[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2861-2862]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01535]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0097; FRL-9986-72]

Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of
Findings for September 2018

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Section 5(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its
findings after its review of TSCA section 5(a) notices when EPA makes a
finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not
likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs),
microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use
notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5. This document
presents statements of findings made by EPA on TSCA section 5(a)
notices during the period from September 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the
Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this
action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action
applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this
action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0097, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after
review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new
chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This
document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period
from September 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018.

III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a)
notice and make one of the following specific findings:
     The chemical substance or significant new use presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
     The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit
a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the
chemical substance or significant new use;
     The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit
a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the
chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment;
     The chemical substance is or will be produced in
substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may
reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial
quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human
exposure to the substance; or
     The chemical substance or significant new use is not
likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment.
    Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of
costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant
under the conditions of use. The term ``conditions of use'' is defined
in TSCA section 3 to mean ``the circumstances, as determined by the
Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or
reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in
commerce, used, or disposed of.''
    EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the Federal
Register a statement of its findings after its review of a TSCA section
5(a) notice when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or
significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to PMNs,
MCANs, and SNUNs submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.
    Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new
chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any
manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of

a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must
submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture
of the new chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new
use.
    The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding
of ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment'' may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or
manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding
any remaining portion of the applicable review period.

IV. Statements of Administrator Findings Under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C)

    In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent
that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this
period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the
new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
     EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.
     Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is
claimed as CBI).
     Website link to EPA's decision document describing the
basis of the ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk'' finding
made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
    EPA Case Number: P-18-0231; Chemical Identity: Alkanoic acid,
substituted alkyl-, polymer with isocyanatoalkane, alkyl carbonate,
alkanediol and polyalkylene glycol ether with alkyl (substituted alkyl)
alkanediol alkenoate, glycerol monoacrylate alkanoate-blocked (generic
name); website link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-101.
    EPA Case Number: J-18-0022 to 0025; Chemical Identity: Modified
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (generic name); website link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-100.
    EPA Case Number: P-18-0230; Chemical Identity: Waxes and waxy
substances, rice bran, oxidized, calcium salts (CASRN 1850357-57-1);
website link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-99.
    EPA Case Number: P-17-0332; Chemical Identity: Benzenesulfonic
acid, (alkenediyl)bis[[[(hydroxyalkyl)amino]-(phenylamino)-triazin-2-
yl]amino]-, N-(hydroxyalkyl) derivs., salts (generic name); website
link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-98.
    EPA Case Number: J-18-0028 to 0030; Chemical Identity:
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, modified (generic name); website link:
https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-97.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0532; Chemical Identity: Substituted
heteromonocycle (generic name); website link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-96.
    EPA Case Number: J-18-0004 to 0009; Chemical Identity: Biofuel-
Baproducing modified microorganisms, with chromosomally-borne
modifications (generic name); website link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-95.

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

    Dated: December 18, 2018.
Greg Schweer,
Chief, New Chemicals Management Branch, Chemical Control Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2019-01535 Filed 2-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174; FRL-     ]

Technical Amendments to Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Correction of Effective Date Under
Congressional Review Act

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:   Final rule; correction of effective date under Congressional
Review Act.

SUMMARY:  On July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40746), the EPA published in the
Federal Register a final rule that approved a request that the Franklin
County nonattainment area (“Franklin County Area” or “Area”) be
redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) and that approved the maintenance plan and the
2002 base-year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  That
July 25, 2007 final rule established an effective date of July 25, 2007.
 This document corrects the effective date of the rule to July 27, 2007
to be consistent with sections 801 and 808 of the Congressional Review
Act, enacted as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 and 808.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This rule is effective on [insert date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174.  All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov website.  Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Christopher Cripps,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

Section 801 of the Congressional review Act precludes a rule from taking
effect until the agency promulgating the rule submits a rule report,
which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
After publication of the July 25, 2007 final rule (72 FR 40746) EPA
discovered that it had inadvertently failed to submit the above rule as
required; thus, although the rule was promulgated on July 25, 2007 (72
FR 40746), by operation of law, the rule did not take effect on July 25,
2007, as stated therein.  After EPA discovered this error, EPA complied
with its obligations under the Congressional Review Act by submitting
the rule to both Houses of Congress and the GAO on July 27, 2007.  This
document corrects certain dates displayed in 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 to
reflect the date on which EPA satisfied the procedural requirements of
the Congressional Review Act.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B),
provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the
public interest, an agency may issue a rule without providing notice and
an opportunity for public comment.  EPA has determined that there is
good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and
opportunity for comment because EPA merely is memorializing in this
action that EPA’s compliance with the congressional review
requirements of the Congressional review Act, has as a matter of law,
changed the effective date of the July 25, 2007 action, and EPA has no
discretion in this matter.  Thus, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary.  The Agency finds that this constitutes good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B).  Moreover, because today's action does not create any
new regulatory requirements and the submittal of the rule to Congress
has, by operation of law, changed the effective date of the July 25,
2007 rule to July 27, which this action merely memorializes, EPA finds
that good cause exists to provide for an immediate effective date
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).  Because the delay in the effective date
was caused by EPA's inadvertent failure to submit the rule under the
Congressional Review Act, EPA does not believe that affected entities
that acted in good faith relying upon the effective date stated in the
July 25, 2007, Federal Register should be penalized if they were
complying with the rule as promulgated.

II.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not
impose any new requirements on small entities.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.  Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).   This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Because this action allows the state to avoid adopting or implementing
other requirements, affects the status of a geographical area, or does
not impose any new requirements on sources, this action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This action
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources.  Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.   EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  This rule is not a
(major rule( as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

This final rule only amends the effective date of the underlying rule as
promulgated on July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40746); it does not amend any
substantive requirements contained in the rule.  Accordingly, to the
extent it is available, judicial review of today’s final rule is
limited to the amended effective date.  Under section 307(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit
by [insert date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the
Federal Register].  Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action amending consistent with the provisions of the
Congressional Review Act the effective date of the July 25, 2007 (72 FR
40746) rule approving the redesignation of the Franklin County Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
the 2002 base-year emissions inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air Pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

                              /s/

_________________
__________________________

Dated:    September 14, 2007 				Donald S. Welsh,

                                      				Regional Administrator,

                                      				Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 – [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN-Pennsylvania

2.  In §52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by revising
the entry for the 8-hour Ozone  Maintenance Plan and the 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory for the Franklin County, Pennsylvania Area to read
as follows:

§ 52.2020	Identification of plan.

