                FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FDEP Review of EPA's "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida"
         Prepared January 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency

             Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration
                                   4/28/2010

Contents
Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida	1
Overall Comment: The above cost estimates significantly underestimate those that would be incurred for compliance with EPA's proposed criteria.	1
Background on Preliminary Cost Estimates	1
Municipal WWTPs	1
Assessment Procedure	1
Industrial Dischargers	1
Assessment Procedure	1
Urban Storm Water	1
Assessment Procedure	1
Agriculture	1
Assessment Procedure	1
Septic Systems	1
Assessment Procedure	1
Benefits Analysis	1
Conclusions	1

Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida

EPA's Economic Analysis stated

   EPA conducted a preliminary estimate of the potential incremental compliance and state resource costs associated with EPA's proposed nutrient criteria for lakes and streams in Florida.  Incremental costs associated with the proposed rule represent the costs above and beyond the costs that would be incurred for compliance with the baseline criteria. For this analysis, baseline costs represent the costs necessary for compliance with FDEP's draft water quality standard (WQS) changes (Chapter 62-302 and 62-303; July 2009), and any costs incurred to reduce nutrient loads to waters on the existing state Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list or with an existing total maximum daily load (TMDL). The preliminary cost estimates described in Attachment #1 to this Report are based on criteria representative of these draft changes1, and thus, represent potential baseline expenditures.

   The incremental costs (cost savings) associated with implementation of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria include incremental compliance and government resource costs. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes the preliminary estimates of compliance costs; actual costs will depend on the procedures for assessing waters for compliance and the site-specific source reductions needed to attain the criteria.

   Exhibit ES-1. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual Control Costs Under the Proposed Rule (2009 dollars) [DEP note  -  the costs listed in Exhibit ES-1 of the EPA document did not match the summary costs in the summary table (Exhibit 8-1) in Chapter 8  -  it is assumed that the Chapter 8 costs, which are consistent with those set forth in the individual chapters, are correct.  Therefore, the corrected costs are shown in the revised table below]

                                Source Sector
                              Potential Controls
                           Annual Costs (millions)
Major Municipal WWTPs
BNR to reduce TN and/or TP
                                    $42.7
Minor Municipal WWTPs
BNR to reduce TN and/or TP
                                     $9.3
Industrial Dischargers
Process optimization/source control
                                     $2.3
General Dischargers
Process optimization/source control
                                     $0.6
Urban Storm Water
Uncertain
                               Not estimated[1]
Agriculture
Nutrient management
Riparian forest buffers
Livestock fencing
                              $27.9
$5.1
$1.9
Septic Systems
Upgrade to advanced nutrient treatment
                               $12.4  -  $40.2
Total

                              $102.1  -  $130.0
BNR= Biological Nutrient Removal
TN = total nitrogen
TP = total phosphorus
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant
[1]Costs are not estimated because the need for incremental controls is uncertain.

The EPA report also notes that "In addition, state resource costs to complete TMDLs for the 973 potential incrementally impaired waters could be approximately $2.5 million per year, based on national average costs, assuming a 9-year implementation schedule. This estimate does not include the potential cost saving that could be associated with the 39 waters currently listed as impaired for nutrients that may not exceed the numeric criteria, or incremental costs and cost savings associated with completed TMDLs for which the current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than FDEP's draft criteria."

1 Note that FDEP's draft numeric nutrient criteria differ slightly from those used to estimate preliminary baseline
compliance costs.
Overall Comment: The above cost estimates significantly underestimate those that would be incurred for compliance with EPA's proposed criteria.
The Department performed a cost estimate that indicates that the EPA significantly underestimated the costs to achieve the proposed EPA criteria.  One of the primary reasons is that EPA assumed for all the estimates that certain costs would have already been incurred in order to meet the Department's proposed numeric nutrient criteria (NNC).  This assumption is invalid because the Department's proposed NNC have not yet been adopted.  Therefore, all of the Department's estimates are based on additional costs that would be incurred above the currently implemented controls in order to achieve EPA's proposed criteria.  In addition, the Department has used the best available technical information to perform a more comprehensive analysis, which has also resulted in increases in the cost estimates.  The specific reasons for the increases are as follows and are described in more detail in the discussion regarding each of the assessed source sectors:
   * For domestic wastewater facilities, the level of technology used by EPA to estimate costs was not sufficient to achieve the proposed criteria.  Additional technologies, such as reverse osmosis, will likely be required to meet the proposed criteria.
   * For industrial wastewater facilities, EPA used an assumption that process controls on the order of $25,000 per year would be sufficient for industrial wastewater facilities to meet the proposed criteria.  However, source controls alone will not be sufficient to meet the proposed criteria.  Some industrial facilities, such as pulp mills, have organic wastewaters similar to domestic wastewater in nature, and will require tertiary treatment similar to domestic wastewater treatment systems to meet the proposed criteria.  Other industrial facilities, such as fertilizer manufacturing facilities, have inorganic wastewater streams high in nitrogen and phosphorus that are not amenable to biological treatment and will require the use of chemical and physical treatment systems, such as reverse osmosis, to meet the proposed criteria.
   * EPA failed to estimate any costs for the treatment of urban stormwater needed to meet the proposed criteria.  Even though Florida has had stormwater treatment requirements for new development since the early 1980s, it is highly likely that "older" urban areas will need to construct stormwater system retrofits to meet the proposed EPA criteria.
   * For agriculture, EPA significantly underestimated the affected acreage of agriculture (6.13 million acres versus 13.6 million acres for the FDACS estimate).  In addition, the EPA cost estimate assumed that only a subset of typical BMPs (nutrient retention, forested buffers and livestock fencing) would be needed to achieve the criterion.  In contrast, the FDACS estimate assumed that ALL typical BMPs would be necessary (FDACs has developed BMP manuals for a variety of agricultural operations, and the BMP manuals developed to date and a map showing the locations of BMPs implemented are provided as supplemental information to DEP's comments).   In fact, based on modeled reduction estimates for typical BMPs, the FDACs estimate concluded that additional on-farm water treatment/retention facilities would be necessary to achieve the EPA's proposed criteria.

