representative to a new firm. FINRA believes the recruiting firm that
is paying representatives recruitment compensation in amounts that meet
the proposed thresholds is in the best position to provide the required
disclosures. FINRA encouraged members in its Report on Conflicts of
Interest to enhance their supervision of representative's activity
around the time of compensation thresholds; \161\ however, the primary
focus of the proposed rule change is to provide retail investors with
important cost information and transparency of conflicts related to the
decision whether to transfer assets to a representative's new firm.
FINRA also notes that the proposed rule change would require disclosure
of recruitment compensation paid by non-member affiliates to the extent
those amounts, when combined with any recruitment compensation paid by
the recruiting member, exceed the $100,000 thresholds for each category
of recruitment compensation. The proposed rule change would apply to
recruitment compensation paid to any registered person; however, FINRA
notes that investment bankers and other types of registered persons not
involved in retail sales are unlikely to have retail customers whose
assets might be induced to transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Report on Conflicts of Interest, FINRA, October 2013,
available at, http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA believes the more specific disclosure that would be
required under the proposed rule change will appreciably benefit retail
customers more than a general pamphlet that sets out considerations
without providing the actual information related to those
considerations. FINRA will continue to evaluate alternatives based on
the comments received on the revised proposal.
Implementation and Requests To Delay Rulemaking
    Some commenters expressed concerns regarding the implementation of
the proposal. Five commenters noted that due to the nature of some
enhanced compensation arrangements (e.g., deferred incentives or
modifications to a package) it will be difficult to calculate dollar
amounts at the time of transfer.\162\ Two commenters requested guidance
on how recruitment

compensation should be calculated and disclosed, by group or
individual, where bonuses are given to a group of brokers and
assistants who move to a new firm together.\163\ One commenter
requested that FINRA allow adequate time for implementation.\164\
Another commenter suggested limiting the application of the rule to
those hired after the rule goes into effect.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Ameriprise, NAIFA, Summit-B, Sutherland, Taylor English.
    \163\ Cetera, LaBastille.
    \164\ Advisor Group.
    \165\ Gehring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that it would be prudent for FINRA to
assemble a working group to collect qualitative information related to
the use of recruitment compensation in the industry to make a well-
informed decision about how best to proceed in order to achieve its
intended goals.\166\ One commenter noted that the proposal should
consider FINRA's proposal in Regulatory Notice 10-54 (Disclosure of
Services, Conflicts and Duties) and Section 919 of the Dodd-Frank
Act,\167\ which grants permissive authority to the SEC to engage in
rulemaking with respect to compensation practices, because a
comprehensive review of the required disclosure regime for broker-
dealers would result in a more thoughtful, consistent and effective set
of disclosures that would be most likely to benefit investors.\168\
Another commenter suggested that FINRA integrate the proposal with the
pre-engagement disclosures contemplated in Regulatory Notice 10-
54.\169\ Two commenters recommended that FINRA delay further regulatory
action until the conflicts initiative is completed.\170\ Finally, one
commenter noted that FINRA should do a global conflicts assessment not
limited to this isolated and singular conflict.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ FSI.
    \167\ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \168\ Sutherland.
    \169\ FSI.
    \170\ Advisor Group, FSI.
    \171\ Janney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that members are in a position to calculate
recruitment compensation for purposes of the proposed disclosure
requirement at the time a representative or the member attempts to
induce a former customer of the representative to transfer assets to
the representatives' new firm. FINRA notes that the representative will
already be associated with or employed by the member, so all
compensation arrangements between the representative and the member
should be clear and agreed to by all parties. The proposed rule change
also provides guidance with respect to calculating recruitment
compensation and total compensation for the purpose of the proposed
disclosure and reporting requirements, respectively: members must
assume that all performance-based conditions on the representative's
compensation are met, may make reasonable assumptions about the
anticipated gross revenue to which an increased payout percentage will
be applied and may net out any increased costs incurred directly by the
registered person in connection with transferring to the member. With
respect to a transfer of a group, or team, of representatives and
staff, FINRA believes that members can make a reasonable determination
regarding the application of recruitment compensation to each
individual that transferred to the firm to make the required
disclosures. FINRA will consider further guidance regarding application
of the proposed rule change as issues arise.
    FINRA understands the commenters' suggestions to delay rulemaking
and incorporate the proposed rule change into other ongoing efforts
related to conflicts of interest. However, FINRA believes that the
proposed rule change should move forward at this time, as it is
narrowly focused on a retail investor's important decision whether to
transfer assets to a new firm, rather than conflicts associated with
compensation practices more broadly. FINRA believes that former
customers should begin receiving the proposed disclosures as soon as
practicable so that they are fully informed before making a decision to
transfer assets to a representative's new firm. FINRA will consider how
the proposed rule change fits within the larger scheme of conflicts of
interest regulations as the timetables on such other proposals
progress. In addition, FINRA will establish a reasonable implementation
period for the proposed rule change to provide members with sufficient
time to update their internal systems and policies.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2014-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-010. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-010 and should be submitted
on or before April 18, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06895 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1873-1880]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00473]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304; FRL-9920-85]
RIN 2070-AK02

