ROBERT G. DREHER  	THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. ZILLY
Acting Assistant Attorney General
SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief
SRINATH JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief

MEREDITH L. FLAX (D.C. Bar # 468016)
J. BRETT GROSKO (Maryland Bar)
United States Department of Justice
Wildlife and Marine Resources Section
Environment & Natural Resources Section
United States Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C.  20044-7611
(202) 305-0404 /<PHONE_NUMBER> | Phone
(202) 305-0275 | Fax
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Counsel for Federal Defendant

                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
                                  AT SEATTLE

 NORTHWEST CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES, et al.,

            Plaintiffs,

 	v.

 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

            Defendant,

      and

 CROPLIFE AMERICA, et al.,

            Intervenor-Defendants.
)
)))))
))) ))))))))))
)

   No. 2:10-cv-01919-TSZ

                 STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PROPOSED
                              ORDER OF DISMISSAL

      The Plaintiffs, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, et al. ("Plaintiffs"), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "Federal Defendant"), by and through their undersigned counsel, say as follows:
      WHEREAS, on July 2, 2002, this Court, in Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA, No. C-01-132C (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2002) ("Washington Toxics"), ordered the EPA to make effects determinations and consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), as appropriate, under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), to ensure that EPA's registration of 54 pesticides under the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 26 ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species ("listed salmonids") and is not likely to adversely modify their designated critical habitat;
      WHEREAS, the Court in the same case on January 22, 2004 entered an injunction (Dkt. No. 224) vacating EPA's authorization of certain uses of 54 pesticide active ingredients in certain areas and imposing certain other requirements ("Interim Measures"), until one of four described terminating events had occurred (e.g., the "issuance by NMFS of a biological opinion");
      WHEREAS, on November 18, 2008, NMFS issued a biological opinion ("OP BiOp") concerning the effects on listed salmonids and their critical habitat of three of the 54 pesticides at issue in Washington Toxics (malathion, diazinon, and chlorpyrifos);
      WHEREAS, the OP BiOp found that the continued registration of the three covered pesticides was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of certain ESA-listed salmonids and was likely to adversely modify the designated critical habitat of certain ESA- listed salmonids;
 	WHEREAS, on April 1, 2009, Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc. and Cheminova Inc., USA, challenged the validity of the OP BiOp under the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), Dow AgroSciences, LLC v. NMFS, No. 09-cv-00824 (D. Md.) ("Dow") (Dkt. No. 1);
 	WHEREAS, on April 20, 2009, NMFS issued a biological opinion ("Carbamate BiOp") concerning the effects on listed salmonids and their critical habitat of three of the 54 pesticides at issue in Washington Toxics (carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl);
      WHEREAS, the Carbamate BiOp found that the continued registration of the three covered pesticides was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of certain ESA-listed listed salmonids and was likely to adversely modify the designated critical habitat of certain ESA-listed salmonids;
      WHEREAS, under the terms of the January 22, 2004 injunction in Washington Toxics, the Interim Measures terminated, with respect to the covered pesticides, upon issuance by NMFS of the OP and Carbamate BiOps;
      WHEREAS, both the OP and Carbamate BiOps contained reasonable and prudent alternatives ("RPAs") that recommend changes to the covered products' labels to include certain no-spray buffers and other measures;
      WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in this action in November 2010 alleging, inter alia, that EPA had failed to implement the RPAs in the OP and Carbamate BiOps or take any alternative measures to protect listed salmonids and their critical habitat, Dkt. No. 1;
 	WHEREAS, on March 10, 2011, EPA, on behalf of itself and the Departments of the Interior, Commerce and Agriculture, asked the National Academy of Sciences ("NAS") to evaluate the differing risk assessment approaches used by these agencies with regard to pesticides and endangered species, using the OP and Carbamate BiOps as examples;
 	WHEREAS, in October 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted NMFS' cross-motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dow AgroSciences, LLC v. NMFS, 821 F. Supp. 2d 792 (D. Md. 2011);
 	WHEREAS, on February 21, 2013, the U.S. Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit found that the OP BiOp was arbitrary, vacated the OP BiOp, and remanded it to NMFS, Dow AgroSciences, LLC v. NMFS, 707 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2013);
 	WHEREAS, on April 30, 2013, the NAS issued a report entitled "Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides";[1]/
 	WHEREAS, the report makes a number of  recommendations, including that EPA, NMFS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") of the Department of the Interior, use a common approach to ecological risk assessments for pesticide use;
 	WHEREAS, in light of the recommendations in the NAS Report, NMFS, FWS, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have been working to develop a common approach to risk assessment for pesticides, including holding a week-long retreat, establishing and repeatedly convening committees to address specific issues, and announcing interim approaches on November 15, 2013 (the "Interim Process"), which they intend to further develop as the Interim Process is implemented;
	WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental amended Complaint on September 17, 2013, Dkt. No. 137, alleging that: (a) EPA has failed to complete consultation for the pesticides that were the subject of the now-vacated OP BiOp; (b) EPA has failed to ensure that its registration of the three pesticides addressed in the Carbamate BiOp does not jeopardize listed salmonids because it has not implemented the RPAs in the Carbamate BiOp (or taken alternative actions that would avoid jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat); and (c) EPA's continued registration of the pesticides addressed in both the OP and Carbamate BiOps results in unauthorized take of listed salmonids;
 	WHEREAS, EPA intends to reopen its ESA evaluation of the two pesticides in the Carbamate BiOp for which there are still registered end-use products (carbaryl and methomyl) by preparing, with the assistance of NMFS and FWS, new nationwide biological evaluation(s) that address all NMFS species; and by reinitiating consultation with NMFS as appropriate following the completion of the nationwide evaluation(s);
 	WHEREAS, EPA intends to prepare a similar new nationwide evaluation(s) of the three pesticides covered by the OP BiOp and to reinitiate consultation with NMFS as appropriate following the completion of the nationwide evaluation(s);
 	WHEREAS, NMFS, pursuant to the stipulation filed in NCAP v. NMFS, cv-1791-RSL, intends to complete a new nationwide OP biological opinion on or before December 31, 2017;	WHEREAS, these biological evaluations and consultations (as appropriate) are expected to be the first ever that address all species subject to NMFS' authority for the covered pesticides;
 	WHEREAS, for some of NMFS' species there is far less data, information and research available than there is for salmonids, and therefore NMFS, EPA and FWS will be working together on developing and testing new methodologies and a common approach;
 	WHEREAS, in order to allow time for NMFS to work with EPA on preparing new biological evaluations and complete a new OP biological opinion based on all NMFS species and incorporating the recommendations of the NAS report, NMFS, pursuant to the stipulation in NCAP v. NMFS, cv-1791-RSL, intends to complete a new Carbamate biological opinion on or before December 31, 2018;
      WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant, through their authorized representatives, without any admission of legal fault or error, and without final adjudication of the issues of fact or law with respect to Plaintiffs' claims, have reached a settlement resolving this action;
      WHEREAS the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant agree that settlement of this action in this manner is in the public interest and is an appropriate way to resolve this dispute;
      WHEREAS, the Defendant-Intervenors take no position on this Stipulated Settlement Agreement ("Stipulation");
      THE PLAINTIFFS AND FEDERAL DEFENDANT THEREFORE STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
      1. The Interim Measures described in the January 22, 2004  Washington Toxics order, with respect to  malathion, diazinon, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, and methomyl, shall be reinstated ("Reinstated Interim Measures") and remain in effect until terminated in accordance with Paragraph 2 below.  The Reinstated Interim Measures will be implemented in accordance with Sections II, III.A.1, and III.D of the injunction issued in Washington Toxics Coalition, Case No. C01-0132C (Jan. 22, 2004), attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit A.
      2. The Reinstated Interim Measures will terminate with respect to a particular pesticide and particular salmonid species upon the occurrence of one of the following:
         (a)          A finding by EPA made for ESA section 7 compliance purposes that a pesticide will have "no effect" on the particular salmonid species or its critical habitat;
         (b)          NMFS' written concurrence with an EPA finding for ESA section 7 compliance purposes that the pesticide is "not likely to adversely affect" the particular salmonid species or its critical habitat;
         (c) NMFS' issuance of a final Biological Opinion concluding that the pesticide is not likely to jeopardize the particular listed salmonid species, and is not likely to adversely modify its critical habitat;
         (d) If: (i) NMFS issues a final Biological Opinion concluding that the uses of a pesticide are likely to jeopardize the listed salmonid species or adversely modify its critical habitat, and provides RPAs that would avoid jeopardy and adverse modification, and (ii) EPA notifies NMFS pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 402.15 of its receipt of the Biological Opinion and the measures it intends to take in response, then the Reinstated Interim Measures shall terminate when EPA notifies the Court and the Plaintiffs that it has determined that it has completed implementation of all measures specified in its notification to NMFS;
