[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3556-3557]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00778]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2019-0674; FRL-10004-37-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Negative Declaration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of New Jersey for purposes of making a negative declaration
regarding the October 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques
Guidelines (2016 Oil and Gas CTG). This action is being taken in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 21,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2019-0674 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Omar Hammad, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Supplementary Information section is
arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?
III. What did New Jersey submit?
IV. What is the EPA's evaluation of New Jersey's SIP submittal?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New Jersey on May
13, 2019, for purposes of making a negative declaration that no sources
exist in the State of New Jersey that would be subject to the 2016 Oil
and Gas CTG.

II. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?

    On October 27, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register the
``Release of Final Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and
Natural Gas Industry.'' See 81 FR 74798. The CTG provided information
to state, local, and tribal air agencies to assist them in determining
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) emissions from select oil and natural gas industry
emission sources. Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182(b)(2)(A) requires
that for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate, states must
revise their SIPs to include provisions to implement RACT for each
category of VOC sources covered by a CTG document issued between
November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment. CAA section 184(b)(1)(B)
extends this requirement to states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).
States are required to adopt RACT controls that are at least as
stringent as those found within the CTG.

III. What did New Jersey submit?

    On May 13, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) submitted to the EPA a SIP revision consisting of a
negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
    The oil and natural gas industry includes oil and natural gas
operations involved in the extraction and production of crude oil and
natural gas, as well as the processing, transmission, storage, and
distribution of natural gas. For oil, the industry includes all
operations from the well to the point of custody transfer at a
petroleum refinery. For natural gas, the industry includes all
operations from the well to the customer.
    The NJDEP cross referenced the source operations covered in the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG and its applicability to New Jersey. Its findings
are in the table below.

Table 1--New Jersey's Evaluation of the Source Operations Covered in the
        2016 Oil and Gas CTG and Its Applicability to New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Confirmation no
Source operations covered in      Applicability     source operations in
  the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG                                   NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage Vessels (CTG Section  Crude oil,            Only distribution of
 4.0).                         condensate,           oil in the state;
                               intermediate          CTG specifically
                               hydrocarbon           excludes storage of
                               liquids, and          crude oil at
                               produced water        refineries.
                               storage in all
                               segments (except
                               distribution) of
                               the oil and gas
                               industry.
Compressors (CTG Section      Centrifugal and       No natural gas
 5.0).                         reciprocating         extraction occurs
                               compressors located   in state; only
                               between the           natural gas
                               wellhead and point    transmission and
                               of custody transfer   storage after
                               to the natural gas    natural gas has
                               transmission and      entered state
                               storage.              through pipeline.

Pneumatic Controller (CTG     Controllers located   No natural gas or
 Section 6.0).                 from wellhead to a    oil extraction
                               natural gas           occurs in state;
                               processing plant or   and no natural gas
                               from wellhead to      processing plant
                               point of custody      operates in state.
                               transfer to an oil
                               pipeline.
Pneumatic Pumps (CTG Section  Pumps located at      No natural gas
 7.0).                         natural gas           extraction occurs
                               processing plants     in state; and no
                               and well sites.       natural gas
                                                     processing plant
                                                     operates in state.
Equipment Leaks (CTG Section  All equipment         No natural gas
 8.0).                         (except compressors   processing plant
                               and sampling          operates in state;
                               connection systems)   and no wet gas
                               within a process      service.
                               unit located at a
                               natural gas
                               processing plant in
                               VOC service or in
                               wet gas service.
Fugitive Emissions (CTG       Collection of         No natural gas
 Section 9.0).                 fugitive emission     extraction occurs
                               components at a       in state; only
                               well site and         natural gas
                               gathering and         transmission and
                               boosting station,     storage after
                               that is located       natural gas has
                               from the wellhead     entered state
                               to the point of       through pipeline.
                               custody transfer to
                               the natural gas
                               transmission and
                               storage segment or
                               to an oil pipeline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this negative declaration, New Jersey is asserting that
there are no sources within its respective State that would be subject
to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. New Jersey asserts that it is not
anticipated that crude oil or natural gas extraction will be occurring
in New Jersey for the foreseeable future.

IV. What is the EPA's evaluation of New Jersey's SIP submittal?

    On May 13, 2019, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to make a
negative declaration and address the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG requirements
within the State. The EPA has reviewed New Jersey's submittal and
agrees with the State's evaluation. The EPA compared the State's
evaluation with their inventory and is concurring with their negative
declaration. The EPA is proposing to approve the revision to the SIP
submitted by the State to address the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG for the OTR
and nonattainment RACT requirements for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and is approving their negative
declaration that no sources exist in the State of New Jersey that would
be subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this proposal. These comments will be considered before the EPA takes
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments as discussed in the
ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 13563 (76 FR 382, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempt under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to New
Jersey's Negative Declaration SIP submission, would not be approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In
those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose any substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 2, 2020.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2020-00778 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 12442]
[DOCID:fr24mr09-154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-00-7363; FMCSA-00-7918; FMCSA-02-13411]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 11 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301, Washington, DC
20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on March 9, 2009.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 11 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Henry Ammons, Jr., Michael D. Archibald, David S.
Carman, Cedric E. Foster, Glen T. Garrabrant, Alan L. Johnston, Dennis
I. Nelson, Rance A. Powell, Shannon E. Rasmussen, Garfield A. Smith,
and Henry L. Walker.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: March 18, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-6475 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


1 2 3 4 5 6 EPA PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 7 STANDARDS AND PRACTICES FOR ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRIES 8 9 10 11 Thursday, November 18, 2004, 2: 00 p. m.