   A comparison of the Department's estimated annual costs for each source sector with the EPA estimated cost for that source sector is shown in Table 1, below.
Table 1  -  A Comparison of FDEP estimated annual costs with EPA estimated annual costs (M$)

                        Annual Costs (in Millions)[1]

                                 FDEP Estimate
                                 EPA Estimate
                                Source Sector
                                      Low
                                     High
                                      Low
                                     High
Municipal WWTPs
                                     $456
                                     $52
Industrial  & General Dischargers
                                    $2,113
                                      $3
Urban Storm Water
                                    $1,967
                                       -
Agriculture[2]
                                     $271
                                                                          $974
                                     $35
Septic Systems
                                     $937
                                                                        $2,888
                                     $12
                                                                           $40
Total
                                    $5,744
                                                                        $8,398
                                     $102
                                                                          $130
[1]Assumptions for annual cost estimates are set forth in individual source sector methodology descriptions.
[2]FDEP estimate for agricultural source sector prepared by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in cooperation with the University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences and Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc.
[3]FDACS estimates cover annual capital costs + O&M.  Additional lost revenues would also be incurred and are described in more detail in the agricultural section.
Background on Preliminary Cost Estimates
The Department performed a cost estimate for each source sector identified in the EPA cost estimates.  The methodology and assumptions used in deriving these estimates are described in detail in the section covering each source sector.  Table 2 shows the potential source controls employed in the Department's estimate for each source sector and the resultant annual costs associated with those controls.

Table 2  -  FDEP potential controls and associated annual costs for source sectors
                                 Source Sector
                              Potential Controls
                            Annual Costs (Millions)
                                Municipal WWTPs
Advanced Waste Treatment +Reverse Osmosis and brine disposal or Injection well[1]
                                                                           $456
                            Industrial Dischargers
Reverse Osmosis and brine disposal
                                                                         $2,113
                               Urban Storm Water
Retrofit to current stormwater treatment standards (retention & detention + chemical treatment)
                                                                         $1,967
                                  Agriculture
All typical owner-implemented BMPs + on-farm water treatment/retention facilities
                                                                    $271 - $974
                                Septic Systems
Upgrade to high nutrient removal Septic Systems
                                                                   $937 - $2888
                                     Total

                                                                $5,744 - $8,398
[1]In counties with existing injection wells
Municipal WWTPs
EPA estimated 47 major and 53 minor municipal discharges to lakes and freshwater streams that would be affected by the proposed rule.  EPA considered the limit of technology (LOT) for biological nutrient removal to be 3 mg/L for TN and 0.1 mg/L for TP.  EPA's cost estimate acknowledged that "All of the proposed TN criteria are below the LOT" and "Proposed TP criteria for flowing waters are at or below the LOT in three of the five regions" and "proposed TP criteria for lakes are below the LOT".  The EPA cost estimates were based on retrofitting existing biological treatment trains to achieve the LOT for TN and TP.  The estimates noted that "where it may be technologically infeasible to attain the standards, a use attainability analysis may be needed".
The Department performed a cost estimate, which assumed technologies such as reverse osmosis could be used to meet the proposed criteria, or that facilities may elect to cease their surface water discharges through the use of less costly deep well injection.  The Department's analysis indicates that the EPA estimates significantly underestimate the costs to achieve the proposed criteria for the following reasons:
             *       The EPA cost estimate assumed that only a few facilities would be required to upgrade to meet the EPA WQC because most facilities would already be upgraded to meet the proposed DEP numeric nutrient criteria (NNC).  This assumption is invalid, since the proposed DEP NNC have not yet been adopted.  This estimate includes costs associated with meeting the proposed EPA NNC over and above the cost of meeting current discharge limitations.
       *       The EPA cost estimate was based on a level of treatment (LOT) for biological nutrient removal that would not meet the EPA WQC.  For example, in the panhandle region the EPA cost estimate was based on a LOT of TN < 3 mg/L and TP < 0.1 mg/L.  However, EPA's WQC for the region was TN < 0.824 mg/L and TP < 0.043 mg/L.
       *       For the most part, the EPA Report used capital and Operational and Maintenance (O & M) unit costs derived from CAPDETWorks for various treatment schemes. Unit costs that were used in the EPA Report appeared to be low when compared to comparable facilities constructed in Florida.
       *       Costs for two facilities on EPA's list were not included since one was inactivated and the other no longer discharges to surface water.
To highlight EPA's significant under-estimation of costs, the city of Cross City (0.4 million gallons/day permitted capacity) estimated its capital costs to comply with the proposed nutrient criteria to be $5,800,000. The EPA Report estimated Cross City's capital costs at $422,799 (see Appendix A of EPA Report).
Table 3 below summarizes the Department's estimates for total capital costs, O & M costs, and annual costs for domestic wastewater treatment facilities in the State that currently discharge to freshwater streams and lakes:

         Table 3  -  Cost Estimates for Domestic Wastewater Facilities
                              Total Capital Cost
                               for Retrofit (M$)
                          Annual O & M costs (M$)
                         30-year Annualized Costs (M$)
                                    $4,167
                                     $185
                                     $456

