[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9611-9612]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-16-000]

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations LLC; Notice of Schedule for
the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Georgia-Pacific
Consumer Pipeline Abandonment Project

    On November 16, 2021, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations LLC (GPC)
filed an application in Docket No. CP22-16-000 requesting Authorization
pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon certain gas
pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Georgia-
Pacific Consumer Pipeline Abandonment Project (Project) and involves
abandoning natural gas transmission pipeline and auxiliary facilities
in Union Parish, Louisiana and Ashley County, Arkansas.
    On November 30, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
environmental document for the Project.
    This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule
for the completion of the environmental review.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 1501.10 (2020)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA May 27, 2022
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline \2\ August 25, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

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

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    GPC proposes to abandon in-place approximately 19.5 miles of 8-
inch- diameter natural gas transmission pipeline and auxiliary
facilities in Union Parish, Louisiana and Ashley County, Arkansas.
Additionally, GPC proposes to abandon by removal all aboveground
features associated with the 19.5 miles of pipeline.

Background

    On February 1, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Scoping
Period Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed GPC
Pipeline Abandonment Project. The Notice of Scoping was sent to
affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. The Notice of Scoping stated that the scoping period would
end on March 3, 2022. All substantive comments received in response to
the Notice of Application and Notice of Scoping will be addressed in
the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the
Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service
provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP22-16-000), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access
to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202)
502-8659, or at [email protected]. The eLibrary link on the
FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: February 15, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03693 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24784-24785]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11545]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0322; FRL-9974-81-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel
Firing (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR)--NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor
Fuel Firing (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1125.08, OMB Control Number 2060-
0394--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, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register on June 29, 2017 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 June 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0322, 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 Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing were
promulgated on April 6, 1973, and amended on both October 17, 2000 and
February 27, 2014. The 2014 amendment promulgated technical and
editorial corrections for source testing of emissions and operations.
These regulations apply to existing and new building, structure,
facility, or installation where the static test firing of a beryllium
rocket motor and/or the disposal of beryllium propellant is conducted.
New facilities include those that commenced construction or
reconstruction after the date of promulgation. Owners and operators of
affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60,
subpart A), as well as the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 61,
subpart D. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a
one-time only report of any physical or operational changes, initial
performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of beryllium
rocket motor fuel firing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subpart D).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 9 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $997 (per year), which includes neither
annualized capital nor operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours or
cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative
or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall
burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and
there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost
figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change
in burden to industry.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-11545 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 81410]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25831]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Petitions IV-2023-9; FRL-11547-01-R4]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Order on Petition for
Objection to State Operating Permit for Century Aluminum of South
Carolina, Inc. (Berkeley County, South Carolina)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Administrator signed an order dated November 2, 2023,
granting in part, and denying in part the petition dated June 9, 2023,
from Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project. The petition
requested that EPA object to Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating
permit issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to the Century Aluminum of South
Carolina, Inc. for its primary aluminum reduction facility located near
Mt. Holly, in Berkeley County, South Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section,
EPA Region 4,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. The final order
and petitions are available at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA received a petition from Sierra Club and
the Environmental Integrity Project dated June 9, 2023, requesting that
EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. TV-0420-0015 v1.1,
issued by SCDHEC to Century Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc. near Mt.
Holly, in Berkeley County, South Carolina. On November 2, 2023, the EPA
Administrator issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
petition. The order itself explains the bases for EPA's decision.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may
request review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a
petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than January 22,
2024.

    Dated: November 16, 2023.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-25831 Filed 11-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 67762-67765]
[DOCID:fr08no05-66]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27140; 812-13190]

Special Situations Fund III, L.P., et al., Notice of Application

November 2, 2005.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under section 17(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
section 17(a) of the Act.

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

    Applicants: Special Situations Fund III, L.P. (``SSF III''),
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. (``SSF QP,'' and together with SSF
III, the ``Funds'') and MGP Advisers Limited Partnership (``Adviser'').
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
certain purchase and sale transactions in connection with a proposed
division of a registered closed-end management investment company into
two separate companies (the ``Transaction'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 19, 2005, and
amended on November 2, 2005.
    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 November 25, 2005, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the 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 may request notification of a hearing by writing to
the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o Austin W.
Marxe, MGP Advisers Limited Partnership, 153 East 53rd Street, 55th
Floor, New York, NY 10022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel (202-
551-6817), or Stacy L. Fuller, Branch Chief<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Office of
Investment Company Regulation, Division of Investment Management).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from
the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-0102<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. SSF III, a Delaware limited partnership, is a closed-end
management investment company that is registered under the Act and
operates as an ``interval fund'' under rule 23e-3 under the Act.
Partnership interests (``Units'') in SSF III are not registered under
the Securities Act of 1933 (``1933 Act'') and are sold in private
offerings pursuant to Regulation D under the 1933 Act generally to
``accredited investors,'' as defined in Regulation D. Each investor in
SSF III that pays the Adviser an incentive allocation is also a
``qualified client,'' as defined in rule 205-3 under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (``Advisers

