[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48627-48628]
[DOCID:fr11au10-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA R03-OAR-2009-0606; FRL-9186-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Administrative and Non-Substantive Changes to Existing
Delaware SIP Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Delaware consisting of
administrative and non-substantive changes to the Delaware air
pollution control regulations which EPA has previously approved as part
of the Delaware State Implementation Plan (SIP). In the Final Rules
section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP
submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in
the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response
to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by September 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0606 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0606, Harold A. Frankford, Air Protection
Division, Mailcode 3AP00, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0606. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your
e-mail 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 electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401,
Dover, Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

    Dated: July 26, 2010.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-19572 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Supporting Statement for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile
Refinish Coatings

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of Information Collection.

	Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings.  The
information collection request (ICR) number is 1765.04.  The OMB
control number is 2060-0353.  This is a renewal ICR.

2(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract.

	All manufacturers and importers of coatings and coating components
subject to this rule must submit an initial report.  The initial report
must include the name and mailing address of the manufacturer or
importer.  The rule requires that containers of all subject automobile
refinish coatings and coating components display the date of manufacture
or a code indicating the date of manufacture.  All manufacturers and
importers of subject coatings and coating components must submit an
explanation of all date codes used on automobile refinish coating and
coating component containers.  Date code explanations can be submitted
with the initial report.  Thereafter, respondents must submit
explanations of any new date codes within 30 days of their first use.

	The information collection includes initial and periodic reporting
necessary for the EPA to ensure compliance with the promulgated federal
rule for automobile refinish coatings.  The rule will be enforced
through random sampling of coatings to determine VOC content.
Respondents are manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish
coatings and coating components.

.

	This ICR was approved for three years on June 14, 2000.  At that time
OMB encouraged the Agency to evaluate the estimate of the number of
respondents, taking into account Agency experience with this program,
before resubmission.  Several Regional Offices (who implement the rule)
were contacted regarding the history of responses.  The information they
provided confirmed the accuracy of the current estimates.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection.

	The EPA is required under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act)
to regulate VOC emissions from the use of consumer and commercial
products.  Pursuant to Section 183(e)(3), the EPA published a list of
consumer and commercial products and a schedule for their regulation (60
FR 15264).  Automobile refinish coatings were included in Group 1 of the
list.  The standards for such coatings were promulgated on September 11,
1998 (63 FR 48806) and are codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart B.

	The reports required under the rule enable the EPA to identify all
coating and coating component manufacturers and importers in the United
States, and to determine which coatings and coating components are
subject to the rule based on dates of manufacture.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data.

	Agency enforcement personnel will use the information collected
to identify

manufacturers and importers subject to the rule and to determine which
coatings and coating components are subject to the rule by dates of
manufacture.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	3(a)  Nonduplication.

	The information collected pursuant to the rule is not collected by any
other Federal agency.  Several States regulate automobile refinish
coatings and require certain recordkeeping and reporting activities.
These State rules generally affect body shops; the proposed federal rule
affects coating and coating component manufacturers and importers.
There is much more recordkeeping associated with the State rules because
of the large number of body shops in the country.  The federal rule
affects approximately 30 manufacturers and importers, and contains
reporting requirements different from those of the State rules.

	3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB.

	Notice of this ICR appeared in the Federal Register on January 25, 2007
(72 FR 3387).  The notice contained a 60-day public comment period,
which ended on March 26, 2007.  The EPA received no comments.

3(c)  Consultations.

	Input and information was received from the affected industry and
State and local governments during the development of the rule, some of
whom are listed in table 3.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that manufacturers are continuing to meet the standards.  This
ICR includes one-time initial reports.  After the initial report, the
only reports required are those explaining any new date codes.  To
determine whether a coating is subject to the rule, explanations of date
codes are necessary.

	3(e)  General Guidelines.

	This ICR adheres to the guidelines for Federal data requestors, as
provided at 5 CFR 1320.6.

	3(f)  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 36092, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999,
September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674,
March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions.

	None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes.

	Respondents to this information collection are manufacturers and
importers of automobile refinish coatings and coating components.
Manufacturers of automobile refinish coatings and coating components
fall within standard industrial classification (SIC) 2851, "Paints,
Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products" and North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325510, “Paint and Coating
Manufacturing.”  Importers of automobile refinish coatings and coating
components fall within SIC 5198, "Wholesale Trade:  Paints, Varnishes,
and Supplies," NAICS code 422950, “Paint, Varnish and Supplies
Wholesalers,” and NAICS code 444120, “Paint and Wallpaper Stores.”

4(b)  Information Requested.

		(i)  Data items.

The reporting requirements of the rule are listed below.

		Reports					Regulation Reference

		Initial report						59.426(a)

		Explanation of date codes				59.426(a)

		(ii)  Respondent Activities.

The respondent activities required are listed in the first column of
table 1.

5.  The Information Collected--Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management.

5(a)  Agency Activities.

	A list of activities required of the EPA is provided in table 2.

	5(b)  Collection Methodology and Managements

	The information collected under this rule will not warrant being
maintained on a computerized database since the reports are so few in
number.  Also, since the reported information is simple and
straightforward, no standardized reporting forms will be developed.

	5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility.

	Since the reporting requirements of the rule are minimal, no
alternative reporting requirements are instituted for small entities.

	5(d)  Collection Schedule.

	All subject manufacturers and importers must submit to the EPA an
explanation of all date codes displayed on containers of automobile
refinish coatings and coating components within 30 days of first use,
or within 180 days of becoming subject to the rule, whichever is later.
 All manufacturers and importers of subject coatings and coating
components must submit an initial report within 180 days of becoming
subject to the rule.

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden.

	The average annual burden estimates for reporting requirements are
presented in table 1 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 3.  These estimates represent the average annual burden that will
be incurred by the affected industry over a 3-year period.  The hours
shown in column A of table 1 are the burden estimate per manufacturer.

	6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs.

		(i)  Estimating Labor Costs.

	Table 1 also presents estimated costs for the required reporting
activities.  Labor rates and associated overhead costs are based on
hourly rates of $92 for management personnel, $63 for technical
personnel, and $40 for clerical personnel.  These rates were estimated
using a June 2003 civilian wage table from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, multiplied by 110% to account for benefits and overhead.

		(ii)  Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs.

There are no capital or operations and maintenance costs associated with
these reporting activities.

	6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

	Because reporting requirements on the part of respondents are required
under section 112 of the Act, no operational costs will be incurred by
the Federal government.  The only costs that the Federal government will
incur are costs associated with the review of reported information, as
presented in table 2.  Hourly labor rates are estimated at $93 for
management personnel, $67 for technical personnel, and $32 for clerical
personnel.  These rates were determined by multiplying the hourly rates
from the 2003 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables (tenth step) for
GS-15 (management), GS-13 (technical), and GS-7 (clerical),  by a factor
of 1.6 to account for benefits and overhead.