         (e) Notwithstanding ¶ 2(d), if NMFS' final Biological Opinion provides RPAs to avoid jeopardy or adverse modification that include no-spray buffer zones adjacent to salmonid habitats that are smaller than the buffer zones required by the Reinstated Interim Measures (i.e., are smaller than 300 feet for aerial application and smaller than 60 feet for ground application), the Reinstated Interim Measures shall terminate upon issuance of the Biological Opinion.
	3.	Pursuant to an agreement between Plaintiffs and Willapa/Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association, see Dkt. No. 146 (filed Oct. 30, 2013), the application of pesticide products containing carbaryl to oyster beds in the estuarine mudflats of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor in Washington State in accordance with  EPA's Special Local Need label under Section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act (EPA Reg. No. 264-316) is enjoined, vacated and set aside only when the wind velocity at the treatment site exceeds ten miles per hour and the additional restrictions in ¶¶ 1 and 2 shall not apply to such applications.
	4.	EPA agrees to request that the states of California, Oregon and Washington provide notice of the Interim Measures to all certified applicators and licensed pesticide dealers of the OP and Carbamate Pesticides residing in counties where the Interim Measures apply, either by providing the notice directly (by letter or email), or by posting notice on either the homepage or licensing page of the state pesticide applicator and pesticide dealer licensing authorities' websites following entry of this Stipulation and order.  EPA also agrees to provide notice of the Interim Measures to registrants of the OP Pesticides and Carbaryl and Methomyl and  request that those registrants to make distributors or others in privity with them aware of this agreement.  EPA further agrees to provide notice of the Interim measures to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the County Agricultural Commissioner and Cooperative Extension Agent offices, including University Extension Services identified in Appendix A, and to the entities identified in Appendix B in Washington, Oregon, and California counties where the Interim Measures apply; and the relevant region(s) of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.  EPA further agrees to submit notice of this order for publication in the Federal Register and to distribute notice of this order and links to its website for further information through its "Pesticide Program Updates" e-mail listserve.  EPA agrees that the notice provided to certified applicators and the notice provided through its Pesticide Program Updates e-mails, as well as the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs website, will include Spanish language text indicating that the Interim Measures have been reinstituted and that directs readers to the website address where the measures can be found on EPA's website.
      5.	 EPA  agrees to include the Interim Measures and the full text of this stipulation and order in a clearly marked section of its Office of Pesticide Programs website.  EPA further agrees that the specific Interim Measures will be identified on EPA's website through maps that identify the counties and stream reaches where the Interim Measures apply and will include a narrative description of the measures that apply to each OP pesticide and to Carbaryl and Methomyl.  EPA agrees that the website will also provide links to outside information and sources that can be used to identify "Salmon Supporting Waters," including at least those sources identified in Section II of Washington Toxics Coalition.  EPA also agrees to establish a dedicated electronic mailbox to receive questions, concerns or complaints regarding the Interim Measures or applicator conformance with the Interim Measures.
	6.	Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as an agreement by Plaintiffs that the provisions of ¶¶ 2-5 are sufficient to comply with the ESA or any other law or that the OP and Carbamate BiOps are deficient in any respect.
	7.	The Order entering this Stipulation may be modified by the Court upon good cause shown, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by written stipulation between the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant filed with and approved by the Court, or upon written motion filed by Plaintiffs or Federal Defendant and granted by the Court.  In the event that Plaintiffs or Federal Defendant seeks to modify the terms of this Stipulation, or in the event of a dispute arising out of or relating to this Stipulation, or in the event that Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant believes that Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant has failed to comply with any term or condition of this Stipulation, the Party seeking the modification, raising the dispute, or seeking enforcement shall provide the other Party with notice of the claim.  The Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant agree that they will meet and confer (either telephonically or in-person) at the earliest possible time in a good faith effort to resolve the claim before seeking relief from the Court.  If the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant are unable to resolve the claim themselves, Plaintiffs or Federal Defendant may seek relief from the Court.  In the event that Plaintiffs or Federal Defendant believes another party has failed to comply with the term of this Stipulation, that party's first remedy shall be a motion to enforce the terms of this Stipulation.  This Stipulation shall not, in the first instance, be enforceable through a proceeding for contempt of court.
      8.	EPA agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as provided in 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g).  EPA and Plaintiffs agree to attempt to resolve Plaintiffs' claim for fees and costs in this action expeditiously, without the need for Court intervention.  If the EPA and Plaintiffs cannot reach such agreement within 90 days of the court order approving this Stipulation, Plaintiffs shall file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs with the Court in this matter.  This 90 day period shall supersede the 14 day time period otherwise applicable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) and the court order approving the stipulated injunction will accordingly operate as an enlargement of time pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) for Plaintiffs to file a fee motion.
      9.	The Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant recognize that EPA has not waived any defense to and preserves its right to challenge the amount of any such fees, and does not waive any objection or defense they may have to Plaintiffs' fee application.  The Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant further recognize that Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek additional fees and costs incurred arising from a need to enforce or defend against efforts to modify this agreement or for any other unforeseen continuation of this action.
      10.	Except as explicitly provided in this Stipulation, nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed to modify or limit the discretion afforded to the Federal Defendant under the ESA, or principles of administrative law.  No provision of this Stipulation shall be interpreted as constituting a commitment or requirement that the United States is obligated to pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other provision of law.  No provision of this Stipulation shall be interpreted as constituting a commitment or requirement that the Federal Defendant take actions in contravention of the ESA, APA, or any other law or regulation, either substantive or procedural.
	11.	Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), upon approval of this Stipulation by the Court, the above-captioned case shall be dismissed without prejudice.  Notwithstanding dismissal of this action without prejudice, and except as provided in ¶ 7, Plaintiffs agree not to bring or join in any court proceeding challenging EPA's compliance with section 7 or section 9 of the ESA respecting a pesticide and species subject to this Stipulation until after a terminating event has occurred as set forth in ¶ 2 for the particular pesticide and species.  Furthermore, notwithstanding dismissal of this action without prejudice, and except as provided in ¶ 7, Plaintiffs agree not to bring or join in any court proceeding challenging EPA's compliance with Section 7 or section 9 of the ESA with respect to an action by EPA concerning a pesticide and species subject to this Stipulation that occurred after the date the Court approves this Stipulation and before the occurrence of one of the Terminating Events for the pesticide and species as set forth in ¶ 2.  Nothing in this paragraph prohibits Plaintiffs from seeking leave to intervene on the side of EPA in any court proceeding brought by third parties challenging EPA's compliance with section 7 or section 9 of the ESA.
      12. 	Upon approval of this Stipulation by the Court, this Stipulation shall apply to and be binding upon the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant and anyone acting on their behalf, including successors, employees, agents, elected and appointed officers, and assigns.
      13. 	The terms of this Stipulation constitute the entire agreement of the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant, and no statement, agreement, or understanding, oral or written, which is not contained herein, shall be recognized or enforced.  Except as expressly stated herein, this Stipulation supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, and discussions between the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant with respect to the subject matters discussed herein.
      14. 	This Stipulation may be modified or amended only by order of this Court.
      15. 	Each of the Plaintiffs' and Federal Defendant's undersigned representatives certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into and execute the terms and conditions of this Stipulation, and do hereby agree to the terms herein.
      16. 	The terms of this Stipulation shall become effective upon entry of an order by the
Court ratifying the Stipulation.
      17. 	This Stipulation has no precedential value and shall not be used as evidence of such in any litigation or in representations before any forum or public setting.
      18. 	Notwithstanding the dismissal of this action, the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendant  hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court retain jurisdiction to oversee compliance with the terms of this Stipulation and to resolve any motions to modify such terms, including any proceedings necessary to resolve Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys fees and costs pursuant to ¶ 8.  See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//Dated:    ___, 2014.
                              Respectfully Submitted,
                              ROBERT G. DREHER
                              Acting Assistant Attorney General
                              SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief
                              S. JAY GOVINDEN, Assistant Chief