12 13 Old Federal Reserve Building 14 301 Battery Street 15 San Francisco, California 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Reported by:

24 Rita R. Lerner, CSR 3179 ( 2001 356405)

25 1 1 2 PANEL MEMBERS:

3 4 PATRICIA OVERMEYER, U. S. EPA 5 6 LINDA GARCZYNSKI, EPA Director of the Office of 7 Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment 8 9 SPEAKERS:

10 Malcolm Dillman 11 ( Intermountain Environmental Consultants, Inc.)

12 13 Stephen Testa 14 ( Testa Environmental Corporation)

15 16 Paul Lesti 17 ( Lesti Structured Settlements)

18 19 Georgina Dannatt 20 ( Dannatt and Associates)

21 22 23 24 25 2 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MS. GARCZYNSKI: Good afternoon. This space is 3 so impressive, I feel like saying " Dearly Beloved",

4 instead of starting this meeting out. I'm pretty amazed 5 at the size of the room here. So I appreciate all of 6 you showing up.

7 I'm Linda Garczynski. I'm EPA's director of 8 the Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment, and 9 this is a public meeting on the proposed standards and 10 practices for all appropriate inquiry. So if you're not 11 here to hear that meeting, and you thought you were here 12 for some other reason, I promise you it's not a wedding 13 that we're having.

14 We did publish the proposed standards for all 15 appropriate inquiry in the Federal Register on August 16 26th, and the rule is posted on the EPA Brownfields 17 website. We had hoped to make copies available to you,

18 but the U. S. Postal Service failed us in this event. We 19 mailed them here and they have not made it. So, if you 20 don't have a copy, and if you can't access the website,

21 if you can give us your names and numbers, we can make 22 sure that we can mail you a copy of the Federal Register 23 notice.

24 As you're aware, I believe, all of you, or you 25 wouldn't be here, EPA developed the proposed rule for 3 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 All Appropriate Inquiry using something called a 2 " Negotiated Rulemaking Process." And these standards 3 that we're working on will be applicable to property 4 claiming any protection from Superfund liability under 5 the various new protections of the Brownfields law, as 6 well as it will be applicable to all of our Brownfields 7 grantees.

8 We are proud to say the regulatory language 9 published in the Federal Register as the proposed rule 10 is the same language that was agreed to by the 11 Rulemaking Committee at the end of last year. And for 12 those of you  there are a few people here who actually 13 participated in that  I just want to give you my 14 personal thanks for sticking with us through something 15 that was a very intense and grueling process. It's a 16 collaborative process  proposed negotiating rulemaking 17 is  and it allows the federal government to benefit 18 from the knowledge and experience of affected 19 stakeholder groups. It allows us to take advantage of 20 the knowledge and experience at the initial stages of 21 the regulatory development process. And for those of 22 you who are not familiar with that, often federal 23 government rules are developed and then published, and 24 then comments are gleaned on those rules without the 25 benefit of input of the various rulemaking  I mean 4 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 stakeholder groups.

2 So this was a very difficult process. It took 3 a lot of time and a lot of dedication on the part of the 4 25 members of the All Appropriate Inquiries Regulatory 5 Negotiation Committee. They dedicated and donated their 6 time to it, and I think we ended up with a much better 7 rule as a result of the efforts of all of the members 8 who sat during those meetings for the last eight or nine 9 months.

10 Now we are in the regulatory negotiation phase.

11 We're here to hear your comments. We have published the 12 proposed rule in the Federal Register, and as you may or 13 may not be aware, the comment period closes November 14 30th. And so we're anxious to hear your input. We 15 recognize the value of public comment; we believe that 16 it's an important step in the process, and it's one that 17 we take very seriously.

18 Public input provides us with insight into how 19 a proposed rule can affect stakeholder groups, and it 20 helps us understand the potential ease or difficulties 21 that could be associated with implementing that 22 regulation. And that's very important to us because we 23 want to know at a pragmatic and practical level the 24 impact that our rule will have on those who are affected 25 by it. We try to build partnerships in our Brownfields 5 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 program and provide incentives for revitalizing 2 abandoned, idled or underused properties, and our goals 3 center on sustainable development of those properties.

4 We want to make sure the actions that are taken 5 on those properties are protective of public health and 6 the environment and that they contribute to community 7 redevelopment, and that is a keystone effort in the 8 Brownfields program at EPA today.

9 This standard, this All Appropriate Inquiries 10 standard, when it is finished, will apply to all 11 property owners seeking liability protection under 12 Superfund, as well as all of our Brownfields grantees,

13 so it has a very broad sweeping impact on the commercial 14 real estate marketplace today. It actually sets the 15 standard for how our grantees will conduct their Phase 16 One environmental property assessments, and so it has 17 major effects on the almost 1000 grantees that we have 18 in our Brownfields family today.

19 In addition, the rule, in conjunction with the 20 liability protection afforded under the Brownfields 21 Amendment to Superfund, should encourage additional 22 cleanup and re use of the Brownfields properties,

23 because it provides a clear and discernible pattern to 24 what needs to be done to fulfill the responsibilities 25 under the statute.

