1 ECOLOGICAL HAZARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 5 hydroxymethoxymethyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclooctanes ( Aza)

PC Code 107001, 107002, and 107003 CASE No.: 3023 Kathryn Montague Antimicrobials Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 May 16, 2005 2 Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment for 5 hydroxymethoxymethyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclooctanes ( Aza)

Aza is a mixture of 3 similar compounds used as a materials preservative in latex paints, latex emulsions, pigment dispersions, inks, adhesives, construction materials, metalworking fluids, textile fiber finish solutions, pulp and paper, and oil production/ recovery. There is only 1 registered end use product, Nuosept ® 95, which, according to the current CSF contains:

PC code 107001 5 hydroxymethoxymethyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclo( 3.3.0) octane. . . . . . . . . 28.8% 107002 5 hydroxymethyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclo ( 3.3.0) octane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0% 107003 5 hydroxypoly( methyleneoxy) methyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclooctane. . . . . . . 5.2 % Inert Ingredients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00%

This does NOT, however, match the ratios of the isomers listed on the Nuosept ® 95 label, on which the ratios of the first two isomers are reversed. It is not known at this time whether the label is in error or if the formulation of Nuosept ® 95 has been changed. It is also not known what effect changing the ratios of isomers will have on the toxicity of the product.

The ecological hazard data summarized below was conducted on the product Nuosept ® 95. The percentages of the three octanes in the formulation varied slightly in the submitted studies; ratios are listed in the tables, where information was available. The EPA's ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002) was also searched for avian, fish, invertebrate, mammalian and plant data on the components of Aza, but no data were found. 3 1. Ecological Toxicity Data A. Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals ( i). Birds, Acute and Subacute In order to establish the toxicity of an indoor use pesticide to birds, the Agency requires an acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient ( TGAI). The preferred test species is either mallard duck ( a waterfowl) or northern bobwhite quail ( an upland game bird). The results of one toxicity study are provided in the following table ( Table 1).

Table 1. Acute Oral Toxicity of Nuosept ® 95 to Birds Species % Active Ingredient ( ai) Endpoint ( mg / kg product) Toxicity Category Satisfies Guidelines/ Comments Reference Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynch os) 107001 24.5% 107002 17.7% 107003 7.8% LD50 > 2,510 NOEL = 2510 ( mortality) Practicall y nontoxic Yes  acceptable for formulated product  14 day test duration Beavers, 1983 ( ACC # 250533)

The results of these studies indicate that Nuosept ® 95 is practically non toxic to birds on an acute oral basis. Although conducted using a formulated product and not the TGAI, these studies are considered adequate to support the registered uses on Aza, as Nuosept ® 95 is the only end use product. The study is acceptable and fulfills the Guideline requirements ( 850.2100/ 71 1).

A subacute dietary study using the TGAI may be required on a case by case basis depending on the results of the lower tier ecological studies and pertinent environmental characteristics to establish the toxicity of a pesticide oil to avian species. The preferred test species are mallard duck or northern bobwhite quail. This testing is not required for the currently supported uses on Aza; however, three avian dietary studies were previously submitted to the Agency. The results of these are provided in the following table ( Table 2). 4 Table 2. Subacute Dietary Toxicity of Nuosept ® 95 to Birds Species % Active Ingredient ( ai) Endpoint ( ppm) Toxicity Category Satisfies Guidelines/ Comments Reference Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus) 50% LC50 > 5,200 a. i. (> 10,400 product) NOEC 1541 ppm a. i. ( 3082 ppm product) Practically non toxic No  supplemental study  administered in drinking water rather than food Hakin et al., 1990 ( MRID 416848 01)

Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus) not reported LC50 > 10,000 ppm product NOEC 10,000 ppm Practically non toxic Yes  acceptable for formulated product  single mortality at 10,000 ppm; no other mortality reported Truslow Farms, 1974. ( ACC# 248 78)

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynch os) not reported LC50 > 10,000 ppm product NOEC 10,000 ppm Practically non toxic Yes  acceptable for formulated product  no mortality reported at any test concentration Truslow Farms, 1974. ( ACC# 248 78)

The results of the study indicate that Nuosept ® 95 is practically non toxic to birds via dietary exposure. Although conducted using a formulated product and not the TGAI, these studies are considered adequate to support the registered uses on Aza, as Nuosept ® 95 is the only end use product. The Guideline requirements ( 850.2200/ 71 2) are fulfilled.

ii. Toxicity to Mammals Wild mammal testing was not required for Aza. In most cases, toxicity values obtained from studies conducted to support data requirements for the human health risk assessment substitute for wild mammal testing. These toxicity values are reported below ( Table 3). 5 Table 3. Acute Toxicity of Nuosept ® 95 to Mammals Species Test Type LD50 ( mg/ kg) NOEL ( mg/ kg/ day) Reference ( MRID)

Rat Acute oral 1940, toxicity category III  41641601 Rat Acute dermal > 2000, toxicity category III  41671801 Rat Subchronic dietary n/ a 10.6 mg/ kg/ day 41641606 and 00109245 B. Toxicity to Aquatic Animals i. Freshwater Fish, Acute In order to establish the acute toxicity of pesticides to freshwater fish, the Agency requires freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI. The preferred test species are rainbow trout ( a coldwater fish) or bluegill sunfish ( a warmwater fish), although other test species identified in the Guideline ( i. e., OPPTS 850.1075 ( e)( 4)( i)( A)) may also be used. Two freshwater fish toxicity studies were submitted to the Agency for Aza, using the formulated product Nuosept ® 95. The results of these studies are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Acute Toxicity of Nuosept ® 95 to Freshwater Fish Species % Active Ingredient ( ai) Endpoints ( ppm product) Toxicity Category Satisfies Guidelines/ Comments Reference Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) not reported LC50 = 240 NOEC = 87 practically non toxic No  supplemental  96h test duration;  static system Bentley and Sleight, 1974 ( ACC # 247878; MRID 930500 15)

Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus) not reported LC50 = 163 NOEC = 87 practically non toxic No  supplemental  96h test duration;  flow through system Bently and Bevier, 1974 ( ACC# 24787 8; MRID 930500 15)

These studies were originally submitted and reviewed by OPP in 1982, and were determined to be acceptable for formulated product testing. However, they were 6 resubmitted by Creanova, Inc., and re reviewed in 2002, and classified as supplemental information due to a lack of details regarding chemical purity and composition. These studies can potentially be upgraded to acceptable if sufficient information on the composition and purity of the test substance used is submitted. At the present time, they do not fulfill Guideline requirements. Guideline 850.1075 ( 72 1) is NOT fulfilled.

ii. Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute The Agency requires a freshwater aquatic invertebrate study using the TGAI to establish the acute toxicity of an indoor use pesticide to freshwater invertebrates. The preferred test species are Daphnia magna or Daphnia pulex. Results of one toxicity study are provided in the following table ( Table 5).

Table 5. Acute Toxicity of Nuosept ® 95 to Freshwater Invertebrates 83i % Active Ingredient ( ai) Endpoints ( ppm product) Toxicity Category Satisfies Guidelines/ Comments Reference Water flea ( Daphnia magna) 107001 24.5% 107002 17.7% 107003 7.8% EC50 = 77 NOEC = 7.7 slightly toxic Yes  acceptable for formulated product  48h test duration;  static system Suprenant, 1983 ( ACC# 250533/ MR OD # 930500 16)

The results indicate that Nuosept ® 95 is slightly toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. Although conducted on the formulated product and not the TGAI, the study is considered adequate to support the currently registered uses of Aza, since Nuosept ® 95 is the only end use product. The study is acceptable and fulfills Guideline requirements ( 850.1010/ 72 2).

iii. Freshwater Organisms, Chronic Chronic toxicity testing for freshwater organisms is not required for the currently registered uses of Aza. The ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002) was searched for any appropriate chronic testing with fish or invertebrates, but no such data were located.

iv. Estuarine and Marine Organisms, Acute Acute testing with estuarine/ marine organisms is required to support the oil recovery uses of Aza. This testing is conducted with one fish species, a bivalve, and an additional invertebrate. These data were submitted to the Agency, and the results are summarized in Tables 6 and 7, below. 7 Table 6 . Acute Toxicity of Nuosept ® 95 to Marine/ Estuarine Fish Species % Active Ingredient ( ai) Endpoints ( ppm product) Toxicity Category Satisfies Guidelines/ Comments Reference Sheepshea d minnow ( Cyprinod on variegatus ) PC code % 107001 24.5% 107002 17.7% 107003 7.8% LC50 = 440 ppm NOEC = 250 ppm practically non toxic Yes  acceptable for formulated product  96h test duration;  static system Ward, 1983. ( ACC# 250533)

The results indicate that Nuosept ® 95 is practically non toxic to marine/ estuarine fish. Although conducted on the formulated product and not the TGAI, the study is considered adequate to support the currently registered uses of Aza, since Nuosept 95 is the only end use product. The study is acceptable and fulfills Guideline requirements ( 850.1075/ 72 3a).

Table 7. Acute Toxicity of Nuosept 95 to Marine/ Estuarine Invertebrates Species % Active Ingredient ( ai) Endpoints ( ppm product) Toxicity Category Satisfies Guidelines/ Comments Reference Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica) PCCode % 107001 24.5% 107002 17.7% 107003 7.8% EC50 = 42 NOEC = 25 slightly toxic Yes  core study on formulated product  embryo larvae test  48h test duration;  static system system  endpoint immobilization Ward, 1983. ( ACC# 25053 3)

Mysid ( Americamys is bahia) 107001 24.5% 107002 17.7% 107003 7.8% LC50 = 88 ppm NOEC < 50 ppm\ slightly toxic Yes  core for formulated product  96h test duration  static system Ward, 1983. ACC# 25053 3 The results of these studies indicate that Nuosept ® 95 is slightly toxic to marine/ estuarine invertebrates. The Guidelines ( 850.1025 and 850.1035/ 72 3b and c) are fulfilled.

v. Estuarine and Marine Organisms, Chronic 8 Chronic toxicity testing for marine/ estuarine organisms is not required for the currently registered uses of Aza. The ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002) was searched for any appropriate chronic testing with fish or invertebrates, but no such data were located.

C. Toxicity to Plants Terrestrial and aquatic plant testing is not required to support the registered uses of Aza. No studies on plant toxicity have been submitted to the Agency. The ECOTOX database ( EPA, 2002) was searched for any plant toxicity information on the components of Aza. No data were available.

2. Environmental Risk Characterization A. Environmental Fate Assessment ( excerpted from the Environmental Fate Science Chapter of this RED)

The Agency database for the risk assessment of Azadioxabicyclooctane ( mixture of three components) is incomplete, as only an abiotic aqueous hydrolysis study is available for this pesticide. However, for the present risk assessment, we have used the Agency's EPISuite Program, which estimates physical and chemical characteristics as well as some fate and transport parameters of chemicals. This information will allow a conservative fate assessment of azadioxabicyclooctane.

