[Federal Register: January 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 1247-1248]
[DOCID:fr07ja08-63]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57067; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the Quoting Requirements
Applicable to the Hybrid Opening System

 December 31, 2007.
    On July 25, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its rule pertaining to
the Hybrid Opening System (``HOSS'') as well as related rules
pertaining to the obligations of designated primary market-makers
(``DPMs''), electronic designated primary market-makers (``e-DPMs'')
and lead market-makers (``LMMs'') during opening rotations. On November
19, 2007, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 26, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56814 (November 19,
2007), 72 FR 66008 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposal

    HOSS is the Exchange's automated system for initiating trading at
the beginning of each trading day. The Exchange proposes to amend its
HOSS procedures contained in CBOE Rule 6.2B. Previously, for each
option class approved for trading, HOSS had been programmed to open an
option series only if the DPM or LMM, as applicable, for the particular
option class submitted a quote that complies with the legal quote width
requirements of paragraph (b)(iv) to CBOE Rule 8.7, Obligations of
Market-Makers. In 2005, the HOSS procedures were revised; currently,
HOSS is programmed to open an option series as long as any market
maker,\4\ not just the DPM or LMM, has submitted an opening quote that
complies with the legal width quote requirements of CBOE Rule
8.7(b)(iv).\5\ However, even though the procedures were changed to
permit HOSS to automatically open a series without a DPM's or LMM's
quote, DPMs (as well as e-DPMs) and LMMs are still obligated under
CBOE's rules to submit timely opening quotes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This could include a quote from a DPM, e-DPM, LMM, Market-
Maker or Remote Market-Maker.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52234 (August 10,
2005), 70 FR 48214 (August 16, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-40). Other
factors must also be satisfied for HOSS to open an options series.
For example, the opening price for the series must be within an
acceptable range and the opening trade cannot create a market order
imbalance. See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.2B(e)(ii)-(iii).
    \6\ Currently, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs are required to enter
opening quotes in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.2B in 100% of the
series of each appointed class; whereas, other Market-Makers and
Remote Market-Makers are permitted, but not obligated, to enter
opening quotes in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.2B. See current CBOE
Rules 6.2B, 8.15A, Lead Market-Makers in Hybrid Classes
(subparagraph (b)(iv) of this rule has been interpreted by the
Exchange to require an LMM to enter opening quotes in 100% of the
series of each appointed class), 8.85, DPM Obligations, and 8.93, e-
DPM Obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change modifies the HOSS procedures to allow the
parameters to be configured so that an option series will open: (1) If
at least one market maker has submitted an opening quote, which is how
HOSS currently operates; or (2) only if a DPM or LMM, as applicable,
has submitted an opening quote, which is how HOSS operated previously.
Determinations on the particular configuration would be made on a
class-by-class basis by the appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee
and announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, 72 FR at 66008 (noting that the
Exchange Procedure Committee might consider such things as ``trading
in the underlying or related products, trading in the option on
competing exchanges, how effectively opens have occurred in the
past, liquidity and/or other factors.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change amends the opening quote
obligations of DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs to require them to ensure a
timely initiation of an opening trading rotation of each allocated
class by entering opening quotes as necessary (i.e., when no other
market maker has entered an opening quote). This change would absolve
DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs of their responsibility (under CBOE's current
rules) to enter opening quotes when another market maker has already
entered an opening quote in a particular series.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under CBOE's proposed rules, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs would
still be permitted to enter opening quotes even if another market
maker has already entered an opening quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will afford the Exchange more flexibility
in the manner in which HOSS conducts opening rotations. The Commission
believes that allowing the appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee to
determine on a class-by-class basis how

a particular series should open may allow CBOE to achieve more
competitive, efficient, and orderly openings, while allowing the
Exchange to provide sufficient liquidity at the open in particular
classes.
    While the Commission continues to believe that the quoting
obligations of LMMs, DPMs, and e-DPMs are appropriate, given the
benefits (such as favorable margin treatment) that are provided to
market makers, the Commission also believes that it is reasonable for
CBOE to excuse them from submitting opening quotes in their assigned
series when at least one other market maker has already entered an
opening quote in that series. The Commission notes that if no other
market maker has entered an opening quote, the DPM and e-DPM or LMM
would be responsible for ensuring that an opening quote is promptly
entered so that HOSS can automatically open the series. This proposal,
in conjunction with another recently approved proposed rule change,\11\
also should encourage LMMs, DPMs, and e-DPMs to quote more
competitively during HOSS opening rotations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56860 (November 29,
2007), 72 FR 68919 (December 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-59) (allowing
market makers to enter an opening quote for as low as one contract
if the underlying primary market disseminates less than a 1,000-
share best bid or offer quote immediately prior to an option series
opening).
    \12\ Nothing in this proposal would affect a Market-Maker's
obligation to honor its firm quote obligations imposed by CBOE Rule
8.51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-87), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25651 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9740-9741]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02596]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0511; FRL-9957-06]

Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of
Findings for November 2016

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 October 25, 2016 to November 30, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Greg Schweer, Chemical Control
Divison (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-2016-0511, 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 October 25, 2016 to November 30, 2016.

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
premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices
(MCANs), and significant new use notices (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).
     Web site 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: J-16-0024; Chemical identity: Trichoderma reesei
modified (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-
new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-

control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-32.
    EPA Case Number: J-16-0025; Chemical identity: Trichoderma reesei
modified (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-33.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0403; Chemical identity: Heteropolycyclic
carboxylic acid, polymer with 2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol
and 4-substitutedbenzene, substituted carbomonocycle- and alkyl-
substituted carbomonocycle-blocked (generic name); Web site link:
https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-28.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0492; Chemical identity: Polyester-amide
polymer of `isophthalic acid' with diamino-alkane,
cyclohexanedialcohol, alkanetriol, di-isocyanate and acrylic acid-
ethylene copolymer (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-26.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0515; Chemical identity: Diamine substituted
arylimidazole (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-25.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0518; Chemical identity: Polyalkylether
polyester (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-29.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0519; Chemical identity: Polyalkylether
polyester (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-30.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0545; Chemical identity: Substituted siloxane
polymer (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-27.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0580; Chemical identity: Trimethylolpropane
ester of mixed linear and branched carboxylic acids (generic name); Web
site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-31.