Assessment Procedure
                                  1. Only domestic wastewater facilities discharging to fresh waters (streams and lakes) with NPDES permits were included in the estimate. The lists of domestic wastewater facilities contained in both Exhibit 8 (page 7) and Appendix A of the EPA's Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida, January 2010, ("EPA Report") were used.
                                  2. Advanced biological treatment and reverse osmosis were assumed to be needed to meet the proposed EPA water quality criteria (WQC) for both nitrogen and phosphorus prior to discharge to surface waters. Disposal by injection wells after filtration/high level disinfection instead of surface water discharge were assumed feasible in lieu of advanced biological treatment and reverse osmosis in Florida counties with existing domestic injection well disposal systems.
                                  3. Permitted flow capacity was used to calculate capital costs.
                                  4. Unit capital costs to upgrade were based on:
       * For facilities that do not currently provide advanced biological wastewater treatment - $16.30/gallon (advanced treatment ($8.20/ gallon)+ reverse osmosis ($5.00/ gallon)+ brine disposal ($3.10/ gallon));
       * For facilities that currently provide advanced biological wastewater  treatment - $8.10/gallon (reverse osmosis ($5.00/ gallon)+ brine disposal ($3.10/ gallon)); and
       *           For facilities that are located in counties with existing domestic injection wells that are assumed to cease their current surface water discharges - $2.10/gallon (filtration/high level disinfection ($1.00/gallon) + and injection well disposal ($1.10/gallon)).
5.	Twenty five percent was added to unit capital costs for planning, engineering and construction contingencies.
6.	Fifty percent of the permitted flow capacity was used to calculate O&M costs as facilities typically operate at less than their permitted capacities.
7.	Unit operation and maintenance costs were based on:
   *           For facilities that do not currently provide advanced waste treatment - $4.00/1000 gallons (advanced treatment/membrane filter/reverse osmosis ($1.00/1000 gallons) + brine disposal ($3.00/1000 gallons));
   *           For facilities that currently provide advanced biological wastewater  treatment - $3.00/1000 gallons (brine disposal ($3.00/ 1000 gallons)); and
   *           For facilities that are located in counties with existing domestic injection wells that are assumed to cease their current surface water discharges - $1.60/1000 gallons (filtration/high level disinfection ($0.50/1000 gallons) + injection well disposal ($1.10/1000 gallons)).
8.	The 30-year annualized cost assumed a 5% interest rate.
9.	The following unit costs were obtained from the report prepared for the Florida Water Environment Association Utilities Council, Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Wastewater Reclamation Facilities, March 2, 2010, by Carollo Engineers ("FWEA Report").  The unit costs contained in the FWEA Report were extensively documented and determined by the Department to be reasonable.
       * Unit capital costs - advanced treatment ($8.20/ gallon), reverse osmosis ($5.00/ gallon), brine disposal ($3.10/ gallon), and injection well disposal ($1.10/gallon); and
       *           Unit operation and maintenance costs - advanced treatment/membrane filter/reverse osmosis ($1.00/1000 gallons), brine disposal ($3.00/1000 gallons), and injection well disposal ($1.10/1000 gallons).
10.	The following unit costs were obtained from cost curves contained in EPA's Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual (EPA-430/9-78-009) updated for 2010 costs:
       * Unit capital costs - filtration/high level disinfection ($1.00/gallon); and
       *           Unit operation and maintenance costs - filtration/high level disinfection ($0.50/1000 gallons).
Detailed costs for each NPDES domestic wastewater facility are set forth in Appendix 1.
Industrial Dischargers
The EPA estimate noted that "In most cases, it is more cost effective for industrial dischargers to control the source of nutrients in the effluent through BMPs, product substitution, process modifications, or process optimization than to treat the entire effluent prior to discharge."  Their estimate also noted that such costs would be highly site specific.  To illustrate the potential magnitude of costs, EPA estimated that, if dischargers spend an average of $25,000 per year on source control and process optimization to reduce nutrient loads, total annual costs to the industrial and general-permitted dischargers (Exhibit 2-2) would be $2.9 million.

The Department performed a cost estimate, which assumes that source controls alone would be insufficient to meet the proposed criteria, and that reverse osmosis would be required to meet the proposed criteria.  The Department's analysis indicates that the EPA estimates significantly underestimate the costs to achieve the proposed criteria for the following reasons:
   * For industrial wastewater facilities EPA used an assumption that process controls in the order of $25,000 per year would be sufficient for industrial wastewater facilities to meet the proposed criteria.  However, source controls alone will not be sufficient to meet the proposed criteria.  Some industrial facilities, such as pulp mills, have organic wastewaters similar to domestic wastewater in nature, and therefore will require tertiary treatment similar to domestic wastewater treatment systems to meet the proposed criteria.  Other industrial facilities, such as fertilizer manufacturing facilities have inorganic wastewater streams high in nitrogen and phosphorus that are not amenable to biological treatment, and will require the use of chemical and physical treatment systems, such as reverse osmosis to meet the proposed criteria.
   * EPA assumed 94 Industrial Wastewater (IW) facilities would be affected by numeric criteria.  The Department excluded certain Standard Industrial Code (SIC) categories unlikely to discharge nutrients and added other SIC categories, resulting in a net total of 78 facilities.
   * EPA assumed a 20 year payment period with a fixed interest rate of 7%.  The Department used the values of 30 years and 5% to be consistent with the estimates for domestic wastewater and urban runoff.
Table 4 below summarizes the Department's estimates for total capital costs, operational and maintenance costs, and annual costs for industrial wastewater facilities discharging to fresh water streams or lakes:
   Table 4  -  Cost Estimates for Retrofit of Industrial and General Dischargers
                              Total Capital Cost
                               for Retrofit (M$)
                          Annual O & M costs (M$)
                         30-year Annualized Costs (M$)
                                    $23,792
                                     $493
                                    $2,113

