[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67899-67901]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24502]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0884; FRL-10395-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Water Act and Administrative
Procedure Act Claims

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator's March 18, 2022, memorandum regarding ``Consent Decrees
and Settlement Agreements to resolve Environmental Claims Against the
Agency,'' notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree in
Environmental Law & Policy Center, et al., v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 3:19-cv-295 (N.D. Ohio). On
February 7, 2019, the Environmental Law & Policy Center, which was
later joined by the Lucas County Board of Commissioners, (collectively
``Plaintiffs'') filed a complaint against the EPA alleging that the
Agency's approval of Ohio's 2018 section 303(d) list was arbitrary and
capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that EPA
had failed to perform duties mandated by the Clean Water Act (``CWA'')
with respect to Ohio's obligation to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load
(``TMDL'') to address nutrient pollution in western Lake Erie. EPA
seeks public input on a proposed consent decree prior to its final
decision-making to settle the litigation.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by December 12, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2022-0884 online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments, see the
``Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree'' heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Glazer, Water Law Office,
Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    EPA approved Ohio's 2018 CWA section 303(d) list on July 9, 2018.
The Environmental Law & Policy Center filed a complaint on February 7,
2019, challenging that approval as arbitrary and capricious on grounds
alleging that the list did not give western Lake Erie a high enough
priority for TMDL development. The complaint also alleged that Ohio
constructively submitted no TMDL for Lake Erie, thereby triggering a
mandatory duty by EPA to act. On June 21, 2019, the Court consolidated
the complaint with another similar complaint from the Board of Lucas
County Commissioners.
    On February 13, 2020, Ohio initiated a public comment period on its
draft 2020 303(d) list, which announced that it was making western Lake
Erie a high priority for TMDL development and that the State would
develop a TMDL addressing multiple segments of western Lake Erie
impaired by nutrient pollution and algae for submission to EPA within
the following 2-3 years. Following the public comment period, the State
submitted its 2020 303(d) list to EPA, which approved the list on May
29, 2020, and since that time, the State has been developing the TMDL.
See https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/surface-water/reports-data/maumee-river-watershed.
    In the litigation, the parties completed summary judgment briefing
in May 2020 and participated in oral argument on July 24 & July 30,
2020. Following oral argument, the parties initiated settlement
discussions, which ultimately produced the proposed consent decree. The
State is a party to the proposed consent decree and has agreed to
intervene in the case so that it would be bound by its terms.
    EPA and Ohio would each have obligations under the consent decree
that work to create a binding schedule for the development of a TMDL to
address the nutrient and algae impairments in western Lake Erie. The
consent decree's schedule is based on the State's current projected
timeline for completing the TMDL work it began in 2020. Under the
decree, Ohio would be required to public notice a draft TMDL by
December 31, 2022, with submission of a final TMDL to EPA to follow by
June 30, 2023. EPA's obligations under the consent decree would be
contingent upon Ohio's actions. If Ohio does not submit a final TMDL by
June 30, 2023, and the deadline is not extended by the Court, EPA would
be required to develop the TMDL within six months. The proposed consent
decree also provides that if EPA disapproves the TMDL submission,
Plaintiffs would not object to EPA taking up to six months to develop
its own TMDL. Any of these deadlines may be extended by the Court on
written finding of good cause.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, EPA will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who are not parties to the
litigation. EPA also may hold a public hearing on whether to enter into
the proposed consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may
withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the
comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Clean Water Act or Administrative
Procedure Act.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0884) contains a copy of the Proposed Order. The
official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the Proposed Order and is available through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit
or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of
the official public docket, and access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search.''

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-
0884 via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that

is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's
electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Steven Neugeboren,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-24502 Filed 11-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67180-67181]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14165-000]

Riverbank Hydro No. 11 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 2, 2011, Riverbank Hydro No. 11 LLC (Riverbank) filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a
hydropower project at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Nolin
River Dam, located on the Nolin River, in Edmonson County, Kentucky.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the
permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit
term. A preliminary

permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A bifurcation from the
existing outlet structure; (2) a 10-foot-diameter, 140-foot-long
penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing one generating unit with a total
capacity of 8.0 megawatts (MW); (4) a tailrace structure; and (5) an
3.1-mile-long, 25 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. The project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 24.5 gigawatt-hours
(GWh), and operate run-of-river utilizing surplus water from the
Kentucky River Lock & Dam No. 3, as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Kuo-Bao Tong, Riverbank Power Corporation,
Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, P.O. Box 166, 200 Bay Street, Suite
3230, Toronto, ON, Canada M5J2J4.<PHONE_NUMBER> x 154.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14165-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 25, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28103 Filed 10-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35789-35790]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4271-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Montana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Montana (FEMA-4271-DR), dated May 24, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 24, 2016.

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: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 24, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Montana resulting from a severe winter storm and straight-line
winds during the period of April 15-16, 2016, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Montana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. McCool, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Montana have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Glacier, Liberty, Pondera, Teton, and Toole Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Montana are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-13178 Filed 6-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


MEMORANDUM To: Margaret Sheppard From: Lauren Flinn, Sarah Percy, Mark Wagner Date: May 12, 2004 Re: Evaluation of Ecomate ® Flammability Safety Program ( EPA Contract Number 68 D 00 266, WA 3 04 Task 02)

Foam Supplies, Inc. ( FSI) submitted a request on April 1, 2004, to have Ecomate ® approved for use as a blowing agent in spray foams. Ecomate ® has previously been approved for all foam applications except spray foams because of its flammability. Therefore, the flammability of Ecomate ® , as well as FSI's safety program, outlined in their report " Safe Handling Recommendations for Ecomate ® spray foam systems," are assessed here. It is recommended that Ecomate ® be approved for use in spray foam systems provided the recommendations included in the report are incorporated into their safety program.