Lead-Based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific
Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher
Training Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing minor revisions to the Lead Renovation,
Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register
on April 22, 2008, and the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule that
published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1996. The proposed
revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these
programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA, and by clarifying
language for training providers, while retaining the protections
provided by the original rules. EPA is proposing to eliminate the
requirement that the renovator refresher training have a hands-on
component. The Agency is also proposing to remove jurisdiction-specific
certification and accreditation requirements under the LBP Activities
program. Currently, this program requires that training providers,
firms and individuals seek certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a
State) where the organization or person wants to work. In addition, EPA
is adding clarifying language to the requirements for training
providers under both the RRP and LBP Activities programs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 566-0758; 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. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a
training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you
are a firm or individual who must be certified to conduct lead-based
paint activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you are an
individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. This proposed rule applies only in
States, territories, and tribal areas that do not have authorized
programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding
the authorization status of States, territories, and Tribes, contact
the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD [5323].
    The following list of North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-
family housing construction, multi-family housing construction,
residential remodelers.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g.,
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors,
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
     Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
     Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110),
e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.
     Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519),
e.g., training providers.
     Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building
inspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling
technicians.
     Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g.,
firms and supervisors engaged in lead-based paint activities.
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    This proposed rule is being issued under the authority of sections
402(a) and 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15
U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing minor revisions to the RRP rule that published in
the Federal Register on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 1) and the Lead-based
Paint Activities rule that published in the Federal Register on August
29, 1996 (Ref. 2). EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement that
the renovator refresher training have a hands-on component. The Agency
is also proposing to remove jurisdictions under the LBP Activities
program. Currently, this program requires that training providers,
firms and individuals seek certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a
State) where the organization or person wants to work. In addition, EPA
is adding clarifying language to the requirements for training
providers under both the RRP and LBP Activities programs.

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day
function of these programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA
and by clarifying language for training providers, while retaining the
benefits of the original rules.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and impacts
associated with this proposed rule. This analysis is summarized in
greater detail in the discussion concerning Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563 in Unit V.A. The following is a brief outline of
the estimated incremental impacts of this proposed rule.
     Overall costs. The annualized cost savings of this
proposed rule are estimated at approximately $9.6 million per year
using a 3% discount rate and $9.8 million per year using a 7% discount
rate.
     Small entity impacts. The proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for affected small
entities, and would not have a direct negative impact on any small
entities.
     Effects on State, local, and Tribal governments. This
proposed rule would not have a significant intergovernmental mandate,
significant or unique effects on small governments, or have Federalism
implications.

