
wide concrete dam with a crest elevation of 826.8 feet spanning the
river's width with a 5-foot-high, 108-foot-long rubber bladder and a
6.5-foot-high, 109-foot-long rubber bladder surmounted on two overflow
spillways measuring 112.9 feet and 113 feet in width and an 18-foot-
high, 27-foot-wide hydraulically operated crestgate; (2) a downstream
fish passage system; (3) a 130-acre impoundment at a normal maximum
surface elevation of 833.3 feet (USGS); (4) a steel- and timber-framed
powerhouse with an integral water intake draft tube containing four
generating turbine units with a total installed capacity of 4.95
megawatts located at the Vermont side of the dam; (5) a 242-foot-long,
23.75-foot-wide trash rack with approximately 2-inch spacing; (6) a
200-foot-long transmission line connecting the 34.5 kilovolt-ampere
transformer to National Grid's switchyard; and (7) appurtenant
facilities.
    Ampersand Gilman Hydro, LP proposes to continue to operate the
project in a run-of-river mode with no storage or flood control
capacity. In accordance with Condition A of the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation's water quality certification issued for the
project, the project adheres to the following downstream minimum flow
release requirements: (1) From June 1 through October 15, when river
flows are less than 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), pass a minimum
flow of 210 cfs over the crestgate; (2) provide a minimum flow of 757
cfs during operational issues or refilling of the impoundment; and (3)
for faster impoundment refill based on consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and other agencies, a minimum flow of no less than
300 cfs to protect the dwarf wedge mussel until normal operations are
restored. The project can operate in most of the extreme conditions of
the Connecticut River and generate electricity from flows of 130 cfs up
to high flood conditions of 35,000 cfs. The estimated average annual
generation of the project from 2008 to 2018 is 25,000 megawatt-hours.
    o. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document (P-2392). For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at [email protected], or call toll-free, (866)
208-3676 or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)--June 2022
Request Additional Information (if necessary)--June 2022
Issue Acceptance Letter and Notice--August 2022
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--September 2022
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)--November 2022
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--December 2022

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: April 12, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08242 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P