Please contact Mark Wagner at 202 862 1155 to discuss.

Evaluation of Ecomate ® Flammability and Safety Program FSI's original submission ( 4/ 1/ 2004) provides test results showing that the concentration of Ecomate ® , which has an LEL of 45,000 ppm1, rarely reaches levels higher than 23 ppm during use. Test results did show that two inches above an open blending drum, the concentration of Ecomate ® reached at least 20% of its LEL2, and could have reached 100% of its LEL. 3 This test also showed that six inches above the drum, the concentration of Ecomate ® was 0% of the LEL.

While these tests suggest that the flammability of Ecomate ® will rarely present a hazard, a safety plan is still necessary because of the high flammability of Ecomate ® and the variability of its use. In order to determine if FSI's safety program for Ecomate ® is sufficient, it was compared to Exxon Mobil Chemical's safety program for Exxsol ® , a pentane hydrocarbon based rigid spray foam system which has already been approved by EPA's SNAP program. The attached table compares the safety plans for Ecomate ® and Exxsol ® ( see Attachment A). Based upon this comparison, Ecomate ® is recommended for SNAP approval as spray foam. However, based upon previous safety suggestions4 for industries that use hydrocarbon blowing agents, the following improvements to the safety plan for Ecomate ® are proposed:

1 NIOSH. Documentation for Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations ( IDLHs). Available at http:// www. cdc. gov/ niosh/ idlh/ 107313. html 2 Industrial Hygiene Assessment for Foam Supplies, Inc. Foam Supplies Inc. SNAP submission, Attachment C. 3 Personal communication between Tim Kalinowski of Foam Supplies and Margaret Sheppard, EPA. Email, April 26, 2004. 4 ICF 2003. Safety training. Memorandum prepared by ICF for EPA ( Attachment B).   Require labeling of all containers as combustible.   Require that regulations regarding transport of combustible materials be followed.   Provide minimum storage room size and require use of gas monitors with alarms where drums are stored.   Require that fire suppression systems be in place in all storage and work areas.   Require use of portable gas monitors during indoor applications and during outdoor applications where areas of minimal ventilation are present.   Implement a plan for clean up of spills.   Require use of classified electrical equipment.   Require contractors to provide worker training and to develop site specific safety plans. Attachment A Ecomate ® Exxsol ® LEL = 4.5%, UEL = 23% ( 1, p. 5) LEL = 1.4%, UEL = 8.7% ( 2, p. 3)

Proper Labeling   In most cases, systems will be labeled as combustible liquids   Drums are labeled as flammable ( 3)

Separate Storage   Adhere to local codes for storage of combustible liquids ( 1, p. 6)

  Do not vent drum in enclosed space ( 1, p. 6)   Safe storage required in a protected area ( 3)

  Storage trailer should be ventilated and monitored with an LEL monitor with an audible alarm ( 3)

Use of Certified Shippers   No mention of transportation rules in FSI's literature, but they can be found in other manufacturers' MSDSs for methyl formate ( 4)   Describe federal regulations that requires vehicles carrying hazardous material must by placarded unless is it carrying less than 1001 lbs ( 3)

Spillage Cleanup   No mention in FSI's literature, but information on cleanup can be found in other manufacturers' MSDSs for methyl formate ( 4)   Spills must be contained and cleaned using a non combustible absorbent such as polypropylene pads, sand, activated charcoal,

or vermiculite. The proper government authorities may need to be notified depending on the size of the spill ( 3)

Worker Training   " Safe Handling Recommendations for Ecomate ® spray foam systems" ( 1)

  Require reading of the MSDS5 and an OSHA approved safe handling pamphlet ( 1, p. 6)

  Provide list of companies where further safety information can be obtained ( 1, Appendix A, B)   " Exxsol ® Blowing Agents: The Compelling Case for Pentane Hydrocarbon Based Rigid Spray Foam" ( 2)

  Training required by urethane foam system supplier or distributor prior to using system ( 2, p. 4)

  Safety video ( 2, p. 4)

Adequate Ventilation   Required when working in an enclosed space ( 1, p. 14)

  For consistent indoor applications, recommended regular air sampling by a qualified industrial hygienist to determine proper ventilation type ( 1, p. 7)

  For exterior applications identified as having areas of potential concern, portable fume meters may be utilized but should not replace appropriate ventilation ( 1, p. 7)   Vapor monitoring and positive ventilation in interior applications essential ( 2, p. 2)

  Exterior applications generally have sufficient ventilation to reduce the build up of flammable vapors, but vapor concentration at the work area should be monitored ( 3)

Flames   No smoking or use of open flames around systems using or storing Ecomate ® ( 1, p. 6)   Eliminate sources of ignition by using classified electrical equipment ( non sparking motors heaters, switches, safety light fixtures, hoses) and preventing smoking ( 3)

Grounding   Ground pumps & drums prior to placing pump in drum ( 1, p. 6)

  Ground before opening or hooking up to container ( 1, p. 6)

  Ground containers when transferring materials ( 1, p. 6)   All equipment inside trailer and the trailer itself must be grounded ( 3)

  Drums should be grounded ( 3)

Fire Suppression   No mention   ABC fire extinguishers required by industry regulations ( 3)

References:

( 1) Foam Supplies, Inc. " Safe Handling Recommendations for Ecomate ® spray foam systems."