6(d)  Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs

	The EPA estimates that there are approximately 30 automobile refinish
coating and coating component manufacturers and importers.  Two
requirements in the rule create a burden on respondents: submitting an
initial report, and submitting an explanation of date codes used on
coating and coating component containers.  The EPA estimates that one
new coating or coating component manufacturer or importer will become
affected by the rule each year.  A new regulated entity must submit an
initial report and provide an explanation of any dates codes that are
used to indicate the manufacture date of its products.  The EPA also
estimates that 10 percent (3) of the existing regulated entities will
change their date coding system each year and will have to submit an
explanation of the new system.

	6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs/Master Tables.

		(i)  Respondent Tally.

The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs, presented in table 1,
are calculated by summing the person-hours column and by summing the
cost column.  The annual burden and cost averaged over 3 years is 14
hours and $940.

		(ii)  The Agency Tally.

The bottom line Agency burden and cost, presented in table 2 is
calculated in the same manner as the respondent burden and cost.  The
estimated annual burden and cost averaged over 3 years is 4 hours and
$226.

		(iii)  Variations in the annual bottom line.

This ICR includes reading the rule, the initial report, and date code
explanations as one-time burden and cost items.  To develop the
estimates of annual average burden, these one-time activities were
averaged over 3 years.  The only other activity is reporting of any new
date code explanations.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden.

	There are no changes to the burden estimates we used this ICR request
in the form in the number of respondents.  The previous renewal ICR
overestimated the number of respondents.

6(g)  Burden Statement.

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 3.5 hours per response
per year.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0120, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the
public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be
used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system,
select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0120 and OMB Control Number
2060-0353 in any correspondence.

	Table 1.  AVERAGE ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING OVER
THREE YEARS

	A	B	C

D	E	F

Burden Item

Person Hours

Per Occurrence

(hrs/man.)

Number of

Occurrences

Per Respondent

Per Year

Person Hours

Per Respondent

Per Year (a)

(C=AxB)

Dollars

Per Hour

(a)

Respondents

Per Year (b)

Total Hours

Per Year

(E=CxD)

Total Cost

Per Year (c)

1. Applications	Not Applicable

2. Surveys and Studies	Not Applicable

3. Reporting Requirements

	     A. Read Instructions	2	1	2	63	1	2	$126

     B. Gather Existing Information	Included in 3.C

     C. Write Report

	          Initial Report	2	1	2	92	1	2   (d)	$184

          Date Code Explanation	4	1	4	63	1	4   (d)	$252

          Update Date Codes	2	1	2	63	3	6   (e)	$378

4. Recordkeeping Requirements	Not Applicable

5. Labeling (f)	Not Applicable

Total

14	$940

a All tasks are assumed to be performed by a technical person ($63/hr)
unless otherwise noted.

b Total number of manufacturers was estimated to be 30.

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

d This assumes there is one new regulated entity every year.

e Assumed that 10% of manufacturers will update their codes each year.

f Although the rule requires the date (or code) to appear on the label,
such labeling is already performed.

Table 2.  AGENCY BURDEN AND COSTS

	A	B	C	D	E	F

Reports	EPA Hours Per

Occurrence	Occurrences

Per Year	Person Hours

Per Year

(Technicall)

C=AxB	Person Hours

Per Year

(Management)

D=Cx0.05	Person Hours

Per Year

(Clericall)

E=Cx0.1	Total Cost

Per Year (a)

Initial Report	1	1	1	0.05	.1	$75

Date Code Report	0.5	1	0.5	0.03	0.05	$38

Date Code Updates	0.5	3	1.5	0.08	0.15	$113

Total

	3	0.16	0.3	$226

a Labor rates: technical, $67/hr; management, $93/hr; clerical, $32/hr.

Table 3.  Consultations

Industry Representatives							Phone

Robert Carragher, Automotive Service Industry Association<PHONE_NUMBER>

Gregory Ocampo, Sherwin-Williams<PHONE_NUMBER>

Robert Redding, Automotive Service Association<PHONE_NUMBER>

Jim Sell, National Paint and Coatings Association<PHONE_NUMBER>

State Representatives

Stan Cowen, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District<PHONE_NUMBER>

Eddie Mack, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission<PHONE_NUMBER>

Dave Nordberg, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality<PHONE_NUMBER>

Ed Wong, California Air Resources Board<PHONE_NUMBER>

  PAGE   1

  PAGE   2

  PAGE

  PAGE

  PAGE   3

  PAGE   4

  PAGE   7

  PAGE   9


[Federal Register: July 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 41215-41216]
[DOCID:fr20jy06-39]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0136; FRL-8200-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Information Collection Request
for the NPDES Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, EPA ICR No.
1989.04, OMB Control No. 2040-0250

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its
estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 21,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OW-2006-0136, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code
4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Bonnelycke, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On March 7, 2006 (71 FR 11407-11411), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one set of comments
on the draft ICR. EPA's response to those comments is reflected in the
ICR supporting statement. Any additional comments on this ICR should be
submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0136, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
comments in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives

them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Information Collection Request for the NPDES Regulation and
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations.
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1989.04, OMB Control No. 2040-0250.

    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with
the NPDES and ELG regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs). These regulations regulate land application of
manure, litter and wastewater generated at CAFO facilities. The rule
requires all facilities defined as a CAFO to apply for a NPDES permit.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average less
than 18 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are owners and operators of Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 24,080
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,500,000 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $78,660,000 includes $440,000 for
capital investment and $8,680,000 for O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The burden estimate has increased due to
growth in the industry and trends towards consolidation into larger
facilities. As a result calculations were revised to accommodate this.

    Dated: July 12, 2006.
Sara Hisel McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E6-11528 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10685-10686]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 206

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0009]
RIN 1660-AA81

Amendment to the Public Assistance Program's Simplified
Procedures Project Thresholds

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is revising two
dollar figures in its regulations governing the Public Assistance
Program's project thresholds. FEMA is revising the monetary thresholds
for when FEMA will process an application using ``simplified
procedures.''

