[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 13818]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD23-3-000]

Establishing Interregional Transfer Capability Transmission
Planning and Cost Allocation Requirements; Notice Requesting Post-
Workshop Comment

    On December 5 and 6, 2022, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) staff convened a workshop to discuss whether and how the
Commission could establish a minimum requirement for Interregional
Transfer Capability for public utility transmission providers in
transmission planning and cost allocation processes.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-workshop comments
on issues raised during the workshop that they believe would benefit
from further discussion. In addition to addressing the questions listed
in the Supplemental Notice,\1\ parties are also invited to provide
comments on the questions listed below. Commenters need not respond to
all topics or questions asked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Supplemental Notice of Staff-Led Workshop, Docket No. AD23-
3-000 (Nov. 30, 2022); see also Errata Notice, Docket No. AD23-3-000
(Dec. 2, 2022) (Supplemental Notices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket,
including the workshop transcript, but are encouraged to avoid
repetition or replication of previous material. In addition, commenters
are encouraged, when possible, to provide examples and quantitative
data in support of their answers. Comments must be submitted on or
before 75 days from the date of this notice and reply comments are due
120 days from the date of this notice.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.\2\
Instructions are available on the Commission's website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected] 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, submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
MD 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Jessica Cockrell (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]
Moon Athwal (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, (202)
502-6272, [email protected]

    Dated: February 28, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04534 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM DATE: May 14, 2004 TO: Effluent Guidelines Planning Record FROM: M. Ahmar Siddiqui RE: Reasons for Not Selecting the Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals Industry for ELG Development in the 2004/ 2005 Effluent Guidelines Plan In the Preliminary 2004/ 2005 Effluent Guidelines Plan, published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2003 ( 68 FR 75515 75531), EPA stated that it was evaluating the petroleum bulk stations and terminals ( PBST, SIC 5171) industry for inclusion as a subcategory into the Petroleum Refining effluent discharge standards ( 40 CFR Part 419). The PBST industry's discharges are not currently regulated and the Agency requested comments at that time regarding this approach.

The Agency received more than a dozen comments, both from trade associations and citizens' groups. Those industry groups commenting on EPA's consideration of the industry as a subcategory of 40 CFR Part 419 strongly objected, stating that PBSTs are very different from refineries. They make several points, as follows:

° The PBST industry, for the most part, performs no refining activities. ° The PBST industry, by and large, only performs transfer and distribution of petroleum products. ° The PBST industry's discharges are different from those of refineries. Refineries discharge large volumes of water from their separation processes, while PBSTs mostly discharge stormwater. ° The PBST industry's wastewaters are less toxic than those of refineries.

The citizen group commenting on this issue notes takes the opposing view: that refineries and PBSTs are similar in that both industries handle organic compounds and that, as a result, subcategorization would be appropriate.

As to the question of regulating wastewater discharges from PBSTs, a similar pattern emerges: those in the industry and opposing the subcategorization of 40 CFR Part 419 also oppose the development of ELGs, for the following reasons:

° Toxic discharges are generally dilute, small in volume, and intermittently generated. ° Toxic discharges are managed through a combination of stormwater regulations and Best Management Practices ( BMPs, driven by EPA's spill control program). ° Toxic discharges are generally controlled by oil/ water separation or offsite treatment. The citizen group, on the other hand, approves of the development of new discharge standards for PBSTs for the following reasons:

° Marine terminals often accept huge volumes of oily ballast/ bilge water. Even at low concentration, high discharge volumes can lead to high pollutant mass discharges. ° The pollutants discharged by PBSTs are similar to those discharged by refineries and refineries have discharge standards ( 40 CFR Part 419).

The Agency has reviewed these comments, along with conducting its own study of the industry and has chosen to consider PBSTs a subcategory of the refining industry. The reasons for this decision are detailed in an earlier memorandum ( please see " Petroleum Bulk Storage Stations ( PBST) is Reasonably Considered a New Subcategory Under the Existing Effluent Guidelines Limitations and Standards for the Petroleum Refining Industry ( 40 CFR Part 419)").