Assessment Procedure
1. This estimate is restricted to IW facilities that discharge to freshwater flowing streams and lakes under individual NPDES permits.
2. The list of facilities is further restricted to:
 a.       facilities that have numeric discharge limitations for any form of nitrogen and/or phosphorus in their NPDES IW permits,
 b.       facilities that are required to report the concentration of any form of nitrogen and/or phosphorus in their NPDES IW permits, and
 c.       other NPDES permitted IW facilities that are not currently required to monitor nutrients, but are in the SIC categories for a and b, above.
3. The following facilities are not included:
 a.       Potable water facilities (SIC 4941) that use membrane processes, primarily Reverse osmosis (RO), for demineralization are not included in this exercise.  This exercise assumes that the reject wastewater stream from membrane separation processes will be disposed by other means than surface water discharge;
 b.       Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) (SIC 3822) developed for Everglades restoration efforts within the Everglades Protection Area have separate criteria and are not included.
 c.       NPDES permitted facilities in various SIC categories that meet the criteria in items 1 and 2, above, but which have not discharged to surface water within the past five years, based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Permit Compliance System (PCS) database.
4. RO is likely needed for treating IW effluent to meet numeric nutrient criteria.  RO produces a concentrated wastewater stream that will need to be disposed by other means than surface water discharge.
5. Discharge estimation assumptions are as follows:
 a.       The discharge flows used are based on data obtained from WAFR/PCS, as reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) from permitted facilities for the five year period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2009.  Only data for outfalls with nutrient limits are used in the analysis.
 b.       Estimated annual discharges were assumed for 340 days/year of discharge, except for facilities that are known to have intermittent discharges, in which case actual or estimated days/year for discharge were used.
 c.       Monthly average flows were used as the flow basis in estimating annual O&M costs.
 d.       Daily maximum flow data were used as a rough equivalent of maximum design capacity for estimating capital costs.
6. Cost estimation assumptions are as follows:
 a.       Costs assume that reverse osmosis (RO) will be used to provide tertiary treatment to meet the proposed numeric nutrient criteria.
 b.       Unit costs for reverse osmosis from the FWEA Report were used, under the assumption the unit costs were applicable to both domestic and industrial wastewater.  However, costs for reverse osmosis for industrial wastewaters are likely to be significantly higher than those for domestic wastewater.  Industrial wastewaters may be concentrated, higher strength wastewaters with more variation in their characteristics that may result in low RO membrane recoveries and require additional pre and post RO treatment.
 c.       A unit cost of $3.00/1,000 gallons RO treatment with brine concentrator, cited in the FWEA Report, was used to estimate annual O&M costs.
 d.       Capital cost estimates assumed a rate of $8.10/gallon of maximum design capacity per facility for construction ($5.00/gal for RO system construction + $3.10/gal for brine disposal system construction).  An additional 25% was added to the construction cost for engineering and contingency.
 e.       The thirty year annualized cost assumed a 5% interest rate.
7. There is some limited experience and cost data available in the use of RO to treat process waters from gypsum stack systems associated with fertilizer manufacturing facilities (SIC 2874).  These costs have been in the range of $15-$25 per thousand gallons of water treated using RO and are indicative of the high strength nature of process wastewater.  These costs included both capital and O&M costs.  During operation a fertilizer manufacturing plant does not discharge, except during unusual rain events.  However, when a plant ceases operation, process water contained in the Gypsum stacks and cooling ponds must be treated and discharged over a five year closure period, followed by post-closure treatment and discharge of water draining from the gypsum stack systems over periods of up to 50 years.  An average unit cost of $20/1000 gallons was multiplied by the estimated process water volumes over the closure and post closure periods obtained from closure cost estimates developed by the owners of the gypsum stacks and maintained by the Department's Bureau of Mining and Minerals Regulation.  The total additional costs for treating 55.54 billion gallons of process water from gypsum stacks by RO to meet the proposed EPA criteria are estimated at $1,110,800,000.  A 30-year annualized cost was calculated using a 5% interest rate.  The resultant annual costs were $72 million.
Detailed costs for NPDES Industrial wastewater facilities in affected SIC categories are provided in Appendix 2.
Urban Storm Water
The EPA did not estimate costs for implementation of additional nonpoint source controls because "the need for incremental controls is uncertain", although the EPA document did note that "Numeric nutrient criteria may affect urban storm water dischargers through changes to permit requirements or the TMDL and BMAP process."  In order to provide an estimate for such potential costs, the Department performed analyses as set forth in the following procedure.  The estimate is restricted to NPDES municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) that are covered under either a Phase I individual permit or the Phase II Generic Permit and only those permitted MS4s that either have 100% of the stormwater discharge to freshwater bodies, or the relative portion of the MS4 that has a discharge to freshwater bodies.  Total costs, O&M costs, annual costs and annual costs per household are in Table 5 below:
          Table 5  -  Cost Estimates for Retrofit of MS4 Projects[1]
                        Capital Cost for Retrofit (M$)
                          Annual O & M costs (M$)
                         30-year Annualized Costs (M$)
                              30-year Annual Cost
                               per Household ($)
                                    $17,101
                                     $855
                                    $1,967
                                     $359
[1]The above costs do not account for urban nonpoint source runoff coming from lands within local government jurisdictions, especially for counties, that are not part of the permitted MS4 system.  This urban nonpoint stormwater is covered by a Load Allocation within an adopted TMDL and local governments are responsible for meeting these load reductions.  This, this estimation of urban stormwater costs underestimates the total costs likely to be incurred to reduce urban stormwater loadings as needed to meet the proposed EPA criteria.
Assessment Procedure
   1. The estimated total urban land area for the MS4s in Florida was determined from the 2000 U.S. Census.
   2. The subtotal of the pre-1982 urban area that discharged to freshwater was estimated from a GIS analysis.  The analysis involved creating overlaying GIS layers of the urban areas and the freshwater WBIDs that overlapped the pre-1982 urban areas and then determining the freshwater subtotal from the resultant overlapping layers.   The total urban area discharging to freshwater was determined to be 3,009,297 acres.
   3. The subtotal of the area determined in step 2 that was developed prior to 1982 was then determined.  For the purposes of this estimate, it was assumed that implementation of urban stormwater measures subsequent to the 1982 stormwater rules would achieve the proposed EPA criteria, but that urban areas without such measures would not.  The urban land use data from 1982 indicated that there were 3,141,631 urban land use acres at that time.  That area increased to 4,032,659 acres based on the 2000 U.S. Census urban area information, for a percent change of approximately 22%.  Therefore, for the purpose of this estimate it was assumed that this relative percentage would apply uniformly to all urban areas assessed.  Therefore the urban area requiring treatment was determined by multiplying the urban areas discharging to freshwaters by 78% (3,009,297 x ~78% = 2,344,242 acres).
   4. Florida has undertaken numerous retrofit projects to address pollutant loading from municipal stormwater runoff, many of which required monitoring in order to show the effectiveness of the retrofit.  The data from these projects have been compiled into a database by the Department, which include information on the acreage of the area that was retrofitted.  This information was used to derive a cost per unit acre to retrofit urban areas for nutrient removal.   The median cost per acre for such retrofit projects was $7,295 per acre, with a range of $863 per acre to $37,002 per acre from the 10[th] to the 90[th] percentile.  For the purposes of this estimate, the median value was used.
   5. Using the acreage derived in step 3 and the unit area retrofit costs in step 4, the total capital cost to implement such retrofit projects was estimated as $17,100,683,851.
   6. The O&M costs were estimated based on literature available.  Although actual costs can often exceed this rate, a conservative estimate of 5% of the capital outlay was chosen for this estimate.  The O & M costs were not escalated for inflation.  The resultant estimated annual O & M costs were $855,034,192.
   7. A 30-year annualized cost was calculated using a 5% interest.  The resultant annual costs were $1,967,458,217.92
   8. Using the 2000 Census data, the number of households in the State of Florida within the freshwater portion of the urban area was calculated at 5,475,652.  This value was determined by dividing the urban area population (13,470,104) by the average number of persons per household (2.46) in 2000.  The 30 year annualized cost per household was then calculated by dividing the 30 year annualized costs by the number of households.  The resultant annual cost per household was approximately $359.
Detailed costs for each MS4 are set forth in Appendix 3.
Agriculture
EPA estimated that annual costs for implementation of agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be $27.8 million for nutrient management, $5.0 million for forest buffers, and $1.9 million for livestock fencing.  Nutrient management costs were based on a useful life of 3 years and a discount rate of 7%, the forest buffer costs were based on a useful life of 30 years and a discount rate of 7%, and the livestock fencing costs were based on a 10-year useful life and a rate of 7%.  These estimates assume that there are no O & M costs and that the Department's proposed numeric nutrient criteria are already in place.
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), in coordination with the University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Science and Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc., performed an independent cost estimate (Appendix 4) that indicates that the EPA estimates significantly underestimate the costs to achieve the proposed criteria for the following primary reasons:
   * The EPA cost estimate assumed that only 6.13 million acres of agricultural land would be required to implement BMPs to meet the EPA WQC because most agriculture in the state would already have BMPs implemented to meet the proposed DEP numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) and that the proposed EPA criteria would have only an "incremental" impact.  This assumption is invalid, since the proposed DEP NNC have not yet been adopted.  The full estimate resulted in a gross area of affected agricultural land of 13.60 million acres.
   * The EPA cost estimate assumed that only a subset of typical BMPs (nutrient retention, forested buffers and livestock fencing) would achieve the criterion.  The FDACS estimate assumed that ALL typical BMPs would be necessary.  In addition, based on modeled reduction estimates for typical BMPs, the FDACs estimate concluded that additional on-farm water treatment/retention facilities would be necessary to achieve the EPA's proposed criteria.  Thus, additional costs for the on-farm water treatment/retention facilities would be incurred.  These additional costs account are reflected in the upper end of the range shown.
Total capital costs, annual operational and maintenance costs, and 20-year annual costs are in Table 6 below:
                   Table 6   -  Cost Estimates for Agriculture
                          Total Capital Cost for BMPs
                                     (M$)
                            Annual O & M costs
                                     (M$)
                           20-year Annualized Costs
                                     (M$)