6 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 Some things I would like to point out, though,

2 is that conforming to the All Appropriate Inquiries 3 regulation is only one step of affording the CERCLA 4 liability protection. In addition to doing that,

5 property owners, once they've purchased the property,

6 have to comply with certain steps. And those steps 7 include stopping ongoing releases; they include taking 8 reasonable steps to ensure that contamination is 9 contained or does not get worse; and complying with all 10 institutional controls on land use restrictions that are 11 put on that property in conjunction with the cleanup.

12 So again, All Appropriate Inquiry itself is the 13 first stage. Once the property is purchased, additional 14 things must be done to ensure the CERCLA liability 15 protections.

16 Our meeting today is one of several 17 opportunities that we've afforded the public to come and 18 provide us comments and advice on the proposed rule. We 19 held two previous public comment meetings. One was in 20 St. Louis in conjunction with our annual national 21 conference, and the second was in Washington, D. C. This 22 is our third and last public meeting on the rule itself.

23 In addition, any member of the public can 24 provide written comment, and we hope that you do.

25 Written comments can be submitted to us today or they 7 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 can be provided directly to EPA through our regulatory 2 docket either through the Internet or through e mail or 3 by U. S. mail. And I think it's important to understand 4 that we'll take any and all comments in those forms.

5 The preamble to the proposed rule provides 6 detailed instructions for how to submit written 7 comments. The public comment period  again, I'll 8 reiterate  to the proposed rule closes November 30th,

9 and we do value your input; we want to hear from you.

10 I look forward to hearing all your comments 11 today, and I'm going to introduce now Patricia 12 Overmeyer, who is our designated federal official for 13 development of the rule, and she's going to go over some 14 of the ground rules of how this meeting will be 15 conducted today before we get it started.

16 Patricia.

17 MS. OVERMEYER: Thanks, Linda, and welcome.

18 Just a few things before we get started.

19 Today's meeting is being recorded, so we ask 20 that everybody who speaks comes up and speaks into the 21 microphone so that our court reporter can get everything 22 down.

23 The transcript of the meeting will be available 24 on the EPA website in a docket that's 25 www. epa. gov/ edocket. The transcripts from the first two 8 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 public meetings, our public meeting in St. Louis and the 2 public meeting in Washington, D. C., are already on 3 our  in the docket and on the website. And today's 4 will go as soon as we can get it there, as well. So 5 that every comment that's made today will be an official 6 comment in the docket.

7 We won't be responding to comments today;

8 however, when we respond to all the other comments, as 9 we consider all the comments, we will be providing a 10 written response to each comment, and those written 11 responses will be provided on the website and in the 12 docket, the official docket for the rulemaking.

13 We'll begin our proceedings today by first 14 hearing from those individuals who signed up to give 15 public comment or public testimony. I'll call them up.

16 I ask that you try to keep your comment within seven to 17 ten minutes.

18 After everybody who has signed up has had a 19 chance to speak, I will then ask if there are others 20 here who would like to speak or give follow up comments.

21 Then a third time, at the end, we'll also try to answer 22 some questions, if you have questions of clarification 23 or anything about the rule or the process.

24 As Linda said, the public comment period is 25 open until November 30th. Anybody here who doesn't want 9 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 to read or make their comments orally, you can submit 2 written comments to us today; we'll get them in the 3 docket for you. And you also have until November 30th 4 to submit your comments to the public docket, and it's 5 very easy to do that. Go to the edocket website,

6 www. epa. gov/ edocket, and put in the docket number which 7 is in the front of the preamble to the proposed rule.

8 You can submit your comments; you can type them right 9 into the edocket page, or you can attach any kind of 10 word processing file that you have and submit them.

11 Like I said, they will all be responded to by 12 the agency after we've had a chance to read through and 13 consider all of them, and our responses will be 14 available for everyone to see. They will be summarized 15 in the preamble for the final rule and they will be 16 available in the docket.

17 So with that, I will ask the individuals who 18 have signed up previously to make their comments, and,

19 then, after they've had their chance to make their 20 comments, then I'll ask if there is anybody else.

21 Malcolm Dillman.

22 MR. DILLMAN: I was really looking forward to 23 being first here today.

24 I would like to thank the EPA for the 25 opportunity to provide comments concerning the All 10 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 Appropriate Inquiries regulation.

2 My first concern is with the qualifications for 3 designation of Environmental Professional as defined in 4 Subpart B 312.1  or .10  excuse me  the 5 requirement of any baccalaureate degree from an 6 accredited institution and ten years of full time 7 relevant experience.

8 I must ask the question, what does an 9 individual with a degree in sociology or communications 10 or music offer above an individual without any degree 11 that has the equivalent or greater full time relevant 12 experience and perhaps more actual field experience?

13 Under different programs that the EPA has, they 14 provide for experience, completion of a course and/ or 15 passing an examination to qualify individuals,

16 regardless of a degree, in areas where the health and 17 welfare of children are at stake.

18 The EPA requirements for lead based paint risk 19 assessor are  and I'm reading from the website  pass 20 an accredited inspector course; pass an EPA accredited 21 risk assessor course; pass an EPA assessor certification 22 examination; and meet one of the following requirements:

23 A, a bachelor's degree and one year experience; or, an 24 associate's degree and two years of experience in a 25 related field; or C, certification as an industrial 11 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 hygienist, professional engineer, registered architect 2 and/ or certification, registered  or excuse me

3 related engineering health or environmental field; or D,

4 a high school diploma or equivalent diploma, or 5 equivalent, and at least three years' experience in a 6 related field. The lead based paint risk assessor makes 7 judgments that have implications on the protection of 8 human health; specifically, children under six.