As to the question of developing new standards for the PBST industry under the 2004/ 2005 Effluent Guidelines Plan, EPA has chosen to defer. The deferral is based both on the comments received and EPA's own study of the industry and is for several reason, as follows:

° Toxic discharges, on a per facility basis, are trivial. ° Toxic discharges are being driven by a small number of facilities. ° Large numbers of facilities discharge no toxic wastewater. ° EPA's stormwater and spill control programs already address these facilities.

In its assessment of the industry's wastewater discharges, EPA used two databases: the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) database and the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database. While these databases are rather useful, both have limitations ( e. g., PCS does not reveal much information about small direct dischargers and none about indirect dischargers). Of the 502 PBSTs reporting to TRI in 2000, 167 reported discharges to surface waters totaling 8,010 toxicweighted pounds equivalent ( TWPE). In the 2000 PCS database, eight facilities reported discharging 5,389 TWPE.

Using the TRI data, it can be calculated that PBSTs discharge approximately 48 TWPE on a perfacility basis, if only the 167 reporting discharges are counted. In addition, only four facilities account for more than 95 percent of the total toxic discharges. Moreover, the top reporting facility, accounting for more than 40 percent of the total toxic discharges by itself, has closed since the time of reporting. An assessment of the data provided by PCS reveals something similar. In this case, the per facility discharge is in excess of 670 TWPE. However, a closer examination reveals that more than 99 percent of the toxic discharges are driven by two facilities. Given these toxic discharge distributions, it is reasonable to conclude that individual facility permit support might be the most appropriate course of action.

To the point of large numbers of facilities discharging no toxic wastewater, note that the 2000 TRI data imply that two thirds of the industry is zero discharge ( 335 of 502 reporting facilities). These data are generally in agreement with what the Agency has been able to learn from control authorities across the country. By and large, permitting and compliance authorities believe that small dischargers prefer to collect their polluted wastewaters ( e. g., contaminated stormwater, tank bottoms water, and equipment wash water) and ship them offsite for treatment. This treatment method seems to be driven by economic factors, with small facilities finding it less viable to operate their own on site treatment systems.

Another factor reducing toxic discharges from the PBST industry is the need to comply with EPA's stormwater and spill control rules. As a consequence of these regulations, PBSTs implement BMPs and pollution practices that limit stormwater contamination and tank bottoms formation and enhance the capture of polluted waters. The use of improved tank seals, dikes in the tank farms, and collection systems in loading rack areas all work to capture potentially contaminated wastewater and to prevent contamination of uncontaminated water. Once properly captured, wastes can either sent through the facility's treatment system, for those that discharge, or collected in tanks and shipped offsite for treatment.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40407-40409]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17188]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29713; 812-13834]

Sterling Capital Funds and Sterling Capital Management LLC;
Notice of Application

July 1, 2011.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without
shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure
requirements.

Applicants: Sterling Capital Funds (the ``Trust'') and Sterling Capital
Management LLC (``Sterling'' and collectively, ``Applicants'').