DATES: This rule is effective February 26, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza Davis, Associate Chief Counsel,
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA's Public Assistance program provides
grants to State, Tribal, and local governments, as well as eligible
private nonprofit organizations, for debris removal, emergency
protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of
disaster-damaged facilities after a Presidentially-declared major
disaster.\1\ Each grant award is categorized as either a large or small
project, which is determined by a monetary threshold set each year by
FEMA pursuant to statute.\2\ The maximum threshold for FY2014 is
$68,500; \3\ all projects below this amount are categorized as small
projects, and all projects at or above this amount are categorized as
large projects. In addition, each project must meet a minimum threshold
of $1,000.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Public Assistance program is authorized by the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, 5173, 5192.
    \2\ See 42 U.S.C. 5189; 44 CFR 206.203(c), 206.205. FEMA
obligates money for a small project based on an estimate of the
project cost; FEMA obligates money for a large project based on
actual project costs as the project progresses and cost
documentation is provided to FEMA. See 44 CFR 206.203(c); Public
Assistance Guide, FEMA 322 (June 2007), Chapter 3, ``Applying for
Public Assistance,'' ``Project Formulation'' available at http://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit/public-assistance-guide-3.
    \3\ See 78 FR 64232 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    \4\ 44 CFR 206.202(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA) \5\ required FEMA
to analyze the Public Assistance project thresholds and, within one
year of SRIA's passage, to submit a report to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the
Senate with its findings.\6\ On January 29, 2014, FEMA submitted this
report to Congress, and a copy is included in the docket for this rule
on www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2014-0009.\7\ In the
report, FEMA recommends a maximum threshold of $120,000, and a minimum
threshold of $3,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public Law 113-2, section 1107, codified in relevant part at
42 U.S.C. 5189.
    \6\ See 42 U.S.C. 5189(b)(1).
    \7\ A copy of the report is also available at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/90458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SRIA requires FEMA to implement the new thresholds ``immediately''
following submission of the report to the Congress and ``without regard
to chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.'' \8\ Accordingly, this
action updates FEMA's Public Assistance regulations with the new
thresholds, which will both be adjusted annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the
Department of Labor.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 42 U.S.C. 5189(b)(2)(A).
    \9\ See 5 U.S.C. 5189(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA will be publishing a notice in the Federal Register in the
near future to seek public comment on the report for the purpose of
informing future revisions to the thresholds. SRIA requires FEMA to
review the thresholds every three years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 42 U.S.C. 5189(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrative Procedure Act

    Generally, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires a
Federal agency to provide the public with notice and the opportunity to
comment on agency rulemakings.\11\ Section 1107 of SRIA, however,
directs FEMA to ``immediately establish a threshold for eligibility
under this section in an appropriate amount, without regard to [5
U.S.C. chapter 5].'' Accordingly, this action is not covered by the
APA's requirements related to notice-and-comment rulemaking, and FEMA
is immediately establishing the new threshold for eligibility in the
Code of Federal Regulations. By implementing the new thresholds via a
final rule, FEMA meets the requirement of SRIA to implement the new
thresholds ``immediately'' and without the delay of a proposed rule and
public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 5 U.S.C. 553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The action is limited to updating two dollar figures related to
FEMA's procedures for handling certain grants (the minimum and maximum
thresholds for PA projects) and adding the annual update requirement
for the minimum threshold to reflect changes in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FEMA's current regulations require only a periodic review
of the minimum threshold. See 44 CFR 206.202(d)(2). Section 1107 of
SRIA, however, requires an annual update based on the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons discussed above, FEMA is implementing this
change without the 30-day delayed effective date usually required under
section 553(d)(3) of the APA, as such a delay would be contrary to
section 1107's requirement to implement the thresholds ``immediately.''

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

    Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Community
facilities, Disaster assistance, Fire prevention, Grant programs-
housing and community development, Housing, Insurance,
Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs-housing and community
development, Natural resources, Penalties, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Emergency

Management Agency amends 44 CFR part 206 as follows:

PART 206--FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 through 5207; Homeland Security Act
of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation 9001.1; sec. 1105, Pub. L. 113-2, 127 Stat. 43 (42 U.S.C.
5189a note).

0
2. In Sec.  206.202, in paragraph (d)(2), remove ``$1,000'' and add in
its place ``$3,000'' and revise the second sentence to read as follows:

Sec.  206.202  Application procedures.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * * Such $3,000 amount shall be adjusted annually to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published
by the Department of Labor.
* * * * *

Sec.  206.203  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  206.203, in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), remove the number
``$35,000'' and add, in its place, the number ``$120,000'' wherever it
appears.

    Dated: February 20, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-04220 Filed 2-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4057-4058]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2839-015]

Village of Lyndonville Electric Department; Notice of Comment
Period Extension

    On December 17, 2018, Commission staff issued notice that the
Village of Lyndonville Electric Department's license application for
the Great Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2839 was ready for
environmental analysis. The notice established a deadline of February
15, 2019 for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions. The notice
also established a deadline of April 1, 2019 for filing reply comments.
Due to the funding lapse at certain

federal agencies between December 22, 2018 and January 25, 2019, the
Commission is extending the initial filing deadline to March 22, 2019
and the deadline for reply comments to May 6, 2019.

    Dated: February 8, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02339 Filed 2-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74780-74781]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30873]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14320-000; 14323-000]

FFP Project 105 LLC; Hugo Lake Hydro LLC; Notice of Competing
Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On November 10, 2011, FFP Project 105 LLC (FFP 105), and on
November 16, 2011, Hugo Lake Hydro LLC (HL Hydro) filed preliminary
permit applications, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Hugo Lake Dam, located on the Kiamichi
River in Choctaw County, Oklahoma. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    FFP 105's Project No. 14320-000 would consist of: (1) A 70-foot-
wide, 140-foot-long approach channel; (2) a 110-foot-long, 40-foot-high
intake structure with trashracks and two slide gates; (3) a 9-foot-
diameter, 100-foot-long steel penstock; (4) a powerhouse, located on
the south side of the dam, containing one generating unit with a total
capacity of 8.0 megawatts (MW); (5) a 100-foot-long, 40-foot-wide
tailrace; (6) a 4.16/69 KV substation; and (7) a 2.75-mile-long, 69
kilo-Volt (kV) transmission line. The proposed project would have an
average annual generation of 20.0 GWh, and operate run-of-river
utilizing surplus water from the Hugo Lake Dam, as directed by the
Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corp.,
239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    HL Hydro's Project No. 14323-000 would consist of: (1) A
bifurcation structure; (2) a 16-foot-diameter, 165-foot-long steel
penstock; (3) a powerhouse, located on the south side of the dam,
containing one generating unit with a total capacity of 8.6 MW; (4) a
tailrace; and (5) a 2.8-mile-long, 25 kV transmission line. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 21.8 GWh,
and operate run-of-river utilizing surplus water from

the Hugo Lake Dam, as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Vincent Lamarra, Symbiotics LLC, 975 South
State Highway 89/91, Logan, UT 84321.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14320-000, P- or P-14323-000) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: November 23, 2011.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30873 Filed 11-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 40737]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16317]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0181 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0427; FRL-9392-3]

Issuance of Two Experimental Use Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted experimental use permits (EUPs) to the
following pesticide applicants: Stephen L. Dobson (University of
Kentucky) and Phyllom, LLC. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for
experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the
limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanaz Bacchus (88877-EUP-1),
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
    Jeannine Kausch (88347-EUP-1), Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    These actions are directed to the public in general. Although these
actions may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by these
actions.