F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was
widespread among American children, affecting, at that time, as many as
3,000,000 children under age 6; that the ingestion of household dust
containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the
most common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health
and development of children living in as many as 3,800,000 American
homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead paint, or excessive
amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes. Congress further
determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was
insufficient and enacted Title X of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Title X) (Ref. 3). Title X established
a national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing as
expeditiously as possible and provided a leadership role for the
federal government in building the infrastructure necessary to achieve
this goal.
    Title X amended TSCA to add a new subchapter entitled ``Title IV--
Lead Exposure Reduction.'' Most of EPA's responsibilities for
addressing lead-based paint hazards can be found in this title, with
TSCA section 402 being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry
out these responsibilities. Section 402(a) of TSCA directs EPA to
promulgate regulations covering lead-based paint activities to ensure
persons performing these activities are properly trained, that training
programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these
activities are certified. Regulations promulgated under TSCA section
402(a) must contain standards for performing lead-based paint
activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety.
On August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA
section 402(a) that govern lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard
screens, risk assessments, and abatements in target housing and child-
occupied facilities (also referred to as the LBP Activities
regulations) (Ref. 2). The LBP Activities rule, codified at 40 CFR part
745, subpart L, contained an accreditation program for training
providers and training, and certification and work practice
requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project
designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. Pursuant to
TSCA section 404, provisions were made for interested States,
territories, and Tribes to apply for and receive authorization to
administer their own LBP Activities programs. Requirements applicable
to State, territorial, and tribal programs are codified in 40 CFR part
745, subpart Q.
    Section 402(c) of TSCA pertains to renovation and remodeling
activities. Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA requires EPA to revise the
regulations issued under TSCA section 402(a) to apply to renovation or
remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. On April
22, 2008, EPA issued a final regulation applying a revised version of

the LBP Activities rule requirements to renovation, repair, and
painting activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities
(Ref. 1). Pursuant to the RRP rule, persons performing covered
renovation activities must be properly trained, renovators and
renovation firms must be certified, and training providers must be
accredited (Ref. 1). The requirements of the RRP rule became effective
in stages with the entire rule becoming effective as of April 22, 2010.

III. Proposed Revisions

A. Hands-on Training

    To become certified as a renovator, a person must successfully
complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or by a State,
territorial, or tribal program authorized by EPA. To gain initial
certification, renovators must complete an 8-hour training course.
Until October 4, 2011, renovators that successfully completed an EPA,
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or EPA/HUD model
renovation training course were able to take the 4-hour refresher
renovator training in lieu of the 8-hour initial course. Both of these
courses require hands-on training. Trainings are taught either in a
classroom or via electronic learning (e-learning). In an e-learning
course, students take the lecture portion of the course over the
Internet and then travel to a training facility to perform the hands-on
activities and take the exam. To maintain certification, renovators
must complete a renovator refresher course within 5 years of the date
the individual completed their previous renovator training. Renovators
who received their initial certification before April 22, 2010,
however, have until July 1, 2015, to take the refresher training to
maintain certification. If the renovator does not complete the course
within the required timeframe, the individual must retake the initial
8-hour course to become certified again.
    The 8-hour initial training includes hands-on training in testing
for lead in paint, methods for minimizing the creation of dust and
lead-based paint hazards, interior and exterior containment and cleanup
methods, and cleaning verification. Activities covered include the use
of EPA-recognized test kits, setting up barriers, covering furniture,
ducts, and carpeted floors with plastic, mopping floors, bagging waste,
and determining that the work area has been adequately cleaned. Each
student performs these activities in front of an instructor who
determines if the student is proficient in each one. Students must be
deemed proficient in order to pass the class and become certified. The
current version of the renovator refresher course includes hands-on
training in testing paint for lead and cleaning verification.
    At the time the RRP rule became effective it was important to have
hands-on training in the refresher course because certain renovators
were eligible to take only the refresher course to receive their
initial certification (i.e., renovators who completed a prerequisite
training). After October 4, 2011, however, renovators could no longer
take the refresher course to gain initial certification even if they
were previously eligible to take the refresher course in lieu of the
initial course. From that date forward, all renovators taking the
refresher course will already have received hands-on training as part
of their initial renovator certification (i.e., an initial or refresher
course). Now that renovators will take the refresher course only after
being initially certified in a way that includes hands-on training, EPA
believes it is less important for the refresher course to include
hands-on training. In addition, renovators that are seeking
recertification have been practicing the hands-on skills on renovation
jobs during their 5-year certification. Furthermore, due to the less
technical nature of work practices taught in the renovator course
versus those taught in the abatement course, EPA believes performing
hands-on activities once is sufficient to teach renovators the skills
they need to perform renovations following the RRP rule work practices.
    In addition, by eliminating this requirement, renovators seeking
recertification will be able to take the course entirely online without
having to travel to a training location to perform the hands-on
activities. This change will make it easier for renovators to take the
refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training
facility. Renovators will save time and travel costs by taking the
course from a single location, possibly their own home. If taking the
training is made easier, EPA believes that more renovators will take
the refresher training and become recertified. Having more renovators
take the refresher training will lead to a higher number of certified
renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations
in a lead-safe manner. For these reasons, EPA believes it is
appropriate to eliminate the hands-on training in the renovator
refresher course. The Agency requests comment on eliminating the
requirement to include hands-on training in the renovator refresher
course.
    While the Agency believes that the hands-on requirement in the
renovator refresher course is no longer necessary, it has not ruled out
having hands-on activities that are performed via e-learning instead of
in person. This would allow instructors to assess the student's skills
without having the student travel to a classroom. EPA requests comment
on how the hands-on portion of the refresher course could be performed
by the student and assessed by the instructor via e-learning.
    Another option for maintaining the hands-on requirement in the
renovator refresher course is to modify it to make it less burdensome
for trainers and students. For example, the requirement could be
changed so the hands-on portion of the course is only required every
other time a renovator gets recertified instead of every 5 years. Under
this scenario, the renovator would only have to take the hands-on
training once every 10 years. The Agency requests comment on possible
alternative approaches to conducting the hands-on skills to make the
training less burdensome.
    The Agency does not intend to eliminate the hands-on activities in
the refresher courses for the other lead-based paint program
disciplines: Risk assessor, inspector, supervisor, abatement worker and
dust sampling technician. The work performed by these disciplines
involves highly specialized skills which individuals must learn in
training courses accredited by EPA or authorized States, territories,
and Tribes. For example, a significant portion of an abatement worker's
training is focused on abatement techniques and selection of the
appropriate course of action for a variety of hazards. Renovators, on
the other hand, do not seek to permanently eliminate lead hazards;
instead they perform maintenance and improvement tasks as directed by
the consumer. Thus, the goal of EPA's renovator training and
certification program is not to update the methodology a renovator uses
to accomplish these tasks (i.e., how to be painters, plumbers, or
carpenters), but rather to ensure that persons who already know how to
perform renovations perform their typical work in a lead-safe manner.
Because of the technical nature of the work performed by risk
assessors, inspectors, supervisors, abatement workers and dust sampling
technicians, the Agency believes that it is important for their
refresher training courses to include hands-on learning.
    Currently, training providers are required to submit both a pre-
training and post-training notification for each