DATES:  Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 15, 2010,
and amended on February 18, 2011. Applicants have agreed to file an
amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected
in this notice.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on July 25, 2011, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: The Trust, 434
Fayetteville Street Mall, Fifth Floor, Raleigh, NC 27601; Sterling, Two
Morrocroft Centre, 4064 Colony Road, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC 28211.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lewis B. Reich, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6919, or Jennifer L. Sawin, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust, a Massachusetts business trust, is registered under
the Act as an open-end management investment company and currently
offers 23 series (each a ``Series''), each of which has its own
distinct investment objectives, policies and restrictions.\1\ Sterling
is, and each other Adviser will be, registered as an investment adviser
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). Sterling
or another Adviser serves or will serve as the investment adviser to
each Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement
(each an ``Advisory Agreement''). The Advisory Agreement for each
existing Series was approved by the Trust's board of trustees (the
``Board''),\2\ including a majority of the trustees who are not
``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of
the Trust or the Adviser (``Independent Trustees'') and by the
shareholders of that Series in the manner required by sections 15(a)
and 15(c) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants also request relief with respect to future Series
and any other existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by
Sterling or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with Sterling or its successors (any such entity, along with
Sterling, an ``Adviser''); (b) uses the multi-manager structure
described in the application; and (c) complies with the terms and
conditions set forth in the application (together with any Series
that currently uses a multi-manager structure, each a ``Subadvised
Series'' and collectively the ``Subadvised Series''). For purposes
of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity or
entities that result from a reorganization into another jurisdiction
or a change in the type of business organization. All entities that
currently intend to rely on the requested order are named as
applicants. All Series that are or currently intend to be Subadvised
Series are identified in the application. If the name of any
Subadvised Series contains the name of a Sub-Adviser (as defined
below), the name of the Adviser, or a trademark or trade name that
is owned by the Adviser, will precede the name of the Sub-Adviser.
    \2\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees of
any future Subadvised Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser, subject
to the oversight of the Board, provides continuous investment
management of the assets of each Subadvised Series. The Adviser
periodically reviews investment policies and strategies of each
Subadvised Series and based on the need of a particular Subadvised
Series may recommend changes to the investment policies and strategies
of the Subadvised Series for consideration by its Board. For its
services to each Subadvised Series, the Adviser receives an investment
advisory fee from that Subadvised Series based on the average daily net
assets of that Subadvised Series. The terms of the Advisory Agreement
also permit the Adviser, subject to the approval of the Board,
including a majority of the Independent Trustees, and the shareholders
of the applicable Subadvised Series (if required by applicable law), to
delegate portfolio management responsibilities of all or a portion of
the Subadvised Series to one or more subadvisers (``Sub-Advisers'').
Sterling has entered into subadvisory agreements (``Sub-Advisory
Agreements'') with various Sub-Advisers to provide investment advisory
services to various Subadvised Series.\3\ Each Sub-Adviser is, and each
future Sub-Adviser will be, an investment adviser as defined in section
2(a)(20) of the Act as well as registered with the Commission as an
``investment adviser'' under the Advisers Act. The Adviser evaluates,
allocates assets to and oversees the Sub-Advisers, and makes
recommendations about their hiring, termination and replacement to the
Board, at all times subject to the authority of the Board. The Adviser
will compensate each Sub-Adviser out of the fee paid to the Adviser
under the Advisory Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Sterling has entered into Sub-Advisory Agreements with the
following Sub-Advisers on behalf of the named Subadvised Series.
Artio Global Management LLC serves as a Sub-Adviser of Sterling
Capital International Fund; and Federated Investment Management
Company serves as a Sub-Adviser of Sterling Capital National Tax-
Free Money Market Fund and Sterling Capital Prime Money Market Fund.
Sterling has also entered into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with Scott &
Stringfellow LLC, which is under common control with Sterling, to
serve as Sub-Adviser of Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund and
Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund. The requested relief
will not extend to Scott & Stringfellow LLC or any other Affiliated
Sub-Adviser, as defined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
Board approval, to select certain Sub-Advisers to manage all or a
portion of the assets of a Series pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement
and materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining
shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to any Sub-
Adviser that is an affiliated person, as

defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Subadvised Series or the
Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a Sub-Adviser to a
Subadvised Series (``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
    4. Applicants also request an order exempting the Subadvised Series
from certain disclosure provisions described below that may require the
Subadvised Series to disclose fees paid to each Sub-Adviser. Applicants
seek an order to permit each Subadvised Series to disclose (as a dollar
amount and a percentage of each Subadvised Series' net assets) only:
(a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Affiliated Sub-
Advisers; and (b) the aggregate fees paid to Sub-Advisers other than
Affiliated Sub-Advisers (collectively, the ``Aggregate Fee
Disclosure''). A Subadvised Series that employs an Affiliated Sub-
Adviser will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the
Affiliated Sub-Adviser.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``1934 Act''). Items 22(c)(1)(ii),
22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together,
require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the
advisory contract will be voted upon to include the ``rate of
compensation of the investment adviser,'' the ``aggregate amount of the
investment adviser's fees,'' a description of the ``terms of the
contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the advisory fee is
proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the
two fees.
    4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of a registered investment
company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation S-X require
a registered investment company to include in its financial statement
information about the investment advisory fees.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for
the reasons discussed below.
    6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser,
subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the Sub-
Advisers who are best suited to achieve the Subadvised Series'
investment objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of
the shareholder, the role of the Sub-Adviser is substantially
equivalent to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by
an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants
state that requiring shareholder approval of each Sub-Advisory
Agreement would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the
Subadvised Series, and enable the Subadvised Series to act more quickly
when the Board and the Adviser believe that a change would benefit a
Subadvised Series and its shareholders. Applicants note that the
Advisory Agreement and any Sub-Advisory Agreement with an Affiliated
Sub-Adviser will continue to be subject to the shareholder approval
requirements of section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
    7. Applicants assert that the requested disclosure relief would
benefit shareholders of the Subadvised Series because it would improve
the Adviser's ability to negotiate the fees paid to Sub-Advisers.
Applicants state that the Adviser may be able to negotiate rates that
are below a Sub-Adviser's ``posted'' amounts, if the Adviser is not
required to disclose the Sub-Advisers' fees to the public. Applicants
submit that the requested relief will also encourage Sub-Advisers to
negotiate lower subadvisory fees with the Adviser if the lower fees are
not required to be made public.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Subadvised Series may rely on the order requested
herein, the operation of the Subadvised Series in the manner described
in this application will be approved by a majority of the Subadvised
Series' outstanding voting securities as defined in the Act, or, in the
case of a Subadvised Series whose public shareholders purchase shares
on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by
condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder before such Subadvised
Series' shares are offered to the public.
    2. The prospectus for each Subadvised Series will disclose the
existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the
application. In addition, each Subadvised Series will hold itself out
to the public as employing a multi-manager structure as described in
the application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the
Adviser has the ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the
Board, to oversee the Sub-Advisers and recommend their hiring,
termination, and replacement.
    3. Within ninety (90) days of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser,
shareholders of the relevant Subadvised Series will be furnished all
information about the new Sub-Adviser that would be included in a proxy
statement, except as modified to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. This
information will include Aggregate Fee Disclosure and any change in
disclosure caused by the addition of the new Sub-Adviser. To meet this
obligation, each Subadvised Series will provide its shareholders,
within ninety (90) days of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser, an
information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C,
Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act, except as
modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    4. The Adviser will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with
any Affiliated Sub-Adviser without that agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Subadvised Series.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    6. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The
selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    7. Whenever a Sub-Adviser change is proposed for a Subadvised
Series with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board,

including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate
finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that the change is in the best
interests of the Subadvised Series and its shareholders, and does not
involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated
Sub-Adviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
    8. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
profitability of the Adviser.
    9. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a
per Subadvised Series basis. The information will reflect the impact on
profitability of the hiring or termination of any Sub-Adviser during
the applicable quarter.