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

    The docket for these actions, identified by docket identification
(ID) numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0181 (88877-EUP-1) and EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-
0427 (88347-EUP-1) are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West
Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions
and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. EUPs

    EPA has issued the following EUPs:
    1. 88877-EUP-1. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0181). Issuance. Stephen L.
Dobson, University of Kentucky, Department of Entomology, S-225 Ag.
Science Center North, Lexington, KY 40546-0091. This EUP allows the
release of 30,000 mosquitoes per week for 26 weeks from approximately
52 grams of Wolbachia pipientis infected Aedes polynesiensis mosquito
eggs (containing approximately 0.52 mg Wolbachia pipientis microbial
active ingredient used as an insecticide on approximately 97 acres to
evaluate the suppression of the native Aedes polynesiensis). One of the
sites will be a control site. The program is authorized only in the
United States Territory of Samoa. The EUP is effective from June 15,
2012 to June 20, 2013. Four comments were received in response to the
May 8, 2012, notice of receipt in the Federal Register, 77 FR 27054,
FRL-9342-8. The Agency's and applicant's responses to these comments
are included in this docket (Ref. 1 and 2). References: 1. U.S. EPA
BPPD memorandum (S. Bacchus through K. Nesci to K. Matthews), May 20,
2013; 2. Robert I. Rose, email to S. Bacchus (U.S. EPA BPPD).
University of Kentucky's response to Oxitec's comment. June 19, 2012.
    2. 88347-EUP-1. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0427). Issuance. Phyllom, LLC, 922
San Leandro Ave., Suite F, Mountain View, CA 94043. This EUP allows the
use of 2,448 pounds of the insecticide, Bacillus thuringiensis
subspecies galleriae strain SDS-502 fermentation solids, spores, and
insecticidal toxins, on 1,400 acres of forested areas to evaluate the
control of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). The program is
authorized only in the States of Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin. The EUP is effective from May 8, 2013 to August 31, 2014.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136c.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: June 27, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-16317 Filed 7-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

	OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDE

	AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

	Date:	5 November 2008

	SUBJECT:	Common Triazole Metabolites:  Updated Aggregate Human Health
Risk Assessment to Address Tolerance Petitions for Metconazole,
Propiconazole, Prothioconazole, and Tetraconazole.

PC Codes:  	600074 (1,2,4-Triazole),

		600011 (Triazolylalanine),

		600082 (Triazolylacetic Acid),

		625618 (Triazolylpyruvic Acid)	DP Barcode:  355016

MRID No.:  None	Registration No.:  None

Petition Nos.:  7F7221, 7F7292, 08FL03, 7F7300, 7F7279, 7F7273
Regulatory Action:  Section 3, Section 18

Assessment Type:  Single Chemical, Aggregate	Registration Case No.:
None

TXR No.:  None	CAS No.:  Multiple

	From:	Michael A. Doherty, Ph.D., Senior Chemist

		Registration Action Branch 2

		Health Effects Division (HED) 7509P

	Through:	Christina Swartz, Branch Chief

		Registration Action Branch 2, HED

	To:	Paula Deschamp, Branch Chief

		Registration Action Branch 3, HED

		Dana Vogel, Branch Chief

		Registration Action Branch 1, HED

		Barbara Madden, PM

		RIMUERB

		Registration Division (RD) 7505P

		Cynthia Giles-Parker, Branch Chief

		Fungicide Branch, RD

I.	 CONCLUSIONS

Based on conservative, health-protective assumptions, aggregate risk
estimates associated with 1,2,4-triazole (T) and the conjugated triazole
metabolites [i.e., combined residues of triazolylalanine (TA),
triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP)] are below
HED’s level of concern.  There are no human heath risk issues for
these metabolites that would preclude the requested uses of metconazole,
propiconazole, prothioconazole, and tetraconazole.

II.	ACTION REQUESTED

Update the aggregate human health risk assessments for T and the
conjugated triazole metabolites to account for Section 3 (new use) and
Section 18 (emergency exemption) requests for various
triazole-derivative fungicides.

III.	BACKGROUND

In 2006, HED issued aggregate human health risk assessments for T and
the conjugated triazole metabolites (M. Doherty, et al., D322215, 7 FEB
06).  Those assessments addressed a back-log of triazole use requests
that had been held by the Agency pending resolution of various
toxicological and exposure concerns for the common triazole metabolites.
 The findings of that assessment were that risk estimates for all
exposure scenarios were below HED’s level of concern.  Since that
time, a number of requests for new uses of triazole-derivative
fungicides have been submitted to the Agency.  As a result of these
requests, new dietary exposure estimates have been made for T and
combined residues of TA, TAA, and TP, and new aggregate exposure and
risk estimates are necessary.  Neither the toxicological information nor
the non-dietary exposure estimates detailed in the 2006 memorandum have
changed; thus the only alterations to the previous aggregate exposure
and risk estimates are due to changes in the dietary exposure estimates.
 For complete hazard characterization and non-dietary exposure
assessments for the common triazole metabolites, see the 2006 risk
assessment.

IV.	RESULTS/DISCUSSION

As noted above, the only revisions to the components of the previous
aggregate exposure and risk estimates are to the dietary exposure
estimates.  For the common triazole metabolites, acute and chronic
aggregate risks consist only of dietary (food + water) components and,
therefore, are equivalent to the dietary risk estimates provided in the
most recent dietary exposure assessment (Table 1, M. Doherty, D350664, 6
October 2008).

The revised aggregate estimates are summarized below for short- and
intermediate-term scenarios for T (Tables 2 and 3, respectively).  The
conjugated triazole metabolites are formed in plants by the conjugation
of 1,2,4-T to serine.  The TA may then be further metabolized to form
TAA and/or TP.  Because of the nature of this process, HED has assumed
that it occurs within the plant itself and not on leaf surfaces.
Therefore, the residues are not available for dermal, hand-to-mouth, or
object-to-mouth exposures and HED has not conducted a residential
exposure assessment for the triazole conjugates.  Residues of TA, TAA,
and TP may occur in soil.  1,2,4-Triazole is more toxic than TA/TAA/TP
and exposures to these via soil ingestion are unlikely to exceed those
of 1,2,4-T.  The assessment for soil ingestion of 1,2,4-T shows that
risk estimates are below HED’s level of concern; therefore, risk
estimates for soil ingestion of the conjugates will also be below
HED’s level of concern.