Azadioxabicyclooctane ( is a mixture of three acetals: 5 hydroxymethoxymethyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclo( 3.3.0) octane ( 28.8%), ( component A, PC code 107002) 5 hydroxymethyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclo( 3.3.0) octane ( 16.0%), ( component B, PC code 107001) 5 hydroxypoly( methyleneoxy)* methyl 1 aza 3,7 dioxabicyclo( 3.3.0) octane ( 5.2%), ( component C, PC code 107003) where the polychain is extended as: 74% C2, 21% C3, AND 4% C4, AND 1% C5 ( meaning from 1 C to C5 chain lengths of CH2O groups are added). EPI Suite lacks estimation of the third of the three isomers ( CAS# 56709 13 8).

Under abiotic conditions, the mixture of these acetals is hydrolytically unstable with halflives of 0.347 days at pH 5, 1.74 days at pH 7 and approximately 15 days at pH 9. It is, therefore, not likely to be persistent in water.

Components A and B of the mixture are likely to volatilize into the atmosphere as their vapor pressures vary between 0.0004 to 0.003 mm Hg. Component C is likely to have less volatility as the side chain of CH2O groups are added into the structure. Estimated half lives in the atmosphere for components A and B are 1.2 and 1.4 hours. Hence, these two chemicals are not likely to persist in the atmosphere. 9 Estimated log Kow s of components A and B are respectively are  2.23 and  1.55 ( very highly miscible in water and show no tendency for dissolving organic solvents); therefore, the mixture is not likely to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.

MITI linear biodegradability ( modified linear biodegradation method) for components A and B indicates a fast biodegradation is highly probable in soils and water. These compounds do not likely pose a concern for surface and ground water contamination B. Environmental Exposure Assessment Most uses of Aza are indoor uses, with little chance of exposure to the environment. Exposure modeling is not conducted for those uses. The oil production uses do occur outdoors; however, OPP does not have an available model for estimating exposure from those uses. The risk from offshore oil drilling uses of Aza was previously addressed ( Environmental Fate and Effects Division review, 7/ 14/ 83), and the application of 500 2000 ppm drilling fluid treatment or 100 1000 ppm flooding fluid treatment was considered " unlikely to adversely affect aquatic organisms due to the low toxicity and large dilution factor." Discharge of waste streams occurring from terrestrial oil recovery operations would be regulated at the local level in order to prevent undue environmental exposure.

C. Environmental Risk Assessment The indoor uses of Aza are not likely to pose risk to fish, wildlife or plants due to the low likelihood of exposure and the low toxicity of the compound. The offshore oil production use of Aza was previously addressed ( Environmental Fate and Effects Division review, 7/ 14/ 83), and the application of 500 2000 ppm drilling fluid treatment or 100 1000 ppm flooding fluid treatment was considered " unlikely to adversely affect aquatic organisms due to the low toxicity and large dilution factor." The Agency assumes that the waste streams occurring from terrestrial oil production are actively managed under local environmental regulations to prevent adverse ecological effects.

D. Endangered Species Considerations The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. To analyze the potential of registered pesticide uses to affect any particular species, EPA puts basic toxicity and exposure data developed for risk assessments into context for individual listed species and their locations by evaluating important ecological parameters, pesticide use information, the geographic relationship between specific pesticide uses and species locations, and biological requirements and behavioral aspects of the particular species. A determination that there is a likelihood of potential impact to a listed species may result 10 in limitations on use of the pesticide, other measures to mitigate any potential impact, or consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/ or the National Marine Fisheries Service as necessary.

Due to the low likelihood of exposure and low toxicity of Aza, the indoor uses of the compound are not likely to adversely affect listed species. Likewise, offshore oil production use of Aza is considered unlikely to adversely affect listed species due to the low toxicity of the compound and the large dilution factor in offshore operations. The Agency assumes that the waste streams occurring from terrestrial oil production are actively managed under local environmental regulations to prevent adverse ecological effects, and are therefore not likely to adversely affect listed species. 11 REFERENCES MRID 41684801. Hakin, B., M. Rodgers, A. Anderson and I. S. Dawe. 1990. Nuosept 95: LC50 to Bobwhite Quail. Unpublished data. Conducted by Huntingdon Research Centre, Ltd., for Huls America, Inc.

ACC# 250533. Ward, G. S. 1983. Acute Toxicity of Nuosept 95 to Embryo larvae of Eastern oysters ( Crassostrea virginica). Unpublished data. Conducted by EG& G Bionomics for Nuodex, Inc.

ACC# 247878. Truslow Farms, Inc. 1974. Eight day Dietary LC50  Bobwhite quail Nuosept 95. Unpublished data. Conducted by Truslow Farms, Inc., for Tenneco Chemicals.

. . Eight day Dietary LC50  Mallard duck Nuosept 95. Unpublished data. Conducted by Truslow Farms, Inc., for Tenneco Chemicals.

MRID # 93050015. Bently, R. E. and B. H. Sleight. 1974. Acute Toxicity of Nuosept 95 Preservative to Bluegill and Rainbow Trout. Unpublished data. Conducted by EG& G Bionomics, Inc., for Huls America, Inc. ( formerly Nuodex, Inc., formerly Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.). Also submitted by Creanova, Inc., 1990.

. . Acute Toxicity of Nuosept 95 to Mysid Shrimp ( Mysidopsis bahia). Unpublished data. Conducted by EG& G Bionomics for Nuodex, Inc.

  Acute Toxicity of Nuosept 95 to Sheepshead Minnows ( Cyprinodon variegatus). Unpublished data. Conducted by EG& G Bionomics for Nuodex, Inc.

. Suprenant, D. C. 1983. Acute Toxicity of Nuospet 95 to the Water Flea ( Daphnia magna). Unpublished data. Conducted by EG& G Bionomics for Nuodex, Inc. Also submitted as MRID # 930500 16 by Creanova, Inc., 2002.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). 2002. ECOTOX User Guide: ECOTOXicology Database System. Version 3.0. Available: http:// www. epa. gov/ ecotox/


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 61472-61473]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2893-000]

SJH Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

September 29, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
SJH Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 19, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access

who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24965 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 7722]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02880]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday,
February 12, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Consideration of amicus participation; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 5, 2014.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02880 Filed 2-6-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OSWER/ CEPPO 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2050  __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. x New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. x Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes x No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. x Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Distribution of Off site Consequence Analysis Information under Section 112( r) of the Clean Air Act.