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

    Dated: January 8, 2017.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2017-02596 Filed 2-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29108-29111]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11796]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008; FRL-9911-19-Region 1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Town Garage/Radio Beacon
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Town Garage/Radio
Beacon, Superfund (Site), located in Londonderry, New Hampshire from
the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the
concurrence of the State of New Hampshire, through the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have
been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective July 21, 2014 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 20, 2014. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0008, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: William Lovely, EPA Region 1--New England, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912 or
Rodney Elliott, EPA Region 1--New England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Mail Code ORA01-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912.
     Hand delivery: William Lovely, EPA Region 1--New England,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07-4, Boston, MA 02109-
3912 or Rodney Elliott, EPA Region 1--New England, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Mail Code ORA01-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Records Center, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday-Friday: 9:00 a.m.-
5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday-Closed, and Leach Library, 276 Mammoth
Road, Londonderry, NH 03055,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday-Thursday: 9:00 a.m.-
8:00 p.m., Thursday: 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Friday: 10:00 a.m.-2:00
p.m., Saturday: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Sunday: Closed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Lovely, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 New England, 5
Post Office Square, Mail code OSRR07-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912, (617)
918-1240, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 1 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Town Garage/Radio Beacon Superfund (Site), from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part
300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund).
As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL
remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective July 21, 2014 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 20, 2014. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the
deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the
comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to
comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Town Garage/Radio Beacon
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the state of New Hampshire prior to
developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of
Intent to Delete co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section
of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the state, through the New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services (NHDES), has concurred on the deletion of the
Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Union Leader. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment
period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Town Garage/Radio Beacon Superfund Site, CERCLIS ID No.
NHD981063860, is located north of Pillsbury Road near the intersection
of Pillsbury and High Range Roads in Londonderry, New Hampshire. The
Site encompasses three residential developments, a wetland area, and
the Londonderry Town Garage area located on High Range Road. The Site
was discovered in 1984 following a request to the State by residents of
the Holton Circle subdivision to sample their bedrock wells. Sampling
results from NHDES revealed the presence of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in several of the residential drinking water wells and the
nearby Town Garage well at concentrations in excess of state and
federal drinking water standards. In June 1988, the Site was proposed
for inclusion on the NPL, (49 FR 40320) and the Site was made final to
the NPL on March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13296).

Remedial Investigation

    The RI/FS was completed in 1992. As part of the investigation,
surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, groundwater, and air were
all evaluated and compared to appropriate benchmarks. Contaminants
detected, and attributable to the Site, included: VOCs, semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals. The findings of the RI/FS
determined that contaminant concentrations in groundwater posed an
unacceptable risk to human health due to its current use as a drinking
water source at that time. However, the risk was limited to future
exposures because the extension of a public water supply in 1992/93 to
nearby residents prevented current exposures to groundwater from
private wells that were found to be impacted with Site-related
contaminants. With respect to soil, surface water and sediments, the
RI/FS determined that contaminant concentrations in these media were at
levels that did not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or
ecological receptors. Further details about the RI/FS are documented in
the RI/FS reports, which are included as part of the administrative
index and docket for the Site.

The Selected Remedy

    To address the risks presented by future exposure to contaminated
groundwater, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the cleanup of
the Site on September, 30 1992 that included the following the
following remedial action objectives (RAOs):
     Prevent ingestion of water which contains compounds in
concentrations that exceed federal and state enforceable drinking water
standards; and
     Prevent ingestion of water containing compounds which have
no enforceable federal or state drinking water standards, but which
pose an unacceptable health risk.
    In response to the RAO's, the 1992 ROD prescribed a remedy that
included four major components: (1) Restoration of contaminated
groundwater in the overburden and bedrock aquifers by natural
attenuation, (2) institutional controls, (3) groundwater monitoring,
and (4) an alternative water supply contingency. The goal of the remedy
was to prevent future exposures to Site-related groundwater
contaminants while natural attenuation processes gradually reduced
contaminant concentrations to levels below state and federal standards.

Response Actions

    Consistent with the 1992 ROD, groundwater monitoring was performed
to track the progress of the aquifer restoration via natural
attenuation and help prevent future exposures to Site-related
groundwater contaminants. Institutional controls, in the form of a
Groundwater Management Permit (GMP) that was issued by NHDES notified
property owners of the groundwater contamination thereby helping to
prevent future exposures to Site-related contaminants within the plume
area. With respect to the contingency for an alternative water supply,
this remedial component was not implemented because concurrently with
the issuance of the ROD, the Town extended its municipal water supply
to accommodate a new residential development near the Site on
Saddleback Road. At that time, existing homes that were also located
near the Site were connected to the municipal water supply as a
precautionary measure to limit the likelihood of future exposures to
contaminated groundwater.
    From 1994 through 2012 groundwater samples were collected every
Fall with the results showing that contaminant concentrations were
gradually declining over time. After reviewing the 2012 Annual Summary
Report, Groundwater Monitoring Program, which showed concentrations for
all contaminants of concern identified in the 1992 ROD were below their
respective cleanup levels, and at or near their lowest concentrations
since the monitoring program began, EPA concluded that restoration of
the overburden and bedrock aquifers by natural attenuation was complete
and prepared a Final Close Out Report (FCOR) dated February 2014 to
document that all Remedial Activities required by the 1992 ROD have
been completed. The FCOR is included in the administrative record and
deletion docket for the Site and a copy was also sent to the Leach
public library.

Cleanup Levels

    The interim groundwater cleanup levels selected by EPA in the 1992
ROD were selected based on the more stringent of a federal or state
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate (ARAR) standard, or in the
absence of such standard, a risk based standard.
    The cleanup levels were set to be within EPA's acceptable risk
range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6. Once groundwater
monitoring results constituted the third consecutive annual sampling
event where Site-related contaminant concentrations were either at or
below the interim cleanup levels specified in the 1992 ROD, EPA
performed a risk evaluation of residual groundwater contamination, a
copy of which is included in the Deletion Docket. Based on the risk
evaluation, as well as the technical information reflected in the
Deletion Docket and Administrative Record, EPA has determined that the
actions taken to address groundwater at the Site are protective of
human health for the purposes of the CERCLA remediation. Further, based
on this finding, the interim groundwater cleanup levels established in
the ROD are protective and should be deemed the final performance
standards for the groundwater cleanup.