course that they teach. Both types of notifications must contain
information about the course including, but not limited to, date, time
and location. The post-training notification must also include
information about the trainees including name, address and test score,
among other things. Pre-training notifications must be submitted at
least 7 business days prior to the start of the course. Post-training
notifications must be submitted no later than 10 business days
following course completion. The notification requirements help EPA
monitor compliance with the training and certification provisions of
the RRP and LBP Activities programs. Training providers that teach
online courses must submit pre- and post-training notifications for
each hands-on training session they teach. If the Agency eliminates the
hands-on requirement for the refresher training then there will be no
classroom session for which to notify EPA. Because the training
provider will still need to send the names of the students to EPA, the
notification requirements will need to be changed. The Agency requests
comment on how it should modify the notification requirements to
accommodate a training taught entirely online.
    In the absence of more particular information regarding the number
of renovators that may take an online class to complete the required
refresher training, EPA assumes that 98% of renovators will take the
online training if the hands-on requirement is removed, based on the
significant cost savings that would result from reduced tuition costs
and by avoiding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a
training site. EPA requests comment on this assumption. EPA also
requests comment and supporting information on the savings that would
accrue to renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training requirement
for renovator refresher courses; whether the tuition is likely to
differ for online and in-person refresher training; and how the costs
training providers would incur to offer online refresher training
courses compare to the costs of offering courses in person.
    The Agency is considering a further modification to the
notification requirements regarding online notifications. For years,
training providers have had the option of submitting notifications
electronically via EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX); 63% of training
providers opted to do so in the past year. The CDX system is designed
to streamline the notification process for training providers and EPA
alike, and to perform basic validations of electronic submissions that
reduce common errors in notifications otherwise submitted on paper.
Depending on how the notification requirements are modified, training
providers may find it more efficient and less burdensome to submit
notifications to EPA electronically if the hands-on refresher training
requirement was eliminated. Such a change could result in an increased
rate of electronic reporting of training notifications to EPA. To
reduce the burden on the Agency and save taxpayer dollars, EPA will
consider requiring training providers that teach the online refresher
renovator course to submit their notifications for that course online.
The Agency requests comment on whether it should require training
providers to submit notifications online for the online refresher
course.
    The Agency is concerned that, by the time a final rule is
published, many renovators will have already taken the refresher
training that includes the hands-on learning and will have missed out
on the burden savings that this proposed rule would provide. In light
of this, EPA is considering extending the certifications for a portion
of renovators so they would be able to realize the benefits of this
proposed rule. For example, the Agency could extend for 6 months the
renovator certifications that expire by July 1, 2015. EPA requests
comments on whether it should extend the certifications of renovators
so they can take advantage of the burden savings of this proposed rule.