    10. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Subadvised Series, including overall supervisory responsibility for the
general management and investment of the Subadvised Series' assets and,
subject to review and approval of the Board, will: (a) Set the
Subadvised Series' overall investment strategies; (b) evaluate, select
and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage all or a portion of the Subadvised
Series' assets; (c) allocate and, when appropriate, reallocate the
Subadvised Series' assets among Sub-Advisers; (d) monitor and evaluate
the Sub-Advisers' performance; and (e) implement procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that Sub-Advisers comply with the Subadvised Series'
investment objective, policies and restrictions.
    11. No trustee or officer of the Trust or a Subadvised Series or
director or officer of the Adviser, will own directly or indirectly
(other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled
by such person), any interest in a Sub-Adviser except for (a) Ownership
of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled
by or is under common control with the Adviser; or (b) ownership of
less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or
debt of any publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an
entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with
a Sub-Adviser.
    12. Each Subadvised Series will disclose in its registration
statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    13. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested
in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective
date of that rule.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17188 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 29178]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC14-82-000.
    Applicants: Orlando CoGen Limited, L.P., Cambria CoGen Company,
Vandolah Power Company L.L.C.
    Description: Supplement to April 29, 2014 Joint Application for
Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for
Expedited Action and Privileged Treatment of Cambria CoGen Company, et.
al.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER04-835-000; EL04-103-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Informational Report on Status of Settlement
Adjustments of California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Filed Date: 5/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140512-5254.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1956-000.
    Applicants: Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC.
    Description: Reactive Power Tariff Filing to be effective 5/15/
2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1957-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electric) Corp.,
Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Provision of Electric Services Cost Adjustment and
Settlement Agreement of Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electric)
Corp. and Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 5/12/14.
    Accession Number: 20140512-5256.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1958-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: FPL Revisions to Seminole Rate Schedule FERC No. 318
to be effective 6/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1959-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: MDU A&R Interconnection Agmt--Sheridan Sub to be
effective 7/14/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1960-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3810; Non-Queue to be
effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1961-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Filing of CIAC Agreement with Crystal Lake Wind II to
be effective 7/14/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1962-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Filing of CIAC Agreement with Crystal Lake Wind III to
be effective 7/14/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1963-000.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: UGI submits Ministerial Corrections to PJM OATT
Attachment H-8C & H-8D to be effective 5/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES14-35-000.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Amendment to April 18, 2014 Application for Authority
to Issue Securities of Consumers Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 5/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140514-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 14, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11765 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71657-71659]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0039; OMB No. 1660-0072]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on an extension, with change, of a currently approved
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning FEMA's Hazard Mitigation
Assistance (HMA) financial and technical assistance programs;
specifically, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), the Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, BRIC Direct
Technical Assistance (DTA), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
program.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-
2022-0039. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennie Orenstein, Branch Chief,
Policy, Tools and Training Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, FEMA, at [email protected] and<PHONE_NUMBER>.
You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the
proposed collection of information at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection of information is necessary
to implement grants for the FMA, PDM, and BRIC programs.
    The FMA program is authorized pursuant to the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (Pub. L. 90-448, 42 U.S.C. 4104c).
FMA was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act
(NFIRA) of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, 42 U.S.C. 4001). The Biggert-Waters
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12), Pub. L. 112-141, 42 U.S.C.
4001) consolidated the Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) and Severe
Repetitive Loss grant (SRL) programs into FMA. Under FMA, cost-share
requirements were changed to allow more Federal funds for properties
with repetitive flood claims. The FMA program, under 44 CFR part 77
(October 1, 2021; previously under 44 CFR part 79), provides funding
for measures taken to reduce or eliminate the long-