( 2) Exxon Mobile Chemical. " Exxsol ® Blowing Agents: The Compelling Case for Pentane Hydrocarbon Based Rigid Spray Foam."

( 3) Exxon Mobile Chemical. Safety Guidelines for Exxsol ® Blowing Agent Based Rigid Polyurethane Spray Systems.

( 4) MSDS from Matheson Tri Gas, Inc. for Methyl Formate. Available at http:// hazard. com/ msds/

5 FSI's MSDS for Ecomate could not be located on the Internet. Attachment B DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: Cc: Margaret Sheppard Suzanne Kocchi, Anhar Karimjee From: Mollie Barwis, Iliriana Mushkolaj, Pam Mathis, Hugh McAdams, Mark Wagner Date: May 29, 2003 Re: Safety training ( EPA Contract No. 68 D 00 266, WA No. 2 04, Task 2)

The purpose of this draft memorandum is to outline steps needed to prepare and conduct a safety training program for industries that use hydrocarbon blowing agents, as well as ways to promote the safety training among these industries. The draft memorandum will be supplemented with information on a safety program developed by Exxon Mobil when documents become available.

Please contact Iliriana Mushkolaj ( 862 2955) or Mark Wagner ( 862 1155) with any questions or comments.

1. Safety Measures for Use of Pentane in Spray Foam Systems Hydrocarbons are SNAP approved alternatives to ozone depleting foam blowing agents. They are halogen free and hence, have zero ozone depleting potential ( ODP) and low global warming potential ( GWP). Hydrocarbons are currently being used in extruded polystyrene, polyurethane, and polyolefin non insulating foam end uses. Cyclopentane is a leading alternative blowing agent candidate for insulating foams because of its high boiling point and other physical properties that are similar to CFC 11 ( EPA, 1994).

Hydrocarbons are volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) and may contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, or smog, in the lower atmosphere. Any use of hydrocarbon blowing agents is subject to federal, state and local restrictions that apply to VOCs ( EPA, 1994).

Conversion of foam blowing agents to hydrocarbons may require major capital investment to ensure worker safety from fire hazards. Safety measures for the use, handling, and storage of hydrocarbons should be considered by both the manufacturers of foam systems and the contractors that use them. Such safety measures include:

Foam system manufacturers   Proper labeling;   Separate storage;   Adequate ventilation;   Use of certified shippers;   Proper warehousing; and   Worker training. Attachment B Contractors   Proper labeling;   Proper storage;   Safe handling of storage vessels;   Safe transport of storage vessels to the jobsite;   Worker training;   Proper use of spray machine;   No smoking;   Safe handling of open containers;   Safe application of spray foam; and   Safe handling of empty pentane system vessels.

In addition, the producers of blowing agent systems should provide safety information to their customers ( i. e., the foam system manufacturers). For example, Exxon Mobil, a formulator of pentane systems, has developed a safety brochure that they provide to customers that purchase pentane.

2. Steps Needed to Prepare and Conduct a Safety Program The Spray Polyurethane Foam Division ( SPFD), with the help of their parent organization, Exxon Mobil, and the systems houses should develop a safety program for contractors. In turn, each contractor should develop their own safety program. The systems houses could also help with a training program, as originally requested during the SNAP approval process.

Information about safety training should already exist ( i. e., Material Safety Data Sheets) and could be used with minor modification. For example, the paint/ coatings industry has a long history of spraying flammable agents, and the safety information they developed could be modified and used in the foam industry.

It should be noted that many contractors already work with flammable materials, such as those that work with the coatings that get applied to the foam. Ensuring worker health and safety in this industry did not prove to be as difficult as projected by suppliers or contractors.

3. Hurdles Several difficulties constrain the assurance of proper safety in foam industries that use hydrocarbon blowing agents. Specifically, the following issues must be overcome:

  The commercial drivers license ( CDL) is more expensive than freight costs for flammables;   New spray machines and truck set ups may be required. The current truck set ups are not explosionproof   Negative press was generated after Central Coatings performed an experiment that intentionally created fire, and published the event in newspapers around the world;   Systems houses are not explosion proof; and   New burn testing must be conducted.

References EPA, 1994. SNAP Final Rule. Last accessed 05/ 21/ 03 at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ snap/ regs/ 59fr13044. html


[Federal Register: September 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 55508-55509]
[DOCID:fr25se08-39]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0604; FRL-8720-9]

Conference on Air Quality Modeling

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of conference.

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

SUMMARY: We announce the Ninth Conference on Air Quality Modeling. Such
a conference is required by Section 320 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
be held every 3 years. The purposes of the ninth conference are to
provide an overview of the latest features of the new air quality
models and to provide a forum for public review and comment on
potential revisions to the way the Agency determines and applies the
appropriate air quality models in the future.