B. Jurisdictions

    On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, was amended to include
a fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for
individuals and firms seeking EPA certification (Ref. 4). These fees
were established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which requires
EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based
paint activities requirements in States without authorized programs.
The fee schedule created a multi-jurisdiction registration fee which
applies to individuals, firms and training programs that provide
training or perform lead-based paint activities in more than one State
administered by the EPA program. This fee is applied per discipline for
each additional EPA-administered State in which the applicant seeks
certification/recertification or accreditation/reaccreditation. An EPA-
administered jurisdiction is either an individual State without an
authorized program or all Tribes without authorized programs in a given
EPA Region.
    The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 was based on the estimated
burdens required for Agency clerical, technical, and managerial staff
to perform tasks associated with adding jurisdictions to a
certification or accreditation. Tasks include entering the information
into a database, approving or disapproving the application and
generating and mailing a certificate to the applicant. After years of
implementing the LBP Activities program, the Agency believes that
separate certifications for each EPA-administered State jurisdiction
are not necessary. In particular, EPA does not believe it is necessary
for the Agency to certify or accredit the same applicant multiple
times; certification in one EPA-administered State jurisdiction should
be sufficient to perform work in any other EPA-administered States. For
instance, EPA did not include separate certifications for each EPA-
administered State in the RRP rule and found that it did not adversely
impact the program. In addition, only requiring one certification for
all EPA-administered State jurisdictions helps to streamline the
certification and accreditation process. Accordingly, the Agency is
proposing to eliminate the requirement for separate certifications in
each EPA-administered State jurisdiction in the LBP Activities program.
If jurisdictions are eliminated, regulated entities will no longer have
to send an application and fees to EPA for the purpose of adding
additional EPA-administered State jurisdictions to their certification
or accreditation. Once a regulated entity applies and is approved in
the Lead-based Paint Activities program, they will be able to work in
any EPA-administered State. EPA requests comment on whether it should
eliminate this requirement from the Lead-based Paint Activities
regulations.
    Eliminating the fee for adding an EPA-administered State
jurisdiction will not cause the other fees under the LBP Activities
regulations to increase. As stated earlier, TSCA requires EPA to
recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint
activities requirements. Eliminating the requirement to apply for
additional jurisdictions also eliminates the Agency's costs for
processing those applications and its need to recover the fee. Thus,
eliminating the $35 fee will not require the Agency to adjust the other
fees it collects under the LBP Activities rule.

C. Clarification Regarding Training Provider Application Requirements

    EPA is clarifying the application regulations for accredited
training providers under the RRP rule (Ref. 1)

and LBP Activities rule (Ref. 2). It was brought to the Agency's
attention that the regulations did not specifically state what
constituted a violation of the regulations at 40 CFR 745.225. For
example, some other regulatory provisions, such as 40 CFR 745.87,
specifically list various activities that are considered a violation of
TSCA. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to add clarifying language
explaining that training providers must follow the requirements in that
section. EPA believes that accredited training providers already
understand this, but EPA is proposing to add the clarifying language to
ensure understanding of the requirements--similar to what has been done
in other regulations. This clarifying language does not change any
requirements for accredited training providers. The Agency requests
comment on adding this clarification to the regulations at 40 CFR
745.225(a)(4), (c), (d) and (e).