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): 1981.01 ( Note: The ICR for the proposed rule was submitted under ICR 1656.08. To avoid confusion with the ICR already approved under OMB control no. 2050 0144 ( Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances under Section 112( r) of the Clean Air Act), the ICR number for the final rule has been changed.)

9. Keywords: Chemical Safety Information, Site Security; and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act; Off site consequence analysis; public access; risk management plan 10. Abstract: This information collection request ( ICR) supports the final rule, Accidental Release Prevention Requirements; Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act Section 112( r)( 7); Distribution of Off Site Consequence Analysis Information, under CAA section 112( r) as amended by the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act ( P. L. 106 40). CAA section 112( r)( 7) required EPA to promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide for the prevention and detection of accidental releases and for responses to such releases. The regulations include requirements for submittal of a risk management plan ( RMP) to EPA. The RMP includes information on offsite consequence analyses ( OCA) as well as other elements of the risk management program. EPA has made all RMP data except the OCA information available to the public on the Internet through a system called RMP* Info. The final rule will provide access to OCA information for governmental officials and the members of the public. This ICR includes the burden placed on the members of the public requesting OCA information ( providing personal identification and sign in at federal reading rooms). This ICR also includes burden on state and local officials deciding to obtain OCA information ( must submit a written request to EPA for OCA information and may provide reading rooms for the public to view OCA information for local facilities).

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. x Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 10,380 b. Total annual responses 10,380 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 100,000 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 100,000 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 100,000 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 125 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 1 c. Total annualized cost requested 126 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 126 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 126 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. x Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. x Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Sicy Jacob / John Ferris Phone: 202 260 7249 / 202 260 4043 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13356-13357]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD16-1-000]

Notice on Agency Information Collection (FERC-725L)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites
public comment in Docket No. RD16-1-000 on a non-material or non-
substantive change to the collection of information (FERC-725L) that
the Commission is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are
invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

DATES: Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be
received on or before April 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0261 or collection number (FERC-725L), should be sent via email to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments, identified by docket number, should also be
sent to the Commission in one of the following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver an original of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Brown may be reached by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission will submit the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of Reliability Standard MOD-031-2 to OMB for
review of a non-material or non-substantive change. Reliability
Standard MOD-031-2 replaces or supplements requirements from previous
versions of the MOD-031 Reliability Standard, which are approved under
FERC-725L (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System:
MOD Reliability Standards).
    Type of Request: Approval of a non-material or non-substantive
change to the FERC-725L information collection requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission requires the information collected by the
FERC-725L to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA).\1\ On August 8, 2005, Congress enacted into
law the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII,
Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).\2\ EPAct
2005 added a new section 215 to the FPA, which required a Commission-
certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory
and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission
review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be
enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or the Commission
can independently enforce Reliability Standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).
    \2\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, Title XII,
Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (codified at 16 U.S.C. 824o).
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,
implementing section 215 of the FPA.\4\ Pursuant to Order No. 672, the
Commission certified one organization, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), as the ERO.\5\ The Reliability
Standards developed by the ERO and approved by the Commission apply to
users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System as set forth in
each Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \5\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
order on compliance, 118 FERC ] 61,190, order on reh'g, 119 FERC ]
61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342
(D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Reliability Standard MOD-031-2 achieves the same reliability
purpose of the prior version MOD-031-1. This standard provides
authority for Bulk-Power System planners and operators to collect
demand, energy, and related data to support reliability studies and
assessments, and enumerates the responsibilities and obligations of
requestors and respondents of that data.
    In its November 13, 2015 petition, NERC states that Reliability
Standard MOD-031-2 is an improvement to the existing version of the
standard because it clarifies the compliance obligations related to (1)
providing data to Regional Entities and (2) responding to a request for
data subject to confidentiality restrictions. NERC also states that the
improvements to the Reliability Standard are consistent with the
Commission directives in Order No. 804.\6\ In Order No. 804, the
Commission approved Reliability Standard MOD-031. However, the
Commission also directed, pursuant to 215(d)(5) of the FPA, that NERC
develop a modification to Reliability Standard MOD-031-1 to clarify
that planning coordinators and balancing authorities must provide
demand and energy data upon request of a Regional Entity, as necessary
to support NERC's development of seasonal and long-term reliability
assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NERC Petition at 2, n.8 citing Demand and Energy Data
Reliability Standard, Order No. 804, 150 FERC ] 61,109 at PP 14-15
(2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a Delegated Letter Order in Docket No. RD16-1, the Commission
approved the proposed Reliability Standard MOD-031-2 on February 18,
2016.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Delegated Letter Order is available in FERC's eLibrary
at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14148897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC is not changing the way the FERC-725L collection is being
done, and is not modifying the burden, cost, or respondents. The
reporting and recordkeeping requirements will be submitted to the OMB
as a non-material or non-substantive change to the currently approved
FERC-725L collection.
    Type of Respondents: Distribution Providers (DP), Load-Serving
Entities (LSE), Transmission Planner (TP), and Balancing Authorities
(BA).
    Estimate of Annual Burden.\8\ The burden and cost are not expected
to

change from the figures currently approved by the OMB.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal
agency. See 5 CFR part 1320 for more information.
    \9\ The current burden inventory for FERC-725L, as modified by
the Final Rule (Order No. 804) in Docket No. RM14-12 (80 FR 9596, 2/
24/2015), was approved by the OMB on 4/24/2015.