DATES:
    Comments: Comments on potential revisions to the way the Agency
determines and applies the appropriate air quality models must be
received on or before November 10, 2008.
    Conference: The conference will be held on October 9, 2008 from
8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on October 10, 2008 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Requests to speak at the conference should be submitted to the
individual listed below by October 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0604 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments. This is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0604.
     Fax: Fax your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0604.
     Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0604.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0604. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Background Information: Additional information and a more detailed
agenda are electronically available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/
9thmodconf.htm.
    Conference: The conference will be held in the EPA Auditorium, Room
C111, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Eckhoff, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Assessment Division, Mail Code C439-01, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. 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 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:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     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.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The Guideline on Air Quality Models (hereafter, called the
Guideline, which is found in Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51), is used by
EPA, States, and industry to prepare and review new source permits and
State Implementation Plan revisions. The Guideline serves as a means by
which consistency is maintained in air quality analyses. We originally
published the Guideline in April 1978 and it was incorporated by
reference in the regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality in June 1978. We revised the
Guideline in 1986, and updated it with supplement A in 1987, supplement
B in July 1993, and supplement C in August 1995. We published the
Guideline as appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 when we issued supplement B.
We republished the Guideline in August 1996 (61 FR 41838) to adopt the
CFR system for labeling paragraphs.
    To support the process of developing and revising the Guideline
during the period 1977-1988, we held the First, Second and Third
Conferences on Air Quality Modeling as required by Section 320 of the
Clean Air Act to help standardize modeling procedures. These modeling
conferences provided us with comments on the Guideline and associated
revisions, thereby helping us introduce improved modeling techniques
into the regulatory process.
    In October 1988, we held the Fourth Conference on Air Quality
Modeling. Its purpose was to advise the public on new modeling
techniques and to solicit comments to guide our consideration of any
rulemaking needed to further revise the Guideline. We held the Fifth
Conference on Air Quality Modeling in March 1991, which served as a
public hearing for the proposed revisions to the Guideline. In August
1995, we held the sixth conference as a forum to update our available
modeling tools with state-of-the-science techniques for airing these
issues and for the public to offer new ideas. The Seventh Conference
was held in June 2000 and served as a public hearing for the proposed
changes to the recommended air quality models in Appendix W including
the CALPUFF modeling system and AERMOD.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AMS/EPA Regulatory MODel; AERMOD was developed by AERMIC:
AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The last conference held was the Eighth Conference on Air Quality
Modeling in September 22 and 23, 2005, which provided details on recent
and impending changes to the recommended air quality models in Appendix
W. Several presentations were made, including regulatory status and
details on the AERMOD modeling system, the EPA's preferred model for
near-field regulatory applications; the regulatory status and
implementation issues with the CALPUFF modeling system, the EPA's
preferred model for long-range transport of criteria pollutants and
their impacts on Federal Class I areas; and on EPA's approach to
updating the approved versions of regulatory models under Appendix W to
address coding bugs or implementation issues. In addition, several
presentations were provided on the current and available methods for
model performance evaluation and a panel of experts discussed the use
of state-of-the-science prognostic meteorological data for our new
dispersion models. The proceedings are found in Docket No. OAR-2005-
0157.

III. Public Participation

    The Ninth Conference on Air Quality Modeling will be open to the
public; no admission fee is charged and there is no formal
registration. The conference will begin the first morning with
introductory remarks by the presiding EPA official. The following
topics will be presented:

I. Overview of Appendix W
II. AERMOD Status and Updates
III. CALPUFF Status and Updates
IV. Non-Guideline Applications of Dispersion Models
V. Update on Use of Assimilated Meteorological Data for Dispersion
Models
VI. Review of Current and Available Model Evaluation Methods
VII. Review of New and Emerging Models/Techniques for Future
Consideration Under Appendix W; and
VII. Other Presentations by the Public

    Those wishing to speak at the conference, whether to volunteer a
presentation on a special topic or to offer general comment on any of
the modeling techniques scheduled for presentation, should contact us
at the address given in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
(note the cutoff date). Such persons should identify the organization
(if any) on whose behalf they are speaking and the length of the
presentation. If a presentation of general comments is projected to be
longer than 10 minutes, the presenter should also state why a longer
period is needed. Persons failing to submit a written notice but
desiring to speak at the conference should notify the presiding officer
immediately before the conference, and they will be scheduled on a
time-available basis.
    The conference will be conducted informally and chaired by an EPA
official. There will be no sworn testimony or cross examination. A
verbatim transcript of the conference proceedings will be produced and
placed in the docket. Speakers should bring extra copies of their
presentation for inclusion in the docket and for the convenience of the
recorder. Speakers will also be permitted to enter written comments
into the record. Additional written statements or comments should be
sent to the OAR Regulatory Docket (see ADDRESSES section). A transcript
of the proceedings and a copy of all written comments will be
maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0604 which will remain open
until November 10, 2008 for the purpose of receiving additional
comments.

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
Jennifer Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E8-22537 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                   MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 phone<PHONE_NUMBER> fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA FROM:		Kelly Meadows DATE: 		November 10, 2009

SUBJECT:		Distribution of Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems

EPA requested that Tetra Tech examine the distribution of closed-cycle cooling across several types of facility characteristics.  This memo summarizes Tetra Tech's analysis of the data.

Electric Generators

Generating Capacity MW Facilities with Towers (n=174) All Generators  (n=671) 0-100 8.2% 13.4% 100-250  11.2% 13.7% 250-500  11.3% 14.8% 500-750  14.5% 14.5% 750-1000  8% 8.3% 1000-1500  15.6% 13.1% 1500-2000  14.9% 9.5% 2000-3000  12.8% 7.5% >3000 1.7% 1% Note that there are 27 retired facilities (according to Abt data) and some that are combustion turbines--these won't show up as having any steam generating capacity.