D. Correction to Training Notification Requirements

    The regulatory text of the final RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1)
inadvertently omitted a requirement for accredited providers of
renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training
course the provider delivers. The provision was designed to supply
important information regarding certified renovators for EPA's
compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, EPA issued a rule (Ref. 5) to
correct this omission by amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to require
post-course notifications from accredited providers of renovator or
dust sampling technician training. The 2009 rule also included
conforming changes to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct
name of the sample post-course notification form and to make it clear
that all methods of post-course notification are available to both
renovation training providers and lead-based paint activities training
providers. As amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) required renovation
training providers to notify EPA no later than 10 business days
following course completion. Although EPA identified this requirement
in its cost estimates in 2008, the regulatory provision was
subsequently overwritten by another rulemaking. Specifically, in a 2011
rule (Ref. 6), the regulatory language inadvertently removed the
regulatory text that was added to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009
rule. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add the same language
back to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) that was included in the 2009 rule.
EPA requests comment on adding this language back to the notification
requirements. Since EPA has continued to account for the costs and
paperwork burden associated with this notification provision, this
proposed correction does not increase the estimated costs and burdens
for the RRP program.

E. Effective Date

    EPA is proposing to find under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the
30-day delay in the effective date of the final rule that EPA intends
to promulgate based upon this proposed rule. As stated earlier in this
preamble, removing the hands-on requirement will make it easier for
renovators to take the refresher training, especially renovators who
live far from a training facility. If taking the training is made
easier, EPA believes that removing the hands-on requirement will lead
to more renovators taking the training and becoming recertified.
Consequently, delaying the effective date may result in fewer
renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. For this
reason, the Agency believes it is in the public interest to remove the
requirement as soon as possible. EPA also believes that such action
would relieve a restriction in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). EPA
therefore proposes to issue a final rule making this change effective
upon publication in the Federal Register.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule.
Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7).
2. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target
Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register
(61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9).
3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42
U.S.C. 4851 et seq.).
4. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and
Certification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; Final
Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999) (FRL-6058-6).
5. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 34257, July 15, 2009)
(FRL-8422-7).
6. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal
Register (76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011) (FRL-8881-8).
7. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor
Amendments Proposed Rule (Economic Analysis). December 2014.
8. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA sections 402
and 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for
Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting.
EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and OMB No. 2070-[NEW]. December 2014.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed rule has been designated by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) as a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations are documented in the
docket.
    EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential cost savings
associated with this rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the
Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor Amendments
Proposed Rule (Ref. 7) and is briefly summarized here.
    In a typical year, individuals, firms, and training providers apply
to perform lead-based paint activities or provide training in a total
of 431 additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. Removing the $35
multi-jurisdiction fee will result in total estimated cost savings of
approximately $15,000 per year to these entities.
    Removing the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher
training is estimated to reduce the tuition by an average of $37.
Removing the hands-on requirement also makes online renovator refresher
training more attractive to training providers and renovators. If
renovators become recertified by taking an e-learning refresher course
they are estimated to save an additional $165 by avoiding the time and
associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. Renovator
training and certification (which is valid