*	*	*	*	*

(e) ***

(1) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision	Applicable

Geographic area	State submittal

Date	EPA approval

date	Additional

explanation

*           *               *            *               *           *
          *

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
Franklin County Area (Franklin County)	9/20/06

11/08/06	7/25/07

72 FR 40746	The SIP effective date is 7/27/07.

*           *               *            *               *           *
          *

3.  Section 52.2037 is amended by revising paragraph (m) to read:

(m)  Determination--EPA has determined that, as of July 27, 2007, the
Franklin County ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone
standard and that the following requirements of section 172(c)(2) of the
Clean Air Act do not apply to this area for so long as the area does not
monitor any violations of the 1-hour ozone standard of 40 CFR 50.9:  the
attainment demonstration and reasonably available control measure
requirements of section 172(b)(1), the reasonable further progress
requirement of section 172(b)(2), and the related contingency
requirements of section 172(c)(9).  If a violation of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS is monitored in the Franklin County 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area, these determinations shall no longer apply.

PART 81- [AMENDED]

The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

In §81.339, the table entitled “Pennsylvania- Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Franklin County,
PA Area to read as follows:

§81.339                    Pennsylvania

*          *          *          *          *

Pennsylvania – Ozone (8-Hour Standard)

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/Classification

	Date1	Type	Date1	Type

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

Franklin Co., PA:

Franklin County	July 27, 2007	Attainment

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

aIncludes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise
noted.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

*           *           *           *           *

 PAGE

 PAGE  7


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43711]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18365]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 774

The Commerce Control List

CFR Correction

    In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 799,
revised as of January 1, 2012, in supplement no. 1 to part 774, make
the following corrections:
1. In Category 3:
    A. On page 766, in 3A001, remove the second entry for c.1.b.1.
    B. On page 768, in 3A002, remove the second paragraph ``CIV''.
    C. On page 782, in 3C001, under ``Items:'' remove ``a. Silicon;''.
2. In Category 4:
    A. On page 790, in 4A994, in the heading correct ``therefore'' to
read ``therefor''.
    B. On page 793, in 4E993, remove paragraph c.
3. In Category 5:
    A. On page 794, in part I, in 5A001, add ``or antennae'' after
``Unit: Equipment''.
    B. On page 798, in part I, in 5A991, remove the note following
paragraph c.2.
    C. On page 803, in part II, in 5A003, in the table for ``License
Requirements'', remove the entry for EI and place it below the table as
an indented paragraph.
    D. On page 805, in part II, above 5D002, add the headings ``C.
Materials--[Reserved]'' and ``D. Software''.
    E. On page 805, in part II, in 5D002, in the table for ``License
Requirements'', remove the entry for EI and place it below the table as
an indented paragraph.
    F. On page 806, in part II, in 5E002, in the License Requirement
Note, remove ``5D002.a or 5D002.c'' and insert ``5D002'' in its place.
    G. On page 806, in part II, in 5E002, after the License Requirement
Note, remove ``Refer to Sec.  742.15 of the EAR''.
    H. On page 807, in part II, in 5E002, after ``Related Controls''
and before ``Items'', add ``Related Definitions: N/A''.

[FR Doc. 2012-18365 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: November 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 67150-67152]
[DOCID:fr01no10-67]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 301 and Forms ATS and ATS-R; SEC File No. 270-451; OMB
Control No. 3235-0509.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation ATS provides a regulatory structure for alternative
trading systems. Regulation ATS allows an alternative trading system to
choose between registering as a broker-dealer and complying with
Regulation ATS, or registering as a national securities exchange.
Regulation ATS provides the regulatory framework for those alternative
trading systems that choose to be regulated as broker-dealers. Rule 301
of Regulation ATS contains certain notice and reporting requirements,
as well as additional obligations that apply only to alternative
trading systems with significant volume. Rule 301 describes the
conditions with which an alternative trading system must comply to be
registered as a broker-dealer. The