Act''). Under SSF III's fundamental policies and rule 23c-3, as well as
its partnership agreement (the ``Partnership Agreement''), SSF III
conducts semi-annual repurchase offers for between 10% and 25% of
outstanding Units, as determined by the individual general partners of
SSF III (each, an ``Individual General Partner,'' collectively, the
``Board,'' and the Board together with the Adviser, the ``General
Partners''), who are responsible for the overall management and
supervision of SSF III. SSF III may also sell Units to existing Unit
holders with a limited partnership interest (``Limited Partners,'' and
together with the General Partners, ``Partners'') and other investors
in the future. SSF III's investment objectives are to maximize long-
term capital appreciation by investing primarily in equity securities
and securities with equity features, which are traded on a national
securities exchange or Nasdaq. As of June 30, 2005, SSF III had
approximately 451 Unit holders (92% of whom were qualified purchasers,
as defined in section 2(a)(51) of the Act (``Qualified Purchasers,''
and such Unit holders, ``Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders'')) and
approximately $500 million in assets. SSF III's fees and expenses for
the year ended December 31, 2004, as a percentage of average net
assets, totaled 5.41% (including the Adviser's incentive allocation of
20% of net profits).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Excluding the Adviser's incentive allocation, SSF III's fees
totaled approximately .84% of average net assets. The Adviser's
incentive allocation is subject to a high water mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. SSF QP, a Delaware limited partnership that was formed on May
17, 2005 to effect the Transaction is excluded from regulation under
the Act pursuant to section 3(c)(7) of the Act.\2\ SSF QP has the same
investment objectives as SSF III. SSF QP will have no assets until
after the consummation of the Transaction. SSF QP will have the same
administration fee and incentive allocation structure as SSF III.
Applicants estimate that the fees and expenses for SSF QP (excluding
any incentive allocation to the Adviser but including all other fees)
would have been on a pro forma basis approximately 0.81% of average net
assets for the calendar year ended December 31, 2004.\3\ Beginning June
30, 2006, limited partners of SSF QP may redeem their Units of SSF QP
semi-annually on June 30 and December 31 of each calendar year, by
providing written notice to the Adviser on or before June 15 or
December 15, respectively, of such calendar year. The Adviser has the
right to limit the aggregate redemptions of Units of SSF QP by limited
partners in any semi-annual fiscal period to 10% of the outstanding
Units at the last day of the period (after the redetermination of Units
to reflect SSF QP's profit or loss as of the end of such period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ SSF QP has been formed in compliance with, and will be bound
by the terms and conditions of, the application.
    \3\ For purposes of projecting the effects of the Transaction,
the Applicants have assumed the Cash Repurchase Offer and the
Exchange Tender Offer (each as defined below) were consummated as
follows (collectively, the ``Transaction Participation
Assumptions''): (a) All Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders other than
the Adviser and the Principals (as defined below) fully participated
in the Exchange Tender Offer; (b) approximately 4.2% of the
outstanding Units of SSF III (representing half of the Units of non-
Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders (as defined below)) participated in
the Cash Repurchase Offer; (c) the Adviser did not participate in
the Cash Repurchase Offer; (d) the Adviser, and two Principals,
Austin Marxe and David Greenhouse, participated in the Exchange
Tender Offer in the same proportion as other Limited Partners, as
further described below; and (e) Adam Stettner, a Principal, did not
participate in the Cash Repurchase Offer or the Exchange Tender
Offer. The net result of the Transaction Participation Assumptions
is that approximately 91.3% of SSF III's outstanding Units would be
exchanged for Units of SSF QP, approximately 4.5% would remain in
SSF III, and approximately 4.2% would be repurchased for cash. There
can be no assurance that participation in the Cash Repurchase Offer
and the Exchange Tender Offer will be similar to the Transaction
Participation Assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Adviser, a Delaware limited partnership, is registered as an
investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The Adviser is the
investment adviser to the Funds. The Adviser is also a General Partner
of SSF III and will be the general partner of SSF QP upon completion of
the Transaction. AWM Investment Company, Inc. (``AWM'') is the general
partner of the Adviser and Austin W. Marxe, David Greenhouse and Adam
Stettner are limited partners of the Adviser (each, including AWM, a
``Principal''). The Adviser and Mr. Marxe each own a general
partnership interest in SSF III totaling in the aggregate approximately
7% of outstanding Units. The other Principals each own a limited
partnership interest in SSF III totaling approximately less than 1% of
outstanding Units.
    4. A provision in the applicable Treasury regulations,\4\ which has
allowed SSF III to operate as a registered investment company but not
be taxed as a publicly traded partnership for federal income tax
purposes (``Grandfather Clause''), will expire on December 31, 2005.\5\
Unless SSF III satisfies a safe harbor in the Treasury regulations, any
future determination of whether it would be taxed as a publicly traded
partnership would be made by applying a facts-and-circumstances test.
To continue to rely on a safe harbor and thereby avoid the uncertainty
of a facts-and-circumstances test, SSF III may amend its repurchase
policies to, among other things, reduce the repurchase offer amount on
a semi-annual and annual basis to, respectively, 5% and 10% of
outstanding Units.\6\ Amending the repurchase policies as applicants
intend to do to qualify for the safe harbor is not satisfactory to the
largest Limited Partners, all of whom are Qualified Purchasers, because
of the resulting decrease in the liquidity of their Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 26 CFR 1.7704-1.
    \5\ A publicly traded partnership is generally taxed as a
corporation, i.e. subject to a double level of taxation.
    \6\ Changes to SSF III's repurchase policies will be subject to
the approval of a majority of the outstanding Units held by Limited
Partners after completion of the Offers, as defined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants propose to conduct the Transaction to divide SSF III
into two separate companies to accommodate the needs of the Qualified
Purchaser Unit Holders and those Unit holders that are not Qualified
Purchasers (``non-Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders'').\7\ Pursuant to
the Transaction, SSF III would conduct an exchange offer for the Units
of Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders in which they may tender their
Units of SSF III and receive, in exchange, Units of SSF QP (``Exchange
Tender Offer''). The Exchange Tender Offer will not be a taxable
transaction for the Funds. In the Transaction, (a) SSF III would accept
from Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders who elect to participate in the
Exchange Tender Offer (``Exchanging Holders'') Units of SSF III, (b)
SSF III would transfer to SSF QP, on a strict pro rata basis, portfolio
securities having a total net asset value (``NAV'') equal to the total
NAV of the SSF III Units, as calculated on December 30, 2005 (the
``Valuation Date''), tendered in the Exchange Tender Offer, (c) SSF III
would receive Units of SSF QP having a total NAV equal to both the
total NAV of the SSF III Units tendered by Exchanging Holders and the
total NAV of the portfolio securities transferred from SSF III to SSF
QP,\8\ and (d) SSF III would distribute the SSF QP Units to Exchanging
Holders on a pro rata basis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Transaction is subject to the approval of a majority of
the outstanding Units held by Limited Partners.
    \8\ SSF III is a Qualified Purchaser.
    \9\ Limited Partners and General Partners that tender in the
Exchange Tender Offer will receive, respectively, limited and
general partnership Units of SSF QP. The Adviser and two Principals
will participate in the Exchange Tender Offer, tendering the same
percentage of the Units they hold as all other Limited Partners
tender of the Units they hold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Simultaneous with the Exchange Tender Offer, SSF III would
conduct a

cash repurchase offer (``Cash Repurchase Offer,'' and together with the
Exchange Tender Offer, the ``Offers''), which would constitute the
semi-annual cash repurchase offer currently required by rule 23c-3 and
SSF III's fundamental policies, as well as by the Partnership
Agreement. The Cash Repurchase Offer would enable all Unit holders to
tender their Units to SSF III in exchange for a cash payment equal to
the NAV of the Units on the Valuation Date. The Cash Repurchase Offer
would not be limited by the Exchange Tender Offer. The Cash Repurchase
Offer would be for 10% of SSF III's outstanding Units. If Limited
Partners tender for repurchase in the Cash Repurchase Offer more than
10% of the outstanding Units, the Board would exercise its discretion
to increase the Cash Repurchase Offer by 2% (for a total of 12% of
Units outstanding). If Limited Partners tender more than 12% of the
outstanding Units in the Cash Repurchase Offer, SSF III will repurchase
Units tendered on a pro rata basis.\10\ The Individual General
Partners, Adviser and Principals will not participate in the Cash
Repurchase Offer. Applicants believe that any non-Qualified Purchaser
Unit Holder who tenders Units in the Cash Repurchase Offer will be able
to receive cash for all Units tendered. The Adviser and two of its
Principals, Austin Marxe and David Greenhouse (in their individual
capacities), will participate in the Exchange Tender Offer in the same
proportion as the Limited Partners after giving effect to the Cash
Repurchase Offer, that is, they will exchange Units in the same
proportion as the Units held by all Limited Partners (other than Mr.
Greenhouse) are exchanged, subject to the Adviser and the Individual
General Partners holding collectively at least 1% of SSF III's
outstanding Units. Making the Transaction Participation Assumptions,
following the Transaction, the Adviser and the Principals collectively
would own approximately 7.7% of SSF III's outstanding Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the semi-annual repurchase offers made by SSF III over
the last five years, which have typically been for 10% of
outstanding Units, Limited Partners have never tendered for
repurchase more than 4.13% of outstanding Units. In connection with
SSF III's most recent cash repurchase offer, after having received
notice from SSF III of the expiration of the Grandfather Clause and
the effect thereof on the operations of SSF III, SSF III Unit
holders tendered less than 2% of outstanding Units for repurchase.
Requests for repurchase have exceeded 5% of outstanding Units on a
semi-annual basis and 10% of outstanding Units on an annual basis
three times, in all cases resulting from significant tenders by the
Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Applicants propose for the Offers to begin on November 17, 2005,
and expire on December 16, 2005. For purposes of both Offers, the NAV
of SSF III's Units would be determined on the Valuation Date.
Applicants intend to complete the Transaction on December 31, 2005, and
to distribute proceeds of the Cash Repurchase Offer by January 6, 2006.
Any and all costs and expenses incurred by SSF III in connection with
the Cash Repurchase Offer will be incurred before SSF III calculates
its NAV, and therefore will be reflected in the NAV, on the Valuation
Date. All expenses associated with the Transaction will be paid by the
Adviser or SSF QP. No repurchase fees, brokerage commissions, fees or
other remuneration will be paid by SSF III, SSF QP or any Unit holder
in connection with the Transaction. The Transaction will not be
consummated until the Commission has issued an order relating to the
application. Applicants have agreed not to make any material changes to
the Transaction without prior approval of the Commission or its staff.
    8. On May 2, 2005, the Board, including a majority of the
Individual General Partners who are not ``interested persons,'' as
defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (``Independent General
Partners''), approved the Transaction on behalf of SSF III, subject to
the Commission issuing an order pursuant to the application. Prior to
approving the Transaction, the Board considered other alternatives.
Specifically, the Board considered converting SSF III into a
``regulated investment company'' under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, but rejected the alternative as inconsistent with its
operations, including its treatment of operating losses and net capital
losses. The Board also considered liquidating SSF III, but rejected the
alternative in light of, among other things, the likelihood of
liquidation causing Limited Partners to recognize taxable gain. In
approving the Transaction, the Board concluded that: (a) The
Transaction is consistent with the policies of SSF III, as recited in
its registration statement, (b) the terms of the Transaction, including
the consideration to be received by the Funds, are reasonable and fair
and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned,
and (c) participation in the Transaction is in the best interests of
SSF III and its Limited Partners, and the interests of existing Limited
Partners of SSF III will not be diluted as a result of the Transaction.
Applicants state that the Board, in reaching its conclusions,
considered that SSF III is likely to be significantly smaller after the
Transaction and that there may, as a result, be a material increase in
SSF III's expense ratio. The Applicants estimate, making the
Transaction Participation Assumptions and assuming the transactions
were consummated on December 31, 2003, that the fees and expenses of
SSF III (excluding any incentive allocation to the Adviser but
including all other fees) for the calendar year ended December 31, 2004
would have been 1.57% of average net assets, rather than 0.84% of
average net assets. Although this relative increase in SSF III's
expense ratio of 0.73% may be material, the Applicants state that the
Board believes that the benefits of the Transaction to all Partners
(including the continued service of the Adviser) outweigh the burden of
any such increase in SSF III's expense ratio.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 17(a) of the Act prohibits any affiliated person of a
registered investment company, or any affiliated person of that person
(``second tier affiliate''), acting as principal, from selling to or
purchasing from the registered investment company any security or other
property. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an ``affiliated person''
as, among other things, any person directly or indirectly owning,
controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding
voting securities of the other person; any person controlling,
controlled by or under common control with the other person; any
officer, director, partner, copartner or employee of the other person;
and, if the other person is an investment company, its investment
adviser. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines control to mean the power
to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of
a company. Applicants state that the Adviser and Principals may each be
deemed to be an affiliated person of SSF III and SSF QP, and that SSF
III and SSF QP may be deemed to be affiliated persons of each other as
both are under common control of the Adviser and the Principals.
Applicants also state that to the extent that an Exchanging Holder owns
5% or more of the outstanding Units of SSF III, the Exchanging Holder
could be deemed to be an affiliated person of SSF III (such Exchanging
Holder, a ``5% Affiliate''), and a second tier affiliate of SSF QP.
Thus, applicants state, section 17(a) of the Act may prohibit the
Adviser, Principals and 5% Affiliates from purchasing Units of SSF QP
from SSF III, and prohibit SSF QP from purchasing portfolio securities
of SSF III in exchange for SSF QP Units.