for 5 years) became mandatory in 2010, and a large number of renovators
were trained that year. As many as 168,000 of these renovators are
predicted to seek refresher training in 2015. Over time, the annual
number is predicted to equilibrate such that up to 48,000 renovators
may seek refresher training in later years. Nearly all of these
renovators are assumed to choose online refresher training if the
option is available. Therefore, removing the hands-on requirement for
renovator refresher training is estimated to reduce costs by over $9
million per year.
    The proposed rule includes a correction to the training
notification requirements to add back regulatory text on post-training
notifications that was inadvertently overwritten in a 2011 rule
(although most training providers are continuing to provide post-
training notifications to EPA in a timely manner). EPA has already
accounted for the burden and cost of requiring accredited providers of
renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training
course the provider delivers. For example, the currently approved ICR
for the TSCA sections 402 and 404 Training, Certification,
Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and
Renovation, Repair, and Painting (EPA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No.
2070-0155) estimates that 600 renovation training providers will submit
an average of 14 post-training notifications per year. This yields a
total of 8,400 post-training notifications per year at an average
burden of 1.6 hours per response, resulting in a total burden for this
activity of 13,440 hours at a cost of $339,578. In order to avoid
double-counting, EPA's Economic Analysis and ICR for this action do not
include the burden and cost of reinstating the post-training
notification requirements.
    The clarifying language being added to the rule explaining that
training providers must follow the regulations does not affect the cost
of compliance because it does not change any requirements for
accredited training providers.
    Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee and the requirement for hands
on refresher renovator training is estimated to result in cost savings
of up to $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $9.8
million per year using a 7% discount rate.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted to OMB for review and approval under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No.
2502.01 and the OMB Control No. 2070-[NEW] (Ref. 8). The ICR document
provides a detailed presentation of the estimated burden and costs
predicted as a result of the proposed rule. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    There are 275 training providers accredited to offer renovator
refresher training programs. All these training providers are assumed
to apply to EPA to become accredited to offer e-learning refresher
training once the requirement for hands-on renovator refresher training
is removed. The applications must address issues such as how the
trainer will ensure that students successfully complete the e-learning
modules and the e-learning final assessment. Training providers are
most likely to add an already reviewed and accepted e-learning course
from another training provider to their training curriculum. In that
case, their burden to become familiar with the new rule and to submit
an application is estimated to average 13.8 hours per response, at a
cost of $687. For the 275 training providers this results in a total
burden of 3,795 hours at a total cost $188,861.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to an information collection request unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number, or is otherwise required to submit
the specific information by a statute. The OMB control numbers for
EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final rule,
are further 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
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR 9.1.
    Submit any comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to both EPA and OMB. For EPA, follow
the instructions in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. For
OMB, reference ``OMB Desk Officer for EPA'' and email your comments to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Since OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after January 14, 2015, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by February 13, 2015. The final rule will address any OMB
or public comments received on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-553, or
any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
    1. A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The SBA's
definitions typically are based upon either a sales or an employment
level, depending on the nature of the industry.
    2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000.
    3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    The proposed rule would eliminate multi-jurisdiction registration
fees for the LBP Activities program, and eliminate the hands-on
training requirement from the lead renovation refresher training
course. This results in cost savings for entities that no longer would
pay the multi-jurisdiction registration fees and for renovators that
would have a less expensive refresher training option available to
them. Those training providers that choose to offer e-learning
refresher renovator training

would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning
courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that
anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would
opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no
requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher
training option under the proposed rule. Therefore, there would be no
direct negative cost impacts on small entities as a result of the
proposed rule. We have therefore concluded that this proposed rule will
relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of UMRA sections 202 or 205. This action is also not
subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203 because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Those training providers (both those in the private
sector as well as local or tribal governments) that choose to offer e-
learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for
accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, it is expected that
only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs
through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional
accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to
offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Local
governments can serve as training providers, and those training
providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training
would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning
courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that
anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would
opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no
requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher
training option under the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits comment on
this proposed action from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Tribal
governments can serve as training providers, and those training
providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training
would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning
courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that
anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would
opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no
requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher
training option under the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it would not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to
have any adverse energy effects because it does not require any action
related to the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rule and
specifically invites the public to identify additional potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The proposed rule would remove multi-jurisdiction fees for
the LBP Activities program and remove the hands-on requirement for
refresher renovator training. However, it would not change the work
practice requirements for lead-based paint activities or renovation,
repair or painting activities disturbing lead-based paint.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation.

    Dated: January 7, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 745--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.