Rule requires all alternative trading systems that wish to comply with
Regulation ATS to file an initial operation report on Form ATS. The
initial operation report requires information regarding operation of
the system including the method of operation, access criteria and the
types of securities traded. Alternative trading systems are also
required to supply updates on Form ATS to the Commission, describing
material changes to the system, and quarterly transaction reports on
Form ATS-R. Alternative trading systems are also required to file
cessation of operations reports on Form ATS.
    An alternative trading system with significant volume is required
to comply with requirements for fair access and systems capacity,
integrity and security. Under Rule 301, such alternative trading system
is also required to establish standards for granting access to trading
on its system. In addition, upon a decision to deny or limit an
investor's access to the system, an alternative trading system is
required to provide notice to a user of the denial or limitation and
its right to an appeal to the Commission. Regulation ATS requires
alternative trading systems to preserve any records made in the process
of complying with the systems' capacity, integrity and security
requirements. In addition, such alternative trading systems are
required to notify Commission staff of material systems outages and
significant systems changes.
    The Commission uses the information provided pursuant to the Rule
to monitor the growth and development of alternative trading systems,
and to monitor whether the systems promote fair and orderly securities
markets and operate in a manner that is consistent with the federal
securities laws. In particular, the information collected and reported
to the Commission by alternative trading systems enables the Commission
to evaluate the operation of alternative trading systems with regard to
national market system goals, and monitor the competitive effects of
these systems to ascertain whether the regulatory framework remains
appropriate to the operation of such systems. Without the information
provided on Forms ATS and ATS-R, the Commission would not have readily
available information on a regular basis in a format that would allow
it to determine whether such systems have adequate safeguards.
    Respondents consist of alternative trading systems that choose to
register as broker-dealers and comply with the requirements of
Regulation ATS. The Commission estimates that there are currently
approximately 80 respondents.
    An estimated 80 respondents will file an average total of 552
responses per year, which corresponds to an estimated aggregated annual
response burden of 1,792.5 hours (comprised of 1,356 hours professional
labor and 436.5 hours para-professional labor). At an average cost per
burden hour of approximately $316 for professional labor and $59 for
para-professional labor, with an additional 35% of labor costs added to
account for overhead costs such as printing, copying, and postage, the
resultant total related cost of compliance for these respondents is
$613,236.82 per year ((1,356 professional burden hours multiplied by
$316) plus (436.5 para-professional burden hours multiplied by $59)
equals $454,249.50; plus 35% for overhead costs ($158,987.32) equals
$613,236.82; figures may vary slightly due to arithmetic rounding).
    An estimated 5 respondents will commence operations as an ATS each
year, necessitating the filing of an initial operation report on Form
ATS. The Commission estimates that the average compliance burden for
each respondent would be 20 hours, comprising 13 hours of in-house
professional work and 7 hours of clerical work. Thus, the total
compliance burden per year is 100 hours (5 responses x 20 hours = 100
hours). The total cost of compliance for the annual burden is $22,605
($316 x 13 hours per response + $59 x 7 hours per response = $4,521 per
response; $4,521 x 5 responses = $22,605). In addition, estimated
overhead costs for printing, copying, and postage equal to 35% of the
value of labor costs amount to $1,582.35 per respondent ($4,521 times
35%). Thus, the Commission estimates the total annualized cost burden
would be $7,911.75 ($1,582.35 x 5 respondents).
    An estimated 80 respondents will file an estimated two periodic
amendments to their initial operation report on Form ATS each year, an
estimated total of 160 responses. The Commission estimates that the
average compliance burden for each response would be 2 hours,
comprising 1.5 hours of in-house professional work and 0.5 hours of
clerical work. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 320 hours
(160 responses x 2 hours = 320 hours). The total cost of compliance for
the annual burden is $1,007 ($316 x 1.5 hours per response + $59 x 0.5
hours per response = $503.50 per response; $503.50 x 160 responses =
$80,560). In addition, estimated overhead costs for printing, copying,
and postage equal to 35% of the value of labor costs amount to $176.23
per response ($503.50 times 35%). Thus, the Commission estimates the
annualized cost burden for each respondent would be $352.46 ($176.23 x
2 responses per respondent) and the total annualized cost burden for
all respondents would be $28,196.80 ($176.23 x 80 respondents x 2
responses per respondent).
    An estimated 80 respondents will file four quarterly reports on
Form ATS-R each year for an estimated total of 320 responses. The
Commission estimates that that the average compliance burden for each
response would be 4 hours, comprising 3 hours of in-house professional
work and 1 hour of clerical work. Thus, the total compliance burden per
year is 1,280 hours (320 responses x 4 hours = 1,280 hours). The total
cost of compliance for the annual burden is $322,240 ($316 x 3 hours
per response + $59 x 1 hours per response = $1,007 per response; $1,007
x 320 responses = $322,240). In addition, estimated overhead costs for
printing, copying, and postage equal to 35% of the value of labor costs
amount to $352.45 per response ($1,007 times 35%). Thus, the Commission
estimates the annualized cost burden for each respondent would be
$1409.80 ($352.45 x 4 responses per respondent) and the total
annualized cost burden for all respondents would be $112,784 ($352.45 x
80 respondents x 4 responses per respondent).
    An estimated three respondents will be required to file a cessation
of operations report on Form ATS each year. The Commission estimates
that the average compliance burden for each response would be 2 hours,
comprising 1.5 hours of in-house professional work and 0.5 hours of
clerical work. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 6 hours (3
responses x 2 hours = 6 hours). The total cost of compliance for the
annual burden is $1,510.50 ($316 x 1.5 hours per response + $59 x 0.5
hours per response = $503.50 per response; $503.50 x 3 responses =
$1,510.50). In addition, estimated overhead costs for printing,
copying, and postage equal to 35% of the value of labor costs amount to
$176.23 per respondent ($503.5 x 35%). Thus, the Commission estimates
the total annualized cost burden would be $528.69 ($176.23 x 3
respondents).
    An estimated two respondents will meet certain volume thresholds
requiring them to establish standards for granting access on its
trading system. The Commission estimates that the average compliance
burden for each response would be 5 hours of in-house professional work
at $316 per hour. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 10
hours (2 responses x 5 hours

= 10 hours). The total cost of compliance for the annual burden is
$3,160 ($316 x 5 hours per response x 2 responses = $3,160). In
addition, estimated overhead costs for printing, copying, and postage
equal to 35% of the value of labor costs amount to $553 per response
($1,580 x 35%). Thus, the Commission estimates the total annualized
cost burden would be $1,106 ($553 x 2 respondents).
    An estimated two respondents will meet certain volume thresholds
requiring them to provide notice to any user upon any decision to deny
or limit that user's access to the system, and these notice obligations
will be triggered an estimated 27 x per year for each respondent. The
Commission estimates that the average compliance burden for each
response would be 1 hour of in-house professional work at $316 per
hour. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 54 hours (2
respondents x 27 responses each x 1 hour = 54 hours). The total cost of
compliance for the annual burden is $17,064 ($316 x 1 hour per response
x 54 responses = $17,064). In addition, estimated overhead costs for
printing, copying, and postage equal to 35% of the value of labor costs
amount to $110.60 per response ($316 x 35%). Thus, the Commission
estimates the annualized cost burden for each respondent would be
$2986.20 ($110.60 x 27 responses per respondent) and the total
annualized cost burden for all respondents would be $5972.40 ($110.60 x
2 respondents x 27 responses per respondent).
    An estimated two respondents will meet certain volume thresholds
requiring them to keep records relating to any steps taken to comply
with systems capacity, integrity, and security requirements under Rule
301. The Commission estimates that the average compliance burden for
each response would be 10 hours of in-house professional work at $316
per hour. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 20 hours (2
respondents x 10 hours = 20 hours). The total cost of compliance for
the annual burden is $6,320 ($316 x 20 hours = $6,320). In addition,
estimated overhead costs for printing, copying, and postage equal to
35% of the value of labor costs amount to $1,106 per response ($3,160 x
35%). Thus, the Commission estimates the total annualized cost burden
would be $2,212 ($1,106 x 2 respondents).
    An estimated two respondents will meet certain volume thresholds
requiring them to provide a notice to the Commission to report any
systems outages, and these notice obligations will be triggered an
estimated 5 times per year for each respondent. The Commission
estimates that the average compliance burden for each response would be
.25 hours of in-house professional work at $316 per hour. Thus, the
total compliance burden per year is 2.5 hours (2 respondents x 5
responses each x .25 hours = 2.5 hours). The total cost of compliance
for the annual burden is $790 ($316 x .25 hours per response x 10
responses = $790). In addition, estimated overhead costs for printing,
copying, and postage equal to 35% of the value of labor costs amount to
$27.65 per response ($79 x 35%). Thus, the Commission estimates the
annualized cost burden for each respondent would be $138.25 ($27.65 x 5
responses per respondent) and the total annualized cost burden for all
respondents would be $276.50 ($27.65 x 2 respondents x 5 responses per
respondent).
    Written comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to: Jeffrey Heslop, Acting
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 25,2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27468 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