term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other
structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
PDM was authorized under Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), (Public Law 93-288,
42 U.S.C. 5133).
    On August 4, 2020, FEMA established the BRIC program, implementing
section 1234 of Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) (Pub. L. 93-288, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), which amended Section 203 of the Stafford Act
(Pub. L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. 5133). The BRIC program is designed to
promote a national culture of preparedness and public safety through
encouraging investments to protect our communities and infrastructure
and through strengthening national mitigation capabilities to foster
resilience. The BRIC program seeks to fund effective and innovative
projects that will reduce risk, increase resilience, and serve as a
catalyst to encourage the whole community to invest in and adopt
policies related to mitigation.
    The guiding principles of the BRIC program include (1) support
State and local governments, Tribes, and territories through
capability- and capacity-building to enable them to identify mitigation
actions and implement projects that reduce risks posed by natural
hazards; (2) encourage and enable innovation while allowing
flexibility, consistency, and effectiveness; (3) promote partnerships
and enable high-impact investments to reduce risk from natural hazards
with a focus on critical services and facilities, public
infrastructure, public safety, public health, and communities; (4)
provide a significant opportunity to reduce future losses and minimize
impacts on the Disaster Relief Fund; (5) promote equity, including by
helping members of disadvantaged groups and prioritizing 40 percent of
the benefits to disadvantaged communities as referenced in Executive
Order (E.O.) 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis At Home and Abroad, (86
FR 7619, Feb. 1, 2021) which describes the Administration's Justice40
Initiative; and (6) support the adoption and enforcement of building
codes, standards, and policies that will protect the health, safety,
and general welfare of the public, taking into account future
conditions, prominently including the effects of climate change, and
have long-lasting impacts on community risk reduction, including for
critical services and facilities and for future disaster costs. The
BRIC program distributes funds annually and applies a Federal/Non-
Federal cost share. To increase transparency in decision-making while
building capability and partnerships, FEMA convenes a National Review
Panel to score subapplications based on qualitative evaluation
criteria.
    The BRIC program is authorized under section 203 of the Stafford
Act to provide technical assistance for implementing predisaster hazard
mitigation measures. BRIC implements this authority by providing non-
financial DTA to eligible communities. The DTA initiative is
specifically designed to assist economically disadvantaged rural
communities, tribal entities, and Justice40 underserved communities.
The Justice40 Initiative provides guidance on implementing
environmental justice and equitable implementation of program
resources. DTA delivers hazard mitigation assistance to communities who
face resource barriers that prevent access to Hazard Mitigation grants
and other Federal assistance grants.
    In accordance with 2 CFR 200.203, FEMA requires all parties
interested in receiving FEMA mitigation grants to submit an application
package for grant assistance. Applications and subapplications for BRIC
and FMA are submitted via FEMA GO. FEMA GO is the new system of record
for grants for new grant applications beginning in Fiscal Year (FY)
2020.
    The Mitigation (MT) eGrants system is used to manage FY 2022 FMA
Swift Current grants, FMA annual grants awarded prior FY 2019 and Pre-
Disaster Mitigation grant program offerings. The MT eGrants system is
an intuitive, user-friendly, web-based application owned and operated
by FIMA that allows eligible applicants and subapplicants to apply for
grants and subgrants through the internet. MT eGrants is both an
internal (FEMA-facing) system and an external facing system. The FEMA
GO and MT eGrants systems were developed to meet the intent of the e-
Government initiative, authorized by Federal Financial Assistance
Management Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-107, 31 U.S.C. 6101).
This initiative requires that all Government agencies both streamline
grant application processes and provide for the means to electronically
create, review, and submit a grant application via the internet.
    Under 2 CFR part 200 (for BRIC and PDM) and 44 CFR 77.3 (FMA),
Recipients must complete and submit progress report(s) to the FEMA
Regional Administrator on a quarterly basis, certifying how the funds
are being used and reporting on the progress of activities funded under
the subrecipient awards made to the Recipient by FEMA. The Regional
Administrator and Recipient negotiate the date for submission of the
first report.
    The Benefit Cost Determination is used to collect data to evaluate
the proposed project's cost effectiveness. Mitigation projects must be
cost effective to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Assistance funding.
Cost effectiveness is demonstrated through a FEMA-validated benefit
cost analysis. The Environmental and Historic Preservation Review is
used to collect information that is needed to ensure that a proposed
project complies with applicable environmental and historic
preservation regulations and laws. This information is collected to
assure that adverse project impact is minimized according to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (Pub. L.
91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347); The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
(Pub. L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. 1531); The National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-665, U.S.C. 16 U.S.C. 470); Executive Order
(E.O.) 11988, Floodplain Management, (80 FR 6530, Feb. 5, 2015)
regarding floodplains; and E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands (42 FR
26961, May 24, 1977) other applicable laws and executive orders. The
Project Narrative--Subgrant Application process is used to collect the
information necessary for FEMA to assess the financial needs of the
applicants, as well as the projected benefits to be obtained from the
use of grant funds for each of its mitigation grant programs. Quarterly
Progress Reports describe the status of those projects on which a final
payment of the Federal share has not been made to the Recipient and
identify problems or circumstances expected to result in noncompliance
with the approved award conditions.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Mitigation Grant Programs.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, with change, of a
currently approved collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0072.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-151, Quarterly Progress Report;
FEMA Instruction FI-206-FY-22-102, Instructions to Recipients for
Quarterly Progress Reports for FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure
and Communities (BRIC), the Pre-Mitigation Disaster (PDM), and Flood
Mitigation Assistance (FMA); FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-155, BRIC DTA
Request; FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-158; Acknowledgement of Conditions For