Operation and Maintenance

    Operation and maintenance activities as part of the remedial action
consisted of groundwater monitoring in support of the natural
attenuation remedy and administering the GMP, which served as the
institutional control for the Site. However, with the achievement of
the interim groundwater cleanup levels specified in the 1992 ROD, the
groundwater monitoring program will be terminated and the GMP will not
be renewed as there is no longer a need to maintain an institutional
control on the Site.

Five-Year Reviews

    Five Year Reviews have been competed for the Site in 1999, 2004,
and 2009. Each of these reviews concluded that the remedy was
protective of human health and the environment, but also recommended
that: The existing monitoring program be expanded once the cleanup
levels have been achieved to address additional data needs related

to groundwater discharges to surface water; comparisons of groundwater
data to newer standards, including for additional Site-related
contaminants of concern that were not in effect when the 1992 ROD was
issued; and an evaluation for the presence of 1,4-dioxane. In August
2010, EPA received the 2010 Annual Summary Report, Groundwater
Monitoring Program, which showed that concentrations of all Site-
related contaminants, were below their respective ROD cleanup levels,
that arsenic and 1,4-dioxane in groundwater were below the laboratory
reporting limits and respective maximum contaminant levels and that
groundwater discharges to surface water were not an issue.
    The Fourth Five-Year Review was due in March 2014. However, after
reviewing the monitoring results for 2011, and 2012, which consistent
with the 2010 results, were all below their respective ROD cleanup
levels, EPA determined that no further Five-Year Reviews are required,
because the Site has achieved the RAOs specified in the 1992 ROD. EPA's
decision is documented in a memorandum dated February 19, 2014, which
is included as part of the Docket for this notice.

Community Involvement

    Consistent with the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP, EPA
released a community relations plan in 1990 which kept the local
citizens group and other interested parties informed through activities
such as informational meetings, community updates, press releases,
holding public hearings, and addressing public comments associated with
the 1992 ROD. In addition, EPA periodically met with nearby residents
and Town officials during routine site inspections and as part of the
Five-Year Review process, which occurred in 1999, 2004, and 2009. EPA
maintains a site file for the local community at the Leach public
library located on 276 Mammoth Road, Londonderry, NH 03055 and at EPA's
Boston offices.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in
the ROD for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action
objectives and clean-up levels are consistent with agency policy and
guidance. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human
health and the environment at the Site.
    The National Contingency Plan (NCP) specifies that EPA may delete a
site from the NPL if ``all appropriate responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required'' or
``all appropriate fund financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate''. EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New Hampshire
through NHDES by a letter dated February 24, 2014, believes these
criteria for deletion have been satisfied. Therefore, EPA is proposing
the deletion of the Site from the NPL. All of the completion
requirements for the Site have been met as described in the Town
Garage/Radio Beacon Final Closeout Report (FCOR), dated February 2014.

 V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Hampshire through the
NHDES, has determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from
the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective July 21, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by June
20, 2014. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and
it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and
continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent
to delete and the comments already received. There will be no
additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: April 24, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
for ``NH'', ``Town Garage/Radio Beacon'', ``Londonderry''.

[FR Doc. 2014-11796 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64209]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 28

[Docket Number USCG-2010-0625]
RIN 1625-AB50

Waiver of Citizenship Requirements for Crewmembers on Commercial
Fishing Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; information collection approval.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that it has received approval from
the Office of Management and Budget for an information collection
request associated with the Waiver of Citizenship Requirements for
Crewmembers on Commercial Fishing Vessels in a final rule we published
in the Federal Register on February 14, 2014. In that rule, we stated
we would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of the collection-of-information related sections. This
rule establishes December 23, 2019, as the effective date for those
sections.

DATES: The amendments to Sec. Sec.  [thinsp]28.1105 and 28.1110,
published February 14, 2014 (79 FR 8864), are effective December 23,
2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, including the final rule published on February
14, 2014 (79 FR 8864), go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2010-0625 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Joseph Myers, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-
1249, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 14, 2014, the Coast Guard published a final rule that
added the waiver of citizenship requirements for crewmembers on
commercial fishing vessels. 79 FR 8864. The final rule delayed the
effective dates of 46 CFR 28.1105 and 28.1110 because these sections
contain collection-of-information provisions that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. On March 21, 2016, the OMB approved
the collection, ``Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety
Regulations,'' and assigned OMB Control Number 1625-0061. Accordingly,
we announce that 46 CFR 28.1105 and 28.1110 are effective December 23,
2019.
    This document is issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C.
8103(b)(3)(C).

    Dated: November 15, 2019.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-25234 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33991-33993]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13370]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                     (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     Depth in feet      Communities  affected
                                                 elevation             above ground
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in  meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Harris County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No: FEMA-B-1164
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K100-00-00 (Cypress Creek).............  Approximately 0.57 mile                  +79  City of Houston,
                                          downstream of Treaschwig                      Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Road.                                         Harris County.
                                         Approximately 1.1 miles                 +173
                                          upstream of the Waller
                                          County boundary.
K111-00-00 (Turkey Creek)..............  Approximately 1,100 feet                 +90  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of Hardy Toll                      Harris County.
                                          Road.
                                         Approximately 650 feet                  +105
                                          upstream of North Vista
                                          Drive.
K116-00-00 (Schulz Gully) (backwater     At the Cypress Creek                     +85  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Cypress Creek).             confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 920 feet                   +85
                                          downstream of Aldine
                                          Westfield Road.
K120-00-00 (Lemm Gully) (backwater       At the Cypress Creek                     +92  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Cypress Creek).             confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 0.4 mile                   +92
                                          upstream of Lockridge
                                          Drive.
K120-01-00 (Senger Gully) (backwater     At the Lemm Gully                        +92  City of Houston,
 effects from Cypress Creek).             confluence.                                   Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Harris County.
                                         Approximately 100 feet                   +92
                                          upstream of I-45.
K124-00-00 (Seals Gully)...............  Approximately 1,400 feet                +102  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of Candle                          Harris County.
                                          Creek Road.
                                         Approximately 500 feet                  +125
                                          upstream of Spring
                                          Cypress Road.
K131-00-00 (Spring Gully)..............  At the Cypress Creek                    +106  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 200 feet                  +137
                                          downstream of Spring
                                          Cypress Road.
K131-03-03 (Tributary 2.1 to Spring      At the Spring Gully                     +112  Unincorporated Areas of
 Gully) (backwater effects from Spring    confluence.                                   Harris County.
 Gully).
                                         At the upstream side of                 +112
                                          T.C. Jester Boulevard.
K131-04-00 (Tributary to Spring Gully)   At the Spring Gully                     +121  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Spring Gully).   confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 1,600 feet                +122
                                          upstream of the Spring
                                          Gully confluence.
K133-00-00 (Dry Gully) (backwater        At the Cypress Creek                    +112  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Cypress Creek).             confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 400 feet                  +112
                                          upstream of Champions
                                          Forest Drive.
K140-00-00 (Pillot Gully) (backwater     At the Cypress Creek                    +118  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Cypress Creek).             confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         At the downstream side of               +118
                                          River Park Drive.
K142-00-00 (Faulkey Gully).............  At the Cypress Creek                    +122  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         At the downstream side of               +123
                                          Lakewood Forest Drive.
K145-00-00 (Dry Creek) (backwater        At the Cypress Creek                    +139  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Cypress Creek).             confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         At the downstream side of               +139
                                          Jarvis Road.
K152-00-00 (Tributary 37.1 to Cypress    Approximately 1,500 feet                +148  Unincorporated Areas of
 Creek).                                  upstream of the Cypress                       Harris County.
                                          Creek confluence.
                                         Approximately 920 feet                  +151
                                          downstream of U.S. Route
                                          290.
K155-00-00 (Tributary 40.7 to Cypress    At the Cypress Creek                    +158  Unincorporated Areas of
 Creek).                                  confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 1,580 feet                +197
                                          downstream of U.S. Route
                                          290.
K157-00-00 (Tributary 42.7 to Cypress    At the Cypress Creek                    +163  Unincorporated Areas of
 Creek).                                  confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 2.0 miles                 +196
                                          upstream of Jack Road.