						/s/ Draft
						_______________________________
						MEREDITH L. FLAX (DCB 468016)
						Senior Trial Attorney
                              J. BRETT GROSKO (Maryland Bar)
                              Trial Attorney
                              U.S. Department of Justice
						Environment & Natural Resources Division
						Wildlife & Marine Resources Section
						Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369
						Washington, DC  20044-7369
						Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/(202) 305-0342
                              Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                              Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
						Attorneys for Federal Defendant

OF COUNSEL:

MARK DYNER
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of General Counsel
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Mail Code: 2333A
Washington, D.C.  20460

                              /s/ Stephen D. Mashuda (with permission)
	_______________________________
                              Stephen D. Mashuda
                              Amanda Goodin
                              Earthjustice
                              Northwest Office
                              705 Second Ave., Suite 203
                              Seattle, WA  98104
                              Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> x1027
                              Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                    Counsel for Plaintiffs

IT IS SO ORDERED

___________________________
Thomas S. Zilly
U.S. District Court Judge

                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on ___, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such to the attorneys of record.

	/s/ J. Brett Grosko
                         _____________________________
                                J. BRETT GROSKO


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		July 9, 2012

TO:		RICE NESHAP Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708

FROM:	Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

SUBJECT:	June 26, 2012 Conference Call Regarding Proposed Amendments to the RICE NESHAP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on June 26, 2012 to discuss the proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. The amendments were proposed on June 7, 2012.