    Dated: March 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05654 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48852]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 12938-002]

 FFP Project 42 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 1, 2011, FFP Project 42 LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of hydropower on the Mississippi River, near Memphis,
in Shelby County, Tennessee and near West Memphis, in Crittenden County
Arkansas. 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 Hope Field Point hydrokinetic project would consist of
the following: (1) Up to 5,600 SmarTurbine generating units installed
in arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 224,000 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables
would convey each array's power to a metering station; and (4) a
transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed
project would have an average annual generation of 490,560,000
kilowatt-hours (kWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<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 the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12938-002) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20157 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31459-31464]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12498]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0460; A-1-FRL-9817-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Reasonably Available Control Technology Update To Address
Control Techniques Guidelines Issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision
establishes and requires Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
for several categories of volatile organic compound (VOC) sources. The
intended effect of this action is to propose approval of these
requirements into the Connecticut SIP. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2010-0460 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0460'',
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2010-0460. EPA's policy is that all comments

received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at 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 through
www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
    In addition, the state's submittals are available for public
inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the state
environmental agency: The Bureau of Air Management, Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm
Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What is included in the submittals?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the submittals?
    A. Metal Furniture Coating
    B. Paper Coating
    C. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
    D. Flexible Package Printing
    E. Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing
    F. Large Appliance Coatings
    G. Industrial Solvent Cleaning and Spray Application Equipment
Cleaning
    H. Consumer Products
    I. Adhesives and Sealants
    J. Withdrawn Provisions
    K. Minor Changes and Negative Declarations
    L. Conclusion
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's revisions to Section 22a-
174-20, ``Control of organic compound emissions,'' and Connecticut's
newly adopted Sections 22a-174-40, ``Consumer Products,'' and 22a-
17444, ``Adhesives and Sealants,'' which address RACT for the VOC
source categories covered by Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued
by EPA in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Connecticut's rules were submitted to
EPA on February 1, 2008, November 18, 2008, April 29, 2010, and
November 21, 2012. EPA is also proposing to approve the negative
declarations for the CTGs for which Connecticut determined no
applicable sources exist in the State of Connecticut.

II. What is the background for this action?

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard
based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse
health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of
time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard
was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act,
or CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., EPA designated portions of the country
as being in nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858).
Two areas in Connecticut, together encompassing the entire state, were
designated nonattainment for ozone and classified as moderate: Greater
Connecticut, CT; and New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT.
Connecticut is also part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under
Section 184(a) of the CAA. Sections 182(b)(2) and 184 of the CAA compel
states with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas, as well as
areas in the OTR respectively, to submit a SIP revision requiring the
implementation of RACT for sources covered by a CTG and for all major
sources. A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a
``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC source category.
    Furthermore, on May 27, 2008, EPA made further revisions to the
ozone NAAQS setting the 8-hour standard to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436).
Today's proposed action does not address the requirements of the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
    On October 5, 2006, EPA issued four new CTGs which states were
required to address by October 5, 2007 (71 FR 58745). Then, on October
9, 2007, EPA issued three more CTGs which states were required to
address by October 9, 2008 (72 FR 57215). Lastly, on October 7, 2008,
EPA issued an additional four CTGs which states were required to
address by October 7, 2009 (73 FR 58481).
    On February 1, 2008, Connecticut submitted its consumer products
regulation to EPA as part of its 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
SIP revision. Then, on November 18, 2008, Connecticut submitted its
adhesives and sealants regulation as part of its Annual Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Demonstration SIP
revision. On April 29, 2010, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision that
addressed

nine CTGs. Then on November 21, 2012, Connecticut submitted a SIP
revision that addressed the remaining CTG for miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings. Lastly, in letters dated March 13, 2013 and
April 3, 2013, Connecticut withdrew a number of provisions from the
April 29, 2010 and February 1, 2008 submittals respectively.

III. What is included in the submittals?

    Connecticut's SIP revisions consist of updates to VOC RACT
requirements to address the eleven CTGs issued by EPA from 2006 through
2008. Connecticut submitted negative declarations for three CTGs:
automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating; fiberglass boat
manufacturing; and flat wood paneling coating.\1\ Connecticut adopted
regulations for eight CTGs: flexible package printing; industrial
cleaning solvents; large appliance coatings; metal furniture coatings;
miscellaneous industrial adhesives; miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts coatings; offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing;
and paper, film and foil coatings. Additionally, Connecticut adopted a
consumer products regulation based on the 2006 Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) recommendations for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Complete citations for each CTG document are given in
Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the submittals?

A. Metal Furniture Coating

    Connecticut's Section 22a-174-20(p) ``Metal Furniture Coating'' was
previously approved by EPA on October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62620) and
contained just one general coating limit of 0.36 kilograms of VOC per
liter (kg VOC/l). The revised rule includes eight coating categories
with limits specific to the drying process (baked or air dried) ranging
from 0.275 kg to 0.420 kg VOC/l, consistent with the limits recommended
in EPA's CTG for Metal Furniture Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-005, September
2007). While two specialty coating categories, pretreatment coatings
and metallic coatings, have a higher limit (0.420 kg VOC/l baked or air
dried) than the previous general limit, the new general use coating
limit has been reduced from 0.36 kg to 0.275 kg VOC/l baked or air
dried. As noted by Connecticut, general use coatings are applied more
frequently than pretreatment and metallic coatings, thus, fewer VOCs
will be emitted as a result of this regulation revision. This
determination is also consistent with the EPA guidance memorandum,
entitled Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for
Certain Coating Categories, from Scott Mathias to Regional Air Division
Directors, dated March 17, 2011. The revised rule also requires
facilities to use work practices that limit VOC emissions and minimize
spills during material application, storage, containment, conveyance,
and mixing. In addition, the revised rule also clarifies record keeping
requirements. Therefore, the revised rule satisfies the anti-back
sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA.