                                855  -  3,069
                                  171 - 614
                                  271 - 974
In addition to the additional capital and O & M costs estimated to be incurred by the agricultural industry, the FDACS estimate also estimated regional economic impacts of production land displacement, since approximately 10 percent of agricultural land was estimated to be taken out of production due to implementation of on-farm water treatment/retention systems.  Those economic impacts were estimated to be a $631 million direct loss of annual agricultural industry output and a total direct loss (includes other affected sectors) of $1.148 billion.  The loss of employment was estimated to be 7,780 agricultural jobs and 14,545 total jobs.
Assessment Procedure
   1. The net and gross area (acres) of land used in Florida for each agricultural industry or commodity subject to the proposed EPA standards was taken from the 2007 Census of Agriculture and the Forest Inventory and Analysis (USDA-Forest Service).  Agricultural sectors were classified according the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
   2. The estimated per-acre costs for agricultural producers to implement BMPs were taken from a report prepared for the South Florida Water Management District.  BMPs included the full range of typical owner-implemented practices, such as fertilizer management, grazing management, and livestock exclusion from waterways.  Additional on-farm water treatment/retention practices include wetland restoration, water recovery/re-use systems, and on-site water treatment/retention systems.
   3.  Initial capital cost estimates include materials, labor and engineering.
   4. Total annual costs include O & M (estimated at 20 percent of the capital costs) and amortization of the capital investment at 10 percent interest over 20 years.
Septic Systems
The EPA cost estimate assumed that only a limited number of septic system upgrades would be necessary to meet the EPA proposed numeric nutrient criteria because many septic systems in the state would already have septic system upgrades necessary to meet the proposed DEP numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) and that the proposed EPA criteria would have only an "incremental" impact.  As we have noted previously, this assumption is invalid, since the proposed DEP NNC have not yet been adopted.  The EPA analysis estimated the number of septic systems in incrementally impaired waters at approximately 177,200.  The EPA noted that the septic systems could be required to upgrade when they failed and based their annual costs on an average failure rate of 3.49%.  Their estimated costs to upgrade the failed systems to achieve nutrient removal were in the range of $2000 to $6500 per system.  The annualized costs were estimated to range from $12.4 million to $40.2 million.
The Department performed a cost estimate for septic system upgrades necessary to achieve the proposed EPA criteria.  The Department's analysis assumed that conventional septic systems on lots larger than three acres would be able to achieve the proposed EPA criteria, thus no additional costs were assumed
Assessment Procedure
   1. Florida Department of Health reviewed permit records to determine how many of Florida's 2.6 million septic systems are on lots less than 3 acres in size.  The review indicated that approximately 83% of new septic systems were on lots less than 3 acres and approximately 90 % of old systems were on lots less than 3 acres1.  For the purpose of this estimate a value of 85% was chosen.
   2. The Department's estimate for urban stormwater indicated that approximately 75% of Florida's urban areas discharge to fresh waters.  It was assumed that proportion would be a reasonable assumption to make in order to calculate septic system costs.
   3. Construction costs for estimate were taken from an Interim Report prepared for the Department entitled Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Evaluation for Nutrient Removal January 7, 2010, Stormwater Management Academy, University of Central Florida. Costs for septic systems with high levels of nutrient removal ranged from $9,320 to $18,200 per unit.  Operation and maintenance costs were also estimated from this report, which indicated values ranging from $200 - $1,800 per year.
   4. 20-year annualized costs were calculated using an assumed interest rate of 5%.  The O & M costs were not escalated for inflation.
   5. The above method is a worst case scenario based on a complete replacement in the first year of all systems on smaller lots than 3 acres and discharging to groundwater that eventually becomes freshwater.  The method produces annual cost estimates ranging from approximately $1.6  -  $5.5 billion.  Since immediate replacement of septic systems may not be justifiable or feasible, a more reasonable estimate and one more consistent with the EPA estimate would be a replacement rate of 5% a year, which is still higher than the repair rates of 0.5  -  1 % per year
The resultant total capital costs, annual operational and maintenance costs, and 20-year annual costs are in Table 7 below:
                  Table 7  -  Cost Estimates for Septic Systems
                   SEPTIC SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE CALCULATIONS
                                           Number of Septic Systems in Florida=
                                           2,500,000