PP 6E7151

EPA has received a pesticide petition [PP 6E7151] from the IR-4, 500 College Road East,  Suite 201 W, Princeton. NJ 08540, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.568, by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide, flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5 ,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, in or on the raw agricultural commodities asparagus at 0.02 parts per million (ppm), bushberry, Subgroup 13B at 0.02 ppm, Aronia berry at 0.02 ppm, Buffalo currant at 0.02 ppm, Chilean guava at 0.02 ppm, European barberry at 0.02 ppm, Highbush cranberry at 0.02 ppm, Honeysuckle at 0.02 ppm, Jostaberry at 0.02 ppm, Juneberry at 0.02 ppm, Lingonberry at 0.02 ppm, Native currant at 0.02 ppm, Salal at 0.02 ppm, Sea buckthorn at 0.02 ppm, melon, Subgroup 9A at 0.02 ppm, dry beans at 0.10 ppm, vegetable, fruiting, Crop Group 8 at 0.02 ppm, okra at 0.02 ppm, and nut, tree, Crop Group 14, at 0.02 ppm.. IR-4 is also requesting that, upon establishment of the crop group tolerance for nut, tree, Crop Group 14, that the existing tolerance for almond, nutmeats, be deleted from 40 CFR part 180.  EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

. The metabolism of flumioxazin is adequately understood for the purpose of the proposed tolerances.

.  Practical analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of flumioxazin have been developed and validated in/on all appropriate agricultural commodities and respective processing fractions.  The LOQ of flumioxazin in the methods is 0.02 ppm which will allow monitoring of food with residues at the levels proposed for the tolerances.

.  Residue data has been submitted which adequately support the requested tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile

The toxicological profile for flumioxazin which supports this petition for tolerances was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2004 (69 FR 16823)(FRL-7351-2).

C. Aggregate Exposure

.  Acute and chronic dietary analyses were conducted to estimate exposure to potential flumioxazin residues in/on the following crops and food items: peanuts; soybeans; cottonseed oil; grapes; sugarcane; vegetable, tuberous and corm (Subgroup 1C); mint; strawberry; pistachio; fruit, pome (Group 11); and fruit, stone (Group 12); asparagus, vegetable, bulb (Group 3); dried shelled peas and beans (Subgroup 6C); vegetables, fruiting (Group 8); vegetables, cucurbit (Group 9); bush berries (Subgroup 13B); nut, tree (Group 14), meat, poultry, and dairy products.  The Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System (CARES) Version 2.2 was used to conduct these assessments.  This Tier III assessment used actual residue data, experimentally obtained processing factors, and an estimation percent crop treated.  No adjustments were made for common washing, cooking or preparation practices. Exposure estimates for water were made based upon a Tier II modeling program (PRZM-EXAMS).

.  a. Acute- The acute dietary exposure estimate of flumioxazin residues in food at the 99.9th percentile for females 13-49 years old was calculated to be, at most, 0.70% of the acute Population Adjusted Dose (a-PAD) with a Margin of Exposure (MOE) of 14,284.  This is the only population subgroup with an identified acute toxicity endpoint. The a-PAD was defined as the NOEL from an oral developmental study in rats and includes an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for intra- and inter-species variation (NOEL = 3 mg/kg bw/day, a-PAD = 0.03 mg/kg/day).

b.  Chronic-The chronic dietary exposure estimate of flumioxazin residues in food was calculated to be, at most, 1.19% of the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (c-PAD) with a MOE of 8,662.  The population subgroup with the highest exposure was children 1-2 years old.  The c-PAD was defined as the NOEL from a rat two-year chronic/oncogenicity study and includes an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for intra- and inter-species variation  (NOEL = 2 mg/kg bw/day, c-PAD = 0.02 mg/kg/day).

.   Tier II PRZM-EXAMS modeling was used to quantify potential exposure from drinking water. This modeling was conducted using the EPA Platform Pe4(v02) and 28 EPA EFED standard scenarios for the Standard Index Reservoir.  The Index reservoir scenario with the highest predicted water concentration was used to obtain a daily concentration time series for the simulated years.  The scenario with the highest predicted water concentrations was PA apples (26 years of weather data).  The 26-year daily time series was imported to the CARES water module to conduct the drinking water exposure analysis.

.  Flumioxazin is proposed only for agricultural uses and no  homeowner or turf uses. Thus, no non-dietary risk assessment is needed.

D. Cumulative Effects

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that the Agency must consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." Available information in this context include not only toxicity, chemistry, and exposure data, but also scientific policies and methodologies for understanding common mechanisms of toxicity and conducting cumulative risk assessments. Although the Agency has some information in its files that may turn out to be helpful in eventually determining whether a pesticide shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, EPA does not at this time have the methodologies to resolve the complex scientific issues concerning common mechanism of toxicity in a meaningful way for most registered pesticides.