K159-00-00 (Channel A to Cypress Creek)  At the Cypress Creek                    +151  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Cypress Creek).  confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 1,900 feet                +151
                                          upstream of the Cypress
                                          Creek confluence.
K160-00-00 (Rock Hollow)...............  At the Cypress Creek                    +163  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 980 feet                  +206
                                          upstream of Mound Road.
K160-01-00 (Tributary 1.63 to Rock       Approximately 0.6 mile                  +166  Unincorporated Areas of
 Hollow).                                 upstream of the Rock                          Harris County.
                                          Hollow confluence.
                                         Approximately 2.8 miles                 +192
                                          upstream of the Rock
                                          Hollow confluence.
K185-00-00 and K172-00-00 (Tributary     At the Cypress Creek and                +166  Unincorporated Areas of
 44.5 to Cypress Creek).                  K185-00-00 confluence.                        Harris County.
                                         Approximately 0.7 mile                  +206
                                          downstream of Mound Road.
L100-00-00 (Little Cypress Creek)        At the Cypress Creek                    +130  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Cypress Creek).  confluence.                                   Harris County.
                                         Approximately 1,500 feet                +130
                                          upstream of the Cypress
                                          Creek confluence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Houston
Maps are available for inspection at the Public Works and Engineering Department, 611 Walker Street, Houston, TX
 77002.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Harris County

Maps are available for inspection at the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, A&E Division, Permit
 Office, 10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77092.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-13370 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


STANDARD FORM 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR ICR 1750.02 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONAL VOC EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS Emission Standards Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 November 1, 2001 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title of the Information Collection " Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings." The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) tracking number for this information collection request ( ICR) is 1750.02. This is a renewal of a continuing ICR, OMB No. 2060 0393, expiration date January 31, 2002.

( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract Compliance with the architectural coatings rule is required by September 1999. The regulation requires that manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings adhere to volatile organic compound ( VOC) content limits in the regulation.

Information collection requirements for manufacturers and importers complying with the VOC content limits consist of product labeling; an initial notification report, which includes an explanation of any date code used; and subsequent explanations of any date codes revised after submittal of the initial report.

The regulation does not contain any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements unless a manufacturer or importer chooses to comply through one of the optional provisions in lieu of meeting the VOC content limits ( i. e., the tonnage exemption,

exceedance fee, or recycled coating credit provisions).

Under the terms of Clearance for the curent ICR, 1750.02,

assumptions are based on respondent and agency experience for the first three years the rule was in effect. Adjustments were made to reflect the lower than anticipated numbers of manufacturers choosing to use the more burdensome tonnage exemption, exceedance fee and recycled coating options.

The rule contains an optional tonnage exemption that allows each manufacturer and importer to exempt a specified total mass of VOC in architectural coatings. The tonnage exemption would be used for products that do not comply with the VOC content limits and for which no exceedance fee is paid. Additional information collection requirements for the tonnage exemption include 2 records of VOC calculations and volumes of coating manufactured or imported and an annual report.

The rule includes an exceedance fee alternative compliance option to provide additional compliance flexibility. This is an economic incentive approach whereby manufacturers and importers may choose to comply with the VOC requirements in the rule by paying a fee in lieu of meeting the VOC content limits. The per product exceedance fee is calculated based on both the volume of product manufactured or imported and the amount of VOC above the VOC content limit for that product. Additional information collection requirements for the exceedance fee option include records of fee calculations and inputs and an annual report.

Manufacturers and importers of recycled coatings have the option to take credit for the post consumer coating content when determining the VOC content of the coating, which results in a less stringent control requirement. Additional information collection requirements for the recycled coating option include records of VOC calculations, additional labeling, and an annual report.

All records required under the rule must be retained for 3 years.

The rule requires that the labels or lids of all subject architectural coatings display the date of manufacture, the manufacturer's recommended thinning, and the VOC content of the coating. Many manufacturers already include this information on their coating labels as a part of normal and usual practice. For additional flexibility, the date of manufacture can be expressed as a code and can be located either on the label, lid, or bottom of the container. The rule also requires that the labels or lids of all subject industrial maintenance coatings display a statement indicating that industrial maintenance coatings are primarily intended for industrial and professional use. In addition, each manufacturer and importer using the adjusted VOC content for a recycled coating is required to include a statement indicating the post consumer coating content on the coating container label or lid.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 3 ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection Section 183( e) of the Clean Air Act ( Act) requires the EPA to regulate categories of consumer and commercial products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity adjusted basis, in areas that violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for ozone. The EPA determined that the architectural coating category is one of the largest VOC emission sources among the consumer and commercial products categories, in many States represents a significant source of unregulated VOC emissions, and that VOC emissions from the use of architectural coatings contribute to ground level ozone formation in ozone nonattainment areas. Therefore, the EPA published standards regulating VOC emissions from architectural coatings under section 183( e) of the Act on September 11, 1998 ( 40 CFR part 59, subpart D).