                             Proportion of Septic Systems on Lots < 3 acres=
                                      90%

                      Proportion of Septic Systems discharging to fresh waters=
                                      75%

                                  Total Number of Septic Systems to be Upgraded
                                           1,687,500

                                      Low
                                     High
                                Costs for High Nutrient Removal Septic Systems=
                                    $9,320
                                    $18,200
                                                   O & M per Septic System=
                                     $200
                                    $1,800
                                               Instant Replacement  Total Cost=
                                                                $15,727,500,000
                                                                $30,712,500,000
                              Instant Replacement Total O & M over 20 years
                                                                   $337,500,000
                                                                 $3,037,500,000
                                              Instant Replacement Annual Costs=
                                                                 $1,599,515,290
                                                                 $5,501,950,459
                                           5% per year replacement annual costs
                                                                   936,612,536
                                                                 2,887,762,828

Benefits Analysis
The Department did not undertake a separate benefit analysis to compare with the EPA estimate.  However, we would note that the Department's cost estimates lead to an annual cost of approximately $313 - $458 per person, compared to the Willingness to Pay values in EPAs estimate of $0.34 - $0.37 per person.
Conclusions
In summary, the cost estimates to comply with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria compiled by the Department indicate that EPA underestimated the costs.  The Department's estimates indicate annual costs ranging from $6 - $12+ billion a year.  While the State of Florida is very interested in ensuring our waters are restored and protected, the magnitude of these costs underscore the need to develop correct and accurate criteria using the best science available.  In addition, the costs also underscore the need to ensure that the implementation of numeric nutrient criteria is done in a manner that makes efficient and effective use of Florida's resources.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 34404]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2019-0005; OMB No. 1660-0024]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Federal Assistance for Offsite Radiological
Emergency Preparedness and Planning

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Renae Connell, Emergency Management Specialist, FEMA/NPD/THD,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-657-2294, or Darrell Givens, Emergency
Management Specialist, FEMA/NPD/THD<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-
212-7854.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2019 at 84 FR
17182 with a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received.
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will
submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Assistance for Offsite Radiological Emergency
Preparedness and Planning.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0024.
    Form Titles and Numbers: There are no forms for this collection;
rather the regulatory text details the content in which information is
transmitted to FEMA.
    Abstract: The intent of this request is the collection of comments
on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information
collection an OMB control number representing all information
collections related to FEMA Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program
requirements described in 44 CFR parts 350 and 352.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government; and business
and other for profits.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 153.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 153.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,360.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $311,458.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $566,163.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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.

