[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13679-13680]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4393-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of North Carolina (FEMA-4393-DR), dated September 14, 2018,
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on March 28, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy Casper,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Albert Lewis as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-06637 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30282-30283]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12361]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9674-9]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed
administrative settlement concerning the Malone Service Company
Superfund Site, Texas City, Galveston County, Texas.
    The settlement requires the six (6) settling parties to pay a total
of $32,722 as payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances
Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to
Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Sec.  9607.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background
information relating to the settlement are available for public
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the
proposed settlement may be obtained from Kevin Shade at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
should reference the Malone Service Company Superfund Site, Texas City,
Galveston County, Texas and EPA Docket Number 06-09-11, and should be
addressed to Kevin Shade at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  I-Jung Chiang, Assistant Regional
Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-
2160.

    Dated: May 9, 2012.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator
[FR Doc. 2012-12361 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 65667]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27769]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9987-40]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Syracuse Research
Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor, Syracuse Research
Corporation (SRC) of North Syracuse, New York, to access information
which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed
or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than
December 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Recie Reese, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8276; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.

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

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number EP-C-17-015, contractor SRC of 7502 Round
Pond Road, North Syracuse, NY will assist the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by creating a database with key data from
past biotechnology submissions; and creating a biotechnology literature
database with documents provided or referenced in TSCA biotechnology
submissions.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number EP-C-17-015, SRC will require access to CBI
submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the
duties specified under the contract. SRC will be given access to
information submitted to EPA under all sections. Some of the
information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide SRC access to these CBI
materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under
this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and SRC's sites
located in Arlington, VA and North Syracuse, NY in accordance with
EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until April 2,
2022. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for
the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    SRC's personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements
and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are
permitted access to TSCA CBI.

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

    Dated: November 29, 2018.
Pamela Myrick,
Director,
    Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018-27769 Filed 12-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36942-36943]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15640]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64695; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Increase the Position
Limit for Options on the Standard and Poor's[supreg] Depositary
Receipts (SPDRs[supreg])

June 17, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On April 18, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
increase the position and exercise limits for options on Standard and
Poor's Depositary Receipts (``SPDRs[supreg]'' or ``SPY''). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 3,
2011.\3\ The Commission received one comment letter in response to the
proposal.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64348 (April 27,
2011), 76 FR 24951 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Janet L. McGinness, SVP-Legal & Corporate
Secretary, Legal & Government Affairs, NYSE Euronext, to Ms.
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated May 24, 2011 (NYSE
Letter). The comment letter was submitted by NYSE Euronext on behalf
of its subsidiary options exchanges, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'')
and NYSE Arca Inc. (``NYSE Arca'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1001 to increase the
position limit applicable to options on SPDRs[supreg], which trade
under the symbol SPY, from 300,000 to 900,000 contracts on the same
side of the market. The Exchange notes that options on Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg] Tracking Stock (``QQQSM'') \5\--to which, Phlx
believes, SPY options are most comparable for these purposes--have a
position limit of 900,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ QQQ\SM\, Nasdaq-100[supreg], Nasdaq-100 Index[supreg],
Nasdaq[supreg], and Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking StockSM,
are trademarks or service marks of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Phlx represents that options on SPY traded a total
of 33,341,698 contracts across all exchanges from March 1, 2011 through
March 16, 2011. In contrast, over the same time period options on the
QQQ traded a total of 8,730,718 contracts (less than 26.2% of the
volume of options on SPY.) The Phlx further represents that, for 2010,
options on SPY had an average daily trading volume of 3.63 million
contracts, while options on QQQs had an average daily trading volume of
963,502. In addition, the option notional value \6\ of SPY options on
December 31, 2010, was $177,823.76 million, while the optional notional
value of QQQ options on the same date was $27,141.91 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Phlx describes notional value in this instance as the
product of OI x Close x 100, where OI is the underlying security's
open interest (in contracts) and Close is the closing price of the
underlying security on December 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the underlying ETFs, Phlx represents that, for 2010,
the SPY had an average daily trading volume of 210,232,241 shares with
an average dollar volume of $20,794 million, while the QQQ had an
average daily trading volume of 85,602,200 shares with an average
dollar volume of $3,593 million. In addition, the market capitalization
of the SPY was $90,280.71 million on December 31, 2010, while the
market capitalization of the QQQ on that date was $23,564.8 million.
    Phlx argues that the current position limit of 300,000 contracts
for SPY options prevents large customers, such as mutual funds and
pension funds, from using these options to gain meaningful exposure and
hedging protection, which it believes can result in lost liquidity in
both the options market and the equity market. In addition, the
Exchange believes that increasing the limit to 900,000 contracts would
lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for options on
SPDRs[reg] that would benefit customers interested in this product.
    Phlx adds that traders who trade SPY options to hedge positions in
SPY and in SPX options \7\ have indicated that the current position
limit is too restrictive, and the Exchange believes that this may
adversely affect traders' (and the Exchange's) ability to provide
liquidity in this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See also NYSE Euronext Letter, supra note 4, stating that
SPX options are considered by many to be economically equivalent to
SPY options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Phlx states that its reporting requirements\8\ and
surveillance procedures,\9\ as well as the reporting requirements and
surveillance procedures other markets and of clearing firms, are
capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Phlx represents that, as with options on QQQs, each member
or member organization of the Exchange that maintains a position in
SPY options on the same side of the market, for its own account or
for the account of a customer, would be required, pursuant to Phlx
Rule 1003, to report certain information, including, but not limited
to, the size of the option position, whether the position is hedged,
and, if so, a description of the hedge and, if applicable, the
collateral used to carry the position. The requirement applies to
positions in excess of 10,000 contracts on the same side of the
market. In addition, Phlx states, the general reporting requirement
for customer accounts that maintain an aggregate position of 200 or
more option contracts would remain at this level for SPY options.
    \9\ The Exchange states that these procedures utilize daily
monitoring of market movements via automated surveillance techniques
to identify unusual activity in both options and underlying stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule
change, from NYSE Euronext, on behalf of the NYSE Amex and NYSE Arca
options exchanges.\10\ The comment letter supported the proposal, and
expressed agreement with several of the statements made by Phlx
therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act \11\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\12\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Position and exercise limits serve as a regulatory tool designed to
address manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the
use of options. Since the inception of standardized options trading,
the options exchanges have had rules limiting the aggregate number of
options contracts that a member or customer may hold or exercise.\14\
These position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the
establishment of options positions that can be used or might create
incentives to manipulate the underlying market so as to benefit the