    2. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a
transaction from the provisions of section 17(a) if the terms of the
transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are
reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any
person concerned and the proposed transaction is consistent with the
policies of each registered investment company concerned and with the
general purposes of the Act. Applicants submit that the Transaction has
been approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent
General Partners, is reasonable and fair to SSF III and its Unit
holders and meets the requirements of section 17(b) of the Act.
Applicants state that the Transaction will not result in dilution to
Unit holders of SSF III because (a) it will be effected at the NAV of
SSF III's Units, which NAV will be calculated in accordance with SSF
III's policies and procedures, as set forth in its registration
statement, and computed using the same methodologies that SSF III has
used to calculate its NAV in connection with each routine repurchase
offer since its inception,\11\ and (b) it will involve a pro rata
transfer of SSF III's portfolio securities to SSF QP. Applicants
further state that, prior to the Transaction, any Limited Partner not
wishing to remain invested in SSF III or become invested in SSF QP will
be able to have his or her Units repurchased for cash at the NAV of the
Units, and all expenses of the Transaction will be paid by the Adviser
or SSF QP, including the cost of separating SSF III's portfolio between
SSF III and SSF QP in the Transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ SSF QP has the same policies and procedures, and will
employ the same methodologies to compute its NAV, as SSF III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Exchange Tender Offer will be effected at the NAV of SSF
III's Units determined in accordance with its registration statement
under the Act.
    2. The sale of portfolio securities by SSF III to SSF QP in the
Transaction will comply with the terms of rule 17a-7(c), (d) and (f)
under the Act.
    3. At its next regular meeting following the Transaction, the Board
of SSF III, including a majority of the Independent General Partners,
will determine whether the Units were valued in accordance with
condition 1 above.
    4. SSF III will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than
six years from the end of the fiscal year in which the Transaction
occurs, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written
record of the Transaction setting forth a description of each security
transferred, the terms of the Transaction, and the information or
materials upon which the determination required by condition 3 was
made.
    5. In the Transaction, the portfolio securities will be distributed
by SSF III to SSF QP on a pro rata basis, except that cash may be
distributed in lieu of fractional shares.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22163 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY  x Proposed Rule Establishing Requirements To Protect Children during Renovation,

Repair and Painting Activities that Disturb Lead Based Paint  x March 30, 2006 United States Custom House One Bowling Green New York, New York 10004 1: 10 p. m.

Hearing on proposed rule establishing requirements to protect children during renovation, repair and painting activities that disturb lead based paint.

B E F O R E:

KENNETH STOLLER  Chief Pesticides and Toxic Substances LOUIS BEVILACQUA  Coordinator,

Region Lead Program MARK HENSHALL  National Program Chemicals Division COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 2 S P E A K E R S:

Kevin Wrynn  NARI Brad Donovan  NARI Dawn Carpenter  IREM Suzanne Mattei  SIERRA CLUB Matthew Chachene  NMK Mark Drozdov  CES Kate Aditsky  NYC TRANSIT COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 3 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 P R O C E E D I N G S 3 MR. STOLLER: Good afternoon, ladies 4 and gentlemen. My name is Kenneth Stoller.

5 I'm chief of the Pesticides and Toxic Substance 6 Branch for Region II of the EPA and on behalf of 7 Allen Steinberg, Region Administrator. We 8 welcome you here to I believe this is the third 9 of five hearings on the EPA proposed 10 renovations, repair and painting rule.

11 Basically, I will turn it over to our 12 headquarters individual on the right, but I 13 would like to introduce everyone up here and 14 turn the mike over to him.

15 To my left is Louis Bevilacqua, who 16 works with me in Edison, New Jersey. That just 17 happens to be where we are located, but Region 18 II governs New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico,

19 the Virgin Islands. Lou is the lead paint 20 coordinator for Region II and on my right is 21 Mark Henshall, representing the program office 22 in Washington, which is the Office of Pollution,

23 Prevention and Toxics and he will go over how 24 the hearing will be held; but, again, let me 25 welcome everyone for taking up your time for COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 4 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 this important topic to express your thoughts 3 and listen, learn and submit any comments you 4 have. Mark.

5 MR. HENSHALL: We greatly appreciate 6 the turnout. It doesn't look like a lot of 7 people have come right now. We may get some 8 more folks but we do appreciate everyone that 9 has taken the time out of their day to come out 10 here.

11 A few ground rules to let the people 12 know what the meeting is not. We are not here 13 to sort of debate or have a dialogue on the 14 rules per se. This is just another forum or 15 avenue through which the Agency can receive 16 public comment.

17 All oral comments or all testimony 18 that is going to be given today is going to be 19 transcribed by our court reporter and entered 20 into the docket, and those oral comments are 21 going to be considered along with all of the 22 written comments that the agency receives on the 23 proposed regulation when we consider the final 24 rule.

25 These comments are handled no COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 5 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 differently than any written comments that will 3 be submitted on the regulation and in no way, if 4 you are a speaker here today, it doesn't 5 preclude you from any written comment today,

6 which I can take or allow you to submit them to 7 the docket through the on line docketing system 8 we have set up, which is explained further in 9 the proposal.

10 The way things are going to work this 11 afternoon is that Amy Mortimore, who is an 12 employee of ICF contracted firm, for their 13 service  they are a contractor that has 14 helped us arrange this meeting  she will be 15 calling the speakers who have preregistered and 16 signed up in the back.

17 If you are here and you have not yet 18 signed up and you do want to speak, please feel 19 free to go back out front and sign your name and 20 Amy will be calling folks in the order in which 21 they are appearing on the sign up sheet.

22 As a general rule, we would like to limit oral 23 comments to about 10 minutes or so and Amy is 24 going to politely remind folks as they get 25 closer to their time cut off.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 6 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 Again, as a reminder, if you do have 3 written comments in addition to your oral 4 comments you are presenting, please feel free to 5 leave them with me or Amy and we will make sure 6 they get back to Washington and are logged into 7 the docket appropriately.

8 I think that's about it. I'm sorry,

9 before you begin your comments, I'd ask you to 10 please state your name and your title and 11 organization that you're associated with and 12 speak slowly and clearly as you give your 13 presentation so we can make sure you get a very 14 accurate transcription.

15 That's extremely important because we 16 have to read all of this when we get back and I 17 think that's about it and thanks for coming and 18 why don't we go ahead and get started.

19 Just so you know, we are just sort of going to 20 be sitting here, not debating or discussing 21 rules but we do appreciate you being here to 22 provide your comments.

23 MS. MORTIMER: It looks like we 24 have Kevin Wrynn and Brad Donovan here. Let's 25 start with Kevin and Brad will be up next.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 7 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 If someone else is in the room and wants to 3 speak, come see me or Puja and just give us your 4 name. Dawn, we know you are here. We will 5 get to you.

6 MR. WRYNN: My name is Kevin Wrynn.

7 I am the current chapter president of New York 8 City Long Island NARI, which is the National 9 Association of the Remodeling Industry.