Maile Arthur,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019-15230 Filed 7-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-46-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 9186-9188]
[DOCID:fr22fe06-167]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53287; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Imposing Licensing Fees in Connection with the Firm-Related Equity
Option and Index Option Fee Cap

February 14, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 2, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. The Phlx has
designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend its schedule of fees to adopt a license
fee of $.10 for options traded on the following products: \5\ (1) State
Street Global Advisors', a division of State Street Bank and Trust
Company (``SSGA''), streetTracks based on the Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
(``Dow Jones'') Global Titans 50 Index\SM\, traded under the symbol
DGT; (2) SSGA's streetTracks based on the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000
Index\SM\, traded under the symbol TMW; (3) BGI's iShares Dow Jones
Select Dividend Index\SM\, traded under the symbol DVY; (4) iShares Dow
Jones U.S. Total Market Index\SM\, traded under the symbol IYY; (5)
iShares Dow Jones U.S. Basic Materials Index\SM\, traded under the
symbol IWM; (6) iShares Dow Jones U.S. Consumer Services Sector
Index\SM\, traded under the symbol IYC; (7) iShares Dow Jones U.S.
Financial Sector Index\SM\, traded under the symbol IYF; (8) iShares
Dow Jones U.S. Financial Services Sector Index\SM\, traded under the
symbol IYG; (9) iShares Dow Jones U.S. Healthcare Sector Index\SM\,
traded under the symbol IYH; (10) iShares Dow Jones U.S. Industrial
Sector Index\SM\, traded under the symbol IYJ; (11) iShares Dow Jones
U.S. Consumer Goods Sector Index\SM\, traded under the symbol IYK; (12)
iShares Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Sector Index\SM\, traded under the
symbol IYR; (13) iShares Dow Jones U.S. Technology Sector Index\SM\,
traded under the symbol IYW; (14) iShares Dow Jones U.S.
Telecommunications Sector Index\SM\, traded under the symbol IYZ; (15)
iShares Dow Jones U.S. Utilities Sector Index\SM\, traded under the
symbol IDU; and (16) First Trust's ETF based on the Dow Jones Select
Microcap Index\SM\, traded under the symbol FDM, (collectively ``Dow
Jones products'') \6\ to be assessed per contract side for equity
option ``firm'' transactions (comprised of equity option firm/
proprietary comparison transactions, equity option firm/proprietary
transactions and equity option firm/proprietary facilitation
transactions). This license fee will be imposed only after the
Exchange's $60,000 ``firm-related'' equity option and index option
comparison and transaction charge cap, described more fully below, is
reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This fee will be charged only to Exchange Members.
    \6\ ``Dow Jones'' and ``SSGA's streetTracks based on the Dow
Jones Global Titans 50 Index\SM\'', ``SSGA's streetTracks based on
the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index\SM\'', ``BGI's iShares Dow Jones
Select Dividend Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Total Market
Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Basic Materials Index\SM\'',
``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Consumer Services Sector Index\SM\'',
``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Financial Sector Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow
Jones U.S. Financial Services Sector Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow
Jones U.S. Healthcare Sector Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow Jones U.S.
Industrial Sector Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Consumer
Goods Sector Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate
Sector Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Technology Sector
Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Telecommunications Sector
Index\SM\'', ``iShares Dow Jones U.S. Utilities Sector Index\SM\'',
and ``First Trust's ETF based on the Dow Jones Select Microcap
Index\SM\'', are service marks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and have
been licensed for use for certain purposes by the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc. The Dow Jones products are not sponsored, endorsed,
sold or promoted by Dow Jones, and Dow Jones makes no representation
regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange imposes a cap of $60,000 per member
organization \7\ on all ``firm-related''

equity option and index option comparison and transaction charges
combined.\8\ Specifically, ``firm-related'' charges include equity
option firm/proprietary comparison charges, equity option firm/
proprietary transaction charges, equity option firm/proprietary
facilitation transaction charges, index option firm/proprietary
comparison charges, index option firm/proprietary transaction charges,
and index option firm/proprietary facilitation transaction charges
(collectively the ``firm-related charges''). Thus, such firm-related
charges in the aggregate for one billing month may not exceed $60,000
per month per member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The firm/proprietary comparison or transaction charge
applies to member organizations for orders for the proprietary
account of any member or non-member broker-dealer that derives more
than 35% of its annual, gross revenues from commissions and
principal transactions with customers. Member organizations will be
required to verify this amount to the Exchange by certifying that
they have reached this threshold by submitting a copy of their
annual report, which was prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (``GAAP''). In the event that a
member organization has not been in business for one year, the most
recent quarterly reports, prepared in accordance with GAAP, will be
accepted. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43558 (November
14, 2000), 65 FR 69984 (November 21, 2000) (SR-Phlx-00-85).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51024 (January 11,
2005), 70 FR 3088 (January 19, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2004-94).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also imposes a license fee of $0.10 per contract side
for equity option and index option ``firm'' transactions on certain
licensed products (collectively ``licensed products'') after the
$60,000 cap, as described above, is reached.\9\ Therefore, when a
member organization exceeds the $60,000 cap (comprised of combined
firm-related charges), the member organization is charged $60,000, plus
license fees of $0.10 per contract side for any contracts in licensed
products (if any) over those that were included in reaching the $60,000
cap. In other words, if the cap is reached, the $0.10 license fee is
imposed on all subsequent equity option and index option firm
transactions; these license fees are charged in addition to the $60,000
cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For a complete list of the licensed products that are
assessed a $.10 license fee per contract side after the $60,000 cap
is reached, see $60,000 ``Firm Related'' Equity Option and Index
Option Cap on the Exchange's fee schedule. See also, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 52220 (August 5, 2005), 70 FR 46899 (August
11, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a $.10 license fee per contract side
for the Dow Jones products for equity option firm transactions, which
will be imposed after the $60,000 cap is reached in the same way as the
current licensed product fees are assessed. Thus, when a member
organization exceeds the $60,000 cap, the member organization will be
charged $60,000 plus any applicable license fees for trades of licensed
products, including the Dow Jones products, over those trades that were
counted in reaching the $60,000 cap.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Consistent with current practice, when calculating the
$60,000 cap, the Exchange first calculates all equity option and
index option transaction and comparison charges for products without
license fees and then equity option and index option transaction and
comparison charges for products with license fees (i.e., QQQ license
fees) that are assessed by the Exchange after the $60,000 cap is
reached. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50836 (December 10,
2004), 69 FR 75584 (December 17, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2004-70).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal is scheduled to become effective for transactions
settling on or after February 2, 2006.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, at the Exchange and at the
Exchange's Web site: http://www.phlx.com/exchange /phlx--rule--