9 State programs also provide for certifications 10 of Environmental Professional with depth of 11 environmental experience that allows them to make 12 appropriate judgments based on the available data. Some 13 of these states are the Nevada Certified Environmental 14 Manager program. Their requirements: Again, a college 15 degree in environmental science relevant to professional 16 registration, or a combination of education/ experience 17 judged by the Division itself. And that's the 18 Environmental Protection Division of Nevada.

19 In Utah, the U. S. D. Consultant program requires 20 that  provided its acceptance in this of a bachelor's 21 or advanced degree from an accredited college or 22 university with major study in environmental health,

23 engineering, biological, chemical, environmental or 24 physical science; or equivalent education and experience 25 as determined by the Executive Secretary of the Division 12 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 of Environmental Response and Remediation in Utah.

2 California has a program to be a Registered 3 Environmental Assessor. Their program requires a 4 bachelor's or higher degree from an accredited college 5 or university in physical or biological science,

6 engineering or law, or five years of substantial 7 experience acquired within the last eight years 8 performing environmental assessments relating to 9 hazardous substances and/ or hazardous waste management.

10 I would suggest that over ten years' experience 11 and hundreds or thousands of report submissions would 12 have weeded out the incompetent people in this business.

13 I would respectfully submit that the 14 grandfather clause be amended to accept those 15 environmental professionals with a minimum of ten years'

16 experience where that experience is valid and can be 17 documented.

18 Another concern that I have is with 312.29, the 19 relationship of the purchase price to the value of the 20 property if the property was not contaminated. This 21 section is asking for expertise outside the area of an 22 Environmental Professional, and require the services of 23 a certified and licensed appraiser, which, in my 24 opinion, will increase substantially the cost of the 25 investigation. Thank you.

13 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 MS. OVERMEYER: Thank you very much.

2 Stephen Testa.

3 MR. TESTA: Good afternoon, and thank you for 4 the opportunity to speak on behalf of the American 5 Institute of Professional Geologists.

6 My name is Steve Testa. I'm also president of 7 the American Geological Institute, and that consists of 8 43 member societies and represents over 120,000 9 geologists.

10 The American Institute of Professional 11 Geologists is the nation's largest certifying 12 organization for Professional Geologists, referred to as 13 " AIPG." AIPG is encouraged that the Rulemaking 14 Committee recognizes the vital role of Professional 15 Geologists in assessing releases of or threatened 16 releases that can generate significant liability to 17 unknowing purchasers. The inclusion of Professional 18 Geologists in the definition of Environmental 19 Professional demonstrates the committee's and the U. S.

20 EPA's understanding of the importance of the judgment,

21 knowledge, and experience of Professional Geologists.

22 The profession of geology is not regulated in 23 every state, however, or U. S. territory. In fact, about 24 28 states have some form of licensure or registration;

25 the other 22 do not. Unlike some professions, many 14 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 states do not have a registration or licensure program 2 for Professional Geologists. Therefore, the rule as it 3 is written will place the burden of certification upon 4 the individual professional geologist to apply for the 5 Environmental Professional credential. The U. S. EPA 6 will be required to process and verify the accuracy and 7 completeness of each application. To alleviate some of 8 the burden on the profession and the agency, and to move 9 toward a nationwide level of coherence of professional 10 capabilities, AIPG recommends that the rule be modified 11 to include the AIPG credential " Certified Professional 12 Geologist" in the definition of Environmental 13 Professional.

14 In 1963, AIPG established baseline 15 qualifications for granting the Certified Professional 16 Geologist title, referred to as " CPG." The CPG title 17 attests to the public that those geologists who hold 18 this title have undergone peer review, and have been 19 deemed competent practitioners who are worthy of public 20 interest and trust. The high standards for obtaining 21 the title have earned it wide recognition. The primary 22 purpose of AIPG, to strengthen geological science as a 23 profession, remains undiminished, and it's recognized by 24 the European Federation of Geologists, the Canadian 25 Securities Administrators under National Instruments 15 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 43 101 and 51 101, and by the Australian Stock Exchange 2 as a " Recognized Overseas Professional Organization."

3 By including the CPG credential in the 4 definition of Environmental Professional, the U. S. EPA 5 can be assured of the consistent application of high 6 standards in those states that do not have registration 7 or licensure programs, while allowing for the mobility 8 of highly credentialed professionals across state 9 boundaries.

10 Approximately 40 percent of AIPG members, out 11 of a total of 4500 members, are in states without 12 registration or licensure programs, and about 75 percent 13 of its membership identifies itself as engaged in 14 environmental practice. EPA can minimize duplicative 15 effort required to process the credentials of individual 16 applicants, i. e. the professional geologist that does 17 not live in the state with a registration or licensure 18 program, by listing the CPG credential in the rule 19 itself. In this way, much of the EPA administrative 20 burden is obviated.

21 AIPG does not review or modify certification 22 qualifications on a frequent or periodic basis. Since 23 its inception more than 40 years ago, AIPG has 24 maintained a high standard for the CPG title. The 25 education and experience requirements for AIPG 16 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 certification meet or exceed those of all the 2 state registration or licensure programs. These 3 include: A bachelor or higher degree, minimum of 36 4 semester hours in geological sciences; a minimum of 5 eight years' experience with a bachelor's degree; seven 6 years with a master's, and five years with a Ph. D.