Table 1.  Summary of Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk
for the Common Triazole Metabolites

Population Subgroup	Acute Dietary

(95th Percentile)	Chronic Dietary	Cancer

	Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD*	Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)	% cPAD*	Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)	Risk

1,2,4-Triazole

General U.S. Population	0.004598	15	0.001013	20	Not Applicable	Not
Applicable

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.010834	36	0.001937	39

Children 1-2 years old	0.009229	31	0.002684	54

Children 3-5 years old	0.007354	25	0.002163	43

Children 6-12 years old	0.004944	16	0.001370	27

Youth 13-19 years old	0.003471	12	0.000827	17

Adults 20-49 years old	0.003623	12	0.000828	17

Adults 50+ years old	0.003200	11	0.000798	16

Females 13-49 years old	0.003573	12	0.000824	17

Triazolylalanine + Triazolylacetic Acid + Triazolylpyruvic Acid

General U.S. Population	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	0.011966	13	Not
Applicable	Not Applicable

All Infants (< 1 year old)

	0.017582	20

Children 1-2 years old

	0.035536	40

Children 3-5 years old

	0.027356	30

Children 6-12 years old

	0.016523	18

Youth 13-19 years old

	0.010162	11

Adults 20-49 years old

	0.009594	11

Adults 50+ years old

	0.008931	10

Females 13-49 years old	0.034040	34	0.009535	11

* The values for the highest exposed population for each type of risk
assessment are bolded.

Table 2.  Short-term Aggregate Exposure and Risk Estimates for
1,2,4-Triazole.

Population Subgroup	Exposure Estimate, mg/kg/day1	Aggregate MOE2

	Dietary	Dermal

(M/L/A)	Dermal (Post-Applic.)	Hand-to-Mouth	Object-to-Mouth	Soil
Ingestion	Aggregate

	U.S. Population (total)	0.001013	0.00183	0.0051	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.007943
3700

All infants (< 1 year)	0.001937	N/A	0.0086	0.0041	0.0010	0.000019
0.015656	1900

Children 1-2 yrs	0.002684	N/A	0.0086	0.0041	0.0010	0.000019	0.016403
1800

Children 3-5 yrs	0.002163	N/A	0.0086	0.0041	0.0010	0.000019	0.015882
1800

Children 6-12 yrs	0.001370	N/A	0.0086	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.009970	3000

Youth 13-19 yrs	0.000827	0.00183	0.0051	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.007757	3800

Adults 20-49 yrs	0.000828	0.00183	0.0051	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.007758	3800

Adults 50+ yrs	0.000798	0.00183	0.0051	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.007728	3800

Females 13-49 yrs	0.000824	0.00183	0.0051	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.007754	3800

1 Exposure estimates for dermal, hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and
soil ingestion are from J. Arthur, DP 322240, 12/9/05.

2 Aggregate MOE = NOAEL (30 mg/kg/day) ÷ Aggregate Exposure Estimate
(mg/kg/day).  Level of Concern = 1000.

Table 3.  Intermediate-term Aggregate Exposure and Risk Estimates for
1,2,4-Triazole.

Population Subgroup	Exposure Estimate, mg/kg/day	Aggregate MOE2

	Dietary	Soil Ingestion1	Aggregate

	U.S. Population (total)	0.001013	N/A	0.001013	14000

All infants (< 1 year)	0.001937	0.000019	0.001956	7600

Children 1-2 yrs	0.002684	0.000019	0.002703	5500

Children 3-5 yrs	0.002163	0.000019	0.002182	6800

Children 6-12 yrs	0.001370	N/A	0.00137	10000

Youth 13-19 yrs	0.000827	N/A	0.000827	18000

Adults 20-49 yrs	0.000828	N/A	0.000828	18000

Adults 50+ yrs	0.000798	N/A	0.000798	18000

Females 13-49 yrs	0.000824	N/A	0.000824	18000

1 Soil ingestion estimates are from J. Arthur, DP 322240, 12/9/05

2 Aggregate MOE = NOAEL (15 mg/kg/day) ÷ Aggregate Exposure Estimate
(mg/kg/day).  Level of Concern = 3000.

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  4


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Semiconductor Manufacturing Final Rule, Response to Comments

FROM:	John Schaefer

Environmental Engineer

OAQPS/SPPD/MPG

TO:		Docket

DATE:	June 06, 2008

Background

The final rule for semiconductor manufacturing was published in the
Federal Register on May 22, 2003, at 68 FR 27913.  After promulgation of
the NESHAP, it was brought to our attention that while the NESHAP
established separate emission standards for organic and inorganic HAP
from process vents, one plant had a different process vent system.
Specifically this plant combined inorganic and organic vent streams into
a single atmospheric process vent.  At the time we developed the MACT
standard, we were not aware of any sources that combined their inorganic
and organic vent streams.

Rather during the development phase of the rule, we determined that
since 1980 industry practice had been to strictly separate process vent
emissions into streams containing either organic or inorganic HAPs. In
order to address the combined process vent streams, on October 19, 2006,
we proposed amending the final rule by establishing emission standards
for existing and new combined process vent streams.  For the limited
number of existing combined process vents, we proposed no control. For
new and reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we proposed the same
requirements that currently apply to new inorganic HAP process vents and
new organic HAP process vents.

Subsequently, the D.C. Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 03-1202
(D.C. Cir., March 13, 2007), found that EPA’s decision to set no
control emission floors for source categories where the best performing
sources did not use emission control technology was in direct
contravention of Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3).  Therefore, a
supplemental proposal package was developed to bring the proposed rule
amendments into compliance with the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision.
The supplemental proposal packaged was published in the Federal Register
at These amendments were proposed on April 2, 2008 and added an emission
limitation of 14.22 ppmv HAP for new and existing combined HAP process
vents to bring the final rule into compliance with the D.C. Circuit
Court Decision.

We received one comment on the October 19, 2006 proposal and two
comments on the April 2, 2008 proposal.  All three comments were
supportive of the proposed changes.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 TABLE 1.  List of Commenters on the Proposed
Amendments to the National Emission Standards For hazardous Air
Pollutants: Semiconductor Manufacturing

Comment

Number

Docket Item Number

Commenter and Affiliation	Date of Letter

1	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/do
cketDetail.jsp" \l "#" \o "EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0009"
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0009 	Gregory A. Smith, Eastman Kodak Company
12/05/2006

2	Not Assigned

	Roy W. Wood, Eastman Kodak Company	04/29/2006

3	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/do
cketDetail.jsp" \l "#" \o "EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0009"
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-00 16 	Anonymous Commenter, Unaffiliated with an
organization	05/02/2006

Response to Comments

	We received 2 comments from Kodak Semiconductor that were supportive of
the proposed changes.  Both comments were supportive of the propose
changes and supported EPA position that combined HAP process vents are
technically different from segregated organic and inorganic HAP process
vent streams at modern semiconductor manufacturing fabs.  A third
comment from an anonymous commenter was also supportive of the proposed
changes.  A summary of the comments is presented below, due to the
similarity of all of the comments received, it is only necessary to
summarize the main points from Kodak comment letter submitted on
04/29/2006.