The reporting, labeling, and recordkeeping activities required under the architectural coatings rule enable the EPA to determine whether or not coatings manufactured or imported for sale or distribution in the U. S. are in compliance with the requirements in the rule. Reports and records are used to determine whether exceedance fees ( if applicable) are paid for coatings for which the manufacturer or importer has chosen the exceedance fee option. For the tonnage exemption, the reports and records are used to ensure that the allowed exemption levels are not exceeded. Reports, records, and product labels associated with the recycled coatings provision are used to ensure that the adjusted VOC content is calculated properly.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The data collected under this ICR are essential to ensure compliance with the rule and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Specifically, Agency enforcement personnel use the information collected to: ( 1) identify manufacturers and importers subject to the rule; ( 2) ensure that architectural coatings comply with VOC content standards, including accounting for recycled coating content; ( 3) verify that exceedance fees are calculated properly and paid in the correct amounts; ( 4) determine the volume of coating manufactured or imported for which fees are paid; 4 ( 5) determine the total revenues paid in exceedance fees; and ( 6)

verify that the VOC content of the coatings is calculated properly for the tonnage exemption and that the exemption levels are not exceeded. The reported information assists EPA in deciding which architectural coating manufacturers or importers should be inspected. The requirement for date of manufacture ( or date code) to be placed on coating containers is useful to EPA for comparison to manufacturers' records and reports to determine compliance with VOC content limits, and with the exceedance fee and tonnage exemption requirements.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication The information collected pursuant to the regulation consists primarily of the VOC content information for architectural coating products, the calculation of exceedance fees due, the calculation of total VOC emissions from particular products claimed under the tonnage exemption, and the calculation of the post consumer coating content of recycled coatings. This information is not collected by any other Federal agency.

( b) Consultations Significant input and information was received from the affected industry, State and local governments, environmental groups, and coating users during development of the rule,

including regulatory negotiation meetings. Table 1 shows a list of the participants in the regulatory negotiations. In addition,

EPA held a public hearing in July 1996 and a public meeting in August 1996. The public meeting was specifically designed to obtain input from small businesses. The EPA considered numerous public comments in the development of this rule. The public comments are located in the docket for this rulemaking ( Docket A 92 18). The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on August 17, 2001 ( 66 FR 43253); no comments were received. 5 ( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection This ICR includes a one time initial notification report for all manufacturers and importers. For those reporting VOC content adjusted for post consumer coating content, an annual report is required. For those using the tonnage exemption option, an annual report is required. For those using the exceedance fee option, an annual report is required. Less frequent reporting would not allow for effective or timely compliance determination.

The EPA believes annual reporting is frequent enough to provide the information needed for compliance tracking without being too burdensome on the industry or the Agency. 6 Table 1. Consultations Consumer Representatives Bernie Appleman, Steel Structures Painting Council Charles Field, Staff Vice President, National Association of Home Builders G. Lawrence Gettier, Traffic Control Project Engineer,

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Century Center  Traffic Engineering Branch John Peart, Research Chemist, Federal Highway Administration Tim Race, Chemist, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Vincent R. Sandusky, Executive Vice President, Painting and Decorating Contractors of America John Stone, Chemist, G. S. A. Paint and Chemicals Commodity Center R. Sam Williams, Forest Products Laboratory Environmental Representatives David Hawkins, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council Joel Schwartz, Staff Scientist, Coalition for Clean Air Ronald White, Deputy Director, National Programs, American Lung Association Industry Representatives Earle K. Borman, Jr., Senior Vice President, L& F Products Jack J. Bracco, Manager, Market Development, Architecture and Industrial Maintenance Coatings, Miles, Inc.

J. Andrew Doyle, Executive Director, National Paint and Coatings Association Marcel Gaschke, Group Marketing Manager, Polymers Division,

CIBA GEIGY Corporation Madelyn Harding, Administrator, Product Compliance and Registrations, The Sherwin Williams Company Robert J. Klepser, Laboratory Manager, Carboline Company James F. Lawrence, Senior Vice President, Cargill Inc. 7 Carl Minchew, Assistant to the Technical Director, Benjamin Moore & Co.

Kenneth J. Murray, Environmental Affairs Manager, Exxon Chemical Pete Nicholson, Market Manager, Industrial Finishes, Rohm and Haas Co.

John Prinz, Vice President Research, Development, and Quality, Sinclair Paint Company, Division of Insilco Corp.

Jim Sainsbury, Manager, Product Regulation, The Glidden Company Christine Stanley, Product Development Manager, Ameron Protective Coatings William Stewart, Director, Regulatory Affairs, The Valspar Corporation Small Business Representatives Jay Haines, Attorney at Law, Haines & Riley Ned B. Kisner, President, Triangle Coatings, Inc.

Robert Wendoll, Chairman, Environmental, Legislative, and Regulatory Advocacy Program Richard Williamson, Executive Vice President, Trinity Coatings Company Labor Representative Mike Andrews, Representative of the Health and Safety Department, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades State Representatives S. William Becker, Executive Director, STAPPA/ ALAPCO Dan Belik, Enforcement Program Supervisor, Rule Development,

BAAQMD Robert Irvine, Senior Environmental Engineer, SIP Revision Unit, State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

Air Quality Division Peggy Taricco, Manager of Solvent Control Section, California Air Resources Board 8 Bob Warland, Regional Air Pollution Control Engineer,

Region IV, New York State Department of Environmental Control Regional Headquarters Environmental Protection Agency Bruce Jordan, Director, Emission Standard Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Government Observer Chris Kirtz, Director, Consensus and Dispute Resolution Program, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 9 9 ( d) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to the guidelines for Federal data requestors, as provided at 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2).

( e) Confidentiality ( i) Confidentiality. All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,

September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978;

43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

( ii) Sensitive questions. This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents to this information collection are manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings. Manufacturers of architectural coatings fall within standard industrial classification ( SIC) 2851, " Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels,

and Allied Products." Importers of architectural coatings fall within SIC 5198, " Wholesale Trade: Paints, Varnishes, and Supplies."

( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements.

Attachment 1, Source Data and Information Requirements,

summarizes the labeling, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. All records required under the rule must be retained for 3 years.

( ii) Respondent activities. Table 2 presents the labeling,

recordkeeping and reporting activities and burdens for the rule.

The respondent activities required by the standards are listed in the first column of table 2.

Several States regulate architectural coatings and require certain labeling, recordkeeping and reporting activities. The regulation includes similar requirements to the extent practical in order to minimize the cumulative burden to the industry. 10 TABLE 2. AVERAGE ANNUAL INDUSTRY BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING OVER THE THREE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1, 2001, FOR MANUFACTURERS COMPLYING WITH THE STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS Burden Item ( A)

Person Hours Per Occurrence ( hrs/ manufacturer) ( B) Number of Occurrences Per Respondent Per Year ( C) Person Hours Per Respondent Per Year ( a)

( C= AxB) Dollars Per Houra ( D) Respondents per Year ( E)

Total Hours Per Year ( E= CxD) ( F)

Total Cost Per Yearb 1. Applications Not applicable 2. Surveys and Studies Not applicable 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 2 1 2 $ 52 5c 10 $ 520 B. Gathering Existing Information Included in 3. C C. Write Report Initial Report 2 1 2 $ 74 5c 10 $ 740 Date Code Explanation 1 1 1 $ 52 5c 5 $ 260 Update Date Codes 2 1 2 $ 52 50d 100 $ 5,200 Recycled Coatings Report  Mass Balance 6 1 6 $ 74 12.5e 75 $ 5,550 Recycled Coatings Report  Formulation 4 1 4 $ 74 12.5e 50 $ 3,700 Exceedance Fee Annual Report 64 1 64 $ 74 120f 7,680 $ 568,320 Tonnage Exemption Annual Report 16 1 16 $ 74 100g 1,600 $ 118,400 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3. A B. Plan Activities 8 1 8 $ 74 5c 40 $ 2,960 C. Implement Activities Calculate VOC content for Each Product 336h 1 336 $ 52 5c 1,680 $ 87,360 Calculate Adjusted VOC for Recycled Coatings 20 1 20 $ 52 25i 500 $ 26,000 Exceedance Fee

Calculations 12.83 1 12.83 $ 52 120f 1,540 $ 80,080 11 TABLE 2. AVERAGE ANNUAL INDUSTRY BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING OVER THE THREE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1.2002 FOR MANUFACTURERS COMPLYING WITH THE STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS ( CONTINUED)

Burden Item ( A)

Person Hours Per Occurrence ( hrs/ manufacturer) ( B) Number of Occurrences Per Respondent Per Year ( C) Person Hours Per Respondent Per Year ( a)

( C= AxB) Dollars Per Houra ( D) Respondents per Year ( E)

Total Hours Per Year ( E= CxD) ( F)

Total Cost Per Yearb 11 Tonnage Exemption Calculations 8 1 8 $ 52 100g 800 $ 41,600 D. Record Data Recycling Volumes 8 12 96 $ 52 25i 2,400 $ 124,800 Exceedance Fee 8 1 8 $ 52 120f 960 $ 49,920 Tonnage Exemption 4 1 4 $ 52 100g 400 $ 20,800 E. Time to Train Personnel Not applicable 5. Labeling 67j 1 67 $ 52 83k 5,561 $ 289,172 Total 23,411 $ 1,425.382 a All tasks are assumed to be performed by a technical person ($ 52/ hr) unless otherwise noted.

Activities planning is assumed to be performed by a manager ($ 74/ hr).

b Costs were calculated by multiplying the total number of hours by the hourly wages.

c Total number of manufacturers is estimated to be 500; 1 percent or 5 per year new respondents per year are assumed.

d Assumed that 10 percent of manufacturers update some date codes each year. ( 500 manufacturers)( 0.10)

= 50 manufacturers.

e Assumed that 5 percent of manufacturers recycle coatings. ( 500 manufacturers)( 0.05) =

25 manufacturers. Of the 25 manufacturers, assumed half of the recycle coating manufacturers would demonstrate compliance using mass balance and the other half using formulations.

f Economic model estimates a total of 958 fee paying products, at an average of 8 products per manufacturer; 958 products ÷ 8 products per manufacturers = 120 manufacturers.

g Assumed that 100 manufacturers will use tonnage exemption option.

h Based on a time estimate of 8 hours per coating product. ( 8 hours/ product)( 42 products/ manufacturer)

= 336 hours/ manufacturer. 12 TABLE 2. AVERAGE ANNUAL INDUSTRY BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING OVER THE THREE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1.2002 FOR MANUFACTURERS COMPLYING WITH THE STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS ( CONTINUED)

12 i Assumed that 5 percent of manufacturers recycle coatings. ( 500 manufacturers)( 0.05) = 25 manufacturers.

j Based on an industry estimate of 320 hours needed to modify labels for a company with 200 paint products, or 1.6 hours per product.

( 1.6 hours/ product)( 42 products/ manufacturer) = 67 hours/ manufacturer.

k Assumed that half of the manufacturers would have to modify their labels.

( 500 manufacturers)( 0.5)/ 3 years = 83 manufacturers per year. 13 5. The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities A list of activities required of the EPA is provided in table 3.

( b) Collection Methodology and Management The information collected under this rule will be maintained in a computerized database. As noted in section 2( b) of this ICR, the information collected is a necessary part of compliance determination. The rule specifically allows for the maintenance of records in either written or electronic form.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility Although the rule does not contain any specific small entity provisions, the rule contains two provisions that may reduce the burden of this rule on small entities. These provisions are the exceedance fee provision and the tonnage exemption.

( d) Collection Schedule The rule requires all manufacturers and importers of subject coatings to submit an initial notification report no later than September 13, 1999 ( March 13, 2000 for products registered under FIFRA), or within 180 days after becoming subject to the rule,

whichever is later. All manufacturers and importers of subject coatings must submit an explanation of any new date code no later than 30 days after the new date code is first used.

Manufacturers and importers choosing the recycled coating provision must submit an annual report by March 1 following the year in which the recycled coating provision is used.