options position.\15\ In particular, position and exercise limits are
designed to minimize the potential for mini-manipulations and for
corners or squeezes of the underlying market.\16\ In addition, such
limits serve to reduce the possibility for disruption of the options
market itself, especially in illiquid classes.\17\ As discussed below,
over time, the Commission has approved options exchanges' proposals to
increase these limits for options products overlying certain ETFs where
there is considerable liquidity in both the underlying cash markets and
the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45236
(January 4, 2002), 67 FR 1378 (January 10, 2002) (SR-Amex-2001-42).
    \15\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47346
(February 11, 2003), 68 FR 8316 (February 20, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2002-
26).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange to
increase position limits for options on SPY to 900,000 contracts (the
same level currently applicable to the QQQ options). As in the case of
the markets for QQQ options and for the underlying ETF, the markets for
standardized options on SPY and the SPY itself have substantial trading
volume and liquidity. Indeed, Phlx cites statistics \18\ showing that,
while options on SPY and options on QQQ both are in the top ranks of
equity options in terms of trading volume, SPY options exceeded QQQ
options by a significant margin--both in terms of the total volume
traded for a sample period in March of this year, and in terms of
average daily volume for the year 2010. Similarly, the Exchange cites
statistics regarding the underlying ETFs, showing that SPY exceeded QQQ
significantly in average daily trading volume and average dollar volume
for the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that increasing position limits on the
highly liquid SPY options to the same level currently applicable to the
QQQ options represents the next step of a measured approach to position
limits on these options, which have increased steadily over a number of
years to their current levels.\19\ Further, the Commission expects that
the Exchange will continue to monitor trading in the SPY options for
the purpose of discovering and sanctioning manipulative acts and
practices, and to reassess the position and exercise limits, if and
when appropriate, in light of its findings.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Commission's incremental approach to approving changes
in position and exercise limits is well-established. Equity option
position limits have been gradually expanded from 1,000 in 1973 to
maximum levels of 250,000 contracts for most of the largest and most
actively-traded standardized equity options, with higher limits
allowed for certain ETF options--QQQ (900,000), SPY (300,000), IWM
(500,000) and DIA (300,000). In 1999, the Commission approved
exchange proposals to raise position and exercise limits on
standardized equity options to a range of between 13,500 and 75,000
contracts. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40875 (December
31, 1998), 64 FR 1842 (January 12, 1999) (SR-CBOE-98-25; SR-Amex-98-
22; SR-PCX-98-33; SR-Phlx-98-36). In 2003, the Commission approved
an increase in the position and exercise limits for options on DIA
to the current 300,000 contracts. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 47346 (February 11, 2003), 68 FR 8316 (February 20,
2003) (SR-CBOE-2002-26) and 57852 (May 22, 2008), 73 FR 31162 (May
30, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-41). Similarly, in 2005, the Commission
approved an increase in the position and exercise limits for options
on SPY to 300,000 contracts. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 51041 (January 14, 2005), 70 FR 3408 (January 24, 2005) (SR-
CBOE-2005-06) and 51043 (January 14, 2005), 70 FR 3402 (January 24,
2005) (SR-Amex-2005-06). Since 2001, the Commission has twice
approved increases in position and exercise limits for options on
QQQ. Initially, the Commission approved an increase to 300,000
contracts, and later, pursuant to a pilot program that commenced in
March 2005 and was adopted by all of the options exchanges,
increased position and exercise limits for options on the QQQQ to
the current 900,000. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 45309
(January 18, 2002), 67 FR 3757 (January 25, 2002) (SR-CBOE-2001-44)
and 45236 (January 4, 2002), 67 FR 1378 (January 10, 2002) (SR-Amex-
2001-42). Another pilot program, which commenced in 2007 and was
adopted by all of the options exchanges, increased the position and
exercise limits for IWM options to the current 500,000 contracts.
Both of these pilots, which also raised standardized equity option
position limits to the current range of between 25,000 and 250,000
contracts, were permanently approved by the Commission in 2008. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57352 (February 19, 2008), 73
FR 10076 (February 25, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-07) and 57415 (March 3,
2008), 73 FR 12479 (March 7, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-16).
    \20\ Phlx states that its reporting requirements and
surveillance procedures, as well as the reporting requirements and
surveillance procedures other markets and of clearing firms, are
capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, as stated above, given the measure of liquidity for
SPY, the Commission believes that increasing position limits in the SPY
options to 900,000 contracts is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\21\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\22\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2011-58) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15640 Filed 6-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                 Summary of Region 5 Public Listening Session                            on 111(d) for Power Plants                                                                November 8, 2013  -  Chicago, IL