E. Safety Determination

i.  Acute Risk.  The potential acute exposure from food to females 13-49 years old will utilize at most 0.70% of the a-PAD.  This is the only population subgroup with an identified acute toxicity endpoint.  Addition of dietary exposure from water increases this exposure at the 99.9th  percentile to 0.74% of the a-PAD.  The Agency has no cause for concern if total acute residue contribution is less than 100% of the a-PAD, because the PAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to human health.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the overall U.S. Population from aggregate, acute exposure to flumioxazin residues.

ii.  Chronic Risk.  The potential chronic exposure from food to the U.S. Population and various non-child/infant population subgroups will utilize at most 0.21% of the c-PAD.  Addition of dietary exposure from water has no effect on this exposure.  The Agency has no cause for concern if total chronic residue contribution is less than 100% of the c-PAD, because the PAD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to human health.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the overall U.S. Population from aggregate, chronic exposure to flumioxazin residues.

.  i. Safety Factor for Infants and Children. EPA has determined that the special 10x SF to protect infants and children should be removed [Federal Register of March 31, 2004 (69 FR 16823) (FRL-7351-2)].  The FQPA factor has been removed because developmental toxicity and offspring toxicity NOAELs/LOAELs are well characterized; there is a well-defined dose-response curve for the cardiovascular effects; and the endpoints of concern used for overall risk assessments are appropriate for the route of exposure and population subgroups.

ii. Acute Risk. No acute endpoint has been identified for infants and children. Therefore, no assessment of acute exposure from food to this subgroup is required.

iii.  Chronic Risk.  The potential chronic exposure from food to children 1-2 years old (the most highly exposed child/infant subgroup) will utilize at most 1.19% of the c-PAD.  Addition of dietary exposure from water increases this exposure to 1.2% of the c-PAD.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate, chronic exposure to flumioxazin residues.

F. International Tolerances   Flumioxazin has not been evaluated by the JMPR and there are no Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) for flumioxazin. MRL values have been established to allow the following uses of flumioxazin in the following countries.

Country

Crop

MRL (ppm)

Argentina

Soybean

Sunflower

0.015

0.02

Brazil

Soybean

0.05

France

Grape

0.05

Paraguay

Soybean

0.015

South Africa

Soybean

Groundnut

0.02

0.02

Spain

Soybean

Peanut

0.05

0.05

 PAGE  2

{<HED2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HED2>}

{<HED2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HED2>}

{<P>}

{<HED2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61804-61807]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF15-27-000]

Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare
anEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Planned Plaquemines LNG
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Meeting

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Plaquemines LNG Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Venture Global
Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG) in Plaquemines Parish and
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EIS in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public interest.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us \1\
with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your
comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. To ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the
Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before November 4,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on July 2, 2015, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. PF15-27-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these instructions so that
your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(PF15-27-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meeting its staff
will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows: FERC Public
Scoping Meeting, Plaquemines LNG Project, October 21, 2015 at 6:00
p.m., Belle Chasse Auditorium, 8398 Highway 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037.
    We will begin our sign-up of speakers at 5:30 p.m. The scoping
meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. with a description of our environmental
review process by Commission staff, after which speakers will be
called. The meeting will end once all speakers have provided their
comments or at 9:00 p.m., whichever comes first. Please note that there
may be a time limit of three minutes to present comments, and speakers
should structure their comments accordingly. If time limits are
implemented, they will be strictly enforced to ensure that as many
individuals as possible are given an opportunity to comment. The
meetings will be recorded by a stenographer to ensure comments are
accurately recorded. Transcripts will be entered into the formal record
of the Commission proceeding.
    Plaquemines LNG representatives will be present one hour prior to
the start of the scoping meeting to provide additional information
about the project and to answer questions.
    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please
refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions
on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Planned Project

    Plaquemines LNG plans to construct and operate natural gas
liquefaction and export facilities at a planned liquefied natural gas
(LNG) terminal on the west bank of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana (Terminal) and construct and operated associated
lateral pipelines in Plaquemines and Jefferson parishes that would
connect the Terminal to the existing interstate U.S. natural gas grid.
The Plaquemines LNG Project would provide total liquefaction nameplate
capacity of about 978 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr) of natural
gas. According to Plaquemines LNG, the project would provide a cost-
effective outlet for new domestic natural gas available for the market.
    The Plaquemines LNG Project would be constructed in two phases and
would consist of the following facilities:
    A liquefaction plant consisting of ten liquefaction blocks in Phase
1 and ten liquefaction blocks in Phase 2, with each block having a
nameplate capacity of 1.0 million tonnes per annum (with higher
capacity during peak conditions);
    Four 200,000-cubic-meter (m\3\) LNG aboveground storage tanks;
    Three marine loading berths capable of receiving ocean-going LNG
carriers of between 120,000 m\3\ and 210,000 m\3\ capacity;
    One temporary floating LNG storage vessel;
    One utility dock on the Mississippi River;
    A combined cycle gas turbine power plant with a generating capacity
for Phase 1 of approximately 720 megawatts (MW), which would be
expanded in Phase 2 to include an additional 720 MW of generating
capacity;
    The Southeast Lateral Pipeline, consisting of about 12.1 miles of
42-inch-diameter pipeline in Plaquemines Parish, with a gas supply
capability of 0.85 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) for Phase 1;
    The Southwest Lateral Pipeline, consisting of about 11.1 miles of
42-inch-diameter pipeline in Plaquemines Parish, with a gas supply
capability of 0.85 Bcf/d for Phase 1;
    The Northwest Lateral Pipeline, consisting of about 21.2 miles of
42-inch-diameter pipeline in Jefferson Parish, with a gas supply
capability of 1.7 Bcf/d for Phase 2;
    Four meter stations, each with a pig \3\ launcher and pressure
regulating valve;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A gas gate station located at the Terminal, with pig receivers,
filter/separators, custody transfer meters, pressure regulators,
emergency shutdown valves, and gas analyzers; and
    Mainline valves (MLV).
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
2.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions
on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 1,233.2
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, Plaquemines LNG would maintain about 910.3
acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the
remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
    The Terminal would include a construction workspace area of 632.6
acres, all of which would be maintained and used during operations. The
three lateral pipelines and associated facilities, including access
roads, and contractor yards/staging areas are still in the design
stages; however, the temporary construction workspace would include
about 600.6 acres, and about 277.7 acres would be maintained during
operation.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping
process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
    Geology and soils;
    Land use;
    Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
    Cultural resources;
    Vegetation and wildlife including migratory birds;