Waterbody Type Waterbody Type Facilities with Towers (n=174) All Generators  (n=671) Freshwater River  72.6% 52% Lake  15.8% 20% Estuary  8.2% 17.5% Great Lake  3.4% 7.2% Ocean 0% 3.4%

EPA Region EPA Region Facilities with Towers (n=174) All Generators  (n=671) R1  3% 5.4% R2  2.5% 7.5% R3  18.4% 11.6% R4  24.8% 20.2% R5  17.2% 23.1% R6  16.7% 15.6% R7  4.6% 7.2% R8  9.3% 4.2% R9  1.8% 4% R10  1.7% 1%

Flow DIF (mgd) Facilities with Towers (n=174) Fully CCRS Facilities (n=112) All Generators (n=671) 2-20  32.3% 44.4% 9.8% 20-30  6.9% 8.9% 2.8% 30-40  7% 10.9% 3.1% 40-50  4% 4.5% 1.8% 50-75  5.2% 7.1% 4.4% 75-100  5.2% 5.4% 3.9% 100-200  14% 14.5% 13.4% 200-400  8% 2.7% 16.2% 400-800  7% 1% 21.6% 800-2000  9.2% 1% 19.2% >2000  1.1% 0% 3.9% The first column includes combination facilities.

CUR CUR Facilities with Towers (n=174) All Generators  (n=671) 0-15%  8.9% 15.2% 15-50%  6.9% 15% 50-75%  9.3% 19.7% 75-90%  60% 42.9% >90%  9.8% 7.2%

Fuel Type Fuel Type Facilities with Towers (n=174) All Generators  (n=671) Coal  64% 55.4% Nuclear  13.8% 9.3% Oil  2.3% 5.1% Gas  18.6% 29.3% Other  1.9% 1%

Manufacturers

Waterbody Type Waterbody Type Facilities with Towers (n=210) All Manufacturers  (n=592) Freshwater River  78.1% 76.7% Lake  8% 7% Estuary  7.7% 6.6% Great Lake  6.1% 7.8% Ocean 0% 1.8%

EPA Region EPA Region Facilities with Towers (n=210) All Manufacturers (n=592) R1  2% 5.9% R2  2.5% 11.1% R3  15.9% 12.8% R4  35.9% 18.1% R5  12.7% 24% R6  21.9% 15.4% R7  2.5% 1.9% R8  4.2% 2.9% R9  0% 1.5% R10  2.1% 6%

Flow DIF (mgd) Facilities with Towers (n=210) Fully CCRS Facilities (n=97) All Manufacturers (n=592) 2-20  37.4% 57% 39.6% 20-30  13.2% 21.4% 13.3% 30-40  14.1% 10.6% 12.6% 40-50  5.5% 5.7% 7.2% 50-75  13.7% 1.7% 9.2% 75-100  4.8% 1.1% 5% 100-200  5.5% 2.3% 7.4% 200-400  3% 0% 3.2% 400-800  2.6% 0% 1.7% 800-2000  0% 0% 0.5% >2000  0% 0% 0.3% The first column includes combination facilities.

Industry Sector Industry Sector Facilities with Towers (n=210) All Manufacturers (n=592) Metals 14% 14.9% Chemicals 31.5% 31.3% Paper 30% 37.8% Petroleum 16% 6.6% Other 8.4% 9.5%


[Federal Register: July 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 127)]
[Notices]
[Page 37466-37469]
[DOCID:fr01jy08-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Innovative Food Defense Projects; New Limited Competition
Cooperative Agreement U13; Request for Application Number: RFA-FDA-08-
010

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ORA), Division of Federal-State Relations (DFSR) is announcing
the availability of grant funds for the support of innovative food
defense projects. These grants are available to State, local, and
tribal levels and must have national implication or application that
can enhance Federal, State, and local food regulatory programs and are
likely to impact preparedness, response and/or recovery. FDA
anticipates providing approximately $240,000 in direct plus indirect
costs in support of this program in fiscal year 2008. It is anticipated
that 6 awards will be made for up to $40,000 per award/per year for up
to 1 year.

DATES: The application receipt date is July 30, 2008.

I. Background/Funding Opportunity Description

    Food defense is a term used to describe activities associated with
protecting the nation's food supply from intentional contamination. FDA
(agency) has adopted 3 broad strategies that encompass its food defense
activities:
    (1) Awareness: Prevention/Preparedness: Increase awareness among
Federal, state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector to
better understand where the greatest vulnerabilities lie and develop
effective protection/mitigation strategies to shield the food supply
from intentional contamination; (2) Response: Develop the capacity for
a rapid coordinated response to a foodborne terrorist attack; and (3)
Recovery: Develop the capacity for a rapid coordinated recovery from a
foodborne terrorist attack.
    In the aftermath of 9/11, the agency utilized an approach known as
Operational Risk Management (ORM). ORM involves a determination of
which combinations of foods and agents, and where on the farm-to-table
continuum, constitute the highest risks of being targeted for attack
that may result in a large number of causalities. It is recognized that
any food could potentially be contaminated and thus zero-risk foods do
not exist. However, based on ORM analysis it was discovered that
higher-risk foods do share several common vulnerability factors: Large
batch size, which implies a large number of servings; short shelf life,
which implies rapid turnaround at retail and rapid consumption; uniform
mixing, which would maximize the potential number of contaminated
units; and accessibility of a so-called critical node, defined as a
process or activity in the farm-to-table chain during which the agent
could be added and go undetected.
    Currently, there is a joint program led by FDA, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the Department of
Homeland Security, in collaboration with private industry and the
states known as the Strategic Partnership Program Agroterrorism (SPPA)
Initiative. The SPPA was launched in July 2005 and through industry and
state volunteers vulnerability assessments are conducted locally in
different states on a variety of food commodities in coordination with