10 A little bit about us. NARI is a nonprofit 11 association with headquarters in Northwest 12 Chicago with 58 chapters in most major metro 13 areas nationwide. NARI is comprised of almost 14 7,000 companies and national suppliers.

15 NARI's core purpose is to advance and promote 16 the remodeling industries professionalism,

17 product and vital public purpose. NARI members 18 voluntarily subscribe to a strict code of ethics 19 and standard of practice.

20 NARI provides rigorous programs of 21 study with hands on training through its core 22 chapter.

23 With passage of examinations 24 demonstrating competence, certifications holding 25 national recognition are awarded, such as COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 8 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 certified remodelers, certified lead carpenters,

3 certified kitchen and bath remodeler. These 4 programs are a NARI hallmark and exemplify 5 NARI's commitment to its core purpose.

6 As far as contractor training goes, NARI 7 demonstrates a 10 year history of strong support 8 for government initiatives on lead safe work 9 practice. Since lead paint came to the forefront 10 as an environmental and health hazard, NARI has 11 taken a proactive position training both 12 remodeling contractors and informing consumers.

13 Between 1996 and ' 98, NARI worked with both EPA 14 and HUD and conducted two day training seminars 15 throughout the country on lead safe remodeling.

16 This outreach was broad and offered to all 17 remodeling contractors, not just NARI members.

18 NARI continues to work to ensure that all its 19 members employ safe led practices. NARI 20 certification programs and skill training are 21 consistently updated to reflect our most current 22 lead safe work practices.

23 NARI strives to ensure that the 24 public remains informed about the hazard of lead 25 and about hiring contractors trained in lead COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 9 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 safety work practices.

3 NARI provides brochures entitled 4 " Protect your Family from Lead in your Home."

5 The brochure is available in both Spanish and 6 English as required by law. NARI contractors 7 provide this brochure to homeowners prior to 8 commencing the remodeling project in homes 9 pre1978 construction.

10 NARI is in strong opposition to the 11 EPA's new proposed rules governing lead 12 announced on December 29, 2005.

13 NARI requires EPA review and serious 14 consideration of the following points: While 15 NARI members remain concerned about the 16 incidence of lead in young children and have 17 ever reason to protect their clients and 18 consumers in this regard, the new proposed rules 19 will not decrease incidence. The new proposed 20 rules focus on lead handling during remodeling 21 and fail to address the other real potential 22 source of lead exposure which may be present 23 outside of remodeling.

24 The proposed rules do not educate the 25 home owner about incidence and effects of lead.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 10 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 Homeowners are likely to engage in a lead 3 modeling project within two years of a new home 4 purchase and they do not consistently look to 5 the remodeling contractor for assistance. The 6 EPA has no way to ensure that the homeowner,

7 handyman or installer can and will observe lead 8 safe practices in the remodeling project.

9 The EPA should consider the point of property 10 sale as an opportunity to educate the homeowner 11 beyond the existing disclosures. This could be 12 accomplished through a requirement that buyers 13 of homes and property built prior to 1978 be 14 given appropriate information at the opening of 15 escrow or some similar milestone.

16 The newer proposed rules are entirely 17 focused on contractor behavior with creation of 18 more regulation added to the existing 19 regulation.

20 Further restrictions on training,

21 licensing and insurance will only raise the cost 22 of remodeling. These costs cannot be absorbed 23 in the cost of the project borne by the 24 contractor and will be passed on to homeowners.

25 There is a grave concern the new proposed rules COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 11 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 will force unlicensed unethical behavior among 3 less reputable contractors whose only appeal 4 will be in lower costs and shorter deadlines.

5 It will encourage the avoidance of building 6 permits and inspection process.

7 Professional remodeling contractors who 8 consistently observe competent, diligent work 9 practices and ethics will be subject to unfair 10 competition and, thus, economically harmed.

11 In closing, NARI urges the EPA to consider these 12 points in amendment of the new proposed rules 13 governing lead safe work practices. NARI and 14 its chapters are willing to work with the EPA 15 and other private or governmental entities in 16 determining and implementing better solutions to 17 lowering the incidence of lead in young 18 children. Thank you.

19 MR. HENSHALL: Thank you.

20 MS. MORTIMER: Brad Donovan is up 21 and then Dawn Carpenter.

22 MR. DONOVAN: Good afternoon. My 23 name is Brad Donovan. I'm the president of 24 Haskill Building Supply in West Orange, New 25 Jersey and also president of the North America COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 12 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 Chapter of the National Association of 3 Remodeling.

4 As the prior speaker, I would like to 5 share our initial thoughts on a new proposed 6 regulation for lead paint removal. I 7 think everyone agrees that we must protect 8 homeowners, children and our own employees from 9 working in our clients homes. For most people,

10 good health and safe homes are the biggest 11 priority. We just don't believe that these 12 regulations provide for either.

13 Specifically, we believe that there are too many 14 contractors out there who are willing to operate 15 in a noncompliant manner and that these 16 regulations will not prevent that, number one.

17 Number two, we believe that there are homeowners 18 who are willing to make a trade off in cost 19 savings versus perceived safety and to operate 20 in a noncompliant environment will be a lower 21 cost environment than the one that requires 22 compliance and, third, costs will ultimately 23 increase in order to be compliant without 24 necessarily a clear assurance that it will, in 25 fact, be a safer environment.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 13 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 Our members in New Jersey were part 3 of a group of remodeling contractors who went 4 through the two day HUD certification program 5 back in 1996.

6 Those contractors have been 7 incorporating lead safe removal practices into 8 their proposals and into their work since this 9 program was rolled out. They have also been 10 presenting homeowners with the pamphlet about 11 the, you know, safe lead removal and sometimes 12 they lose jobs because of that.

13 We believe it is our duty to make 14 people aware of it but it does, ultimately, to 15 do the job right, results in higher costs and 16 sometimes people reason willing to pay for that;

17 but, nonetheless, we are a professional 18 organization. We believe in doing the job the 19 right way.

20 I'd like to quote one of our, one of 21 our members. He's the president of JQ 22 Construction, also a certified remodeler, and I 23 will describe more about that program. I think 24 that was just covered very well but this is 25 concerning his experience in selling his COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 14 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 remodeling services and instances of safe lead 3 practices. Quotation from John, " We do 4 windows per lead safe requirements. We tell 5 homeowners about the law and they often tell us 6 no one else has mentioned it. When we give 7 them the price, they tell us other companies do 8 not mention they had to go by the law and often 9 are quoting lower prices. We take in addition 10 30 to 45 minutes per window to follow the lead 11 safe practices. We also have a higher cost in 12 equipment to comply. Our workers wear more 13 protective equipment. All of this adds cost to 14 the labor, cost to the materials and many times 15 the homeowner is just not willing to pay." So 16 this is basically a quotation from someone out 17 there doing the work every day and living the 18 environment they are in with today's 19 requirements.

20 Like most contractors, John's company 21 does lots of other work, much of which does not 22 involve lead based issues and what he is 23 increasingly doing, as other contractors, also a 24 lot of qualified contractors, they will focus on 25 opportunities where they won't have to deal with COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 15 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 the lead base issue and I think ultimately that 3 becomes a disservice to the homeowner.

4 The more highly qualified contractors that want 5 to step away from this, the more underrated 6 other contractors become available to the 7 homeowner and I think that's, again, a 8 disservice to the homeowner if that occurs.

9 The certification program that was sponsored by 10 HUD that was presented by our members 11 comprehensive two day course, everyone believes 12 that it was presented and beneficial. They 13 apply those practices today.

14 The incorporation of these practices 15 that could result or will ultimately result in 16 some form of higher costs will ultimately be 17 passed on to the homeowner and costs passed on 18 for value is not necessarily a bad thing, but I 19 think the question here are we certain that 20 there is going to be a value thereby complying 21 with this form of the regulation.

22 Those costs become part of overhead 23 or direct costs in the job. Their concern, it 24 just becomes an overhead cost and that 25 ultimately rolls out to everyone.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 16 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 The contractors business and 3 ultimately the impact on the homeowner as well 4 in some cases don't have a lead base issue but 5 now proposals costs are higher and that may slow 6 down or take out the opportunity to do work that 7 the homeowners might otherwise be doing.

8 We believe insurance costs are going to increase 9 as a result of this. Liability as well as health 10 insurance for employees of the firms as this 11 sort of makes the point a much more prominent 12 issue, and there are many contractors, again, as 13 we sort of adds the professionalism of an 14 organization like ours versus the noncompliant 15 ones, they don't carry life insurance today.