ATTENDEES

Eric Ginsburg, EPA
Christina Simeone, PennFuture
Robert Wayland, EPA
Hilary Sinnamon, Red Mountain Group
Melanie King, EPA
Courtney Lane, PennFuture
Michael Horowitz, EPA
Rachel Clark, Conservation Law Foundation
Mark Kresowik, Sierra Club
Paul Miller, NESCAUM
Justin Vickiers, Environmental Law and
   Policy Center


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28031-28035]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11730]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31597; File No. 812-14360]

The MainStay Funds, et al.; Notice of Application

May 11, 2015.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements with
Wholly-Owned Subadvisers (as defined below) and Non-Affiliated
Subadvisers (as defined below) without shareholder approval and would
grant relief from certain disclosure requirements. The requested order
would supersede a prior order that granted relief solely with respect
to Non-Affiliated Subadvisers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The MainStay Funds, et al., Investment Company Act Release
Nos. 27595 (December 11, 2006) (notice) and 27656 (January 8, 2007)
(order).

Applicants: The MainStay Funds, MainStay Funds Trust and MainStay VP
Funds Trust (each, a ``Trust'') and New York Life Investment Management
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLC (the ``Adviser'' or ``New York Life Investments'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 19, 2014, and
amended on February 3, 2015, and April 3, 2015.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on June 5, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state

the nature of the writer's interest, 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: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o J. Kevin Gao,
Esq., New York Life Investment Management LLC, 169 Lackawanna Avenue,
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end
management investment company under the Act. Each of MainStay Funds
Trust and MainStay VP Funds Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory
trust, and The MainStay Funds is organized as a Massachusetts business
trust. Each Trust may offer one or more series of shares (each a
``Fund,'' and collectively the ``Funds''), each with its own distinct
investment objectives, policies and restrictions. Shares of MainStay VP
Funds Trust will be offered and sold through insurance company
accounts, which are used to fund variable annuity contracts. The
Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act''), and serves as investment adviser to the
Funds.
    2. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser,\2\ subject to
the approval of the board of trustees of the applicable Trust (each a
``Board''),\3\ including a majority of the trustees who are not
``interested persons'' of the Trusts or the Adviser, as defined in
section 2(a)(19) of the Act (the ``Independent Trustees''), to, without
obtaining shareholder \4\ approval: (i) Select certain wholly-owned and
non-affiliated investment Subadvisers \5\ to manage all or a portion of
the assets of one or more of the Funds pursuant to an investment
subadvisory agreement with each Subadviser (each a ``Subadvisory
Agreement'' and collectively, the ``Subadvisory Agreements''); and (ii)
materially amend Subadvisory Agreements with the Subadvisers.\6\
Applicants request that the relief apply to the named applicants, as
well as to any future Fund and any other existing or future registered
open-end management investment company or series thereof that intends
to rely on the requested order in the future and (i) is advised by the
Adviser or its successors; (ii) uses the multi-manager structure
described in the application; and (iii) complies with the terms and
conditions set forth in the application (each, a ``Subadvised
Fund'').\7\ The requested relief will not extend to any subadviser,
other than a Wholly-Owned Subadviser, who is an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Subadvised Funds or of
the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a subadviser to one or
more of the Subadvised Funds (``Affiliated Subadviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The term ``Adviser'' includes (1) New York Life Investments
and (ii) any entity controlling, controlled by or under common
control with, New York Life Investments or its successors. For the
purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an
entity that results from a reorganization into another jurisdiction
or a change in the type of business organization.
    \3\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees or
directors of a future Subadvised Fund (as defined below), if
different from the board of trustees of a Trust.
    \4\ The term ``shareholder'' includes variable contract owners
and insurance companies entitled to give voting instructions with
respect to a Fund. Pursuant to current Commission requirements and
Commission staff interpretations, insurance companies vote Fund
shares held in registered separate accounts in accordance with
voting instructions received from variable contract owners or
payees. In addition, Fund shares held in registered separate
accounts for which contract owners or payees are entitled to give
voting instructions, but as to which no voting instructions are
received, are voted in proportion to the shares for which voting
instructions have been received by that company. The term ``payee''
shall include an individual entitled to the receipt of payment under
a variable annuity contract.
    \5\ A ``Subadviser'' for a Fund is a Subadviser that is (i) an
indirect or direct ``wholly-owned subsidiary'' (as such term is
defined in the Act) of the Adviser, or (ii) a sister company of the
Adviser that is an indirect or direct ``wholly-owned subsidiary''
(as such term is defined in the Act) of the same company that,
indirectly or directly, wholly owns the Adviser (each of (i) and
(ii) a ``Wholly-Owned Subadviser'' and collectively, the ``Wholly-
Owned Subadvisers''), or (iii) not an ``affiliated person'' (as such
term is defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the Funds, the
applicable Trust, or the Adviser, except to the extent that an
affiliation arises solely because the Subadviser serves as a
subadviser to one or more Funds (each a ``Non-Affiliated
Subadviser'' and collectively, the ``Non-Affiliated Subadvisers'').
    \6\ Shareholder approval will continue to be required for any
other subadviser changes and material amendments to an existing
subadvisory agreement with any subadviser other than a Non-
Affiliated Subadviser or a Wholly-Owned Subadviser (all such changes
referred to herein as ``Ineligible Subadviser Changes''), except as
otherwise permitted by rule.
    \7\ All registered open-end investment companies that currently
intend to rely on the requested order are named as applicants. Any
entity that relies on the requested order will do so only in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the
application. If the name of any Subadvised Fund contains the name of
a Subadviser, the name of the Adviser that serves as the primary
adviser to the Subadvised Fund, or a trademark or trade name that is
owned by or publicly used to identify that Adviser, will precede the
name of the Subadviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. New York Life Investments serves as the investment adviser to
each Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the
applicable Trust (each an ``Investment Advisory Agreement'' and
together the ``Investment Advisory Agreements''). Any future Adviser
also will be registered with the Commission as an investment adviser
under the Advisers Act. Each Investment Advisory Agreement has been or
will be approved by the applicable Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, and by the shareholders of the relevant Fund in
the manner required by sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act and rule
18f-2 thereunder. The terms of the Investment Advisory Agreements
comply or will comply with section 15(a) of the Act.
    4. Pursuant to the terms of each Investment Advisory Agreement, the
Adviser, subject to the oversight of the applicable Board, has agreed
or will agree to provide a continuous investment program for each Fund
and determine the securities and other investments to be purchased,
retained, sold or loaned by each Fund and the portion of such assets to
be invested or held uninvested as cash. The Adviser will periodically
review each Fund's investment policies and strategies and, based on the
need of a particular Fund, may recommend changes to the investment
policies and strategies of the Fund for consideration by the Board. For
its services to each Fund, the Adviser receives or will receive an
investment advisory fee from that Fund as specified in the applicable
Investment Advisory Agreement. Consistent with the terms of each
Subadvised Fund's Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser may,
subject to the approval of the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, and the shareholders of the applicable Subadvised
Fund (if required), delegate portfolio management responsibilities of
all or a portion of the assets of a Subadvised Fund to a Subadviser.
The Adviser continues to have overall responsibility for the management
and