Federal partners. These assessments not only address a specific food
commodity but also facilitate interactions between the Federal, state
and local officials that would be involved in a response to a
deliberate attack on the food supply.
    Reports summarizing the results from the first 2 years of SPPA
Assessments have been released. The report demonstrates trends seen in
processing and agriculturally based commodities and also discusses
potential mitigation strategies and research gaps that were identified.
The full reports can be viewed at the Center for Food Safety and
Nutrition (CFSAN) Web site at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/fooddefense.
    As we continue to move forward in meeting our food defense goals by
increasing preparedness, developing response plans, and ensuring we
have the tools to facilitate recovery, we must also integrate these
approaches into our existing food safety infrastructure. The overlap
between food safety (unintentional contamination) and food defense
(intentional contamination) is extensive and the pool of resources
available is often the same. Food safety and food defense are ongoing
issues and it is critical that these programs be integrated to the
maximum extent possible in order to ensure the most efficient use of
resources as well as optimizing response to an event. FDA is committed
to this approach in order to make optimal use of both human and
financial resources to protect public health. As a result, FDA and
State field forces may weave components of food defense awareness and
education into food safety inspections. FDA encourages other
stakeholders to consider the possibilities of incorporating food
defense ideas into their food safety related programs.
    FDA has relied on the States in assisting with these activities
through formal contracts, partnership agreements, and other
arrangements. Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, the demands on both the agency
and the States have increased. Procedures need to be reviewed and
innovative changes need to be made. These changes should increase
effectiveness and efficiency and conserve resources. CFSAN will
continue to support food defense programs by providing high quality,
science-based work that result in maximizing consumer protection. FDA
believes that these grants will be able to generate significant
innovative projects and products that will benefit State and local
governments, FDA, the industry, and the general public in the areas of
food defense just as past awards have benefited all stakeholders in
food safety. It is anticipated that innovative food defense programs
and concepts that are developed at the State and local levels could
enhance programs that are developed at the Federal level. To view past
innovative food safety awards that have been generated out of this work
you can view the ORA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/ora/fed_state/
Innovative_Grants.html.

A. Project Emphasis

    The specific goal of this program is to generate products that
complement, develop, or improve State and local food defense programs
and that these could be applied to food defense programs nationwide.
Examples of food defense projects are: The ALERT Food Defense Awareness
Initiative, Food Defense Surveillance Assignments, Food Emergency
Response Network (FERN: federal and state laboratories), and SPPA
Initiative. Applications that address food defense projects and fulfill
the following specific project objectives will be considered for
funding.
    Each application must address only one project. Applicants may
apply for more than one project area, but must submit a separate
application for each project. If an applicant should receive a fundable
score on more than one topic area only the application with the highest
score will be awarded. These grants are not to be used to fund or
conduct food inspections for food safety regulatory agencies. No more
than 10 percent of the total award can be used to conduct food safety/
food defense exercises. Food safety agencies may subcontract up to 25
percent of the award to educational institutions for assistance with
development of food defense awareness education projects and materials
and training.
    There are three key project areas identified for this effort:
    1. Innovative Food Defense Plan Integration
    One key project area is the development of innovative template food
defense plans and associated programs that could be integrated with
established food safety programs, including continuous improvement
plans for the protection of various food establishments in order to
improve food defense effectiveness and efficiency. Innovative food
defense programs and methodology projects must demonstrate an effect on
factors that contribute to awareness, preparedness, early response, and
recovery in all, or a segment of, food industry programs. For example,
projects could address key elements from the ALERT Initiative. This
initiative details five key points that the food industry can use to
decrease the risk of intentional food contamination. The ALERT
initiative is derived from the FDA Food Security Guidance documents
written for specific segments of the food industry. These proposals
should focus on providing efficient and effective food defense
awareness communications and/or have an effect on factors that
contribute to a potential intentional food contamination. Information
relative to the ALERT initiative can be found at http://
www.cfsan.fda.gov/fooddefense.

2. Education and Awareness Information Dissemination

    Another key project area is the development of innovative food
defense awareness education projects and materials for State and local
food safety and food defense regulatory officials that foster
consistency and uniform application of State and local food
regulations. These education projects and/or materials must be
reproducible by other State and local food safety regulatory agencies.
These projects may incorporate concurrent education of both State and
local food safety and food defense regulatory agencies and the food
industry and must be consistent with the ALERT Initiative messages.