16 They don't carry workers compensation insurance 17 today. Contractors like an organization like 18 ours required to do this will just be one 19 potential area for exposure ultimately to the 20 contractor.

21 The other concern is, you know, how 22 this ultimately affects how jobs get done in the 23 marketplace.

24 Two houses next to each other. One 25 with children under six, one with children over COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 17 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 six could ultimately experience very different 3 budgets for essentially doing the same work 4 based upon the way the regulation is done today 5 and it isn't clear that there is a compelling 6 reason why that should be the case. So we 7 believe that should be looked at as well.

8 A number of questions need to be added.

9 Homeowners aren't willing to pay for this and 10 they are willing to go under rate, if you will,

11 for work that is noncompliant.

12 If the job is not done properly, a 13 child in the home ultimately becomes ill, who's 14 responsible, who's responsible? And if the 15 regulation doesn't address that, there is a 16 problem that ultimately isn't resolved. How will 17 the regulation ultimately be policed.

18 As we speak with building inspectors, and that's 19 one group we try to engage on a fairly regular 20 basis, a lot of them are not well versed on 21 this, nor do they understand how they would be 22 responsible for enforcing it. So who 23 ultimately would be? How would that be 24 handled?

25 The other concern would be homeowners COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 18 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 who basically draw their own permits and where 3 will be the enforcement on a project like that 4 if it can't be taken through the permit process.

5 And, ultimately, also, along with that what will 6 be the education process? Not that homeowners 7 will stop taking up permits or work done or 8 should they but certainly there needs to be a 9 process in which they are controlling the job,

10 they are educated in what the risks are.

11 Essentially, it's our belief that the 12 regulations won't protect those for whom it is 13 intended without some sort of revision and 14 consideration to the points we are bringing out 15 today.

16 A lot of times because of the costs,

17 customers question the legitimacy of what's 18 being claimed and aren't, you know, sufficiently 19 or properly fearful of the risks and,

20 ultimately, someone who won't do as good a job 21 will get the work and the risk of the exposure 22 to the homeowner doesn't go away. So I want to 23 thank you for the opportunity to present our 24 position today and we would also like to ask 25 that the comment period be extended for another COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 19 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 90 days so that we can review this much more 3 carefully and provide I think an even more 4 detailed position on this for you.

5 MR. HENSHALL: Thank you, Brad.

6 MR. DONOVAN: Thank you.

7 MS. MORTIMER: Dawn Carpenter and 8 then Suzanne Mattei.

9 MR. HENSHALL: If you would like to 10 speak and you haven't signed up with Amy or 11 folks in the back, please do so.

12 MS. CARPENTER: Good afternoon. My 13 name is Dawn Carpenter. I am a certified 14 property manager and I am president of IREM 15 Greater New York chapter.

16 The Institute of Real Estate 17 Management is an affiliate of the National 18 Association of Realtors. The institute is the 19 only professional real estate management 20 association serving both multi family and 21 commercial real estate sectors.

22 With 81 U. S. Chapters and eight 23 international chapters, IREM is an international 24 organization that serves as an advocate 25 affecting the real estate management industry.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 20 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 Collectively IREM members manage more than 6.5 3 billion square feet of commercial space and more 4 than 13 million residential units totaling over 5 $ 848.2 billion in real estate assets.

6 I am the owner of Dawn Realty, Inc., an 7 accredited real estate management organization 8 located in the Borough of Staten Island.

9 Currently, Dawn Real Estate is one of nine AMO 10 firms operating in the Greater New York area,

11 including the five boroughs, Westchester and 12 Long Island.

13 The institution has concerns with the 14 proposed lead based paint rule issued under the 15 authority of Section 402( c)( 3) of the Toxic 16 Substances Control Act. I have seven points I 17 would like to address today.

18 First, the proposed rule requires 19 that a certified renovator supervise each and 20 every renovation defined as any activity that 21 disturbs more than two square feet of paint.

22 IREM believes such a requirement will result in 23 a disincentive for property owners to conduct 24 regular maintenance on their properties. This 25 could result in deferred maintenance of the COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 21 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 target housing possibly creating greater lead 3 hazards. Due to the increased expense,

4 administrative burden and time involved with 5 complying with the rule, owners may be forced to 6 divert small maintenance activities until they 7 are forced to deal with a bigger problem.

8 In response to whether or not the rule should 9 apply when the housing is unoccupied, for 10 example, during a turnover of a unit, IREM would 11 agree that requiring such or, excuse me, arguing 12 that requiring such a work practice for a vacant 13 unit would be unnecessary as there is no chance 14 for exposure when nobody is living there.

15 The proposed rule would require that signed and 16 dated records be kept describing the work 17 practices, sign posting procedures, contaminant 18 and cleaning for every job. EPA expects this 19 record keeping burden to take more than five 20 hours per year. IREM would strongly argue that 21 this record keeping would be far more time 22 consuming than the EPA believes.

23 Fourth, a proposed rule requires that the 24 certified renovator be present on the work site 25 on a regular basis to oversee work practices but COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 22 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 the EPA requirements and comments on whether 3 this individual should be physically present at 4 the work site at all times and whether they 5 should prohibit this individual from being 6 assigned to more than one job at a time.

7 IREM would argue that such a requirement would 8 be unnecessary providing oversight by the 9 certified renovator on a regular basis would be 10 sufficient for quality control over the project.

11 Fifth, the proposed rule does not require the 12 EPA be notified at the beginning of all 13 renovation jobs but request comment about 14 whether or not they should.

15 IREM strongly argues that requiring 16 EPA notification prior to all disturbances of 17 paint over two square feet would be infeasible 18 and would result in the property owners 19 deferring all maintenance until such time that 20 they could take care of all their jobs at the 21 same time to consolidate notification.

22 We urge the EPA to stick with their proposal to 23 not require such notification.

24 Sixth, the proposed rule talks about 25 fees for application training. IREM urges the COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 23 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 EPA to make the training for certified 3 renovators free for some time period to help 4 with the creation of this type of worker. EPA 5 and HUD have provided free training for many of 6 their other rules which has been helpful in 7 gaining compliance. IREM urges the EPA to do 8 the same with this rule.

9 Lastly, the proposed rule does not 10 require dust clearance sampling after each 11 renovation project. IREM fully supports the 12 reasoning EPA has used to not require the 13 testing. Thus, dust sampling is very expensive 14 and is time consuming.

15 While waiting for the test result,

16 the renovation area would have to remain 17 unoccupied creating a tremendous burden on the 18 property owners and residents. Such a 19 requirement would absolutely result in the 20 deferred maintenance and deteriorating 21 properties.

22 We strongly urge the EPA to stand by 23 their decision to not require dust clearance 24 sampling for renovation jobs. Thank you.

25 MS. MORTIMER: Next up we have COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 24 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 Suzanne Mattei from the Sierra Club and is there 3 anyone else here who wishes to speak?

4 MS. MATTEI: Hello. My name is 5 Suzanne Mattei. I'm the New York City 6 executive for the Sierra Club. We have 7 submitted a written letter to the agency so I 8 won't read the whole thing. I will just 9 basically touch on the key points.

10 Section 402 of the Toxic Substance Control Act 11 requires the EPA to adopt regulations 12 controlling lead paint hazards and targeting 13 housing, public buildings built before 1978 and 14 commercial buildings that create lead base paint 15 hazards.

16 Nearly 10 years after the deadline 17 under the threat of a lawsuit and a warning by 18 Senator Obama, the EPA has finally published a 19 proposed rule to regulate lead hazards. So 20 we're pleased to see the EPA is moving forward 21 to regulate renovation repair and paint 22 activities on target housing.

23 We think it is critically important 24 to do so and we think it is critically important 25 that this work be done by trained certified COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 25 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 workers, but we're concerned about a couple of 3 things.

4 Number one, that the result only 5 addresses target housing. It makes no mention 6 of the responsibility to regulate renovation and 7 remodeling activities at child occupied 8 facilities in public or commercial buildings,

9 does nothing to prevent dangerous work practices 10 on building exterior, such as sand blasting that 11 spreads lead dust on the streets and 12 playgrounds, yards and homes of urban residents.

13 While targeting housing is, in fact, the most 14 significant source of lead poisoning, we should 15 not be ignoring these other sources; for 16 example, the 14,200 child care centers out of 17 100,000 nationally that have significant lead 18 base paint hazards is estimated in a 2003 report 19 sponsored by EPA, HUD and CPSC.