On November 8, 2013, EPA Region 5 held a public listening session to obtain input on how EPA can craft carbon pollution standards from existing power plants.  More than 550 people from all six Region 5 states (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH and WI) attended this listening session.  Approximately 300 speakers addressed three different panels operating simultaneously throughout the day.

A high-level summary of the meeting is provided below.

Overview:

Regional Administrator Susan Hedman gave opening remarks and provided the overview of Section 111(d), ground rules and logistics.

Speakers included and represented environmental organizations, unions, industry associations, faith-based organizations, students, coal miners, energy cooperatives, community organizations, public officials, elected officials, concerned citizens and members of Congress.

Approximately 80 percent of the speakers were clearly supportive of the development of standards on the President's timeline, while approximately 16 percent were clearly opposed to the development of standards. Remaining speakers were difficult to categorize as either supportive or oppositional, with many in this category recommending significant delay in imposition of requirements or stating that they supported regulations only if done "sensibly."

Impacts of Climate Change:

Among those expressing support for EPA action, most expressed concerns about the impact of climate change on present and future generations. Common themes among these speakers were concern about impacts of carbon emissions on extreme weather, air quality, agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems and oceans. Several speakers noted the potential impacts of increased storm events on water quality and the cost impacts of storm water planning in a changing climate. A large number of speakers talked about general air quality concerns, frequently making the case that reduced fossil fuel consumption would have air quality co-benefits in addition to climate benefits. Others discussed non-air impacts of fossil fuels related to issues such as mountain-top removal mining, fracking and pet coke storage. Concerns about both local and international impacts were expressed, with a number of speakers noting the impacts on environmental justice (EJ) communities and developing countries. Several speakers stated that U.S. leadership in the development of carbon standards would demonstrate international leadership and give the U.S. a strong basis for international negotiations on climate. A significant number cited religious faith as a reason for protecting the environment.