7 The second recommendation reflects on annual 8 refresher courses or continuing education. AIPG also 9 strongly recommends that an annual refresher course be 10 required for the Environmental Professional. Other 11 programs require annual refresher courses to remain 12 current in their fields of practice, such as the 13 eight hour OSHA classes and asbestos training. The 14 proposed rule only recommends continuing education, and 15 most state Professional Geologist licenses don't require 16 any. AIPG has instituted a program for continuing 17 professional development for practitioners.

18 Last, an annual refresher course would give 19 other individuals who are grandfathered, but who are not 20 CPGs or registered, an opportunity to learn more about 21 basic hydrogeology and geologic concepts to which they 22 may not have been exposed previously. Adding also to 23 the importance of this issue is the proliferation of 24 automated, Internet based platforms for creating data 25 summaries and maps of the subject area. These give the 17 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 erroneous impression of thoroughness to the point of 2 even showing groundwater flow direction and the relative 3 elevation of surrounding sites that have the potential 4 to impact the subject site. These presentations can be 5 misleading and, if used by an unqualified Environmental 6 Professional, may lead to serious oversights with 7 significant consequences. The judgement of a qualified 8 geologist, taking advantage of all available geologic 9 and hydrogeologic information sources, is necessary for 10 this purpose.

11 Thank you for your consideration.

12 MS. OVERMEYER: Thank you very much.

13 Paul Lesti.

14 MR. LESTI: Thank you, and thank you to the EPA 15 for having this open forum. I appreciate it. My name 16 is Paul Lesti; I am the president of Lesti Structured 17 Settlements here in Los Altos, California. And I'm just 18 briefly going to talk about this All Appropriate 19 Inquiry, an element that works hand in glove with the 20 transfer of claims liability in Brownfields and other 21 CERCLA type of obligations.

22 First of all, a definition of structured 23 settlement. A structured settlement is simply an 24 agreement to pay money in the future to settle a 25 dispute. It's been used for many, many years in 18 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 settling personal injury type lawsuits.

2 In 1995, Mr. Bruce Diamond of the EPA wrote a 3 memo about this, asking for proposals of using this 4 vehicle for CERCLA sites. He mentioned six specific 5 things. No. 1, the time value of money will help if 6 it's held and invested to help fund future costs; No. 2,

7 that there are tax advantages to the PRP; No. 3, that 8 there's a special purpose entity that can own the 9 annuity; and No. 4, that a large life insurance company 10 with substantial resources is brought into the 11 transaction for security of the transaction. No. 5 is 12 that this is not in lieu of the cleanup, but it's really 13 pre funding the cleanup. And 6, if the money is not 14 needed for some time, the cleanup costs can be  and 15 the claim costs on those  gives some flexibility in 16 the funding.

17 One of the challenges back in 1995 is that 18 there was no clear mechanism for ownership of this 19 annuity. That problem has now been solved. We call 20 that an " environmental structured settlement."

21 One of the problems is that if you have a 22 current solvent PRP, there is no guarantee that it will 23 be around 20, 30, 40 years from now. We can now give a 24 guarantee that the funding will be there.

25 Secondly, the EPA does not necessarily benefit 19 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 from new technology or new cleanup techniques,

2 management techniques, such as Triad, when there's a 3 potential of saving money. We now have a vehicle so 4 that there is a potential recapture of funds to the EPA 5 budget for this new use of new technology and doing it 6 faster. The solution is an environmental structured 7 settlement that provides the guarantee and provides for 8 potential recapture.

9 How it works. A structured settlement, again,

10 is simply a way of making money  paying money into the 11 future. You have a consent decree or some sort of an 12 agreement where the potentially responsible party, or 13 any responsible party, agrees to make future payments.

14 They are matching the future cleanup costs. That 15 obligation is assigned to a third party. That third 16 party takes the funds and the obligation to make the 17 payment, and they purchase the annuity contract from a 18 large U. S. life company. That is then guaranteed by the 19 U. S. life market one way or the other.

20 There's a graphic on the slide presentation, on 21 slide No. 7, if you're so interested in looking at it.

22 This is a new product. Again, we found a mechanism of 23 solving the ownership vehicle problem. And in the first 24 year, one market did $ 250 million of this, so it has 25 been done. In fact, currently it's being done for a 20 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 landfill site, Superfund site, in central California.

2 So it's going to be done, and you're going to see a lot 3 more projects with this vehicle.

4 It works well when people are far apart on the 5 cleanup costs in present value. It's good if it's in 6 the final stages of cleanup. Everything is 7 well characterized. Even a post ROD record of decision 8 can be used for this, as well. Large industrial sites 9 are great for these, well characterized. It's also a 10 good vehicle if you have old technology. And people are 11 aware that new technology can be used. Again, you can 12 flip the technology, and there is a potential for 13 recapture one way or the other.

14 Secure funding. Again, it meets EPA needs 15 because we put in place a life insurance company who is 16 in the business of funding long tail transactions.

17 That's what they're in the business of doing. So 18 instead of having a consulting company perhaps owning 19 the obligation, you have a very large life insurance 20 company who is in the business of having secured 21 transactions long, long term.

22 There's even a potential of even an 23 in perpetuity product that's being discussed now, so 24 that for long term use and land use control issues, land 25 stewardship issues can be projected many, many years in 21 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 the future. That's something very exciting that may 2 come up in the future. We'll let you know about that.