B. Paper Coating

    Connecticut's Section 22a-174-20(q) ``Paper Coating'' was
previously approved by EPA on October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62620) and
contained a general emissions limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l of coating. The
revised regulation has been renamed ``Paper, film and foil coating''
and, while it contains the same general emissions limit, it now applies
to a broader scope of activities, consistent with EPA's CTG for Paper,
Film, and Foil Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-003, September 2007). Consistent
with the CTG, the revised regulation also includes the following
additional VOC emission requirements for facilities with a potential to
emit 25 tons or more VOCs per year: An emission limit of 0.35 kilograms
of VOC per kilogram of coating solids applied (except pressure
sensitive tape and label); an emission limit of 0.20 kilograms of VOC
per kilogram of coating solids applied (pressure sensitive tape and
label only); the operation of a capture and control device with 90%
efficiency; or the use of an alternative method approved by the state
and EPA in accordance with the requirements of Connecticut's Section
22a-174-20(cc). Where this regulation refers to the ``daily weighted
average of the VOC content of all coatings used,'' EPA interprets this
to be the sum of the volume of each coating applied each day,
multiplied by the VOC content of each coating applied each day; divided
by the total volume of all coatings applied each day.\2\ There are also
updated work practices and general recordkeeping requirements for all
applicable facilities. Connecticut's revised rule satisfies the anti-
back sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA, since it
applies to a broader scope of activities than the previously SIP-
approved version of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See page 335 of the EPA document ``Model Volatile Organic
Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology,'' June
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

    Connecticut's Section 22a-174-20(s), ``Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings,'' was previously approved by EPA on October 19,
2000 (65 FR 62624). The revised rule expands the scope of the rule to
include plastic parts, with new limits for pleasure craft metal and
plastic parts coatings in new Section 22a-174-20(kk). The revised
Section 22a-174-20(s) contains updated work practices, coating
application methods, and recordkeeping requirements for all applicable
facilities. The regulation requires coatings to be applied by one of
several specified methods, but also allows the use of other coating
application methods capable of achieving a transfer efficiency
equivalent to, or better than, that provided by high-volume low-
pressure (HVLP) spray application. The EPA CTG for Miscellaneous Metal
and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008) defines
transfer efficiency as ``the percent of coating applied to the metal
furniture component or product,'' and EPA interprets references to
``transfer efficiency'' in Connecticut's regulation as bearing the same
meaning as in the CTG. Additional control options permit equivalent
emissions limits expressed in terms of mass of VOC per volume of solids
as applied or the use of add-on controls capable of achieving an
overall VOC efficiency of 90 percent.
    The new coating limits generally follow the recommendations in
EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coating, with the
exception of three coating categories. Connecticut adopted higher
coating limits than the CTG for extreme high gloss topcoat, other
substrate antifoulant coating, and antifouling sealer/tire. For these
three categories, Connecticut reviewed industry data and determined
that for purpose of functionality, cost, and VOC emissions, the
alternative limits adopted for these three coating categories
constitute RACT. Connecticut's approach is consistent with the EPA
guidance memorandum, entitled Control Technique Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings--Industry Request for
Reconsideration, from Stephen Page to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X,
dated June 1, 2010. The applicability threshold for plastic parts
coatings was revised from 10 tons total potential emissions to 3 tons
actual VOC emissions per 12-month period, before controls.
Connecticut's new VOC coating limits are also lower than most of the
previously SIP-approved limits.

Although some specialty coatings limits are higher than previous
limits, the general use coating limit is lower and these coatings are
more frequently used. In addition, the revised rule's applicability is
much broader. Thus, the revised rule satisfies the anti-back sliding
requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA. This analysis is also
consistent with the EPA guidance memorandum entitled Approving SIP
Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coating
Categories.

D. Flexible Package Printing

    Connecticut's newly adopted Section 22a-174-20(ff), ``Flexible
Package Printing,'' is consistent with the recommendations for RACT
found in EPA's CTG for Flexible Package Printing (EPA-453/R-06-003,
September 2006). The regulation applies to flexible package printing
press owners or operators that purchase for their printing operation
855, or more, gallons of coatings, adhesives, cleaning solvents and
solvent based inks, in the aggregate, per any rolling 12-month period.
These sources are required to follow work practices for material
storage, spill cleanup, and containment as well as maintain records of
all inks, coatings, adhesives, and cleaning solvents used.
Additionally, flexible package printing presses with a potential to
emit, prior to controls, 25 tons or more VOCs per year are required to
control their press VOC emissions by using low VOC inks, coatings, and
adhesives or a capture and control device. Where this regulation refers
to the ``daily weighted average of the VOC content of the inks,
coatings and adhesives used,'' EPA interprets this to be the sum of the
volume of each ink, coating, and adhesive applied each day, multiplied
by the VOC content of each ink, coating, and adhesive applied each day;
divided by the total volume of all materials applied each day.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See page 335 of the EPA document ``Model Volatile Organic
Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology,'' June
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing

    Connecticut's newly adopted Section 22a-174-20(gg), ``Offset
Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,'' is consistent with
the recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Offset Lithographic
Printing and Letterpress Printing (EPA-453/R-06-002, September 2006).
The regulation applies to the owner or operator of any offset
lithographic or letterpress printing press who purchases for the
printing operation at least 855 gallons of cleaning solvents, fountain
solution additives and solvent-based inks in aggregate per any rolling
12-month period. Applicable sources are required to limit the VOC
content of inks, coatings, adhesives, and cleaning solvents or use VOC
pollution control devices. These sources are also required to follow
work practices for material application, storage, spill cleanup, and
containment as well as maintain records of the regulated materials
used.