Manufacturers and importers choosing the exceedance fee provision must submit an annual report by March 1 following the calendar year in which the coatings for which the fee provision is used are manufactured or imported. Manufacturers and importers choosing the tonnage exemption must submit an annual report by March 1 of the year following the calendar year in which the exemption was claimed. 14 TABLE 3. AGENCY BURDEN FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS RULE A B C D E F Reports EPA Hours Per Occurrence Occurrences Per Year Person Hours Per Year ( Technical)

C = A x B Person Hours Per Year ( Management)

D = C x 0.05 Person Hours Per Year ( Clerical)

E = C x 0.1 Total Cost Per Yeara Initial Reportb 1.0 5 5 0.3 0.5 $ 299 Annual Report:

Manufacture of Recycled Coatings  Mass Balancec 1.0 12.5 12.5 0.6 1.3 $ 739 Annual Report:

Manufacture of Recycled Coatings  Formulationc 0.5 12.5 6.3 0.3 0.6 $ 370 Date Code Reportsb 0.5 5 2.5 0.1 0.3 $ 148 Date Code Updatesd 0.5 50 25 1.3 2.5 $ 1,481 Annual Report:

Exceedance Feee 4.0 120 480 24 48 $ 28,368 Annual Report:

Tonnage Exemptionf 2.0 100 200 10 20 $ 11,820 Maintenance of implementation database 60 1 60 3 6 $ 3,546 Totals 306 791.3 39.6 179.2 $ 46,771 a Total cost per year = ( column C)($ 52/ hr) + ( column D)($ 74/ hr) + ( column E)($ 34/ hr).

b Total number of manufacturers is estimated to be 500; 1 percent or 5 new respondents per year are assumed.

c Assumed 25 recycled coating manufacturers; assumed half use mass balance option and half use formulation option.

d Assumed 10 percent of all manufacturers update some date codes each year. ( 500 manufacturers)( 0.10) =

50 manufacturers.

e Assumed 120 manufacturers will pay fees on some coatings ( see footnote f in table 2).

f Assumed 100 manufacturers will use tonnage exemption option. 15 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden estimates for reporting,

recordkeeping, and labeling requirements are presented in table 2 for all manufacturers. These numbers were derived from estimates based on the EPA's experience with other standards and from information obtained from the industry representatives listed in table 1. Because this is a renewal of an existing ICR, these estimates represent the average annual burden that will be incurred by the affected industry in the 3 year period beginning February 1, 2002. The hours shown in column A of table 2 are the burden estimate per manufacturer.

( b) Estimating Respondent Cost Table 2 also presents the estimated costs for the required recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling activities. Labor rates,

on a per hour basis, are based on those posted on the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) web site ( http:// www. bls. gov/ news. release)

in May 2001 on Table 2 of the BLS Employment Cost Trends. The total compensation rates were increased by 100 percent for overhead, resulting in the following labor rates: $ 34 for clerical personnel, $ 52 for technical personnel, and $ 74 for management personnel. There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs required by this collection.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as a part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program and is not attributable to this ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are costs associated with the review of reported information, as presented in table 3. Labor rates and associated costs are based on the same estimated industry hourly rates as follows: management at $ 74, technical at $ 52, and clerical at $ 34. 16 ( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The respondent universe consists of 500 architectural coating manufacturers. Of these, 75 are considered large manufacturers and 425 are considered small manufacturers. Due to importers' small market presence ( less than 1 percent of total coating sales volume in 1990) and the lack of detailed product data on imported coatings, importers have not been included in this burden estimate.

The annual respondent burden will vary depending on the actual compliance choices that are made by the manufacturer or importer. Specifically, the burden will vary depending on whether the recycled coating, exceedance fee, or tonnage exemption provisions are chosen.

In order to estimate the industry burden, assumptions were made about the number of manufacturers that would choose each of the optional provisions ( see appropriate footnotes in table 2).

Other assumptions were that the number of new respondents submitting the one time Initial Notification Report and date code explanations will be 1 percent of the total respondent universe of 500, or about 5 per year.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables ( i) Respondent tally. The bottom line industry burden hours and costs, presented in table 2, are calculated by summing the total hours per year column ( column E) and by summing the total cost per year column ( column F). The annual burden and cost to the industry averaged over the 3 year period beginning February 1, 2002, is 23,411 hours and $ 1,425,382.

The average annual base reporting, recordkeeping, and labeling burden per manufacturer for this information collection request is 47 hours ( 23,411 hours/ 500 manufacturers = 47 hours per manufacturer). The actual burden for each manufacturer will vary depending on the compliance choices that they make.

Manufacturers that meet all of the mandatory requirements and do not select any of the optional requirements will have an annual 17 reporting, recordkeeping, and labeling burden of approximately 15 hours ( 7,406 hours/ 500 manufacturers = 15 hours per manufacturer).

Manufacturers that choose the recycled coating provision will have an annual reporting, recordkeeping, and labeling burden of approximately 136 hours [ 3,025 hours/ 25 manufacturers =

121 hours per manufacturer; 15 hours + 121 hours = 136 hours per manufacturer]. Manufacturers that choose the exceedance fee provision will have an annual reporting, recordkeeping, and labeling burden of approximately 100 hours [ 10,180 hours/ 120 manufacturers = 85 hours per manufacturer; 85 hours + 15 hours =

100 hours per manufacturer]. Manufacturers that choose the tonnage exemption will have an annual reporting, recordkeeping,

and labeling burden of approximately 43 hours [ 2,800 hours/ 100 manufacturers = 28 hours per manufacturer; 28 hours + 15 hours =

43 hours per manufacturer].

The total per manufacturer reporting, recordkeeping, and labeling burden is the lowest for manufacturers that meet the VOC content limits, and would be higher for those that choose the optional tonnage exemption, exceedance fee provision, or recycled coating provision.

( ii) Agency tally. The bottom line Agency burden and cost,

presented in table 3 is calculated in the same manner as the industry burden and cost. The estimated annual burden and cost averaged over the 3 year period beginning February 1, 2002, are 1,010 hours and $ 46,771.

( iii) The complex collection. This ICR is a simple collection; therefore this section does not apply.

( iv) Variations in the annual bottom line. No significant variations in the annual respondent burden or cost are expected over the 3 year period beginning on February 1, 2002. 18 ( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This renewal of a continuing ICR includes the following onetime burden and cost items: reading instructions, the initial report, the explanation of date codes, planning activities, and calculating VOC content. To develop the estimates of annual average burden, these one time activities were averaged over 3 years, beginning after the rule has been effective for more than 2 years. Therefore, the EPA assumes that the vast majority of one time initial reports already will have been submitted by February 2002 and only new notifications will be submitted during the period covered by this ICR renewal. The assumptions used as a basis for the burden calculations more fully explain this concept ( see footnotes in table 2).