Among opponents of EPA action, a small number questioned the validity of climate science, some stating that CO2 is not a pollutant, and others stating that impacts are overstated. Others noted that U.S. utilities represent a small percentage of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, therefore, that regulation would impose costs without producing real benefits, given emissions from other parts of the world.

Economic Impacts:

Some supporters of EPA regulation expressed sympathy for workers who might be impacted by regulation, and called for adjustment assistance for them. Others stressed the economic benefits of shifting towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, including the jobs that would be created in these sectors but also the reduction in economic "externalities" from fossil fuels. Some stated that they are willing to pay higher energy costs in order to address the climate issue, with a small number saying that regulation should be done without concern for economic consequences. One speaker stated that carbon emissions standards for autos have spurred innovation and revitalization in this American industry, providing a good model for what carbon regulations could do for the Midwestern utility industry.

Most of the opponents of EPA regulation stressed potential economic harms caused by carbon regulation, especially in the coal, utility, manufacturing and rail transport sectors, and claimed that significant harms have been caused by existing regulatory requirements already. Many stated that the regulations would shut down many coal plants and prevent the construction of any new ones. Many also stressed the economic importance of cheap energy and of jobs in the coal and related sectors, and some complained of the lack of listening sessions in "coal country." Some speakers stressed the impacts that regulation would have on rural communities. Some speakers stated that EPA should consider the impact of regulations on recent utility investments that were expected to last for 30-40 years; new carbon regulations could force some of those facilities to close, wasting the value of those investments. A rail association representative noted that reduction in coal shipments would be a major hardship for the rail industry, particularly in the Chicago area.

Timing/Strength of Regulation:

Among those expressing support for EPA action, many stated that we are at a tipping point where action on climate is required urgently.  Many stated that EPA regulations should be implemented "as soon as possible." A large number also stated support for "the strongest possible" standards. A smaller number of supportive speakers recommended using cost-benefit analysis to guide the standards that EPA sets.

Among opponents of action, as well as some of those who could not be categorized as either opponents or supporters, a common theme was that EPA should either delay regulation or phase it in over a very long time, because of concerns about jobs and economic impacts. Concerns about the immature status of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology were also cited as a reason to delay action.

State Flexibility:

A relatively small number of speakers discussed state-federal interaction on carbon regulation. Among those who did, some supporters of strong regulation expressed that while significant carbon reductions should be required in every state, states should have flexibility in how reductions are achieved. A few supporters spoke for a strong national regulation with little state flexibility. Some speakers suggested that different standards should be set for different states depending on each state's existing endowment of energy resources. Other speakers stated that EPA should not act at all and that carbon regulation should be left to state discretion.

Energy Policy:

A significant number of supporters argued in favor of regulations that would shift electricity production away from fossil fuels, relying on renewable energy and energy efficiency rather than on natural gas and carbon sequestration to achieve reductions. One speaker encouraged EPA to discount arguments about the impacts of regulation on electric reliability, stating that FERC has developed the tools necessary to accommodate major growth in renewables without compromising reliability. One speaker stated that the regulations should be written in a way that supports not only end-use energy efficiency but also the development of combined heat and power and waste energy recovery systems. Another speaker noted the existence of harmful energy-climate feedback loops: As temperatures warm, the efficiency of electrical transmission decreases; more air conditioning is needed, leading to more energy use and emissions, and rivers run dry, preventing the energy-efficient shipping of commodities in barges.

A common theme among opponents of carbon regulation was that such regulations would represent a "war on coal" that would be contrary to an "all of the above" energy policy. Opponents also expressed concerns about the impact of regulations on electric reliability and expressed doubts about the viability of an electricity system based on renewables.

Comments on the Structure of the Regulations:

A small number of commenters provided guidance about how the regulations should be structured, or suggested factors that EPA should consider in structuring the regulations. Several speakers stated that there should be serious consequences for sources that do not comply with regulations and for states that fail to develop adequate state plans. One speaker stated that EPA should not allow emissions averaging, because of potential disproportionate impacts on communities. Several speakers expressed support for a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. Several other speakers indicated that CCS is not a sufficiently-proven technology and should not be a requirement of any proposal.

One speaker stated that the standards should be structured so that they can be achieved by existing, unmodified, supercritical plants. EPA should base the existing source requirements on actions that can take place within an individual plant, rather than considering system-wide actions. The speaker noted that owners of a single coal-fired power plant do not have other resources to use for averaging. Moreover, they do not control dispatch nor do they have direct retail customers, making it hard to use energy efficiency or demand-side management for compliance.