Properties Using FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Funds; FEMA
Form FF-206-FY-22-157, Model Deed Restriction; and FEMA Form FF-206-FY-
22-156, Model Statement of Assurances for Property Acquisition
Projects.
    Abstract: The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Flood
Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) programs use an automated grant application and
management system called FEMA GO. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
program and the FMA program also uses an automated grant application
and management system called Mitigation (MT) eGrants. The FEMA GO and
MT eGrants systems include application information needed to apply for
funding under these grant programs. FEMA uses the BRIC Panel Review
Form to solicit volunteers from State, local, Tribal governments and
Other Federal Agencies (OFA), to review applications that are routed to
the qualitative panel reviews. The volunteers will review, and score
applications based on a pre-determined scoring criteria. The PDM, FMA,
and BRIC programs will use the same FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-151
Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) Form.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 617.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 17,249.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 97,858.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $5,914,144.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $7,739,695.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate 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) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-25453 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-BW-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76461-76463]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30850]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548; FRL-8852-8]

Petition for a Ban on Triclosan; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice makes available for review and public comment a
petition submitted by Beyond Pesticides, and Food & Water Watch
(hereafter referred to as ``the petitioners'') to the Environmental
Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as ``EPA'' or ``the Agency''),
asking EPA to use its authority under various statutes to regulate
triclosan. Triclosan is an antimicrobial substance used in pesticide
products, hand sanitizers, toothpaste, and other consumer products. The
petitioners claim that the ``pervasive and widespread use'' of
triclosan poses significant risks to human health and the environment.
In addition, the petitioners claim that the agency failed to address
the impacts posed by triclosan's degradation products on human health
and the environment, failed to conduct separate assessments for
triclosan residues in contaminated drinking water and food, and is
complacent in seriously addressing concerns related to antibacterial
resistance and endocrine disruption. EPA has established a public
docket, which contains a copy of the petition and will contain all
comments received in response to this notice. The docket may be
accessed as described in this notice.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0548. When commenting, please specify the statute to which your
comments refer (FIFRA, FFDCA, SDWA, CWA, or ESA) and the specific
issue(s) raised in the petition regarding that statute on which you are
commenting. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The 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 regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form

of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy F. McMahon, Antimicrobials
Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a
business engaged in the manufacturing of pesticides and other
agricultural chemicals. Potentially affected entities may include, but
are not limited to:
     Pesticide and other agricultural and chemical
manufacturing (NAICS 325320) e.g., businesses engaged in the
manufacture of pesticides.
     Pulp and paperboard industries (NAICS 322110 and 322130).
     Antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS 32561).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. 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.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA defines Environmental Justice as the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental
justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments
of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural
practices, or other factors, may bear disproportionate adverse impacts
from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to
the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Through this notice, the Agency is making the petition and other
correspondence submitted by Beyond Pesticides, and Food & Water Watch
available for public review and comment. Any public comments received
on this petition will be included in the electronic docket and reviewed
by the Agency. Following review of the petition and any comments
received in response to this notice, EPA will issue its decision and
response to the petition.
    Triclosan is an antimicrobial active ingredient that is contained
in a variety of bacteriostats, fungistats, mildewstats, and deodorizer
products. There are currently 20 antimicrobial registrations, which EPA
regulates under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). There are also consumer uses of triclosan, such as its use in
soaps and cleansers that are regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
    In 2008, EPA completed a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
document for triclosan. This RED document described the conclusions of
EPA's comprehensive review of the potential risks to human health and
the environment resulting from the registered pesticidal uses of
triclosan. In conducting the review for the RED, EPA considered all
available data on triclosan, including data on endocrine effects,
developmental and reproductive toxicity, chronic toxicity, and
carcinogenicity. The 2008 EPA assessment also relied in part on 2003-
2004 biomonitoring data available from the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) which reported measurements of
urinary concentrations of triclosan in the U.S. population. Therefore,
the 2008 EPA assessment was inclusive of all triclosan-related
exposures (i.e., EPA and FDA regulated uses).
    The 2008 RED also considered new research data on the thyroid
effects of triclosan in laboratory animals made available through the
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Since the 2008
assessment, additional data on effects of triclosan on estrogen have
also been made available from ORD. The ORD studies on the thyroid and
estrogen effects led EPA to determine that additional research on the
potential health consequences of endocrine effects of triclosan is
warranted. This research is underway and will help characterize the
human