A.  Development of a Separate MACT Floor

	Comment:  One commenter (Commenter 3) expressed support for the
development of a separate MACT floor level of control for combined HAP
process vents contained in the April 2, 2008 proposal.  The commenter
stated, “This action appropriately recognizes that a limited number of
process vents at older, existing facilities have unique emission
characteristics that warrant distinction from the process vents used to
establish the original MACT floor.”  The commenter gave a description
of the typical construction of a modern semiconductor facility
indicating that clean rooms are situated on a single floor with
semiconductor manufacturing tools arranged in cells of similar tools
(e.g. web benches, furnaces, etc. are grouped together).  The commenter
stated that these features and other features in a modern semiconductor
facility make the segregation and treatment of concentrated organic and
inorganic HAP emission streams feasible.  However, segregating emission
streams into their organic and inorganic constituents was near
infeasible for some older facilities, such as the one described by the
commenter, where tools are located on three separate floors, and are not
grouped together in cells according to tool function and type.  Due to
these reasons the commenter indicated strong support for EPA’s
development of a separate MACT floor for combined HAP process vents.

	Response:  We agree with the commenter that the proposed changes to the
standard are necessary to account for the limited number of older
facilities that do not segregate their emissions due to facility design
limitations.  Today’s rule reflects our conclusion that a separate
MACT floor for these facilities is appropriate.  Therefore, as stated
earlier we are promulgating definitions that clarify the applicability
of the existing NESHAP and an emissions limitation of 14.22 ppmv for new
and existing combined HAP process vents.

B.  Technical Factors affecting control cost and efficacy for Combined
HAP process vents

Comment:   One commenter (Commenter 3) expressed support for EPA’s
determination that combined HAP process vent streams that contain
inorganic and organic HAP and added process heat are more costly and
difficult to control than segregated process vent streams.  The
commenter stated, “The commingling of process ventilation containing
heat, organic HAP, and inorganic HAP present a unique set of conditions
that negatively affect control efficacy and cost efficiency.”   The
commenter said they concur with the EPA that a combined HAP process vent
stream needs a much larger and more expensive scrubber than a similar
inorganic process vent at a more modern facility.  The commenter also
said they agree EPA’s observation that added process heat affects wet
scrubber efficiency that must be mitigated through scale or thermal
conditioning.  The commenter stated that these, “technical factors
provide a compellingly basis for the new MACT floor determination.”

Response:  We agree with the commenter that the technical differences
between combined HAP process vents at older semiconductor facilities and
segregated HAP process vent streams found at more modern facilities
provide a sound technical basis for the development of a separate floor
for combined HAP process vents.  In our original proposal on October 19,
2006 we stated that we would have developed a separate floor for
combined HAP process vents had we been aware of their existence at the
time.   Therefore, we are promulgating the combined HAP process vent
control requirements as proposed in the October 19, 2006 and April 2,
2008 amendments.APPENDIX A: COMMENT LETTERS

Commenter: Gregory A. Smith, Eastman Kodak Company

Date: 12/04/06

Docket Number:	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/do
cketDetail.jsp" \l "#" \o "EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0009"
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0009

Re:	Eastman Kodak Company Comments on National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing; Proposed Rule
(October 19, 2006), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086

Dear Sir:

Eastman Kodak Company manufactures imaging sensors at a relatively small
semiconductor fabrication facility (fab) in Rochester, New York.  We
have reviewed the amendment to the NESHAP for Semiconductor
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart BBBBB) proposed by EPA on October
19th of this year, and are pleased to submit the following comments.

	Kodak strongly supports EPA’s development of a MACT floor level of
control for combined HAP process vents.  This action appropriately
recognizes that a limited number of process vents at older, existing
facilities have unique emission characteristics that warrant distinction
from the process vents used to establish the original MACT floor.

Modern fabs are typically (and unsurprisingly) built for their intended
manufacturing purpose using a common set of basic design principles.
Cleanrooms are typically situated on a single floor of a fab, with air
handling and support equipment located on the floors above and below the
cleanrooms, respectively.  Similarly, semiconductor manufacturing tools
such as furnaces, wet benches, etc. are typically arranged in cells of
like tools.  These and other design features facilitate the segregation
and treatment of concentrated organic and inorganic HAP emissions in a
manner consistent with EPA’s original MACT floor analysis.  EPA states
in the preamble to the proposed amendments that these design principles
have been common practice in the industry since the early 1980s, but
notes that at least one older facility in current operation reflects an
earlier design philosophy in which organic and inorganic HAP are
routinely combined in process vents that are also used for the removal
of excess process heat.

Kodak’s fab, which is located in a five-story building addition
constructed more than twenty-five years ago for microelectronics
research, exhibits the earlier design philosophy described by EPA.
Process vent emission characteristics in this facility are primarily a
legacy function of the original facility design, since the existing
layout and infrastructure limit the practical options available for
equipment placement and ventilation service. Cleanroom space, for
example, is situated on three different floors of the addition, and
tools with similar emission characteristics are scattered throughout the
fab.  As a result, organic and inorganic process HAP emissions are
captured by multiple exhaust drops proximate to the various unit
operations, and combined in the main ductwork of the multistory
ventilation systems.  These exhaust drops are also frequently used to
collect and dissipate process heat.

We believe that EPA properly concluded in the proposed amendment that
combined HAP emissions from older existing semiconductor manufacturing
plants - such as the facility operated by Kodak - belong in a distinct
category of process vent emissions subject to a unique MACT floor
determination.  The commingling of process ventilation containing heat,
organic HAP, and inorganic HAP present a unique set of conditions that
negatively affect control efficacy and cost efficiency.  Commingling is
inherently dilutive, and EPA correctly notes the impairment of wet
scrubber organic HAP removal efficiency at low pollutant concentration.
We concur with the Agency’s conclusion that “a combined HAP vent
stream needs a much larger and more expensive scrubber to control a
combined HAP process vent than a similar inorganic process vent at a
more modern facility.” We also support the Agency’s observation that
added process heat affects wet scrubber partitioning efficiency and must
be mitigated through scale or thermal conditioning.  These factors
provide a compelling basis for the new MACT floor determination.

We note in consideration of scope of impact that EPA’s approach to
this necessary revision is appropriately limited, since the amended rule
would not change the organic and inorganic HAP emission limits
applicable to combined HAP process vents at new and reconstructed
sources, wherein segregation and abatement of concentrated HAP emissions
can be feasibly managed by utilizing modern design principles.

In summary, Kodak believes that the proposed amendments to Subpart BBBBB
are justified and well reasoned, and should be carried forward to
promulgation.

 Sincerely,

Gregory A. Smith

Environmental Engineer

Eastman Kodak Company

1669 Lake Avenue

Rochester, NY  14652-4543

(585) 722-3126

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Commenter:  Roy W. Wood, Eastman Kodak Company

Date:  05/20/2008

Docket Number:	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/do
cketDetail.jsp" \l "#" \o "EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0009"  Submitted
Directly to John Schaefer, not received by the Docket during the comment
period.