investment of the assets of each Subadvised Fund. These
responsibilities include recommending the removal or replacement of
Subadvisers, and determining the portion of that Subadvised Fund's
assets to be managed by any given Subadviser and reallocating those
assets as necessary from time to time.
    5. Pursuant to the authority under the Investment Advisory
Agreements, the Adviser may enter into Subadvisory Agreements with
various Subadvisers on behalf of the Funds. The Adviser has entered
into a Subadvisory Agreement with the following Subadvisers: Candriam
Belgium S.A., Cornerstone Capital Management Holdings LLC;
Cushing[supreg] Asset Management, LP; Eagle Asset Management, Inc.;
Epoch Investments Partners, Inc.; Institutional Capital LLC; Janus
Capital Management LLC; MacKay Shields LLC; Marketfield Asset
Management LLC; Markston International LLC; Massachusetts Financial
Services Company; NYL Investors LLC; Pacific Investment Management
Company LLC; T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.; Van Eck Associates
Corporation; and Winslow Capital Management LLC. The Adviser also may,
in the future, enter into Subadvisory Agreements with other Subadvisers
on behalf of the Funds. The Subadvisory Agreements were or will be
approved by the applicable Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, and the shareholders of the Subadvised Fund in
accordance with sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act and rule 18f-2
thereunder. In addition, the terms of the Subadvisory Agreements comply
or will comply fully with the requirements of section 15(a) of the Act.
The Subadvisers, subject to the oversight of the Adviser and the
applicable Board, determine or will determine the securities and other
instruments to be purchased, sold or entered into by a Subadvised
Fund's portfolio or a portion thereof, and place orders with brokers or
dealers that they select. The Adviser will compensate the Subadvisers
out of the fee received by the Adviser from the applicable Subadvised
Fund under the applicable Investment Advisory Agreement.
    6. Subadvised Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new
Subadviser pursuant to the following procedures (``Modified Notice and
Access Procedures''): (a) Within 90 days after a new Subadviser is
hired for any Subadvised Fund, that Subadvised Fund will send its
shareholders either a Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice
and Multi-manager Information Statement; \8\ and (b) a Subadvised Fund
will make the Multi-manager Information Statement available on the Web
site identified in the Multi-manager Notice no later than when the
Multi-manager Notice (or Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager
Information Statement) is first sent to shareholders, and will maintain
it on that Web site for at least 90 days. Applicants state that, in the
circumstances described in the application, a proxy solicitation to
approve the appointment of new Subadvisers provides no more meaningful
information to shareholders than the proposed Multi-manager Information
Statement. Applicants also state that the applicable Board would comply
with the requirements of sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act before
entering into or amending Subadvisory Agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``Multi-manager Notice'' will be modeled on a Notice of
Internet Availability as defined in rule 14a-16 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and specifically will,
among other things: (a) Summarize the relevant information regarding
the new Subadviser (except as modified to permit Aggregate Fee
Disclosure, as defined below); (b) inform shareholders that the
Multi-manager Information Statement is available on a Web site; (c)
provide the Web site address; (d) state the time period during which
the Multi-manager Information Statement will remain available on
that Web site; (e) provide instructions for accessing and printing
the Multi-manager Information Statement; and (f) instruct the
shareholder that a paper or email copy of the Multi-manager
Information Statement may be obtained, without charge, by contacting
the Subadvised Fund.
    A ``Multi-manager Information Statement'' will meet the
requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule
14A under the Exchange Act for an information statement, except as
modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. Multi-
manager Information Statements will be filed with the Commission via
the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Applicants also request an order under section 6(c) of the Act
exempting the Subadvised Funds from certain disclosure obligations that
may require each Subadvised Fund to disclose fees paid by the Adviser
to each Subadviser. Applicants seek relief to permit each Subadvised
Fund to disclose (as a dollar amount and a percentage of a Subadvised
Fund's net assets) (a) the aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any
Wholly-Owned Subadvisers; (b) the aggregate fees paid to Non-Affiliated
Subadvisers; and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Subadviser
(collectively, the ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure''). An exemption is
requested to permit a Subadvised Fund to include only the Aggregate Fee
Disclosure. All other items required by Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b) and
(c) of Regulation S-X will be disclosed.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act states, in part, that it is unlawful
for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company ``except pursuant to a written contract, which
contract, whether with such registered company or with an investment
adviser of such registered company, has been approved by the vote of a
majority of the outstanding voting securities of such registered
company.'' Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires a registered
investment company to disclose in its statement of additional
information the method of computing the ``advisory fee payable'' by the
investment company, including the total dollar amounts that the
investment company ``paid to the adviser (aggregated with amounts paid
to affiliated advisers, if any), and any advisers who are not
affiliated persons of the adviser, under the investment advisory
contract for the last three fiscal years.''
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under
the Exchange Act. Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and
22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for
a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon
to include the ``rate of compensation of the investment adviser,'' the
``aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fee,'' a description of
the ``terms of the contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the
advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the
difference between the two fees.
    4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of a registered investment
company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation S-X require
a registered investment company to include in its financial statement
information about the investment advisory fees.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such

exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that
their requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed
below.
    6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser,
subject to the review and approval of the applicable Board, to select a
Subadviser who is in the best position to achieve the Subadvised Fund's
investment objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of
the shareholder, the role of the Subadvisers is substantially
equivalent to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by
an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants
believe that permitting the Adviser to perform the duties for which the
shareholders of a Subadvised Fund are paying the Adviser--the
selection, supervision and evaluation of the Subadviser--without
incurring unnecessary delays or expenses is appropriate and in the
interest of a Subadvised Fund's shareholders and will allow such
Subadvised Fund to operate more efficiently. Applicants state that each
Investment Advisory Agreement will continue to be fully subject to
section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act and approved by
the relevant Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees,
in the manner required by sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act.
Applicants are not seeking an exemption with respect to the Investment
Advisory Agreements.
    7. Applicants assert that disclosure of the individual fees that
the Adviser would pay to the Subadvisers does not serve any meaningful
purpose. Applicants contend that the primary reasons for requiring
disclosure of individual fees paid to Subadvisers are to inform
shareholders of expenses to be charged by a particular Subadvised Fund
and to enable shareholders to compare the fees to those of other
comparable investment companies. Applicants believe that the requested
relief satisfies these objectives because the advisory fee paid to the
Adviser will be fully disclosed and, therefore, shareholders will know
what a Subadvised Fund's fees and expenses are and will be able to
compare the advisory fees a Subadvised Fund is charged to those of
other investment companies. Applicants assert that the requested
disclosure relief would benefit shareholders of the Subadvised Funds
because it would improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate the fees
paid to Subadvisers. Applicants state that the Adviser may be able to
negotiate rates that are below a Subadviser's ``posted'' amounts if the
Adviser is not required to disclose the Subadvisers' fees to the
public. Applicants assert that the relief will also encourage
Subadvisers to negotiate lower subadvisory fees with the Adviser if the
lower fees are not required to be made public.
    8. Applicants submit that the requested relief meets the standards
for relief under section 6(c) of the Act. Applicants state that the
operation of a Subadvised Fund in the manner described in the
application must be approved by shareholders of the Subadvised Fund
before that Subadvised Fund may rely on the requested order. In
addition, applicants state that any conflict of interest or economic
incentive that may exist in connection with the Adviser selecting a
Wholly-Owned Subadviser to manage all or a portion of the assets of a
Subadvised Fund are addressed under the terms and conditions of the
application and will be disclosed to shareholders and considered by the
applicable Board when it reviews the selection or termination of
Subadvisers. Applicants also assert that conditions 6, 7, 10 and 11 are
designed to provide the Board with sufficient independence and the
resources and information it needs to monitor and address any conflicts
of interest. Applicants state that, accordingly, they believe the
requested relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Subadvised Fund may rely on the order requested in the
application, the operation of the Subadvised Fund in the manner
described in the application, including the hiring of Wholly-Owned
Subadvisers, will be, or has been, approved by a majority of the
Subadvised Fund's outstanding voting securities (or if the Subadvised
Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered
separate account, pursuant to voting instructions provided by variable
contract owners with to whom units of the sub-account are credited), as
defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Subadvised Fund whose public
shareholders (or variable contract owners through a registered separate
account) purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the
disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial
shareholder before such Subadvised Fund's shares are offered to the
public (or the variable contract owners through a separate account).
    2. The prospectus for each Subadvised Fund will disclose the
existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the
application. In addition, each Subadvised Fund will hold itself out to
the public as employing the multi-manager structure described in the
application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser
has the ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the applicable
Board, to oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring,
termination and replacement.
    3. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Subadvised Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the
general management and investment of the Subadvised Fund's assets, and
subject to review and approval of the applicable Board, will (i) set
the Subadvised Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate,
select, and recommend Subadvisers to manage all or a portion of the
Subadvised Fund's assets; (iii) allocate and, when appropriate,
reallocate the Subadvised Fund's assets among Subadvisers; (iv) monitor
and evaluate the Subadvisers' performance; and (v) implement procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that Subadvisers comply with the
Subadvised Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
    4. A Subadvised Fund will not make any Ineligible Subadviser
Changes without the approval of the shareholders (or, if the Subadvised
Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered
separate account, the Adviser will inform the unitholders of the sub-
account) of the applicable Subadvised Fund.
    5. Subadvised Funds will inform shareholders (or, if the Subadvised
Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered
separate account, the Adviser will inform the unitholders of the sub-
account) of the hiring of a new Subadviser within 90 days after the
hiring of the new Subadviser pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access
Procedures.
    6. At all times, at least a majority of the applicable Board will
be Independent Trustees, and the selection and nomination of new or
additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of
the then-existing Independent Trustees.
    7. Independent Legal Counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act,

will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of
such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-existing
Independent Trustees.
    8. The Adviser will provide the applicable Board, no less
frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of
the Adviser on a per Subadvised Fund basis. The information will
reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any
Subadviser during the applicable quarter.
    9. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will
provide the applicable Board with information showing the expected
impact on the profitability of the Adviser.
    10. Whenever a Subadviser change is proposed for a Subadvised Fund
with an Affiliated Subadviser or a Wholly-Owned Subadviser, the
applicable Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees,
will make a separate finding, reflected in the applicable Board
minutes, that the change is in the best interests of the Subadvised
Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest
from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser or Wholly-Owned
Subadviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
    11. No Trustee or officer of a Subadvised Fund, or director,
manager or officer of the Adviser, will own directly or indirectly
(other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled
by such person), any interest in a Subadviser except for (a) ownership
of interests in the Adviser or any entity, other than a Wholly-Owned
Subadviser, that controls, is controlled by or is under common control
with the Adviser, or (b) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding
securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly-traded company
that is either a Subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled
by, or is under common control with a Subadviser.
    12. Each Subadvised Fund will disclose in its registration
statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    13. In the event that the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that requested in the
application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of
that rule.
    14. Any new Subadvisory Agreement or any amendment to a Subadvised
Fund's existing investment advisory agreement or Subadvisory Agreement
that directly or indirectly results in an increase in the aggregate
advisory fee rate payable by the Subadvised Fund will be submitted to
the Subadvised Fund's shareholders (or, if the Subadvised Fund serves
as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered separate
account, the Adviser will inform the unitholders of the sub-account)
for approval.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11730 Filed 5-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	August 5, 2010

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for Maryland’s Adoption of Control
Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Packaging Printing

			/s/

FROM:	Irene Shandruk, Physical Scientist

Office of Air Program Planning

TO:		File

			/s/

THRU: 	Maria A. Pino, Acting Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning

A.  BACKGROUND

What is the flexible package printing CTG?

Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that state
implementation plans (SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include
reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably
available control technology (RACT), for sources of emissions.  Section
182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, States must
revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions covered by a control techniques guidelines
(CTG) document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area’s
date of attainment.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines RACT as
“the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility.” (44 FR
53761, Sept. 17, 1979).  In subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA has
addressed how states can meet the RACT requirements of the CAA.

The CTG for flexible package printing is intended to provide state and
local air pollution control authorities information that should assist
them in determining RACT for VOCs from flexible package printing
facilities. In developing this CTG, EPA, among other things, evaluated
the sources of VOC emissions from this industry and the available
control approaches for addressing these emissions, including the costs
of such approaches.  Based on available information and data, EPA
provides recommendations for RACT for VOCs from flexible package
printing facilities.

In December 1978, EPA published a CTG for graphic arts (rotogravure
printing and flexographic printing) that included flexible package
printing. The 1978 CTG discusses the flexible package printing industry,
the nature of VOC emissions from that industry, available control
technologies for addressing such emissions, the costs of available
control options, and other items.

EPA also published a national emission standard for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for the printing and publishing industry (40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart KK) in May 1996, which is applicable to flexible
package printing.

In September 2006, after conducting a review of currently existing state
and local VOC emission reduction approaches for flexible package
printing, reviewing the 1978 CTG and the 1996 NESHAP for the printing
and publishing industry (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KK), and taking into
account the information that has become available since then, EPA
developed a new CTG for flexible package printing entitled Control
Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing (Publication No. EPA
453/R-06-003).

What is flexible packaging?

Flexible packaging refers to any package or part of a package, the shape
of which can be readily changed.  Flexible packaging includes, but is
not limited to, bags, pouches, liners, and wraps utilizing paper,
plastic, film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film, or any
combination of these materials.  Flexible package manufacturers are
sometimes referred to as "converters."  The word "converted" in this use
is an industry-specific term that refers to the fact that flexible
packaging materials start out as rolls of paper or foil, or beads of
plastic resin, and are "converted" into a package or roll of packaging
material.  Printing on flexible packaging is almost entirely conducted
by rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing.

Printing, coating, and laminating may all be performed on or in-line
with a flexible package printing press; and these activities are
included in the source category. One portion of the flexible packaging
industry provides fully printed packaging materials (designated
"preformed specialty bags") to contract packagers.  Another portion
provides combination or laminated materials (designated converted wrap)
for printing and/or final packing by captive packaging operations.
Applying coatings is a major capability of flexible packaging
converters.  So, the same facilities may be used to manufacture
non-packaging materials such as gift wraps and hot stamp foils. The
industry makes a distinction between labels and wrappers, which are
package components, and a product that becomes the entire package and
should be called a flexible package.  Any printing of shrink-wrap labels
or wrappers conducted on or in-line with a flexible package printing
press is also considered to be included under the flexible packaging
source category.  Printing of self-adhesive labels would not be
considered flexible packaging.

Rigid packaging printing operations are often co-located with flexible
package printing operations.  Folding cartons, some labels and wrappers,
gift wraps, wall coverings, vinyl products, decorative laminates, floor
coverings, tissue products, and miscellaneous specialty products are not
considered flexible packaging.

There are two types of printing processes used by flexible package
printing facilities: (1) rotogravure printing; and (2) flexographic
printing.  And there are two main sources of VOC emissions from flexible
package printing for both rotogravure and flexographic: (1) evaporation
of VOC from inks, coatings, and adhesives, and (2) evaporation of VOCs
from cleaning materials.

There are two approaches to reducing VOC emissions from inks, coatings,
and adhesives used in the flexible package printing industry: (1)
adding/improving add-on controls, and (2) material reformulation or
substitution.  The first approach includes improving capture and/or
control systems or adding control systems where none are in use.
Capture and control can be addressed separately, although in many cases,
improved capture is achieved through an increase in the amount of air
handled and can necessitate up-grades to existing control devices.  The
second approach, focusing on pollution prevention, is to substitute low
VOC or VOC-free materials for materials (inks, coatings, and adhesives)
presently in use.

EPA’s Recommended Control Options for Flexible Package Printing

EPA issued a CTG for Flexible Packaging Printing on September 2006 (EPA
453/R-06-003).  Recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from inks,
coatings, adhesives and cleaning materials used in flexible package
printing operations are outlined in the CTG and are as follows:

Coatings, inks and adhesives used on flexible package printing presses:

The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from coatings, inks
and adhesives used on flexible package printing presses is tied to the
first installation date of the equipment. The first installation date
for a piece of equipment does not change if the equipment is later moved
to a new location.  For example, a brand new press first installed in
1992 is moved to a new location in 1998 – the first installation date
for this press is still 1992.  Or, if a brand new control device first
installed in 2004 is moved to a new location in 2009 – the first
installation date for this control device is still 2004.  The first
installation date for a control device does not change if it is later
used to control a new press.  For example, if a brand new press is
installed in 2009 and emissions from this press are controlled by a
control device that was first installed in 2002, then the first
installation date for this press is 2009 and the first installation date
for this control device is still 2002.

      The recommended control levels in EPA’s final CTG include the
following:

• 65 percent overall control for a press that was first installed
prior to March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on air
pollution control device (APCD) whose first installation date was prior
to the effective date of the State RACT rule.

• 70 percent overall control for a press that was first installed
prior to March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on APCD whose
first installation date was on or after the effective date of the State
RACT rule.

• 75 percent overall control for a press that was first installed on
or after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on APCD whose
first installation date was prior to the effective date of the State
RACT rule.

• 80 percent overall control for a press that was first installed on
or after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on APCD whose
first installation date was on or after the effective date of the State
RACT rule.

As an alternative to emission reduction percentages specified above, EPA
also recommends providing the following two equivalent VOC content
limits which can be met by use of low VOC content materials or
combinations of materials and controls as follows: (1) 0.8 kg VOC/kg
solids applied, or (2) 0.16 kg VOC/kg materials applied.  These VOC
content limits are consistent with an 80 percent overall emissions
reduction level and reflect similar control levels as the capture and
control option.  The VOC content limits can be met by averaging the VOC
content of materials used on a single press, i.e., within a line.