20 These 14,200 child care facilities 21 care for 470,000 children and, again, the EPA is 22 also ignoring the thousands of public and 23 private commercial buildings in urban areas 24 which exterior paint works contaminates 25 neighborhoods and, in closing, finally, we are COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 26 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 very concerned about the failure to adopt the 3 dust clearance testing.

4 The periods of these regulations 5 rejects essentially the scientific approved 6 methods of sampling lead base paint hazards 7 based on the lead analysis of a dust wiped 8 sample in favor of a protocol for a white glove 9 test. This test is going to be a critical part 10 of these rules and we are very concerned about 11 the use of this test.

12 We do think that you should be using 13 dust clearance testing. Thank you very much.

14 MS. MORTIMER: Thank you. The next 15 speaker is Matthew Chachene.

16 MR. CHACHENE: My name is Matthew 17 Chachene. I'm appearing here today on behalf 18 of the Northern Manhattan Improvement 19 Corporation and the New York Public Interest 20 Group and the New York City Coalition to end 21 lead poisoning. I have a copy of my remarks 22 here.

23 MR. HENSHALL: Just give them to 24 Amy.

25 MR. CHACHENE: The following COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 27 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 comments are being submitted by the Northern 3 Community Improvement Corporation as well as the 4 Coalition to End Lead Poisoning and the New York 5 Public Interest Research Group.

6 First, we want to join and adopt the 7 comments that were previously submitted to the 8 EPA by the National Center for Healthy Housing 9 on March 26 and March 24th, which adds to the 10 necessity of retaining clearing dust testing and 11 the band on unsafe work practices, as well as 12 establishing that the dangerous work practices 13 concerning unlead paint old dwellings where 14 young children reside or spend significant time 15 resulting in needless exposure to potential 16 neurotoxins.

17 Unfortunately, it is over a decade 18 late in promulgating regulations to reduce the 19 risk of exposure to lead in connection with 20 renovation and remodeling activities. This 21 failure has left millions of vulnerable children 22 completely unprotected.

23 Here in New York State, a state 24 health department study showed that in just one 25 year outside of New York City some 320 children COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 28 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 were identified with lead levels of 20 3 micrograms or over as a result of renovation or 4 remodeling activities in their homes. The same 5 report noted that New York State has both the 6 total greatest number and the highest percentage 7 of pre1950 housing than any other state.

8 Thus it is regrettable, these regrettably long 9 overdue regulations required by Title X to 10 protect families where lead paint is being 11 disturbed are urgently needed, particularly in 12 New York given its great number and high 13 percentage of older housing stock.

14 Moreover, an enormous gap has existed between 15 the regulation of work practices where the 16 stated intent was to abate or control lead 17 hazards and those that obtained when the intent 18 was merely" repair" or " renovation"

19 or" remodeling."

20 From the perspective of the at risk 21 child, of course, this dichotomy makes 22 absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lead from unsafe 23 work practices is an unequal opportunity 24 neurotoxin and makes no distinction between 25 children who are living in dwellings that are COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 29 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 undergoing what's been denominated abatement 3 versus children residing in a dwelling that's 4 been denominated repair or renovation.

5 Locally here in New York City, the false 6 dichotomy was resolved at least for pre1960 7 multiple dwellings by our adoption of 2004 Local 8 Law One, which requires the use of at minimum 9 personnel who will receive " HUD safe work 10 practices training, the use of specified safe 11 work practices and dust clearance testing 12 regardless of whether the work is considered a 13 repair or renovation repair, remodeling or lead 14 remediation unless the work is de minimis."

15 In addition, New York City also adopted in 1999 16 a flat out ban on dryscraping or drysanding of 17 lead based paint or paint of unknown lead content 18 in any dwelling in 2004 and expanded this to 19 also cover day cares and schools.

20 The City of Rochester has also 21 recently adopted a law requiring the use of lead 22 safe work practices and workers training with 23 lead based paint or paint of unknown lead 24 content is disturbed in pre' 78 dwellings.

25 Unfortunately, young children residing in COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 30 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 dwellings in the rest of New York State for the 3 most part in one or two dwellings in New York 4 City lack these protections unless a child has 5 already been lead poisoned as New York State 6 essentially has no primary prevention program 7 whatsoever.

8 It is thus critical that the final 9 regulations be geared to not only effectively 10 protect this adverse population but that there 11 has to be a viable and effective enforcement 12 scheme.

13 New York State is one of those states 14 that has never adopted its own program for 15 certified workers and firms for risk assessment,

16 inspection and abatement activities and, thus,

17 at present, does not appear to have the 18 governmental and regulatory infrastructure in 19 place to readily take on the repair and 20 renovation rules either. Thus, the EPA may 21 find itself in the role of supervising the 22 enforcement of this rule in the state and the 23 enforcement hurdles here are not insignificant.

24 As it is, there does not appear from our 25 experience to have been widespread compliance in COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 31 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 New York with other aspects of Title X, such as 3 prenotification, prerenovation notification and 4 the disclosure regulations, nor the appreciable 5 monitoring and enforcement of these rules.

6 Moreover, reports indicate that both with the 7 disclosure and the prerenovation notification 8 rule, the EPA enforcement system has been geared 9 toward large real estate management and 10 remodeling companies.

11 While in many ways this is a sensible 12 use of limited resources to seek the largest 13 return on investment and enforcement action,

14 this strategy runs the danger of leading smaller 15 entities to believe they are too small to bother 16 with and, therefore, the chance of prosecution 17 is so low as to not merit their attention to the 18 requirements. However, renovation and 19 remodeling work, particularly in old urban and 20 low income housing in New York where the highest 21 risks of lead exposure are often found is 22 frequently conducted by extremely small 23 companies or even individuals who may not work 24 in the industry full time.

25 These small entities and individuals COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 32 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 may not be members of a trade association, may 3 not be insured or may not be licensed by local 4 authorities making them difficult to identify 5 and educate about the requirements of the rule.

6 The proposed rule will thus require great care 7 in order to ensure that all these covered 8 entities are aware of it and face an equal 9 opportunity of having compliance inspections or 10 enforcement action taken against them.

11 We are concerned that the EPA does not have 12 adequate plans in place to both educate and 13 ensure compliance amongst the small and 14 independent contractors and without such plans,

15 an unintended consequence of the rule may be 16 driving the renovation work, particularly in low 17 income neighborhoods, towards unqualified and 18 untrained smaller contractors who may be 19 successful, who may successfully operate under 20 the enforcement radar. It is, therefore,

21 critical that the EPA be prepared to assess 22 compliance and take enforcement action with all 23 size companies or individuals impacted by these 24 rules.

25 In order to make prosecution of a COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 33 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 large number of small entities more practical,

3 the EPA should carefully examine its enforcement 4 system and promulgate regulations as part of 5 this rule allowing for the increased use of 6 administrative law judges to adjudicate less 7 serious violations.

8 Currently, when conducting 1018 9 Enforcement Actions, the EPA has generally taken 10 a holistic look at regulated entities 11 compliance, auditing their records for multiple 12 properties over multiple years.

13 We would suggest that the enforcement 14 priorities for the new rules should allow for 15 the prosecution, administratively of individual 16 and single time violations of a rule in a rapid 17 manner, more akin to a speeding ticket than a 18 full blown investigation.

19 Although the EPA should clearly use 20 the full breadth of its enforcement authority 21 against repeat offenders, in the interest of 22 bringing a large number of cases forward and 23 demonstrating that the EPA is actively looking 24 for violations even amongst small practitioners,

25 the approach of just prosecuting single apparent COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 34 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 violation rather than conducting a full blown 3 investigation to determine historical compliance 4 is warranted.

5 In addition, the new rule is based 6 upon the foundation of the existing 7 prerenovation notification rule which 8 established requirements for providing occupants 9 information on lead prior to the commencement of 10 renovation or remodeling activities.

11 If notification to the EPA or delegate agencies 12 at work to be conducted under the rule is not 13 going to be required, one of the few mechanisms 14 for uncovering renovator misconduct under the 15 rule will be occupant complaint. Educated 16 occupants who can identify and report violations 17 will be essential to the enforcement of the 18 rule.

19 It is disconcerting, however, that 20 the implementation and the enforcement of the 21 existing prerenovation notification rule has 22 been lackluster at best.

23 Anecdotal evidence would suggest that 24 renovator awareness let alone compliance with 25 the rule is nearly nonconsistent in New York COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 35 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 State.

3 If the EPA is going to successfully 4 enforce the requirement of the rule, it needs to 5 get serious about prerenovation notification.