Re:	Eastman Kodak Company Comments on National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing; Proposed Rule
(April 2, 2008), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086

Dear Sir:

Eastman Kodak Company manufactures imaging sensors at a relatively small
semiconductor fabrication facility (fab) in Rochester, New York.  We
have reviewed the amendment to the NESHAP for Semiconductor
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart BBBBB) proposed by EPA on April 2
of this year, and are pleased to submit the following comments.

Kodak strongly supports EPA’s development of a separate MACT floor for
combined HAP process vents.  The proposed standards in this April 2,
2008 proposal will properly control emissions from these three different
types of sources when promulgated in combination with the previously
proposed 63.7195 definitions for inorganic HAP Process Vent, Organic HAP
Process Vent and Combined HAP Process Vent (71FR61701, October 19,
2006).  This action appropriately recognizes that a limited number of
process vents at older, existing facilities have unique emission
characteristics that warrant distinction from the process vents used to
establish the original MACT floor.

Modern fabs are typically (and unsurprisingly) built for their intended
manufacturing purpose using a common set of basic design principles.
Cleanrooms are typically situated on a single floor of a fab, with air
handling and support equipment located on the floors above and below the
cleanrooms, respectively.  Similarly, semiconductor manufacturing tools
such as furnaces, wet benches, etc. are typically arranged in cells of
like tools.  These and other design features facilitate the segregation
and treatment of concentrated organic and inorganic HAP emissions in a
manner consistent with EPA’s original MACT floor analysis.  EPA states
in the preamble to the proposed amendments that these design principles
have been common practice in the industry since the early 1980s, but
notes that at least one older facility in current operation reflects an
earlier design philosophy in which organic and inorganic HAP are
routinely combined in process vents that are also used for the removal
of excess process heat.

Kodak’s older fab has issues that are similar to those described by
EPA for older facilities.  It is located in a five-story building
addition constructed more than twenty-five years ago for
microelectronics research.  The existing layout and infrastructure limit
the practical options available for equipment placement and ventilation
service. Cleanroom space is situated on three different floors of the
addition, and tools with similar emission characteristics are scattered
throughout the fab.  As a result, organic and inorganic process HAP
emissions are captured by multiple exhaust drops proximate to the
various unit operations, and combined in the main ductwork of the
multistory ventilation systems.  These exhaust drops are also frequently
used to collect and dissipate process heat.

We believe that EPA properly concluded in the proposed amendment that
combined HAP emissions from older existing semiconductor manufacturing
plants - such as the facility operated by Kodak - belong in a distinct
category of process vent emissions subject to a unique MACT floor
determination.  The commingling of process ventilation containing heat,
organic HAP, and inorganic HAP present a unique set of conditions that
negatively affect control efficacy and cost efficiency.  Commingling is
inherently dilutive, and EPA correctly notes the impairment of wet
scrubber organic HAP removal efficiency at low pollutant concentration.
We concur with the Agency’s conclusion that “a combined HAP vent
stream needs a much larger and more expensive scrubber to control a
combined HAP process vent than a similar inorganic process vent at a
more modern facility.”  We also support the Agency’s observation
that added process heat affects wet scrubber partitioning efficiency
that must be mitigated through scale or thermal conditioning.  These
factors provide a compellingly basis for the new MACT floor
determination.

In addition , older fabs are typically smaller than more modern fabs, so
the emissions are correspondingly smaller.  Because of its small size,
Kodak’s fab is located within a building that is otherwise devoted to
research activities.  Most research activities are not even covered by
MACT regulations because of their small size and relatively
insignificant emissions.  Kodak’s semiconductor manufacturing
emissions are less than one ton per year.

EPA’s approach to this necessary revision is appropriately limited,
since the amended rule would not change the organic and inorganic HAP
emission limits applicable to combined HAP process vents at new and
reconstructed sources where segregation and abatement of concentrated
HAP emissions can be feasibly managed by utilizing modern design
principles.

In summary, Kodak believes that the proposed amendments to Subpart BBBBB
are justified and well reasoned, and should be carried forward to
promulgation.

Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,

Roy W. Wood

Health Safety and Environment

Eastman Kodak Company

1669 Lake Avenue

Rochester, NY  14652-4543

(585) 588-7538

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Commenter: Anonymous Commenter, Unaffiliated with an organization

Date: 05/02/2008

Docket Number:	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/do
cketDetail.jsp" \l "#" \o "EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0009"
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0016

I think that adding this amendment is a great idea. It is important to
maintain

maximum control of our emissions. These policies are not unrealistic to

manufacturers. It is important to keep our environment clean, and the
emissions

we produce can do great amounts of damage.


[Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11403-11405]
[DOCID:fr13mr07-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17j-1, SEC File No. 270-239, OMB Control No. 3235-0224.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Conflicts of interest between investment company personnel (such as
portfolio managers) and their funds can arise when these persons buy
and sell securities for their own accounts (``personal investment
activities''). These conflicts arise because fund personnel have the
opportunity to profit from information about fund transactions, often
to the detriment of fund investors. Beginning in the early 1960s,
Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
sought to devise a regulatory scheme to effectively address these
potential conflicts. These efforts culminated in the addition of
section 17(j) to the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Investment
Company Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(j)) in 1970 and the adoption by the
Commission of rule 17j-1 (17 CFR 270.17j-1) in 1980.\1\ The Commission
proposed amendments to rule 17j-1 in 1995 in response to
recommendations made in the first detailed study of fund policies
concerning personal investment activities by the Commission's Division
of Investment Management since rule 17j-1 was adopted. Amendments to
rule 17j-1, which were adopted in 1999, enhanced fund oversight of
personal investment activities and the board's role in carrying out
that oversight.\2\ Additional amendments to rule 17j-1 were made in
2004, conforming rule 17j-1 to rule 204A-1 under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b), avoiding duplicative reporting,
and modifying certain definitions and time restrictions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Prevention of Certain Unlawful Activities with Respect to
Registered Investment Companies, Investment Company Act Release No.
11421 (Oct. 31, 1980) (45 FR 73915 (Nov. 7, 1980)).
    \2\ Personal Investment Activities of Investment Company
Personnel, Investment Company Act Release No. 23958 (Aug. 20, 1999)
(64 FR 46821-01 (Aug. 27, 1999)).
    \3\ Investment Adviser Codes of Ethics, Investment Advisers Act
Release No. 2256 (Jul. 2, 2004) (66 FR 41696 (Jul. 9, 2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(j) makes it unlawful for persons affiliated with a
registered investment company(``fund'') or with the fund's investment
adviser or principal underwriter (each a ``17j-1 organization''), in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities held or to be
acquired by the investment company, to engage in any fraudulent,
deceptive, or manipulative act or practice in contravention of the
Commission's rules and regulations. Section 17(j) also authorizes the
Commission to promulgate rules requiring 17j-1 organizations to adopt
codes of ethics.
    In order to implement section 17(j), rule 17j-1 imposes certain
requirements on 17j-1 organizations and ``Access Persons'' \4\ of those
organizations. The