fil.html.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of assessing the Dow Jones products license fee of $.10
per contract side after reaching the $60,000 cap as described in this
proposal is to help defray licensing costs associated with the trading
of these products, while still capping member organizations' fees
enough to attract volume from other exchanges. The cap operates this
way in order to offer an incentive for additional volume without
leaving the Exchange with significant out-of-pocket costs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
dues, fees and charges is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act \11\
in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act
\12\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change. The Phlx has not received any unsolicited written
comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\13\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder \14\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or
other charge. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2006-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-10. This file

number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the Phlx.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-10
and should be submitted on or before March 15, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2457 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 60110-60112]
[DOCID:fr29se10-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0761; FRL-8845-3]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 ACTION: Notice.

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

 SUMMARY: There will be a 1-day consultation meeting of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel
(FIFRA SAP) to consider and review scientific issues associated with
pesticide exposure models and climate change. The purpose of the
meeting is for the Agency to seek advice on models for predicting human
and ecological exposures to pesticides that might be appropriate to
account for the effects of climate change.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 7, 2010, from approximately
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted
by November 23, 2010 and requests for oral comments be submitted by
November 30, 2010. However, written comments and requests to make oral
comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone
submitting written comments after November 23, 2010, should contact the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before October
13, 2010.
     Webcast. This meeting may be webcast. Please refer to the FIFRA
SAP's website, http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP, for information on how
to access the webcast. Please note that the webcast is a supplementary
public process provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise
resulting in webcasting outages, the meeting will continue as planned.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0761, by one of the following methods:
      Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
      Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory
Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility 's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0761. If your comments contain any information that you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before
submitting your comments. EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the docket without change and may be made available
on-line 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
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for
special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or requests
to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Jenkins, DFO, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-3327; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 I. General Information

 A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

 B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

 C. How May I Participate in this Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0761 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be
submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES, no later than November
23, 2010, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and
review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the
date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after
November 23, 2010, should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting
should bring 30 copies for distribution to FIFRA SAP.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages that each individual or
group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their
request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no
later than November 30, 2010, in order to be included on the meeting
agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the
date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of
FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting
by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The
request should identify the name of the individual making the
presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent,
and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead
projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP
are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have
been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or
her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP
at the meeting.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.
    4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP
for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of
candidates for each meeting, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the
stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for
service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or
organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as
prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated
for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following
areas:
    1. Cropping and agricultural practices to discuss how these
practices have changed or may be impacted by climate change.
    2. Climate change prediction approaches within the U.S. to discuss
how exposure models could take future meteorological conditions into
account.
    3. Pest ecology to discuss how climate changes may affect pest
control needs, including incidence of carriers of vector borne diseases
and changes in pest pressure in agriculture.
    Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional
qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of
providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting.
Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address,
and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before October 13, 2010.
The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for
this meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final
selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary
function of the Agency.
     The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the
function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's
charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to
serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to
a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal
department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during
the selection process include availability of the potential panel
member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any
conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality,
independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of
bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack
of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in
disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a
candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified
candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection
decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the
candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and
achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on
the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed
to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates
selecting approximately 10 ad hoc scientists.
    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634,
Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by EPA in 5 CFR
part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates
for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential
financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial
interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where
applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the
candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are
financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality
or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under
consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the
candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA SAP. Those who are
selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to
attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key
issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be
asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of
FIFRA SAP

members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP
website at http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap or may be obtained from the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

 II. Background

 A. Purpose of FIFRA SAP

    FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is
structured to provide scientific advice, information and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-
related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the
environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in
1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent
panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA
Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA,
established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists
who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews
conducted by the SAP. As a peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides
comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness
and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP
are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications,
including training and experience, to provide expert advice and
recommendation to the Agency.

 B. Public Meeting

    The Agency recognizes that climate change will affect parts of its
core mission. To achieve its core mission, EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) assessment methodologies must continue to provide high
quality science-based predictions of the risks from exposure to
pesticides. OPP is in the early stages of examining how well existing
assessment tools may perform in light of climate change and if any
modifications are needed to respond to changes in climate. OPP's
initial effort is to examine its exposure models.
    EPA assesses pesticide exposure to people from the food and water
they consume and from the pesticides they use or otherwise come in
contact within and around the home, public areas and occupational
settings. EPA also assesses environmental exposure to terrestrial and
aquatic species. In assessing exposures to pesticides, EPA uses many
peer reviewed models and methodologies.
    OPP has reviewed most of its human and ecological exposure models
used to assess exposure to conventional pesticides to explore which
inputs and parameters may be affected by changing climatic conditions.
Of the reviewed exposure assessment tools, OPP selected two human and
two ecological models commonly used by OPP as case studies to
illustrate the Agency's approach for considering the potential effects
of climate change on the Agency's exposure estimates. Based on the
reviews the Agency has reached some preliminary conclusions.
    The purpose of this consultation is to seek the SAP's advice on the
approach used by OPP to examine its exposure models' performance in
light of climate change and on OPP's preliminary conclusions resulting
from this review. The Agency is also seeking advice on sources of
information or research that may inform identified gaps in our
knowledge.

C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/
questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc
members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by
mid-November 2010. In addition, the Agency may provide additional
background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain
electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related
documents that might be available electronically, at http://
www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
scipoly/sap.
    FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its
recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting.
The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website or may be
obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://
www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 22, 2010.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-24433 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S