relevance and potential risk of the results observed from initial
laboratory animal studies. In addition, EPA will be updating the
assessment of triclosan exposure in the 2008 RED using the newly
released 2005-2006 NHANES urinary monitoring results. The Agency will
pay close attention to this ongoing research and will amend the
regulatory decision if the science supports such a change. Also, the
Agency has previously indicated that because of the amount of research
being planned and currently in progress, it will undertake another
comprehensive review of triclosan beginning in 2013.
    Triclosan is also recognized as an emerging contaminant of concern
by EPA's Office of Water. Through its authority under the Clean Water
Act, EPA is conducting an effects assessment for triclosan that may be
used by States and authorized Tribes to establish water quality
standards for triclosan.
    Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA evaluated triclosan for
inclusion on the third contaminant candidate list (CCL 3). The CCL 3
was published on October 8, 2009 (74 FR 51850) and includes
contaminants that are currently unregulated in drinking water, that are
known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may
require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA developed the
CCL 3 using a multi-step process recommended by the National Academies
of Science and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. EPA
considered the best available occurrence and health effects data to
evaluate a universe of approximately 7,500 contaminants, from which EPA
identified the list of 116 contaminants that present the greatest
public health concern in drinking water. Triclosan was included in the
universe of contaminants evaluated. However, EPA determined triclosan
did not present as great a public health concern in drinking water as
the contaminants that were selected for the CCL 3 list.
    A related petition was filed with FDA by the same organizations
that filed the EPA petition. The Agency is also aware of FDA's ongoing
effort to finalize the topical antimicrobial over-the-counter (OTC)
drug monograph under which some products containing triclosan are
regulated. EPA and FDA intend to collaborate and share information
throughout the public comment and petition response process as well as
FDA's ongoing rule development.

III. Summary of the Petition

    The Agency received a petition from Beyond Pesticides, and Food &
Water Watch on January 28, 2010 that seeks relief under several
regulatory statutes. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), the petitioners ask EPA to act to cancel and suspend the
registration of pesticides containing triclosan. Under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), the petitioners request that the Administrator impose
technology-based effluent limitations, health-based toxic pollutant
water quality pretreatment requirements, and biosolids regulation for
triclosan. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the petitioners
request that the Administrator conduct a comprehensive assessment of
the appropriateness of regulating triclosan under SDWA. Under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), the petitioners request that the
Administrator comply fully with ESA, including consultation and
biological assessment requirements. EPA has established a public
docket, which contains a copy of the petition and will contain all
comments received in response to this Notice. The docket may be
accessed as described in this Notice. The statutes mentioned and the
specific relief requested under each statute is summarized as follows:
     FIFRA. The petition states that ``The hazards associated
with Triclosan use and exposure during the pendency of a long review
does not meet EPA's statutory duty to protect health and the
environment. That is, because scientific studies demonstrate that the
substance is used so pervasively that it is present in most people's
bodies, EPA must take the most protective steps provided for under the
statute to protect public health. In this regard, petitioners request
that EPA (1) issue a notice of cancellation of the registrations of all
products containing triclosan, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 136d(b)(1), and (2)
at the same time issue an emergency order pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
136d(c)(3) to suspend immediately those registrations.''
     Clean Water Act. The petition states that ``numerous
studies, including those of EPA, have established the substantial
presence, and therefore serious threat, of triclosan to human health
and the environment through the means of pollution of the nation's
navigable waters. EPA's failures in this regard, in petitioners' view,
are ``arbitrary, capricious,'' and otherwise ``not in accordance with
law.'' Therefore, the Administrator should use her authority under the
Act to evaluate these health and environmental effects thoroughly and
act decisively, based on the abundance of scientific evidence and the
express requirements of the CWA, to require proper regulation of
triclosan. She should use her authority to impose technology-based
effluent limitations, health-based pollutant water quality pretreatment
requirements, and biosolids regulation.
     Safe Drinking Water Act. The petition states that ``EPA's
reregistration decision sets the stage for a violation of the SWDA, in
that triclosan would be allowed to contaminate drinking water at levels
that threaten human health and the environment. For this reason,
petitioners request that the Administrator conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the appropriateness of regulating triclosan under the
SDWA.''
     Endangered Species Act. The petition states that ``because
triclosan is present in the large environment, EPA's registration of
that substance creates potential jeopardy for listed threatened and
endangered species and may destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitats. This presence has been abundantly demonstrated
throughout this petition. Accordingly, Petitioners request that the
Administrator comply fully with the ESA, including the consultation and
biological assessment requirements. Petitioners note, in this regard,
that notwithstanding FIFRA's primary rule in regulating pesticides,
courts have held that EPA must comply with ESA in its administration of
FIFRA.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Antimicrobials, triclosan, Pesticides and
pests.

    Dated: December 2, 2010.
Joan Harrigan-Farrelly,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-30850 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P