0
2. In Sec.  745.225:
0
a. Add new paragraph (a)(4).
0
b. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
0
c. Revise paragraphs (c)(14)(i) and (e)(2) and (3).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.225  Accreditation of training programs: target housing and
child occupied facilities.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Accredited training programs, training program managers, and
principal instructors must comply with all of the requirements of this
section including approved terms of the application and all of the
requirements and limitations specified in any accreditation documents
issued to training programs.
* * * * *
    (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. A
training program accredited by EPA to offer lead-based paint activities
courses, renovator courses, or dust sampling technician courses must
meet the following requirements:
* * * * *
    (14) * * *
    (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the
completion of any renovator, dust sampling, or lead-based paint
activities course. This notification must be received by EPA no later
than 10 business days following course completion.
* * * * *
    (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. A training program
accredited by EPA to offer lead-based paint courses in the specific
disciplines listed in this paragraph (d) must ensure that its courses
of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics.
* * * * *
    (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training
programs. A training program may seek accreditation to offer refresher
training courses in any of the following disciplines: Inspector, risk
assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator,
and dust sampling technician. A training program accredited by EPA to
offer refresher training must meet the following minimum requirements:
* * * * *
    (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and
abatement worker must last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher
courses for project designer, renovator, and dust sampling technician
must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all
disciplines except renovator and project designer must include a hands-
on component.
    (3) Except for renovator and project designer courses, for all
other courses offered, the training program shall conduct a hands-on
assessment. With the exception of project designer courses, the
training program shall conduct a course test at the completion of the
course.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  745.238:
0
a. Remove paragraph (c)(3).
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) as (c)(3) and (4).
0
c. Revise the headings for paragraphs (d)(1) and (2).
0
d. Revise paragraph (e)(2).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  745.238  Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based
paint activities.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Certification and re-certification * * *
    (2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. * * *
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Submit application and payment in the amount specified in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section in accordance with the instructions
provided with the application package.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-00473 Filed 1-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76297]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1090]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Morrison Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.8, at Portland,
OR. The deviation is necessary to complete major rehabilitation of the
bridge. This deviation allows single leaf operations during
rehabilitation and requires a two hour advance notification for a
single leaf opening.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on December 1, 2011
through 6 p.m. on May 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1090 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1090 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth
District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Multnomah County has requested to operate
the Morrison Bascule Bridge with single leaf openings with two hours
advance notice. Single leaf openings are required to facilitate major
maintenance activity and deck rehabilitation on the bridge. The
Morrison Bridge crosses the Willamette River at mile 12.8. The Morrison
Bridge is charted on NOAA Chart 18526 with a vertical clearance of 69
ft above Columbia River Datum Mean Lower Low Water in the closed
position. Under normal operations the bridge operates under 33 CFR
117.897 which requires a one hour notice for openings between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. on weekdays and two hour notice for openings at all other
times. This current deviation states the Morrison Bridge is allowed to
operate with single leaf openings. The bridge will promptly open a
single leaf when at least two hours of advanced notice is given. This
deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on December 1, 2011 through 6 p.m.
on May 27, 2012. This stretch of the Willamette River experiences
moderate maritime traffic volumes including vessels ranging from small
recreational craft to commercial tug and tow. During this maintenance
period a debris containment system will be attached to the inoperable
bascule leaf and will reduce the vertical clearance under the
inoperable leaf up to 8 ft. Vessels which do not require a bridge
opening may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this
deviation period. An assist tug will be provided for larger vessels
when maneuvering is constrained by the limited opening.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 23, 2011.
Randall D. Overton,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-31328 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 20661-20663]
[DOCID:fr21ap06-53]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0536; FRL-8065-1]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Establishment of
Regulations for the Combined Residues of Total Fluroxypyr in or on
Garlic, Onion, and Shallot

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of regulations for the combined
residues of total fluroxypyr (fluroxypyr MHE and its metabolite
fluroxypyr) in or on garlic and shallot (bulb), and onion (dry bulb).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0536 and pesticide petition number (PP)
3E6775 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday,
May 5, 2006, the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any deliveries at the
Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility will be closed to the
public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will
reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA
22202. The mail code for the mailing address will change to (7502P),
but will otherwise remain the same. The Docket telephone number and
hours of operation will remain the same after the move.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-[insert docket ID number]. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the docket without change and may be made
available on-line 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
regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the 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 docket
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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at
the location identified under ``Delivery'' and ``Important Note.'' The
hours of operation for this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment of regulations in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
EPA has determined that this pesticide petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section
408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on
this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this information on the home page

of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the

pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 3E6775. Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 681 Highway
1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902, proposes to establish a tolerance
for the combined residues of the herbicide fluroxypyr MHE and its
metabolite fluroxypyr (expressed as total fluroxypyr) in or on food
commodities garlic and shallot (bulb), and onion (dry bulb) at 0.03
parts per million (ppm). Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Road,
Indianapolis, IN 46268 is the manufacturer and basic registrant of
fluroxypyr. An adequate enforcement method for the combined residues of
total fluroxypyr is available to enforce the tolerance expression in or
on food. The analytical method uses capillary gas chromatography and
mass spectrometry detector (GC-MSD) with limits of quantitation (LOQ)
of 0.01 ppm. Fluroxypyr has also been tested through the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), Multi-residue Methodology, Protocols C, D, and E.
The results have been published in the FDA Pesticide Analytical Manual
(PAM), Volume 1.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 11, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-5951 Filed 4-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


SN-19-0006 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 SN-19-0006 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 SN-19-0006 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 SN-19-0006 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 SN-19-0006 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 SN-19-0006 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 SN-19-0006 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 SN-19-0006 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)