F. Large Appliance Coatings

    Connecticut's Section 22a-174-20(hh), ``Large Appliance Coatings,''
is consistent with the recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for
Large Appliance Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-004, September 2007). The new
regulation applies to an owner or operator of any large appliance
coating unit who purchases for a coating operation at least 855 gallons
of coatings and cleaning solvents in the aggregate per any rolling 12-
month period. The rule does not apply to the following: Stencil
coatings; safety-indicating coatings; solid-film lubricants; electric-
insulating and thermal-conductive coatings; touch-up coatings; repair
coatings; and coatings applied with a hand-held aerosol can. Applicable
sources must control VOC emissions using one of three methods: Low VOC
coatings; operation of a capture and control device; or an alternative
method approved by the state and EPA. The regulation also specifies
methods for general work practices, coating application methods and
record keeping requirements. The regulation requires coating to be
applied by one of several specified methods, but also allows the use of
any other coating application methods capable of achieving a transfer
efficiency equivalent to, or better than, that provided by HVLP spray
application. The EPA CTG for Large Appliance Coatings defines transfer
efficiency as ``the percent of coating applied to the metal furniture
component or product,'' and EPA interprets the Connecticut regulation
as giving the term the same meaning as the CTG.

G. Industrial Solvent Cleaning and Spray Application Equipment Cleaning

    Connecticut's newly adopted Section 22a-174-20(ii), ``Industrial
Solvent Cleaning,'' and Section 22a-174-20(jj), ``Spray Application
Equipment Cleaning,'' are consistent with the recommendations for RACT
found in EPA's CTG for Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA-453/R-06-001,
September 2006).
    Subsection (ii) applies to an owner or operator of any premises who
purchases for use at the premises at least 855 gallons of cleaning
solvents in the aggregate per rolling 12-month period. There are
multiple specialty cleaning exemptions specified in the rule.
Applicable solvent cleaning VOC emissions must be controlled by one of
three methods: Using solvents with a VOC content less than 50 g/l as
applied; using solvents with a vapor pressure no greater than 8 mm
mercury (Hg) at 20 degrees Celsius; or using a pollution control device
with an overall efficiency of at least 85%. The applicable industrial
solvent cleaning sources are also required to follow work practices for
material storage, spill cleanup, and containment as well as maintain
records of all cleaning solvents used.
    Subsection (jj) addresses the cleaning of spray application
equipment. A non-exempt owner or operator of any spray application
equipment is required to control VOC emissions by one of the following
methods: Use of an enclosed gun cleaner; use of cleaning solvents that
do not exceed 50 g/l VOCs with specified application methods; or
operation of an air pollution control device with at least 85%
efficiency. Certain spray application equipment exceptions are
specified in the rule. For all applicable equipment, facilities are
required to maintain records and use work practices to reduce VOC
emissions and minimize spills during material use, storage,
containment, and conveyance.

H. Consumer Products

    Connecticut's newly adopted Section 22a-174-40, ``Consumer
Products,'' is based on the 2006 Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Model
Rule for Consumer Products. Section 22a-174-40 contains limits for more
categories of consumer products than EPA's National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products rule at 40 CFR Part
59 Subpart C (63 FR 48831; September 11, 1998). The regulation limits
are also equal to, or more stringent than, those found in EPA's
consumer products rule.
    The consumer products listed in Section 22a-174-40 include items
sold to retail consumers for household or automotive use, as well as
products used in commercial and institutional settings, such as beauty
shops, schools and hospitals. The regulation has VOC content limits for
102 categories. In addition to the VOC emissions limits, the regulation
includes: Limits on toxic contaminants in antiperspirants and
deodorants and other consumer products; requirements for charcoal
lighter materials, aerosol adhesives and floor wax strippers;
requirements for products containing ozone-depleting

compounds; product labeling requirements; and record keeping, reporting
and testing requirements.

I. Adhesives and Sealants

    Connecticut's newly adopted Section 22a-174-44, ``Adhesives and
Sealants,'' is based on the OTC Model Rule for Adhesives and Sealants.
Section 22a-174-44 includes all of the approaches to controlling VOC
emissions found in EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
(EPA 453/R-08-005, September 2008): VOC content limits for adhesives
and cleaning solvents; work practices; record keeping; air pollution
control equipment requirements; surface preparation requirements; and
spray gun cleaning requirements. Connecticut's rule is also more
comprehensive than the CTG, since it establishes VOC content limits for
sealants and sealant primers (in addition to adhesives as covered by
the CTG), regulates sellers and manufacturers, not just appliers, of
regulated adhesives, adhesive primers and sealants, and contains a VOC
composite vapor pressure limit for cleaning materials. The exemptions
of Section 22a-174-44 are similar to those recommended in the CTG.
While there are minor differences in the named adhesive categories (and
emission limits) included in the CTG and Section 22a-174-44, those
differences are inconsequential compared to the broader applicability
of Section 22a-174-44 noted above.