    Air quality and noise;
    Endangered and threatened species;
    Public safety;
    Socioeconomics; and
    Cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning
on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\5\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities can be found at Title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\6\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE, at a minimum,
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EIS for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
can be found at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800.
These regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Plaquemines LNG. This
preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our
analysis.
    Threatened and endangered species;
    Fish, wildlife, and vegetation;
    Land use and aesthetics;
    Socioeconomics;
    Marine traffic;
    Public safety and reliability: the LNG pipelines would cross State
Highway 23, or State Highway 23 would need to be relocated;
    Air quality and noise;
    Water use and quality; and
    Cumulative impacts.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in, and/or potentially affected by, the
planned project.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (appendix 3).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Plaquemines LNG files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions
for becoming an intervenor are in the ``Document-less Intervention
Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor
status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a
formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-
27-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription, which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: October 5, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26075 Filed 10-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


a. No growth projected for this industry.

b. F = E * $ 16.52 per hour + 110%; or $ 34.69.

c. Travel Expenses: ( 1 person* 24 plants/ yr* 2 days/ plant*$ 75 per diem) + ($ 300 round trip/ plant* 24 plants/ year) = $ 10,800 TABLE 1B: AVERAGE ANNUAL EPA RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS ( NATURAL GAS PROCESSING INDUSTRY

VOC EQUIPMENT LEAKS, 40 CFR 60.630  NSPS SUBPART KKK)

Reporting/ Recordkeeping Requirement Hours/ Occurrence ( A) Occurences/

Plant/ Year ( B) Hours/ Plant/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Plants/ Year ( D) Hours/

Year ( E= C* D)

( E) EPA Cost ($)

( F) b New Plants:

Initial performance test NA Repeat performance test NA Report Review:

Notification of Construction a 2 16 32 0 0 0 Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 20 40 0 0 0 Notification of Actual Startup 2 20 40 0 0 0 Notification of Initial Test NA Notification of CMS Demonstration NA Semiannual Report 2 2 4 249 996 34,551 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 996 34,551 TOTAL ANNUAL COST TO EPA FOR THIS SUBPART = $ 45,351 ($ 34,551 + $ 10,800) c TOTAL ANNUAL COST TO EPA FOR BOTH SUBPARTS = $ 57,901 ($ 12,550 + $ 45,351)


 [Federal Register Volume 82, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 39424-39425] [FR Doc No: 2017-17511]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9034-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General

Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)

Filed 08/07/2017 through 08/11/2017

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice:

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public

its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment

letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170154, Draft, USACE, IL, Great Lakes and Mississippi River

Interbasin Study Brandon Road, Comment Period Ends: 10/02/2017,

Contact: Andrew Leichty<PHONE_NUMBER>

EIS No. 20170155, Draft Supplement, USN, WA, Land-Water Interface and

Service Pier Extension at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Comment Period

Ends: 10/02/2017, Contact: Kimberly Kler<PHONE_NUMBER>

EIS No. 20170156, Final, USN, CA, Disposal and Reuse of the Former

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, Review Period

Ends: 09/18/2017, Contact: Erica Spinelli<PHONE_NUMBER>

EIS No. 20170157, Final Supplement, USFS, MT, Miller West Fisher,

Review Period Ends: 09/18/2017, Contact: Denise Beck<PHONE_NUMBER> x7504

EIS No. 20170158, Final, DOE, NH, Northern Pass Transmission Line

Project, Review Period Ends: 09/18/2017, Contact: Mr. Brian Mills 202-

586-8267

EIS No. 20170159, Draft, BOEM, AK, Liberty Development Project,

Development and Production Plan in the Beaufort Sea, Comment Period

Ends: 11/18/2017, Contact: Frances Mann<PHONE_NUMBER>

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20170112, Draft Supplement, USACE, AK, Alaska Stand Alone

Pipeline Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/29/2017, Contact: Sandy P.

Gibson<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Revision to Federal Register Notice Published 06/30/2017; Extending

Comment Period from 08/14/2017 to 08/29/2017.

    Dated: August 15, 2017.

Dawn Roberts,

Management Analyst, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2017-17511 Filed 8-17-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 22276]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08722]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0047]

Bloodborne Pathogens Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
published a document in the Federal Register on April 15, 2021,
soliciting public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office
of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection
requirements specified in the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. The
document contained an incorrect docket number. This notice corrects the
docket number.

DATES: This correction is effective April 27, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction:

    In the Federal Register of April 15, 2021 (86 FR 19904-19905),
correct the Docket Number as described below.
    1. On page 19904, in the second column, in the third line of the
heading section, change the Docket Number to read:

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0047]
* * * * *
    2. On page 19904, in the third column, in the paragraph titled
``Instructions,'' change the Docket Number to read:

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0047]
* * * * *
    3. On page 19905, in the second column, in the first paragraph
under ``IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice
and internet Access to Comments and Submissions,'' change the Docket
Number to read:

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0047]
* * * * *

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 19, 2021.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-08722 Filed 4-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMB Department of Health Environmental Health Administration ~~~~

OCT 3 9: 1 ***  Program Manager Risk Assessment, Remediation and CertificationDivision Mrs. Gerallyn Valls Region III Lead Program Coordinator 1650 Arch Street, Mail Stop 3WC33 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 2029 RE: TSCA 404 Program Authorization Dear Mrs. Valls: I June 10,2000 This is hrther to the District's past submissions of application materials in^ support of program authorization and EPA correspondence dated October 8, 1999.

1. Enforcement Resources A& B. At the time of writing this letter, I understand that a question is outstanding abaut whether one Compliance Monitor is to be hnded fiom the EPA HUD2 grant and another Compliance Monitor, at exact same salary, is to be hnded out of the EPA 404( g) grant. I understand that deliverables are still being negotiated under the " Enforcement" Program Element for these two grants. Please confirm that the figures and discussion about the roles and sources of hnding that are set forth in the District's June 1 letter are still correct or make changes as appropriate. Development and administration of audit forms and a third party exam is typically not categorized in our grants as " enforcement" activities in the Guidance for Model Lead Based Paint compliance and Enforcement Programs, issued by EPA Office of Edorcement and compliance Assurance. Please check that the fbnctions are listed consistently in the grant applications and in the authorization application.