3 Again, meeting EPA needs; potential recapture 4 of funds. The EPA benefits from private and public 5 research and development, and may also drive funding of 6 new technology, so that other sites, not just the one 7 under consideration  other sites might be raised up to 8 the same technology level. Basically, I call it the 9 " Triple I concept": It's the inherent incentive to 10 innovate. There's now a financial incentive to do so.

11 Sarbanes Oxley for some PRP may become a 12 problem; we will see more and more disclosures coming 13 down the road, so that more PRPs may be coming to the 14 EPA with this proposal. So we're here to educate so you 15 may be ready for it when it comes.

16 A PRP now, because of the new rules, will not 17 have an incentive to mothball a property. They'll have 18 to do one of three things: Sell the property, insure 19 the risk, or assign the risk. We come in on the third 20 part, where we help people assign the risk.

21 As far as safety, again we have the large  at 22 least one market is a very large market in the Fortune 23 50, and looking at the long term tail.

24 This is different than other products because 25 it's not a consulting company that would own the annuity 22 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 contract. There are others who do have that.

2 Consulting companies are in the business of consulting,

3 and life insurance companies are in the business of 4 owning long term assets and providing that type of 5 stewardship, so it's a better fit for the security.

6 And just in conclusion, again, it's a way to 7 get guaranteed cleanup funding; there's a potential for 8 fund recapture; and it drives technology with the 9 inherent incentive for innovation. This is called an 10 " environmental structured settlement."

11 Thank you very much.

12 MS. OVERMEYER: Thank you.

13 Georgina Dannatt.

14 MS. DANNATT: My name is Georgina Dannatt;

15 Dannatt and Associates; Fremont, California.

16 First, I would like to say that formal setting 17 of standards by EPA is a much needed development. As an 18 environmental banker, first working for a bank and now 19 doing outsource work, each year I review hundreds of 20 Phase One environmental site assessments. Some reports 21 are excellent, but many of the reports are inadequate.

22 The spirit of conducting genuine All 23 Appropriate Inquiry has been lost as commodity style 24 reports have overtaken the market. Though it is not 25 clear whether this has been mainly caused by demands of 23 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 property owners for, quote unquote, clean reports or 2 competition amongst providers, the end result is to shy 3 away from findings of ASTM recognized environmental 4 conditions toward a " No Wrecks R Us" approach.

5 One thing that is often lacking is common 6 sense. Unfortunately, I do not believe the 7 performance based standards approach will remedy many of 8 the current problems. In some cases, it may be 9 necessary for the proposed rule to be prescriptive,

10 rather than leaving it up to the judgement of the 11 provider.

12 Frequently, the consultant meets only the 13 minimum requirements due to time and pricing pressures,

14 failing to answer some of the obvious questions. There 15 is too much focus on what the current site is, and past 16 uses may be completely overlooked. Additionally, there 17 is no proper investigation of current uses, such as 18 the basic regulatory compliance status. When data 19 failure is encountered, no effort is made to obtain data 20 from an alternate source.

21 Under a performance based approach, the 22 situation will continue to be largely as it is now,

23 where unsophisticated property owners do not understand 24 that their due diligence is inadequate, while 25 sophisticated owners, redevelopment agencies, and 24 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 lenders call for a higher, more thorough level of 2 investigation.

3 I'm going to comment directly on three aspects 4 of the rule. First, I believe that the definition of 5 Environmental Professional should not be overly 6 restrictive. To do a Phase One, scientific and research 7 skills are necessary, as well as excellent writing and 8 communication skills.

9 There has been much comment from the 10 engineering community that only licensed professional 11 engineers and geologists are qualified. Numerous 12 educational backgrounds are suitable training in 13 scientific methods, including chemistry, toxicology,

14 industrial hygiene, biology and soil science, as well as 15 the engineering earth science and environmental science 16 disciplines listed in the proposed rule. In addition,

17 people with as diverse backgrounds as history and 18 geography may make excellent assessors. But regardless 19 of the provider's education, the most important factors 20 are on the job training and experience.

21 A professional holding a state license who 22 practices in another specialty area is certainly not 23 more qualified than a person with a life science degree 24 whose entire career is performing due diligence 25 assessments.

25 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 My second area of comment is regarding review 2 of federal, tribal, state and local government records.

3 At some point in the last few years, many providers have 4 come to think that the review of actual records, actual 5 agency records, are now optional and not included in the 6 Phase One assessment. Too many companies obtain a 7 commercially available listing of government databases,

8 or conduct their own database search online, and that is 9 their only inquiry into government records. Their 10 assumption is that if a site is not listed with a 11 problem, there are no issues. Actual review of agency 12 files is not done, because it's time consuming and 13 therefore adds to the consultant's cost, or else access 14 cannot be obtained in the time frame allotted for the 15 assessment.

16 I believe more emphasis must be put on actual 17 review of records and case files. Information such as 18 violations, agency site inspection reports, and lists of 19 chemicals used by previous industrial tenants can 20 usually only be obtained through review of the local 21 file. The extent of soil and groundwater contamination 22 is rarely listed on a government database, and without 23 file review, no one really knows if the subject property 24 has been impacted by a neighboring site.