Cleaning Materials Work Practices at Flexible Package Printing Presses:
Recommended work practices for cleaning materials are to keep cleaning
materials and used shop towels in closed containers, and convey cleaning
materials from one location to another in closed containers or pipes.

B.  STATE SUBMITTAL

On April 23, 2010, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted to EPA a SIP revision concerning the adoption of the EPA CTG
for flexible packaging printing.  EPA develops CTGs as guidance on
control requirements for source categories.  States can follow the CTGs
or adopt more restrictive standards.  MDE is adopting EPA’s CTG
standards for flexible packaging printing and work practices (see EPA
453/R-06-003, September 2006).  This SIP revision includes amendments to
Regulation .10 and a new regulation .10-1 under COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile
Organic Compounds from Specific Processes.  This action affects sources
that use flexographic and rotogravure presses to print flexible
packaging materials.

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> – Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing is amended
as follows to include language pertaining to flexible packing printing:

Section .10(B)(2):  The provisions of this regulation (ie. COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>) do not apply to printing on fabric, metal, plastic, or to
flexible package printing subject to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1.

Section .10(C)(1):  A person who owns or operates a printing press that
uses flexographic, packaging rotogravure, or publication rotogravure
methods and is a major stationary source shall reduce emissions by using
water-based inks that contain less than 25 percent VOC by volume of the
volatile portion of the ink, or high solids inks that contain not less
than 60 percent by weight nonvolatiles.

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 – Flexible Packaging Printing is being added:

Section .10-1(A):  Includes definitions for flexible packaging, flexible
packaging coatings, flexible packaging printing, and flexible packaging
printing line.

	Section .10-1(B):  Describes the applicability of this regulation.

Section .10-1(C):  Describes emission standards and requirements for
major stationary sources that perform flexible packaging printing.

Section .10-1(C)(1):  Emissions are either reduced by using water-based
inks that contain less than 25 percent VOC by volume of the volatile
portion of the ink, or high solids inks that contain not less than 60
percent nonvolatiles.

Section .10-1(C)(2):  If compliance cannot be achieved through use of
the water-based inks or high solids inks described above in (C)(1), the
source shall reduce the VOC content of each ink, or reduce the average
VOC content of inks used at each press as follows:

60 percent reduction for flexographic presses;

65 percent reduction for packaging rotogravure presses; and

75 percent reduction for publication rotogravure presses.

Section .10-1(D):  Describes additional emission standards and
requirements for a person who owns or operates a flexible packaging
printing line with potential to emit VOCs of 25 tons or more per year.
Compliance is met by:

Section .10-1(D)(1):  Limiting the VOC content of each flexible
packaging coating or limiting the average VOC content of flexible
packaging coatings of the line to not more than:

0.8 lb VOC/lb or kg VOC/kg solids applied; or

0.16 lb VOC/lb or kg VOC/kg materials applied; or by that described in
Section .10-1(D)(2).

Section .10-1(D)(2):  Venting the dryer exhaust of the line through a
control device that is constructed, operated, and maintained to achieve
an overall control efficiency of:

65 percent overall control for a press that was first installed prior to
March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on APCD whose first
installation date was prior to the effective date.

70 percent overall control for a press that was first installed prior to
March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on APCD whose first
installation date was on or after the effective date of the rule.

75 percent overall control for a press that was first installed on or
after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on APCD whose
first installation date was prior to the effective date of the rule.

80 percent overall control for a press that was first installed on or
after March 14, 1995 and that is controlled by an add-on APCD whose
first installation date was on or after the effective date of the rule.

C.  EPA EVALUATION

The State of Maryland has adopted the standards and requirements of the
CTG for flexible packaging printing and is amending its SIP to reflect
these amendments.  The maximum benefit from these amendments will be
provided during the ozone season when VOCs readily combine with NOx to
form ground-level ozone.  Therefore, this revision will help Maryland
attain and maintain the NAAQS for ozone.

D.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The adoption of the EPA CTG requirements for flexible packaging printing
by the State of Maryland will result in the reduction of VOC emissions
from flexible packaging printing.  EPA approval of the SIP revision is
recommended

  Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources—Volume VIII:  Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography.  EPA
Publication No. EPA-450/2-78-033.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
 Research Triangle Park, NC.  December 1978.


[Federal Register: March 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 14984-14985]
[DOCID:fr20mr08-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138; FRL-8544-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements for Importation of Nonroad Engines and Recreational
Vehicles (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1723.05, OMB Control Number 2060-
0320

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 21,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-1138, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lynn Sohacki, Certification and
Compliance Division, Vehicle Programs Group, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, MI, 48105; telephone number:
(734) 214-4851; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On December 14, 2007 (72 FR 71135), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-
566-1742.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index

listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the full docket ID name
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Importation of
Nonroad Engines and Recreational Vehicles (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1723.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0320.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2008. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Individuals and businesses importing on and off-road
motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, or nonroad engines, including
nonroad engines incorporated into nonroad equipment or nonroad
vehicles, report and keep records of vehicle and engine importations,
request prior approval for vehicle and engine importations, or request
final admission for vehicles and engines conditionally imported into
the U.S. The collection of this information is mandatory in order to
ensure compliance of nonroad vehicles and engines with Federal
emissions requirements. Joint EPA and Customs regulations at 40 CFR
89.601 et seq., 90.601 et seq., 91.703 et seq., 92.803 et seq., 94.803
et seq., 1068.301 et seq., and 19 CFR 12.73 and 12.74 promulgated under
the authority of Clean Air Act Sections 203 and 208 give authority for
the collection of information. This authority was extended to nonroad
engines and vehicles under section 213. The information is used by
program personnel to help ensure that all Federal emission requirements
concerning imported motor vehicles and nonroad engines are met.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Individual importers and companies
who import, or import and manufacture, nonroad engines and recreational
vehicles.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,801.
    Frequency of Response: Upon importation.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 6,029.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $372,541, which includes $36,002
annualized capital and O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 80,107 hours in
the total estimated burden. This decrease is due to a more accurate
estimate of the number of import declaration forms (Form 3520-1)
received. The burden for nonroad CI use (Form 3520-8) has been reduced
to a placeholder, as this program is not currently in use.

    Dated: March 13, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-5664 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P