Also, please include in Appendix M a description of the job fbnction of the * Compliance Monitor. Why is a position for " Lead Inspectorhdustrial Hygienist" listed in Appendix M and not in the District's June 1response to Item lA? ..

51 N Street, NE., 3d Floor, Washington, D. C. 20002 tal: ( 202) 535 2690 far: ( 202) 535 1396 A& B, Currently one Compliance Monitorfinspector position ( George Siaway, Environmental Specialist, DS01301 11/ 05 replaced Kent Steinruck, Lead Inspector, DS 01801 12/ 1) is slated to be funded from the EPA HUD2 grant which is yet to be awarded and a second Compliance MonitorLInspector position ( Devasia Karimpanal, Lead Inspector DS 01801 11/ 01) is being funded from the Enforcement grant under its no cost time extension. The figures associated with the funding of staff positions as presented in the District's June 1letter have now changed as a result of the passage of time, program evolution and the execution of new grant instruments under which the program operates. Appropriate changes have been made in the authorization package. The organization chart for the Lead Poisoning Prevention Division ( now The Division of Risk Assessment, Remediation and Certification) has been revised to reflect the funding source assigned to grant personnel. The revised organization chart is submitted as part of Appendix E.

The following represents the currently projected staff funding allocations by specific grant funding source:

Personnel 1. Attorney Advisor/ Admin. Officerneg. Env. Analyst 2. Community Coordinator/ . EnvironmentalSpecialist 3. Lead Abatement Program Assistant Salaq FrinPe Indirect Funding Source & YO $ 48,013 $ 8,594 $ 19,133 EPA 404( g) 100%

$ 49,335 $ 8,831 $ 19,660 EPA 404( g) 100%

$ 27,443 $ 4,912 $ 10,936 EPA 404( g) 100%

4. Compliance Monitorfinspectorl $ 45,883 $ 8,213 $ 18,284 EPA/ NUD I1 Environmental Specialist 100%

5. Compliance Monitorfinspector $ 42,625 $ 7,630 $ 16,986 Enforcement 100%

6. Information Technologist/ $ 4,139 $ 741 $ 1,649 Enforcement Summer Intern 100% for + 3 mo.

7. Central Receptionist/ $ 2,371 $ 424 $ 945 Enforcement Summer Intern 100% for + 3 mo.

8. Lead Coordinator ( currently unfunded)

9. Data Entry CIerWClerical Assistant ( currently unfunded)

In addition to the above positions, the following staff positions augment, enhance, and/ or provide direct assistance in support of the grant and state authorized program activities.

10. Permit ProcessorlEnv. Engineer $ 45,648 $ 8,171 $ 18,191 No cost to grant 11. Supervisory Environmental Engineer/ $ 73,505 $ 13,157 $ 29,292 No cobt to grant Program Manager 12. Program Manager $ 77,641 $ 13,898 $ 30,940 No cost to grant Appendix M did not contain a separate description of a job function titled Compliance Monitor. It contained the description for the Lead Inspectorfindustrial Hygienist. Each of the titles Compliance Monitorfinspectorfindustrial Hygienist, and now Environmental Specialist refers to the functions contained in Appendix M which are currently performed by George Siaway, Environmental Specialist and Devasia Karaimpanal, Lead Inspector. The reason for the differing titles is due to the ever evolving program. Initially the title of Compliance Monitor was utilized in grant application documents. This terminolo&, " Compliance Monitor'' was used prior to the actual classification and recruitment of the position by our Personnel Office. Over time, the position and title evolved into what was officially classified by personnel for recruitment as an " Inspectorfindustrial Hygienist". This position appears in current grant applications as a Compliance Monitorfinspector which was consistent with the actual position titles on one of the occupied positions at the time of grant application in 1999. The job functions of the Complia nceMonitor are now reflected in Appendix M under the heading Lead Inspectorfindustrial Hygienist.

E. The District's July response indicates that five individuals listed on page 12 are in the Lead Poisoning Prevention Division. Please identify which positions these are and also identify the DivisiodOffice where the other two individuals are employed. Seven positions are listed on page 12.

E. All positions listed in the July response are located in the Lead Poisoning Prevention Division ( now The Division of Risk Assessment, Remediation and Certification). The number five referred to the filled positions. At the time of the July response neither of the Compliance Monitorfinspector positions had been filled, thus they were not figured in when calculating the number five. Both of the Inspector positions have since been filled. Currently the Lead Abatement Program Assistant position is vacant. The previously vacant Attorney Advisor position was filled on June 5,2000.

New Comment: According to the Mayor's Order 98 124 that is included in Appendix C, DCRA is responsible for conducting hearings under Section 12 of the Act for decisions made by Department of Health on denial, suspension, revocation or modification of certificates, permits, or accreditations. Please outline the resources, on page 12, available in DCRA to perform this function.

References to Mayor's Order 98 124 that were included in Appendix C concerning DCRA conducting hearings for decisions made by the Department of Health are now outdated, as new Mayor's Orders concerning Department of Health hearings are now in effect. Appendix C and Appendix N have been revised. The resources currently associated with the Department of Health's hearing related functions are provided as part of a revised Appendix N.

3 2. Tracking Tips and Complaints... Enforcement The application should respond to EPA's questions by citing existing authorities, should clearly point out differences in the District's Program fiom the Federal Lead Program, and should state ( since the district self certified) specifically why the District considers its Program to be as protective as to provide adequate enforcement despite those differences.

A. Appendix N. In item 2A of your June letter, you state this is a Civil Penalty Matrix. My copy includes a chart entitled " District of Columbia Civil Infraction Procedures" and a " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," which appears to set fine levels for different infractions. Has this regulation been finalized? If so, please provide the final version. If this rule is not in effect, it should not be included in the District's application. Instead regulatory and statutory documentation of how current fines are set should be included. If this changes in the future, this should be submitted to EPA at that time. We cannot approve or disapprove an application for full authorizationbased on what is not in effect.