25 My last area of comment is regarding how far 26 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 back an inquiry should go. Currently, ASTM 1527 2 standard calls for inquiries to go back to 1940 or first 3 developed use, whichever one is earlier. In over half 4 the Phase One reports I review, this standard is not 5 met, with research sometimes only going back to the 6 1960s or ' 70s.

7 Sometimes a consultant is relying on aerial 8 photographs as the primary historical resource, and 9 aerials are not available for an early period. Fire 10 insurance maps and city directories may or may not cover 11 the site. The consultant does not try to locate another 12 source of information. An alternative to historical 13 sources, such as city, building, or tax records and 14 topographic maps that may go back to the 1920s, are not 15 tapped at all.

16 When ASTM standards were developed in the 17 1990s, a look back period of fifty years was chosen.

18 This date is a good indicater of when many industrial 19 chemicals became widely used. The 1940 date is still 20 valid today.

21 I believe the proposed rule should be 22 prescriptive in calling for research to be conducted 23 back to a set date, rather than leaving this issue up to 24 the provider. It cannot be ignored that pricing factors 25 often guide research, instead of technical factors.

27 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 Thank you.

2 MS. OVERMEYER: Thank you very much. Is there 3 anyone else here who would like to make public comment?

4 MR. DILLMAN: I feel I need to make an 5 amendment.

6 MS. OVERMEYER: Feel free to come up.

7 MR. DILLMAN: For the record, I was the first 8 speaker. My name is Malcolm Dillman; I am president of 9 Intermountain Environmental Consultants in Salt Lake 10 City.

11 MS. OVERMEYER: Thank you.

12 Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

13 I can take a couple of minutes to answer anybody's 14 questions if you have questions that are just 15 clarifications about the rule or the process.

16 Does anybody here have any questions?

17 ( No response)

18 MS. OVERMEYER: With that, that's the end of 19 our meeting.

20 Thank you all for coming, and thank you,

21 especially, to those people who did come and comment.

22 We appreciate it very much.

23 ( Public meeting adjourned at 2: 43 p. m.)

24 25 28 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 3 I, RITA R. LERNER, duly authorized 4 shorthand reporter, do hereby certify:

5 That the foregoing transcript constitutes a 6 true, full and correct transcript of my shorthand notes 7 taken as such reporter of the proceedings herein and 8 reduced to typewriting under my supervision and control 9 to the best of my ability.

10 11 12 13 14 __________________________________

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 LegaLink San Francisco 415.359.2040


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24918-24919]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10142]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9926-44]

Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of April 14, 2015,
announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant to a test rule
issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As
required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/
or mixture for

which test data have been received; the uses or intended uses of such
chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the test
data received. Under Unit IV.A.3. and B.3. Test Data Received;
information was inadvertently omitted, and this document corrects the
omissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Kathy Calvo, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What does this correction do?

    FR Doc. 2015-08588, published in the Federal Register of April 14,
2015, (80 FR 19982) (FRL-9925-21) is corrected to read as follows:
    1. On page 19982 under Unit IV. Test Data Received A.3., after the
sentence: ``Aquatic Toxicity. The docket ID number assigned to this
data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531-0832.'' Add the sentence:
    Ready Biodegradation. The docket ID number assigned to this data is
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531.
    2. On page 19982 under Unit IV. Test Data Received B.3., is
corrected to read as follows:
    Aquatic Toxicity (Algae). The docket ID number assigned to this
data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112.
    Mammalian Toxicity. Repeat Dose Reproductive/Developmental Study
with Screening Test. The docket ID number assigned to this data is EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2009-0112.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: April 23, 2015.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2015-10142 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 49957]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21554]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33260]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

September 28, 2018.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
September 2018. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the
SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on October 23, 2018, and
should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of
an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to
Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Davis, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC, Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-8010.

John Hancock Emerging Markets Income Fund [File No. 811-22586]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 27, 2018, and
amended on September 17, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 601 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts
02210.

John Hancock Floating Rate High Income Fund [File No. 811-22879]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 27, 2018, and
amended on September 17, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 601 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts
02210.

John Hancock Strategic Diversified Income Fund [File No. 811-22675]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 27, 2018, and
amended on September 17, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 601 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts
02210.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21554 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Request for Extension by Cigar Rights of America.  See attached file(s)


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18034-18035]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08508]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0090; FRL-9992-22-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products (EPA ICR Number 2056.06, OMB Control Number 2060-
0486), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May
31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal
Register, on May 30, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0090, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or 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; and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    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: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; 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.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products were
proposed on August 13, 2002, and promulgated on January 2, 2004. These
regulations apply to both existing and new facilities with
miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations, and
associated equipment or containers used for mixing, conveying, storage,
or waste. New facilities include those that commenced construction or
reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are existing facilities
and new facilities with miscellaneous metal parts and products surface
coating operations, and associated equipment or containers used for
mixing, conveying, storage, or waste.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 63, Subpart
MMMM).
    Estimated number of respondents: 390 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 179,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $20,600,000 (per year), which includes
$240,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The adjustment decrease in burden is due
to more accurate estimates of existing and anticipated new sources. The
EPA identified a large decrease in the number of respondents subject to
the subpart during an inventory conducted for the Risk and Technology
Review for the source category. The decrease in respondents also
results in a decrease in the number of respondents and a decrease in
the O&M costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-08508 Filed 4-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38023]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-212-000.
    Applicants: Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Operational Purchases and Sales Report 2012.
    Filed Date: 6/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130613-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-977-000.
    Applicants: Bobcat Gas Storage.
    Description: Non-conforming Agreement and Updates to be effective
7/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-978-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 06/14/13 Negotiated Rates--Cargill Incorporated (RTS)
3085-13 & 14 to be effective 6/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-979-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Neg Rate NC 2013-06-14 Encana to be effective 6/15/
2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-980-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: 20130614 Macquarie Energy Non-Conforming to be
effective 7/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/13.