J. Withdrawn Provisions

    By letter dated March 13, 2013, Connecticut withdrew a number of
similar provisions from the April 29, 2010 submittal. First, with
respect to the definition of ``as-applied VOC content'' in Sections
22a-174-20(ff)(1)(K), 22a-174-20(gg)(1)(O), 22a-174-20(hh)(1)(CC), 22a-
174-20(ii)(1)(I), and 22a-174-20(jj)(1)(H), Connecticut withdrew the
phrase ``or other method approved by the commissioner'' from each of
the cited provisions. Second, with respect to the requirements to
document control device efficiency and capture efficiency in Sections
22a-174-20(ff)(5)(B)(vi), 22a-174-20(gg)(7)(B)(vi), 22a-174-
20(hh)(7)(B)(vi), 22a-174-20(ii)(6)(B)(vi), and 22a-174-
20(jj)(6)(B)(vii), Connecticut withdrew the phrase ``or alternate
method approved by the commissioner'' from each of the cited
provisions. Third, Connecticut withdrew Section 22a-174-20(jj)(3)(D),
which allows the use of a cleaning solvent that does not meet the VOC
content limitations of the rule upon approval by the commissioner.
    Additionally, by letter dated April 3, 2013, Connecticut withdrew a
number of provisions from the February 8, 2008 submittal. With respect
to consumer product exemptions, Connecticut withdrew Sections 22a-174-
40(c)(4) through (7), which allow for variances, exemptions, and
alternative control plans (ACPs). With respect to consumer product
testing, Connecticut also withdrew Section 22a-174-40(f)(2)(C) through
(D), which allows for alternative test methods.
    EPA is not acting on the withdrawn phrases (which provide
alternative methods for compliance and/or for determining or
demonstrating compliance), and the federally approved SIP will not
contain these phrases. However, Connecticut's withdrawal of these
provisions from its SIP submission does not affect their validity under
state law; it means only that they are not applicable under federal
law. For alternative methods, limits, or exemptions approved under
these provisions to be federally applicable, the alternative method,
limit, or exception must be approved by EPA as a SIP revision. See CAA
Section 110(i). Until Connecticut submits an alternative method or
limit to EPA as a SIP revision and EPA approves that SIP revision, the
alternative method or limit is not effective as a matter of federal
law. See 61 FR 38665. Regulated entities that receive approval from
Connecticut to use alternative methods or limits under these provisions
should take note of this distinction between federal and state law.

K. Minor Changes and Negative Declarations

    Connecticut's April 29, 2010, SIP revision also includes minor
changes to the following subsections of Section 22a-174-20: (f)
``Organic solvents;'' (l) ``Metal cleaning;'' and (ee) ``Reasonably
available control technology for large sources.'' These sections were
revised to expand the list of referenced regulations to include the
newly adopted sections discussed above. Also, on May 30, 2012,
Connecticut requested the withdrawal of Section 22a-174-20(g) from the
SIP given that architectural coatings are now addressed in a more
comprehensive manner in section 22a-174-41, ``Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coating,'' which has been approved by EPA (77 FR
50595, August 22, 2012).
    In addition, Connecticut's April 29, 2010 SIP revision also
includes negative declarations for three source categories: Flat wood
paneling coating; fiberglass boat manufacturing; and automobile and
light-duty truck assembly coating. To make this determination,
Connecticut reviewed the inventory of sources for facilities with North
American Industrial Classification System codes that correspond to the
sources covered in the following CTGs: Flat Wood Paneling Coatings
(EPA-453/R-06-004, September 2006); Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing
Materials (EPA 453/R-08-004, September 2008); and Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (EPA 453/R-08-006, September 2008).
Connecticut also interviewed its field staff, and searched telephone
directories and Internet Web pages (including other state government
databases) to identify and evaluate sources that might meet the
applicability requirements. Connecticut ultimately determined that
there are no sources covered by these CTGs in the State of Connecticut.

L. Conclusion

    In summary, as noted above, EPA has reviewed Connecticut's new and
revised VOC regulations and found that they are consistent with the
relevant CTGs and OTC recommendations. In addition, Connecticut's
process for determining the categories for which the state should make
negative declarations was reasonable. Therefore, if this proposal is
finalized, Connecticut will have met the CAA requirement to adopt RACT
for all the 2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the following changes to Connecticut's
Section 22a-174-20 as meeting RACT for the relevant CTG categories:
Revised subsection (p), Metal furniture coatings; revised subsection
(q), Paper, film, and foil coatings; revised subsection (s),
Miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings; new subsection (ff),
Flexible package printing; new subsection (gg), Offset lithographic
printing and letterpress printing; new subsection (hh), Large appliance
coatings; new subsection (ii), Industrial solvent cleaning; new
subsection (jj), Spray application equipment cleaning; and new
subsection (kk), Pleasure craft coatings. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to approve Connecticut's new Section 22a-174-40, Consumer
Products, and Section 22a-174-44, Adhesives and Sealants, as meeting
RACT.
    EPA is not proposing any action on the portions of sections 22a-
174-20(ff)(1)(K), (ff)(5)(B)(vi), (gg)(1)(O), (gg)(7)(B)(Vi),
(hh)(1)(CC), (hh)(7)(B)(vi), (ii)(1)(I), (ii)(6)(B)(vi), (jj)(1)(H),
(jj)(3)(D), and (jj)(6)(B)(vii), which Connecticut withdrew from its
April 29, 2010 SIP submittal. Likewise, EPA is not

proposing any action on the portions of Sections 22a-174-40(c)(4)
through (7) and 22a-174-40(f)(2)(C) through (D), which Connecticut
withdrew from its February 1, 2008 SIP submittal.
    EPA is proposing to approve minor revisions to the following
subsections of Connecticut's Section 22a-174-20: (f)(9); (l)(1) and
(2); (aa)(1); (cc)(2) and (3); and subsection (ee), Reasonably
available control technology for large sources. EPA is also proposing
to approve Connecticut's request to withdraw subsection (g) of Section
22a-174-20, Architectural coatings, from the SIP. Lastly, EPA is
proposing to approve Connecticut's negative declarations for three
source categories: Flat wood paneling coating; fiberglass and boat
manufacturing; and automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating.
Therefore, if this proposal is finalized, Connecticut will have
satisfied the CAA requirement to adopt RACT for all of the 2006, 2007,
and 2008 CTGs.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register, or by submitting comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the
directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 2, 2013.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2013-12498 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P