6 Additional publicity and education and 7 enforcement action under the existing rule 8 should be stepped up immediately, even prior to 9 the promulgation of the new requirements.

10 If the EPA cannot improve the adherence to even 11 the modest requirement that a brochure be 12 distributed and a release form signed, it is not 13 going to have much success at implementing the 14 more complicated requirements placed upon 15 renovators under the new rule.

16 Additionally, the EPA shall provide better 17 guidance to occupants, particularly tenants,

18 about the requirements of the new rule and how 19 to report contractors who violate it.

20 In the docket for the rule, the EPA provided a 21 draft brochure entitled " Protect Your Family 22 from Lead During Renovation Repair and 23 Painting," which is to replace the existing 24 brochure required to be distributed under the 25 prerenovation rule.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 36 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 Although the new draft is a 3 significant improvement over the " Protect Your 4 Family" brochure currently used, we believe it's 5 length will discourage many from reading it and 6 its contents is overly geared to homeowners at 7 the cost of providing information to the 8 tenants.

9 Sections on how to get a home tested 10 and how to choose a contractor, for example,

11 provide useful information for an owner who's 12 interested in having work done but they do 13 little for a tenant who has little or no input 14 as to what work is being done or who is going to 15 do it.

16 The EPA shall revise the brochure and 17 clearly and concisely state what a contractor 18 should and should not do while conducting the 19 renovation or remodeling. This is especially 20 true in regard to the cleaning verification, as 21 the brochure currently implies it is an optional 22 procedure they may undertake rather than a 23 required element that the contractor must do.

24 A checklist is for the occupant right upfront 25 listing tasks they need to do as well as tasks COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 37 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 the contractor will do will be extremely 3 beneficial.

4 Although there may be variation 5 depending on the renovation activities 6 undertaken, clearly items like putting down 7 plastic and cleaning up afterwards are going to 8 be universal.

9 Further, the brochure clearly needs 10 to identify the steps a tenant or occupant 11 should take if the contractor does not fulfill 12 the requirements placed upon them by the rule.

13 The brochure shall be empowering the occupant to 14 be actively involved in the process and help to 15 serve as a monitor to ensure the lead safe work 16 practices are actually being utilized.

17 Empowered occupants are not only in the position 18 to seek appropriate and required protections for 19 themselves and their children, they are also in 20 the position to make valid and useful complaints 21 to the EPA or delegate state agencies where 22 contractors are not following the requirements 23 of the rule.

24 Lastly, we believe a system of 25 contractor prenotification is crucial to COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 38 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 enforcement capability. Notifications will go 3 farther in ensuring a compliant mind set than 4 virtually every other compliance tool.

5 For a contractor just knowing that a regulatory 6 body has been informed of their job is a 7 powerful incentive to comply.

8 Obviously, the largest obstacle in the apparent 9 renovation and repair notification is the sheer 10 number of notifications, but models for handling 11 the large volume of notifications in a useful 12 fashion can be found in a system such as the 13 game management practices of several states 14 which use a telephone notification system.

15 One possible system consists of a toll free 16 phone number that each contractor will call 17 prior to the beginning of a project. The 18 contractor is auto prompted to enter only three 19 pieces of information.

20 One, a contractor's ID number, two, a 21 zip code of the project site and, three, length 22 of the project in days. The call would be quick 23 and simple, and from that database, a smaller 24 subset of these jobs could be selected perhaps 25 based on the zip code to health plan enforcement COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 39 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 visits for a call back where more detailed 3 information would be gathered by the contractor.

4 For example, say in one week there were 1200 R 5 and R notifications that were called into a 6 system, the program would see a contractor's ID 7 and zip code for all 1,200. A smaller subset 8 of the initial group of 10 could be chosen and 9 these contractors of the 10 jobs could be called 10 back with more detailed information, such as the 11 address, dates of work, age of home and so forth 12 could be gathered. For the remaining of the 13 jobs, no action necessarily would be taken.

14 In this manner, a large number of notifications 15 are received and a contractor has the knowledge 16 of the notification but the program only has to 17 deal with a small subset.

18 Another benefit of this model is that 19 it uses a lower level of technology, a telephone 20 than an Internet base system and is, therefore,

21 more broadly applicable. Few contractors today 22 do not have phones. It is also a simple system 23 that can be readily taught.

24 The greatest challenge here would not 25 be handling the notification volume but COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 40 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 initially handling setting up the call number 3 and concomitant database and issuing contractor 4 ID numbers in a timely manner and teaching 5 contractors what to do.

6 After a period of establishment, the 7 system could go forward simply. Models such as 8 this phone system and many others exist in other 9 fields that put to use handling repairing and 10 renovation notifications, such as credit card 11 companies, banks, phone companies. They all 12 track vast databases of information much more 13 complex than the information requested here.

14 It would be wrong to assume to dismiss the idea 15 of notifications, a powerful, passive, free 16 compliance incentive for fear that the 17 challenges are insurmountable. The challenges 18 are great but using a very simple, general 19 database collection of two pieces of information 20 would be a gateway to smaller chosen subsets and 21 the challenge could be met.

22 Notification time could be three to five days 23 prior to the project with exceptions for 24 emergencies.

25 Ultimately, however, the success of COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 41 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 the EPA enforcement activity around this rule 3 will depend on the success of it getting states 4 such as New York to accept delegated authority 5 for setting up viable quality programs.

6 The nature of the renovation and remodeling 7 industry with numerous small sized players makes 8 it much more suitable for local enforcement 9 action.

10 When formulating and approving 11 delegate agreements, we strongly encourage the 12 EPA to not only provide states with the 13 resources needed to adequately enforce the rule 14 but to reward states that can demonstrate a 15 system of integrating compliance assessment into 16 existing regulatory programs.

17 Thank you.

18 MS. MORTIMER: Any other comments?

19 Was there someone up there who wanted to speak?

20 MR. HENSHALL: Do you want to take a 21 break?

22 MS. MORTIMER: We will take a 23 ten minute break, see if anyone else comes and 24 then we will take it from there. Come on back 25 in 10 minutes and we will check in.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 42 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 MR. HENSHALL: What I would like to 3 do now is see if we have any additional 4 commentators at this time. Anyone in the room 5 who would like to provide written comments? If 6 not, what I propose is that we are going to 7 reconvene, we are going to adjourn now and 8 reconvene at 3: 00. So if there are any other 9 speakers show up between now and three, we will 10 have them speaking at 3: 00.

11 Thank you.

12 ( A break from the record at 2: 23 3: 13 p. m.)

13 MR. DROZDOV: My name is Mark 14 Drozdov. I'm an environmental consultant 15 technical director for Creative Environment 16 Solutions Corporation located here in New York 17 City at One Penn Plaza. I am here to make a 18 public comment regarding the proposed 402 CFR 19 745 regarding renovation work and lead hazards 20 as they are being added.

21 I understand the proposed rule would 22 cover the training requirements and training 23 certification requirements in as far as having 24 to remodel, taking the eight hour course and 25 having the training provided administer the COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 43 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 training certification, in that regard, I fully 3 support that kind of initiative. I think it's 4 well warranted for the remodelers to be properly 5 trained on lead hazards and lead controls.

6 I think there is a great gap in the industry in 7 regards to that and I think an eight hour course 8 is just right, what is needed to have the 9 remodelers be qualified to do the right job. I 10 think that's enough said.

11 MR. HENSHALL: Thank you very much.

12 We really appreciate your comment and thank you 13 for coming down. Thank you so much for coming.

14 I just wanted to let you know a couple of 15 things. What we are doing today is we're 16 taking oral comment on regulations. Everything 17 you say will be transcribed by the court 18 reporter and then put into the docket and we 19 will consider those along with any written 20 comments we read on the proposed rules and 21 consider those when we go to write our final 22 review issue.

23 If you could just please slowly say 24 your name and organization as you begin and then 25 you're also free to submit written comment to COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 44 1 Re: Lead Based Paint 2 the agency, if you choose to, in addition to the 3 oral comments you have today, and you have up to 4 April 10th to do that and all information on how 5 to submit the written comments are on this fact 6 sheet, which if you don't have one, you can have 7 one on the way out and that's it. We 8 appreciate your coming.

9 MS. ADITSKY: My name is Kate 10 Aditsky. I work  currently, I'm employed 11 with New York City Transit Environmental 12 Engineering Division and I'm in the chief's area 13 and being a public entity, we are on the 14 forefront of doing the right thing with the 15 environment and I'm very much for the training 16 requirement for the renovation people because 17 with a lot of lead removal, lead paint removal 18 in the residential areas of the structures and 19 at the same time there are people doing 20 renovation and absolutely doing that is what 21 lead paint is about. So the more training 22 there is for people doing natural work the 23 better and that's basically my comment.