Another speaker offered three "key principles" to keep in mind when developing regulations: 1) set emissions targets "based on what is legally defensible and achievable at the power plants, probably based on improvements in plant efficiency"; 2) defer achievement of the targets to the states, who can work with the power sector to establish plans that incorporate state clean energy strategies, plant retirements, renewables, and energy efficiency programs; 3) allow states to credit early emissions reductions achieved through state clean energy programs developed in the last ten years or more.

One speaker stated that EPA should base the Best System of Emission Reduction on plant-specific CO2 emissions from "within the fence" of a power plant, rather than on groups of power plants or the entire sector. Once the guidelines are established, then states can develop plans that provide flexibility in meeting those guidelines, "reaching into the broader array of CO2 emissions mitigation measures available within the electric utility sector." In addition, the speaker stated that states should receive credit for actions already taken.

Another speaker stated that 1) states should have primacy to implement standards in a way that reflects the regional economy; 2) early adopters should not be punished for taking early action; and 3) there should be a transition period for phasing out existing generation resources to prevent excessive stranded costs.

It was also stated that the regulations should incorporate generation efficiency, and that they should allow states to credit regulated utilities for reducing emissions at industrial and commercial facilities through supply-side efficiency measures, including combined heat and power and waste heat recovery. The speaker also encouraged EPA to think broadly about additional tools that could be used to remove barriers to deployment of efficient generation technology.


[Federal Register: September 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 46442-46445]
[DOCID:fr09se09-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0412]

Request for Nominations for Voting and Nonvoting Consumer
Representative Members on Public Advisory Committees and Panels

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
nominations for voting and nonvoting consumer representatives to serve
on the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee
(NMQAAC) and certain devices panels of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH).
    FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups,
and individuals with disabilities are adequately represented on
advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of qualified
candidates from these groups.

DATES: Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies and for those
that will or may occur through October 31, 2010. Because vacancies
occur on various

dates throughout the year, there is no cutoff date for the receipt of
nominations.

ADDRESSES: All nomination for membership should be sent electronically
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and
Management Staff or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and
Management Staff (HF-4), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
Information about becoming a member on an FDA advisory committee can
also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/CommitteeMembership/
default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For general information: Doreen Brandes, Office of the Commissioner
(HF-4), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 14C-3,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For specific committee questions, contact the following persons
listed in table 1 of this document.

                                Table 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Contact Person                       Committee/Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geretta P. Wood, Center for Devices and   Certain Device Panels of the
 Radiological Health, Food and Drug        Medical Devices Advisory
 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire       Committee
 Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1682, Silver
 Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-
 mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normica Facey, Center for Devices and     National Mammography Quality
 Radiological Health, Food and Drug        Assurance Advisory Committee
 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
 Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4652, Silver
 Spring, MD 20993, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Vacancies

    FDA is requesting nominations for voting and nonvoting consumer
representatives for the vacancies listed in table 2 of this document:

                                                    Table 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Committee/Panel Expertise Needed          Current & Upcoming Vacancies         Approximate Date Needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circulatory System Devices Panel of the        1-nonvoting                       Immediately
 Medical Devices Advisory Committee -
 interventional cardiologists,
 electrophysiologists, invasive (vascular)
 radiologists, vascular and cardiothoracic
 surgeons, and cardiologists with special
 interest in congestive heart failure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices   1-nonvoting                       November 1, 2009
 Advisory Committee - dentists, engineers and
 scientists who have expertise in the areas
 of dental implants, dental materials,
 periodontology, tissue engineering, and
 dental anatomy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of   1-nonvoting                       Immediately
 the Medical Devices Advisory Committee -
 surgeons (general, plastic, reconstructive,
 pediatric, thoracic, abdominal, pelvic and
 endoscopic); dermatologists; experts in
 biomaterials, lasers, wound healing, and
 quality of life; and biostatisticians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel of the  1-nonvoting                       Immediately
 Medical Devices Advisory Committee -
 hematologists (benign and/or malignant
 hematology), hematopathologists (general and
 special hematology, coagulation and
 homeostasis, and hematological oncology),
 gynecologists with special interests in
 gynecological oncology, cytopathologists,
 and molecular pathologists with special
 interests in development of predictive and
 prognostic biomarkers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immunology Devices Panel of the Medical        1-nonvoting                       March 1, 2010
 Devices Advisory Committee - persons with
 experience in medical, surgical, or clinical
 oncology, internal medicine, clinical
 immunology, allergy, molecular diagnostics,
 or clinical laboratory medicine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel of    1-nonvoting                       Immediately
 the Medical Devices Advisory Committee -
 experts with broad, cross-cutting
 scientific, clinical, analytical or
 mediation skills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical      1-nonvoting                        Immediately
 Devices Advisory Committee - infectious
 disease clinicians, e.g., pulmonary disease
 specialists, sexually transmitted disease
 specialists, pediatric infectious disease
 specialists, experts in tropical medicine
 and emerging infectious diseases, biofilm
 development; mycologists; clinical
 microbiologists and virologists; clinical
 virology and microbiology laboratory
 directors, with expertise in clinical
 diagnosis and in vitro diagnostic assays,
 e.g., hepatologists; molecular biologists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molecular and Clinical Genetics Devices Panel  1-nonvoting                       June 1, 2010
 of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee -
 experts in human genetics and in the
 clinical management of patients with genetic
 disorders, e.g., pediatricians,
 obstetricians, neonatologists. Individuals
 with training in inborn errors of
 metabolism, biochemical and/or molecular
 genetics, population genetics, epidemiology
 and related statistical training, and
 clinical molecular genetics testing (e.g.,
 genotyping, array CGH, etc.) Individuals
 with experience in genetics counseling,
 medical ethics are also desired, and
 individuals with experience in ancillary
 fields of study will be considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical      1-nonvoting                       December 1, 2009
 Devices Advisory Committee - neurosurgeons
 (cerebrovascular and pediatric),
 neurologists (stroke, pediatric, pain
 management, and movement disorders),
 interventional neuroradiologists,
 psychiatrists, and biostatisticians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of     1-nonvoting                       February 1, 2010
 the Medical Devices Advisory Committee -
 experts in perinatology, embryology,
 reproductive endocrinology, pediatric
 gynecology, gynecological oncology,
 operative hysteroscopy, pelviscopy,
 electrosurgery, laser surgery, assisted
 reproductive technologies, contraception,
 postoperative adhesions, and cervical cancer
 and colposcopy; biostatisticians and
 engineers with experience in obstetrics/
 gynecology devices; urogynecologists;
 experts in breast care; experts in
 gynecology in the older patient; experts in
 diagnostic (optical) spectroscopy; experts
 in midwifery; labor and delivery nursing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical        1-nonvoting                       November 1, 2009
 Devices Advisory Committee -
 ophthalmologists specializing in cataract
 and refractive surgery and vitreo-retinal
 surgery, in addition to vision scientists,
 optometrists, and biostatisticians practiced
 in ophthalmic clinical trials
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel   1-nonvoting                       Immediately
 of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee -
 orthopedic surgeons (joint, spine, trauma,
 and pediatric); rheumatologists; engineers
 (biomedical, biomaterials, and
 biomechanical); experts in rehabilitation
 medicine, sports medicine, and connective
 tissue engineering; and biostatisticians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Mammography Quality Assurance         2-voting                          February 1, 2010
 Advisory Committee - physicians,
 practitioners, or other health professionals
 whose clinical practice, research
 specialization, or professional expertise
 include a significant focus on mammography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Functions

A. National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee

    The committee advises FDA on the following topics: (1) Developing
appropriate quality standards and regulations for mammography
facilities, (2) developing appropriate standards and regulations for
bodies accrediting mammography facilities under this program, (3)
developing regulations with respect to sanctions, (4) developing
procedures for monitoring compliance with standards, (5) establishing a
mechanism to investigate consumer complaints, (6) reporting new
developments concerning breast imaging which should be considered in
the oversight of mammography facilities, (7) determining whether there
exists a shortage of mammography facilities in rural and health
professional shortage areas and determining the effects of personnel on
access to the services of such facilities in such areas, (8)
determining whether

there will exist a sufficient number of medical physicists after
October 1, 1999, and (9) determining the costs and benefits of
compliance with these requirements.

B. Certain Panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee

    The committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes
recommendations for their regulation. The panels engage in a number of
activities to fulfill the functions of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the act) envisions for device advisory panels. With the
exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel,
according to its specialty area, advises the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs (the Commissioner) regarding recommended classification or
reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories,
advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of
devices, advises on formulation of product development protocols,
reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices, reviews
guidelines and guidance documents, recommends exemption of certain
devices from the application of portions of the act, advises on the
necessity to ban a device, and responds to requests from the agency to
review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems
concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception
of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according
to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the
Commissioner on issues relating to the design of clinical studies
regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational
devices.