3. Innovative Food Defense Training

    FDA recognizes that there are a number of new technologies and
methods for distance learning and training that may be applicable to
the food industry and relevant stakeholders in relation to food
defense. FDA also recognizes that Federal, state, and local officials
should be able to identify, in a general sense, potential risks, in
relation to food defense in food industry establishments. They should
also be able to encourage food defense awareness in the employees and
management of food industry establishments. Innovative food defense
training efforts are needed so that all stakeholders will have an
increased awareness of the threat of intentional contamination of the
U.S. food supply. Relevant stakeholders should also understand their
unique responsibilities in reducing the risk of intentional
contamination of the food supply. Innovative food defense training must
also be consistent with the ALERT initiative messages.

II. Award Information

Mechanism of Support

    The U13--Support of Scientific Conferences will be used to support
this program. Under the U13 Mechanism,

the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) retains the primary
responsibility and dominant role for planning, directing, and executing
the proposed project, with FDA staff being substantially involved as a
partner with the PD/PI.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applications

    This grant program is only available to State, local, and tribal
government food regulatory agencies. (See single point of contact
(SPOC) requirements stated in section IV.D of this document).

B. Cost Sharing or Matching

    None.

C. Other

    These grants are available to State, local, and tribal levels and
must have national implication or application that can enhance Federal,
State, and local food regulatory programs and are likely to impact
preparedness, response and/or recovery. At the discretion of FDA,
successful project formats will be made available to interested
Federal, State, local, and tribal food safety regulatory agencies. Only
one grant will be awarded per State per year. States are urged to
collaborate between agencies to submit a single application.
    FDA reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license
to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use,
for Federal Government purposes: (1) The copyright in any work
developed under a grant, subgrant or contract under a grant or subgrant
and (2) any rights of copyright to which a grantee, subgrantee, or a
contractor purchases ownership with grant support (45 CFR 92.34).

IV. Application and Submission

A. Application Information

    In order to apply electronically, the applicant must have a Data
Universal Number System number and register in the Central Contractor
Registration database. Please note: You must be registered with a
username and password obtained from a Credential Provider to apply for
opportunities. (See the following Web site: http://www.grants.gov/
applicants/get_registered.jsp).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FDA has verified the non-FDA Web site addresses throughout
this document, but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes
to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you experience technical difficulties with your online
submission you should contact either Marc Pitts, Grants Management
Specialist, Office of Acquisitions & Grants Services, Division of
Acquisition Support and Grants, Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the Grants.gov Customer Support Center by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Customer Support Center by telephone
at 1-800-518-4726.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

    FDA is accepting the application for this program electronically by
the Internet at: Grants.gov. Applicants must apply electronically by
visiting the Web site http://www.grants.gov and following instructions
under ``APPLY FOR GRANTS.'' The required application PHS 424, which is
part of the PHS 5161-1 form, can be completed and submitted online by
selecting Step 1: ``Download a Grant Application Package'' then by
entering the funding opportunity number ``RFA-FD-08-010''. The
``Selected Grant Applications For Download'' page will provide you with
the Additional Resources download for Adobe Reader and PureEdge Viewer
as well as the download to the ``Instructions & Application hyperlink.
    The face page of the application should indicate ``Innovative Food
Defense Grant Program RFA-FD-08-010.''
    Information collection requirements requested on SF 424/PHS Form
5161-1 were approved and issued under the Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-102.

C. Submission Dates and Times

    The application receipt date for 2008 is July 30, 2008.
Applications will be accepted from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, until the established receipt date.
    Applications must be submitted electronically and must be received
by the close of business on the established receipt date.
    No addendum material will be accepted after the established receipt
date.

D. Intergovernmental Review

    Intergovernmental review applicants are limited to one State
government agency per State. Applications submitted under this program
are subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372.
    The regulations issued under Executive Order 12372 also apply to
this program and are implemented through the Department of Health and
Human Services regulations at 45 CFR part 100. Executive Order 12372
sets up a system for State and local government review of applications
for Federal financial assistance. Applicants (other than federally
recognized Indian tribal governments) should contact the State's SPOC
as early as possible to alert them to the prospective application(s)
and to receive any necessary instructions on the State's review
process. A current listing of SPOCs is included in the application kit.
The SPOC should send any State review process recommendations to the
FDA Grants Management Office contact listed in section VI of this
document. The due date for the State process recommendations is no
later than 60 days after the deadline date for the receipt of
applications. FDA does not guarantee availability to accommodate or
explain SPOC comments that are received after the 60 day cut-off. A
current listing of SPOCs can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
grants/spoc.html.

E. Funding Restrictions

    Nonallowable costs include, but are not limited to: (1) Purchase of
equipment; (2) transportation costs exceeding coach class fares; (3)
entertainment; (4) tips; (5) bar charges; (6) personal telephone calls;
(7) laundry charges; (8) travel or expenses other than local mileage
for local participants; (9) organization dues; (10) honoraria or other
payments for the purpose of conferring distinction or communicating
respect, esteem or admiration; (11) alterations or renovations; and
(12) travel or per diem costs for Federal employees.

V. Award Administration Information

A. Award Notices/Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Support for this program will be in the form of a grant. These
grants will be subject to all policies and requirements that govern the
project grant programs of FDA, including the provisions of 42 CFR part
52 and 45 CFR parts 74 and 92. These grants are subject to the A-87
cost principles.