( g) Burden Statement The total reporting and recordkeeping burden for this information collection averaged over the 3 year period beginning on February 1, 2002, is estimated to be 23,411 hours per year.

The total annualized recordkeeping and reporting costs for this rule are estimated to be $ 1,425,382. This is the estimated burden for the estimated 500 respondents ( i. e., architectural coating manufacturers).

The average estimated burden, per respondent, is 47 hours per year. The total reporting and recordkeeping burden for an individual respondent will vary depending on the compliance option( s) chosen. Respondents meeting the VOC content limits will have the lowest reporting and recordkeeping burden.

Manufacturers and importers that choose the option of calculating an adjusted VOC content for recycled coatings, paying an exceedance fee, or exercising the tonnage exemption will have a higher reporting and recordkeeping burden. The final rule requires an initial one time notification from each respondent.

Respondents whose coating products have a VOC content that is less than or equal to the VOC content limits have no periodic requirements. Respondents using the recycled coatings provision must keep records and submit annual reports. Respondents taking 19 advantage of the tonnage exemption must file an annual report and must maintain records for the coatings being claimed under the exemption. Respondents paying an exceedance fee must keep records for each coating product on which fees are paid and submit an annual report.

Burden in this context means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,

retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to: ( 1) review instructions; ( 2) develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information, and disclosing and providing information; ( 3) adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; ( 4)

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; ( 5) search data sources; ( 6) complete and review the collection of information; and ( 7) transmit or otherwise disclose the information. A 1 Attachment 1 Source Data and Information Requirements Requirement Regulation Reference LABELING

Date of Manufacture 59.405( a)( 1)

Recommendation for thinning 59.405( a)( 2)

VOC content 59.405( a)( 3)

In addition, for each industrial maintenance coating:

One of the following statements of use 59.405( b)

For industrial use only.

For professional use only.

Not for residential use. or Not intended for residential use. or,

This coating is intended for use under the following condition( s): ( Include each condition that applies to the coating.)

Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions ( aqueous and nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure of interior surfaces to moisture condensation;

Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, or to chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical mixtures or solutions;

Repeated exposure to temperatures above 120 oC ( 250 oF);

Repeated ( frequent) heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear and repeated ( frequent) scrubbing with industrial solvents, cleansers, or scouring agents; or,

Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural components In addition, for each coating using the optional recycled coating credit: Attachment 1 ( continued)

Requirement Regulation Reference A 2

The statement " Contains not less than X percent by volume post consumer coating." Where " X" is replaced with the percent, by volume, of postconsumer coating 59.405( c)

RECORDKEEPING For each coating for which the optional recycled coating credit is applied:

Minimum volume percent post consumer coating content 59.407( a)( 1)

Volume of post consumer coating received for recycling 59.407( a)( 2)

Volume of post consumer coating received that was unusable 59.407( a)( 3)

Volume of virgin materials 59.407( a)( 4)

Volume of final recycled coating 59.407( a)( 5)

Calculation of adjusted VOC content 59.407( a)( 6)

For each manufacturer and importer using the optional exceedance fee provision:

A list of the coatings and the associated coating categories in table 1 of the regulation for which the exceedance fee is used 59.407( b)( 1)

Calculation of the annual fee for each coating and the total annual fee for all coatings 59.407( b)( 2)

The VOC content of each coating 59.407( b)( 3)

The excess VOC content of each coating 59.407( b)( 4)

The total volume manufactured or imported per period for each coating 59.407( b)( 5)

The annual fee for each coating 59.407( b)( 6)

The total annual fee for all coatings 59.407( b)( 7)

For each manufacturer or importer using the optional tonnage exemption: Attachment 1 ( continued)

Requirement Regulation Reference A 3

A list of all coatings and the associated coating categories in table 1 of the regulation for which the tonnage exemption is claimed 59.407( c)( 1)

The VOC content of each coating for which the exemption is claimed 59.407( c)( 2)

The annual sales for each coating for which the exemption is claimed 59.407( c)( 3)

The megagrams of VOC contained in each coating for which the exemption is claimed, and for all coatings combined for which the exemption is claimed, for the time period the exemption is claimed 59.407( c)( 4)

REPORTS Initial report for all manufacturers and importers:

Name and mailing address of the manufacturer or importer 59.408( b)( 1)

The street address of each one of the manufacturer's or importer's facilities in the U. S. producing, packaging, or repackaging any architectural coating subject to this subpart. 59.408( b)( 2)

List of categories of coatings in table 1 of the regulation for which the manufacturer's or importer's coatings meet the definition 59.408( b)( 3)

Explanation of date code, if applicable 59.408( b)( 4)

Annual report for coatings for which the optional recycled coating credit is applied:

Minimum post consumer content of coatings 59.408( c)( 1)

Volume of post consumer coating received for recycling 59.408( c)( 2)

Volume of post consumer coating received that was unusable 59.408( c)( 3)

Volume of virgin materials used 59.408( c)( 4)

Volume of recycled coating manufactured or imported 59.408( c)( 5) Attachment 1 ( continued)

Requirement Regulation Reference A 4 Annual report for manufacturers and importers using the optional exceedance fee:

Name and address 59.408( d)( 1)

A list of all coatings and the associated coating categories for which the exceedance fee is being used 59.408( d)( 2)

VOC content of each coating that exceeds the applicable VOC content limit in table 1 of the regulation 59.408( d)( 3)

Excess VOC content of each coating product for which a fee is paid 59.408( d)( 4)

Total annual volume of all coatings for which a fee is paid 59.408( d)( 5)

The annual fee for each coating 59.408( d)( 6)

The total annual fee for all coatings 59.408( d)( 7)

Annual report for manufacturers and importers using the optional tonnage exemption:

A list of all coatings and the associated coating categories in table 1 of the regulation for which the tonnage exemption was claimed 59.408( e)( 1)

The VOC content of each coating for which the exemption was claimed 59.408( e)( 2)

The actual sales for each coating for which the exemption was claimed 59.408( e)( 3)

The total megagrams of VOC contained in all the coatings for which the exemption was claimed 59.408( e)( 4)