rule prohibits fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative acts by persons
affiliated with a 17j-1 organization in connection with their personal
securities transactions in securities held or to be acquired by the
fund. The rule requires each 17j-1 organization, unless it is a money
market fund or a fund that does not invest in Covered Securities,\5\
to: (i) Adopt a written codes of ethics, (ii) submit the code and any
material changes to the code, along with a certification that it has
adopted procedures reasonably necessary to prevent Access Persons from
violating the code of ethics, to the fund board for approval, (iii) use
reasonable diligence and institute procedures reasonably necessary to
prevent violations of the code, (iv) submit a written report to the
fund describing any issues arising under the code and procedures and
certifying that the 17j-1 entity has adopted procedures reasonably
necessary to prevent Access Persons from violating the code, (v)
identify Access Persons and notify them of their reporting obligations,
and (vi) maintain and make available to the Commission for review
certain records related to the code of ethics and transaction reporting
by Access Persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 17j-1(a)(1) defines an ``access person'' as ``Any
advisory person of a Fund or of a Fund's investment adviser. If an
investment adviser's primary business is advising Funds or other
advisory clients, all of the investment adviser's directors,
officers, and general partners are presumed to be Access Persons of
any Fund advised by the investment adviser. All of a Fund's
directors, officers, and general partners are presumed to be Access
Persons of the Fund.'' The definition of Access Person also includes
``Any director, officer or general partner of a principal
underwriter who, in the ordinary course of business, makes,
participates in or obtains information regarding, the purchase or
sale of Covered Securities by the Fund for which the principal
underwriter acts, or whose functions or duties in the ordinary
course of business relate to the making of any recommendation to the
Fund regarding the purchase or sale of Covered Securities.'' Rule
17j-1(a)(1).
    \5\ A ``Covered Security'' is any security that falls within the
definition in section 2(a)(36) of the Act, except for direct
obligations of the U.S. Government, bankers' acceptances, bank
certificates of deposit, commercial paper and high quality short-
term debt instruments, including repurchase agreements, and shares
issued by open-end funds. Rule 17j-1(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule requires each Access Person of a fund (other than a money
market fund or a fund that does not invest in Covered Securities) and
of an investment adviser or principal underwriter of the fund, who is
not subject to an exception,\6\ to file: (i) Within 10 days of becoming
an Access Person, a dated initial holdings report that sets forth
certain information with respect to the access person's securities and
accounts; (ii) dated quarterly transaction reports within 30 days of
the end of each calendar quarter providing certain information with
respect to any securities transactions during the quarter and any
account established by the Access Person in which any securities were
held during the quarter; and (iii) dated annual holding reports
providing information with respect to each Covered Security the Access
Person beneficially owns and accounts in which securities are held for
his or her benefit. In addition, rule 17j-1 requires investment
personnel of a fund or its investment adviser, before acquiring
beneficial ownership in securities through an initial public offering
(IPO) or in a private placement, to obtain approval from the fund or
the fund's investment adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 17j-1(d)(2) contains the following exceptions: (i) An
Access Person need not file a report for transactions effected for,
and securities held in, any account over which the Access Person
does not have control; (ii) an independent director of the fund, who
would otherwise not need to report and who does not have information
with respect to the fund's transactions in a particular security,
does not have to file an initial holdings report or a quarterly
transaction report; (iii) an Access Person of a principal
underwriter of the fund does not have to file reports if the
principal underwriter is not affiliated with the fund (unless the
fund is a unit investment trust) or any investment adviser of the
fund and the principal underwriter of the fund does not have any
officer, director, or general partner who serves in one of those
capacities for the fund or any investment adviser of the fund; (iv)
an Access Person to an investment adviser need not make quarterly
reports if the report would duplicate information provided under the
reporting provisions of the Investment Adviser's Act; and (v) an
Access Person need not make quarterly transaction reports if the
information provided in the report would duplicate information
received by the 17j-1 organization in the form of broker trade
confirmations or account statements or information otherwise in the
records of the 17j-1 organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements that the management of a rule 17j-1 organization
provide the fund's board with new and amended codes of ethics and an
annual issues and certification report are intended to enhance board
oversight of personal investment policies applicable to the fund and
the personal investment activities of Access Persons. The requirements
that Access Persons provide initial holdings reports, quarterly
transaction reports, and annual holdings reports and request approval
for purchases of securities through IPOs and private placements are
intended to help fund compliance personnel and the Commission's
examinations staff monitor potential conflicts of interest and detect
potentially abusive activities. The requirement that each rule 17j-1
organization maintain certain records is intended to assist the
organization and the Commission's examinations staff in determining if
there have been violations of rule 17j-1.
    We estimate that annually there are approximately 75,363
respondents under rule 17j-1, of which 5,363 are rule 17j-1
organizations and 70,000 are Access Persons. In the aggregate, these
respondents make approximately 113,970 responses annually. We estimate
that the total annual burden of complying with the information
collection requirements in rule 17j-1 is approximately 169,950 hours.
This hour burden represents time spent by Access Persons that must file
initial and annual holdings reports and quarterly transaction reports,
investment personnel that must obtain approval before acquiring
beneficial ownership in any securities through an IPO or private
placement, and the responsibilities of Rule 17j-1 organizations arising
from information collection requirements under rule 17j-1. These
include notifying Access Persons of their reporting obligations,
preparing an annual rule 17j-1 report and certification for the board,
documenting their approval or rejection of IPO and private placement
requests, maintaining annual rule 17j-1 records, maintaining electronic
reporting and recordkeeping systems, amending their codes of ethics as
necessary, and, for new fund complexes, adopting a code of ethics.
    In addition, we estimate that there is an additional annual cost
burden of approximately $2,000 per fund complex, for a total of
$1,100,000, associated with complying with the information collection
requirements in rule 17j-1, aside from the cost of the burden hours
discussed above.\7\ This represents the costs of purchasing and
maintaining computers and software to assist funds in carrying out rule
17j-1 recordkeeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The cost burden associated with filing of new and amended
codes of ethics on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering,
Analysis, and Retrieval system (EDGAR) is included in the Paperwork
Reduction Act estimates for the relevant forms to which these codes
must be appended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These burden hour and cost estimates are based upon the Commission
staff's experience and discussions with the fund industry. The
estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not
derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study
of the costs of Commission rules.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use

of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions
submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia, 22312;
or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 5, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4458 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P