B. Reporting Requirements

    A final Program Progress Report and a final Financial Status Report
(SF-269) are required within 90 days of the expiration date of the
project period as noted on the Notice of Grant Award. In addition, the
grantee must file an invention statement and disposition of equipment
statement within 90 days after the end date of the project period as
noted on the notice of the cooperative agreement award. An original and
two

copies of each report shall be submitted to FDA's Grants Management
Office (see section VI of this document).
    A Mid-Year Progress Report is also required no later than 90 days
after the close of the budget period. The Mid-Year Progress Report
should cover 6 months of activity.
    Program monitoring of recipients will be conducted on an ongoing
basis and written reports will be reviewed and evaluated at least semi-
annually by the project officer. Project monitoring may also be in the
form of telephone conversations between the project officer/grants
management specialist and the principal investigator.
    When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to
submit the PHS Non-Competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) http://
grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm annually and financial
statements as required in the Department of Health and Human Services
Grants Policy Statement. Reports must be submitted two months prior to
the next budget period start date. The Progress Report should include a
report of the previous meeting supported by the current grant, as well
as a full description of the next planned meeting.

VI. Agency Contacts

    We encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and
welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
Inquiries may fall into two areas: Scientific/research and financial or
grants management issues:

A. Scientific/Research Contacts

    Regarding the programmatic issues of this notice: Jennifer Gabb,
Division of Federal-State Relations, Office of Regulatory Affairs (HFC-
150), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12-07,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or access the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ora/fed_state/
default.htm.
    For general Food Defense program information: Don Kautter, Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-007), 5100 Paint Branch, rm.
3B019, College Park, MD, 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or access the Internet at: http://
www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/defterr.html.

B. Financial or Grants Management Contacts

    Regarding the administrative and financial management issues of
this notice: Marc Pitts, Office of Acquisitions & Grants Services,
Grants Acquisition and Assistance Team (HFA-500), Food and Drug
Administration, rm. 2104, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 25, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-14876 Filed 6-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72750-72752]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30389]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2011-0156]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on an extension of a currently
approved collection.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at
the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management,
Room W12-140, ground level, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC
20590 by any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Telephone: 1-(800) 647-5527.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the street address listed above. The Internet
access to the docket will be at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Carlita
Ballard, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room W43-439, NVS-131,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to
its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i.) 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;
    (ii.) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii.) How to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv.) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including 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 compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: Insurer Reporting Requirement for 49 CFR part 544.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0547.
    Form Number: None.
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval
date.
    Abstract: This information collection supports the Department's
strategic goal of Economic Growth and Trade. The Motor Vehicle Theft
Law Enforcement Act of 1984, added Title VI to the Motor Vehicle and
Information Cost Savings Act (recodified as Chapter 331 of Title 49,
United States Code) which mandated this information collection. The
1984 Theft Act was amended by the Anti Car Theft Act (ACTA) of 1992
(Pub. L. 102-519). NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 33112, to
collect this information. This information collection supports the
agency's economic growth and trade goal through rulemaking
implementation developed to help reduce the cost of vehicle ownership
by reducing the cost of comprehensive insurance coverage. 49 U.S.C.
33112 requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurance companies and
rental/leasing companies to provide information to NHTSA on
comprehensive insurance premiums, theft, recoveries and actions taken
to address motor vehicle theft.
    Estimated Annual Burden: Based on prior years' insurer compilation
information, the agency estimates that the time to review and compile
information for the reports has decreased and is expected to take
approximately a total of 13,375 burden hours (12,950 man-hours for 25
insurance companies and 425 man-hours for 5 rental and leasing
companies). Claim adjusters duties are those of normal business
practice and do no assist in preparing or compiling information for the
reports. There has also been a decrease in the number of companies
required to report since the last reporting period. The number of
annual reports range between 30 to 35 as a group (includes insurance
companies and rental and leasing companies). More insurers are now
submitting their reports electronically (approximately 70%). The agency
has re-estimated the burden hours to be 13,375 total annual hours in
lieu of 63,238 as the current OMB inventory. This is a decrease of
49,863 hours. Most recent year insurer compilation information
estimates also reveal that it takes an average cost of $47.00 per hour
for clerical and technical staff to prepare the annual reports.
Therefore, the agency estimates the total cost associated with the
burden hours are $628,625.
    The burden hour for rental and leasing companies is significantly
less than that for insurance companies because rental and leasing
companies comply with fewer reporting requirements than the insurance
companies. The reporting burden is based on insurers' salaries,
clerical and technical expenses, and labor costs.
    Number of Respondents: 30.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued on: November 18, 2011.
Lori Summers,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-30389 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


                               Bromacil (012301)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                             Date: August 9, 2011

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
      * Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
      * Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
      * Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
      * Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
      * Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
      * Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
      * Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
      * Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
      * Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
      * Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
      * USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2003 to 2009.
      * Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2003 to 2010.

What are the limitations to the data?
      * Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
      * Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
      * Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
      * Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
      * Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                           Tuesday, August 09, 2011

      Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Bromacil (012301)
                             Sorted Alphabetically

                                                              Percent Crop Ttd.

			Crop
                                                                      Lbs. A.I.
                                                                           Avg.
                                                                           Max.
                                                                              1
Fallow
                                                                          1,000
                                                                          <1
                                                                        <2.5
                                                                              2
Grapefruit
                                                                         55,000
                                                                             25
                                                                             35
                                                                              3
Lemons
                                                                         10,000
                                                                             10
                                                                             15
                                                                              4
Oranges
                                                                        255,000
                                                                             15
                                                                             25

All numbers rounded.
                                                                        <500
Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient
                                                                        <2.5
Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated
                                                                          <1
Less than 1 percent of crop treated

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.