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

    Dated: June 17, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15075 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 26083-26084]
[DOCID:fr03my06-68]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0048; FRL-8059-5]

Amitraz; Product Cancellation Order

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations
voluntarily requested by the registrant and accepted by the Agency, of
products containing the pesticide amitraz, pursuant to section 6(f)(1)
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as
amended. This cancellation order follows a March 17, 2004 Federal
Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the amitraz registrant to
voluntarily cancel all uses of its Ovasyn Insecticide/Miticide and
Mitac W Insecticide product registrations. These are not the last
amitraz products registered for use in the United States, but are the
last amitraz products for the use sites of cotton and pears. In the
March 17, 2004 Notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order
implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive
comments within the 30 day comment period that would merit its further
review of these requests, or unless the registrant withdrew its
requests within this period. The Agency received no comments regarding
the cancellation of Ovasyn Insecticide/Miticide and Mitac W
Insecticide. Further, the registrant did not withdraw its requests.
Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order
granting the requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of
the amitraz products subject to this cancellation order is permitted
only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing
stocks provisions.

DATES: The cancellations are effective May 3, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amaris Johnson, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may 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 person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. i. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket identification number (ID) EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0048. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
.

    ii. Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the first
week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday, May 5,
2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The
OPP Regulatory Public Docket telephone number ((703) 305-5805) and
hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays) will remain the same after the move.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by the
registrant, of amitraz products Ovasyn Insecticide/Miticide and Mitac W
Insecticide, registered under section 3 of FIFRA. These registrations
are listed in sequence by registration number in the following Table 1:

                 Table 1.--Amitraz Product Cancellations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           EPA Registration No.                     Product Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264-625                                     Ovasyn Insecticide/Miticide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264-636                                     Mitac W Insecticide
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for
the registrant of the products in Table 1.

           Table 2.--Registrant of Cancelled Amitraz Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA Company No.                 Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264                                         Bayer CropScience
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to
Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments
in response to the March 17, 2004 Federal Register notice announcing
the Agency's receipt of the requests for voluntary cancellations and
amendments to terminate uses of amitraz.

IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested
cancellations of amitraz registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit
II. Accordingly, the Agency orders that the amitraz product
registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II are hereby canceled. Any
distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products
identified in Table 1 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of
the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks set forth below in
Unit VI will be considered a violation of FIFRA.

V. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which arecurrently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. The cancellation order issued in this Notice
includes the following existing stocks provisions.
    The Agency has authorized the registrants to sell or distribute
product under the previously approved labeling for a period of 18
months after the approval of the cancellation, unless other
restrictions have been imposed, as in special review actions.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 20, 2006.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-6617 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50290-50292]
[DOCID:fr31au07-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29067; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-148-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes.
This proposed AD would require doing a detailed inspection for damage
of the wire bundle of the right recirculation fan, and repair if
necessary. This proposed AD would also require re-routing the wire
bundle of the right recirculation fan. This proposed AD results from a
report indicating that, during landing of a Model 757 airplane, an
overheat warning and smoke occurred in the main cabin, and the right
recirculation fan stopped operating. We are proposing this AD to
prevent damage of the wiring bundle of the right recirculation fan.
Such damage could result in a short circuit and possible fire in the
mix bay or smoke in the main cabin.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this
proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Sheridan, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
29067; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-148-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will
also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of
that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street
address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that, during landing of a
Model 757 airplane, an overheat warning and smoke occurred in the main
cabin, and the right recirculation fan stopped operating. Investigation
revealed fire damage to the right recirculation fan, the fan wiring
bundle and electrical connector, and the insulation blankets in the mix
bay. A fire, which extinguished without aid, had ignited in the top
layer of the insulation blanket. The fire might have resulted from lint
or dust touching a short circuit in the fan wiring bundle caused by
chafing of the wire bundle against adjacent structure. This condition,
if not corrected, could result in fire in the mix bay or smoke in the
main cabin.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 757-21-0109, dated
December 15, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing
a detailed inspection for damage of the wire bundle of the right
recirculating fan and repair if necessary. The service bulletin also
describes procedures, including re-orienting the electrical connector,
for re-routing the wire bundle of the right recirculating fan.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 920 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 560 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts
would cost about $81 per airplane. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $134,960, or
$241 per airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-29067; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
148-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October
15, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300
series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Service Bulletin 757-21-0109, dated December 15, 2006.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report indicating that, during
landing of a Model 757 airplane, an overheat warning and smoke
occurred in the main cabin, and the right recirculation fan stopped
operating. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage of the wiring
bundle of the right recirculation fan. Such damage could result in a
short circuit and possible fire in the mix bay or smoke in the main
cabin.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspection and Corrective Actions

    (f) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do all
actions required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 757-21-0109, dated December 15, 2006.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for damage of the wire bundle of
the right recirculation fan, and repair any damage before further
flight.
    (2) Re-route the wire bundle and re-orient the electrical
connector of the right recirculation fan.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-17280 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P