A. The District has included a copy of the finalized emergency rulemaking in this authorization package submittal under Appendix N. Proposed rulemaking notices have been removed. Appendix N now reflects penalties and procedures in place.

3. We requested a flow chart or description of how an enforcement officer decides to . issue a notice of violation instead of referring a case to Corporation Counsel, etc.

B.

C. the District's June 1response refers to Appendix 0. This appears to be a duplicate of the " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" which is in Appendix N. Whereas it appears that the flow chart and rules in Appendix N. if in effect, might address the issues raised in EPA's comments 2B, it is not clear why a duplicate appendix is included. Again, only rules and procedures in effect at the time of the District's application should be included in the District's application for full authorization. Supplemental material that you believe may be of interest and that would document the District's intent to develop their Lead Program Mer should be forwarded to EPA as a separate document. Such idormation, while relevant if the district is seeking interim authorization for the District, does not belong in the District's application for full approval.

See previous comment " A" above concerning Appendix N. The flow chart has been revised to reflect current relationships. The previous relationships were effective when DCRA was involved and are now outdated.

Training of Inspection and Enforcement Personnel A. Please cross reference Appenaix L on page 35.

A. A reference to Appendix L has been inserted on page 25.

5. Third Party Exam If no one has requested an exam as is stated in your June 1 response, how are individuals being certified in DC? Also, please update page 6, Examination Procedures, with a complete description of the third party exam process, including a description'of the name of the vendor that developed the exam or any alternate procedures that are relevant, the district's role in developing the exam to ensure that the district's regulations are adequately addressed, the name of the vendor or agency that administers the exam, where the exam is offered, at what frequency the exam is offered, report on the number of individuals who have taken the exam and describe processes to be employed to keep the exam current.

At the time of the June submittal, the District had begun certifying individuals based on prior trainingalternative procedures which recognized the training and exams given by EPA and other authorized states in the absence of a District exam. Until the District specific exam was developed and put in place, individuals needing an exam were granted interim certification, allowing time for notification, scheduling and administration of the examination. Experior is the exam vendor for the District. Professional experts were involved in the exam question review for the establishment of the District specific exam. A work shop attended by the exam vendor, District Lead officials and outside professional experts was held to effect this review and to ensure that the District's regulations were adequately addressed. The Candidate Information Bulletin containing the examination registration form can be found in Appendix P.

6. Certification of Individuals and Firms Individuals and firms are currently being certified by the District of Columbia. Application forms for the certification of individuals and firms are provided in Appendix Q.

11. Notijkation  July response ( see page 28)....

Notifications are only required for abatement projects. The District does not require notifications on inspections. The form utilized for notification is provided in Appendix R Other Items A. Table of Contents  Please check Appendix titles to confirm that these are the correct titles. For example, Appendix N is entitled, " Civil Infraction Flow Chart" on the Table of Contents, yet page 1 of the Appendix itself is entitled, " Department of Health Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." A title that describes the information that is conveyed in each appendix and that matches the front page of each appendix would be most useful.

A. Table of Contents  Revisions have been made to the Table of Contents to more accurately reflect their contents.

5 B.

B.

C.

c.

D.

D E.

E.

F.

F.

G.

G.

H.

H. Page 12, paragraph I  Is this paragraph still current with the recent reorganization?

Page 12, paragraph 1  This paragraph has been revised to reflect the current organization. Revisions have been made to pages 12 and 13. Page 23, East paragraph  Is this paragraph still current with the recent reorganization?

Page 23, lastparagraph  Revisions have been made to this paragraph.

Page 24, paragraphs 1 and 2  Please cross reference the Appendix where the regulations that are cited in these paragraphs are located.

Page 24, paragraphs 1and 2  Cross references have now been included.

Page 25, paragraph 2  Please cross reference the Appendix where the laws that are cited in this paragraph are located.

Page 25, paragraph 2  The cross references have been made.

Page 28  On August 17, your office resent page 28 in response to my phone call in which I stated that page 28 does not connect with the page before it nor the page after it. However, the new page 28 was the same as that included with your July 6 letter. Please resend an entire copy of the Program Description ( pages 14 through 30 in my copy), and check that pages 27 through 29 of the copy that are resent all connect to each other.

Tracking Tips... Please identify the Appendix where the laws that are cited in this paragraph are found.

Page 28  A new Program Description ( pages 14 through 30) is resubmitted with this letter.

Tracking Tips.. . The Appendix has been referenced.

Page 30  The document now has two page 30s  the last page of the Program Description and the title page of the Program Analysis.

Page 30  The document now has one page 30.

Program Element # 2 Chart, Page 3 7 ( unnumbered)  Please provide footnote to explain why two items on this chart have two asterisks.

Program Element # 2 Chart, Page 37 ( numbered)  The asterisks are used to relate certain explanations contained in the analysis which is located below the sections of the chart to specific segments of the chart. I. Page 46  This table is missing a title.

I. Page 46  The table now has a title.

J. Page 47  Citations under " Enforcement" should include 45 CFR § 745.327( b).

J. Page 47  45 CFR3 745.327 Authorization of Indian Tribal Programs is not applicable to the District of Columbia.

K. Appendices J and K  Is there a reason why these are included in two separate Appendices? In order to meet Quality Assurance requirements, A Quality Assurance Plan is required to be submitted to EPA and approved. Appendix J contains a Quality Assurance Plan that now is undergoing EPA review. Please incorporate relevant portions of Appendix K and the one page that is part of Appendix J entitled " Quality Assurance" into the QAPP that is under review at EPA, if they are not in the QAPP already, and delete these separate pages.

K. Appendices J and K  The QAPP is currently being revised and will be resubmitted to EPA under separate cover. The content of Appendix K has been revised. Appendix J is reserved for a revised QAPP.

I am requesting that the enclosed pages be used to replace corresponding earlier submittals. Please call me at 202 535 2690 to confirm receipt of this authorization submittal. Legal aspects of the authorization package which may require further revision are currently under review by our newly hired attorney. Should additions andor revisions associated with this review be required, they will be submitted under separate cover. If further clarification of the enclosed material is required, feel free to contact Ms. Amisial of my staff on 202 535 2629.

n Y Enclosure cc: dArnold, OECA A. Dickens R 3/ ca \ 7