24 MR. HENSHALL: Thank you very much for 25 coming. We really appreciate it.

COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344 45 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 I, MICHAEL WILLIAMS, a Certified 4 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the 5 State of New York do hereby certify that the 6 foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of 7 the within proceedings, to the best of my 8 ability.

9 ____________________________

10 MICHAEL WILLIAMS, CSR.

11 License No. XIO1991 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMPUTER REPORTING INC. ( 212) 986 1344


                           NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
                              AND PUBLIC MEETING
                               STATE OF NEBRASKA
                  DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (NDEQ)
                         ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL

	Notice is hereby given pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stats. §81-1505(17), §84-907, and §84-1411, the Nebraska Environmental Quality Council (EQC) will hold a meeting and public hearings on April 3, 2019 beginning at 9:00 A.M. Central Time (CT) at the Cornhusker Hotel, 333 South 13[th] St., Lincoln, Nebraska. Preceding the hearings will be business items on the agenda. The hearings are scheduled to begin at 9:00 A.M. CT or as soon thereafter as can reasonably be heard. The purpose of the hearings is to take testimony and evidence about the proposed amendment of NDEQ regulations, as outlined in this notice.

      The meeting agenda and a draft copy of the proposals scheduled for hearing are available at the NDEQ's Lincoln office, 1200 N St., Suite 400, Lincoln, NE and on the NDEQ website at http://deq.ne.gov.  The meeting agenda and a draft copy of the proposed regulations scheduled for hearing are also available at the Office of the Secretary of State, Regulations Division, 1201 N St., Suite 120, Lincoln, NE, 68508.  The description of the fiscal impact of the proposed regulations on state agencies, political subdivisions, or persons regulated is also available at these locations.

	All interested persons may attend and testify orally or by written submission at the public hearing.  Any person may provide advance notice of intent to testify by contacting Carla Felix, Hearing Officer, NDEQ, 1200 N St., Suite 400, P.O. Box 98922, Lincoln, NE 68509-8922.  Unscheduled testimony will be heard following scheduled testimony.  Interested persons may also submit written comments to Carla Felix prior to the hearing, which will be entered into the hearing record if received at the Lincoln office by 5:00 P.M. CT, April 2, 2019.

      Please notify the NDEQ at least one week in advance of the EQC meeting if auxiliary aids or reasonable accommodations or alternate formats of materials are needed.  Contact phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  TDD users call<PHONE_NUMBER> and ask the relay operator to call us at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

A public hearing will be held on the following:

1.  Amendments to Title 129  -  Nebraska Air Quality Regulations, Chapter 8. Change to Chapter 8 eliminates language referring to supersession of previously issued operating and construction permit to clarify such permits do not lapse when a subsequent operating permit is issued.  The EQC will vote to adopt, amend or not approve the NDEQ proposal after hearing and considering all the testimony and written submissions.

2. Amendments to Title 117  -  Nebraska Surface Water Quality Standards. These amendments are proposed as part of the State's triennial review of Water Quality Standards, required by Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Changes in Chapter 1 revise and update definitions, and where applicable reference statutory citations. Changes in Chapter 2 revise, clarify, and update language; and propose procedures for application and granting a variance to water quality standards as authorized by new federal regulations established in 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 131.14. Changes to Chapter 4 revise and update water quality standards as described in the chapter. Changes to Chapter 5 update designated use classifications of certain streams in the Nemaha River Basin identified in the chapter; update key species codes for streams identified in the chapter; and remove illustrative basin maps from the chapter which will be made available on the department website. Changes to Chapter 6 clarify that point source discharges from livestock sources are prohibited; add fifteen lakes and reservoirs located in the Big Blue River Basin, the Middle Platte River Basin, the Missouri Tributaries River Basin, the Nemaha River Basin, the Niobrara River Basin, and the North Platter River Basin; and delete one lake that no longer exhibits the characteristics of a lake and is now covered by Chapter 7 wetlands requirements; and make other minor revisions and updates language. Changes to Chapter 7 revise and update key species; update and revise pollutants; and make other minor revisions and update language. Chapter 8 is proposed for deletion because it duplicates statutory language found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-906(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

3.  Amendments to Title 131  -  Rules and Regulations for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Drinking Water Construction Assistance Programs. Changes to Chapter 1 add, revise, and update definitions, and where applicable reference statutory citations. Changes to Chapter 2 remove redundant and unnecessary requirements; include provisions on interest rates and administrative fees from Chapter 3; include provisions on emergency assistance from Chapter 3 and 9; include provisions on application denial from Chapter 7; add new provisions related to environmental assessments; include provisions on applications and general loan terms from Chapter 8; and rename chapter. Chapter 3 as it currently exists is deleted because the language on Intended Use Plan (IUP) and its required elements is duplicative of federal requirements or state statute. General requirements applicable to wastewater treatment projects, nonpoint and other projects, and public water system projects, currently found in Chapters 4, 5, and 6, have been included as provisions in renamed Chapter 3; and the existing Chapters 4, 5, and 6 are deleted. Chapter 7 is deleted because provisions relating to application denial are moved to Chapter 2 and remaining provisions are duplicative of federal IUP requirements. Chapter 8 is deleted because its provisions on applications and general loan terms are moved to Chapter 2, are adequately addressed in statute, or will be included in the IUP. Chapter 9 is deleted because emergency assistance has been moved to Chapter 2 and will be implemented through the IUP. Chapter 10 is deleted because it is redundant of state statutes which adequately address requirements and eligibility for the linked deposit program. Chapter 11 is deleted because the requirements will be covered by applicable agreements and contracts with financial institutions.

4. Amendments to Title 115  -  Rules of Practice and Procedure. Changes to Chapter 1 delete definitions and incorporate model rules of agency procedure promulgated by the Attorney General. Chapter 2 is deleted and incorporated as a model rule in Chapter 1. Chapter 3 is deleted because it duplicates statutory public record requirements and is not needed in regulation. Changes to Chapter 4 update language on confidentiality of trade secrets and is renumbered as Chapter 2. Changes to Chapter 5 update language on public hearings and is renumbered as Chapter 3. Chapter 6 is deleted because it duplicates statutory language on voluntary compliance. Chapters 7 through 10 are deleted and incorporated as model rules in Chapter 1. The EQC will vote to adopt, amend or not approve the NDEQ proposal after hearing and considering all the testimony and written submissions.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48066-48067]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0010]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 35
individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing materials in the docket, contact Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0010 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    FMCSA received applications from 35 individuals who requested an
exemption from the vision standard in the FMCSRs.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be obtained by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period
to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the
eligibility criteria or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be obtained by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
Therefore, the 35 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions
from the physical qualification standards in Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 23 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:

Asa A. Ames (ID)
Brooks A. Browder (TN)
Victoria A. Chappell (GA)
Charles P. Donovan (IN)
Marc S. Fadding (MA)
Timothy W. Finley (NE)
Leslie T. Howell (MO)
Faizul A. Jumarally (DE)
Jerome W. Koon (ND)
Alexander M. Lopez (Al)
Christopher R. Manoff (OR)
Robin L. Merica (MD)
Richard R. Moreira Aguilar (NJ)
Kevin J. Murray (NH)
Alexander D. Olson (MN)
Mahindra S. Ramnarine (PA)
Laurie A. Rossi (MD)
Anthony J. Sikora (IL)
Shaun C. Sundstrom (NJ)
Joy Tobias (NC)
Kayvan Varyani (NM)
Ronal V. Warsinger (CA)
Scot J. Yacino (MA)

    The following four applicants did not have 3 years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:

Larry M. Christiansen (IN)
Abanobb S. Gadelkarim (TX)
Jimmy J. Holcombe (AZ)
Scot J. Schwartz (KS)

    The following applicant did not have 3 years of recent experience
driving a CMV on public highways with the vision deficiency:

Bruce P. Friedland (MD)

    The following applicant did not have an optometrist or
ophthalmologist willing to make a statement that they are able to
operate a commercial vehicle from a vision standpoint:

Robert D. Tagaloni (WY)

    The following three applicants were denied for multiple reasons:

John F. Finn (MO); Thomas M. Henry (MD); and James M. Hughes (IL)

    The following three applicants drove interstate while restricted to
intrastate driving:

Robert C. Hill (OH); Robert L. King (AR); and Martin Rosado (CA)

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-17285 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P