III. Criteria for Members

    Persons nominated for membership as a consumer representatives on
the committee/panels must meet the following criteria: (1) Demonstrate
ties to consumer and community-based organizations, (2) be able to
analyze technical data, (3) understand research design, (4) discuss
benefits and risks, and (5) evaluate the safety and efficacy of
products under review. The consumer representative must be able to
represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions before the
advisory committee; serve as a liaison between the committee and
interested consumers, associations, coalitions, and consumer
organizations; and facilitate dialogue with the advisory committees on
scientific issues that affect consumers.

IV. Selection Procedures

    Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted
through procedures that include the use of organizations representing
the public interest and consumer advocacy groups. The organizations
have the responsibility of recommending candidates of the agency's
selection.

V. Nomination Procedures

    All nominations must include a cover letter, a curriculum vita or
resume (that includes the nominee's office address, telephone number,
and e-mail address), and a list of consumer or community-based
organizations for which the candidate can demonstrate active
participation.
    Nominations will specify the advisory committee or panel(s) for
which the nominee is recommended. Nominations will include confirmation
that the nominee is aware of the nomination.
    Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more
qualified persons for membership as consumer representatives on the
advisory committee/panels. Self-nominations are also accepted.
Potential candidates will be required to provide detail information
concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research
grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of a
conflict of interest. The nomination should specify the committee/
panels of interest. The term of office is up to 4 years, depending on
the appointment date.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: September 2, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-21558 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13790-13791]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05821]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0436; FRL-9943-14]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 1139.11); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``TSCA Section 4 Test Rules, Consent Orders,
Enforceable Consent Agreements, Voluntary Testing Agreements, Voluntary
Data Submissions, and Exemptions from Testing Requirements'' and
identified by EPA ICR No. 1139.11 and OMB Control No. 2070-0033,
represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire
on August 31, 2016. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and
approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection that is summarized in this document.
The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for
public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0436, 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:
Mike Mattheisen, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-3077; 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. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: TSCA Section 4 Test Rules, Consent Orders, Enforceable
Consent Agreements, Voluntary Testing Agreements, Voluntary Data
Submissions, and Exemptions from Testing Requirements.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1139.11.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0033.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31,
2016. 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 Code of Federal Regulations (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
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is
designed to assure that chemicals that may pose serious risks to human
health or the environment undergo testing by manufacturers or
processors, and that the results of such testing are made available to
EPA. EPA uses the information collected under the authority of TSCA
section 4 to assess risks associated with the manufacture, processing,
distribution, use or disposal of a chemical, and to support any
necessary regulatory action with respect to that chemical.
    EPA must assure that appropriate tests are performed on a chemical
if it decides: (1) That a chemical being considered under TSCA section
4(a) may pose an ``unreasonable risk'' or is produced in
``substantial'' quantities that may result in substantial or
significant human exposure or substantial environmental release of the
chemical; (2) that additional data are needed to determine or predict
the impacts of the chemical's manufacture, processing, distribution,
use or disposal; and (3) that testing is needed to develop such data.
Rules and consent orders under TSCA section 4 require that one
manufacturer or processor of a subject chemical perform the specified
testing and report the results of that testing to EPA. TSCA section 4
also allows a manufacturer or processor of a subject chemical to apply
for an exemption from the testing requirement if that testing will be
or has been performed by another party. This information collection
applies to reporting and recordkeeping activities associated with the
information that EPA requires industry to provide in response to TSCA
section 4 test rules, consent orders, test rule exemptions and other
data submissions.

    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 790). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI.
EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to
the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40
CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to range between
8.5 and 243 hours per response, not including CDX registration, and
0.53 hours per CDX registration. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are manufacturers, processors, importers, users, distributors
or disposers of one or more specified chemical substances.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 15.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
5.6.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 3,055 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $27,089,112. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $58,917 and an estimated cost of $27,030,195
for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs (namely
laboratory test costs).

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 626,838 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease mainly reflects corrections to the
previous renewal of this collection, plus reduced levels of activity in
test rules, methodological corrections and updates, and requirements
for electronic reporting of information. This change is both a program
change (electronic reporting) and an adjustment (all other).

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 3, 2016.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016-05821 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P