SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

Title:	Submission of Unreasonable Adverse Effects Information under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2)

             	ICR Nos.:  OMB No. 2070-0039; EPA No. 1204.11

Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is a proposed renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved by OMB and is due to expire October 31, 2010.  Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), see Attachment A, requires pesticide registrants to submit information to the Agency which may be relevant to the balancing of the risks and benefits of a pesticide product.  The statute requires the registrant to submit any factual information that it acquires regarding adverse effects associated with its pesticidal products, and it is up to the Agency to determine whether or not that factual information constitutes an unreasonable adverse effect.  In order to limit the amount of less meaningful information that might be submitted to the Agency, the EPA has limited the scope of factual information that the registrant must submit.  The agency’s regulations at 40 CFR 159 provide a detailed description of the reporting obligations of registrants under FIFRA section 6(a)(2).

The implementation of the 1998 final regulations initially resulted in an increase in the number of incident reports submitted annually.  The Agency assumed this increase to be the result of increased awareness and understanding on the part of pesticide registrants of their reporting responsibilities under FIFRA section 6(a)(2).  After the first year under the regulations, incident reporting leveled off but has increased in the last few years.  Study submissions, on the other hand, have gradually decreased as the pesticide reregistration program data call-in activities came to a close.  For the purposes of this analysis, the estimate for study and incident submissions is the average for the past three fiscal years (2006-2008).

In terms of scope, please note that in CSMA and NACA v. EPA  484 F. Supp. 513 (1980), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with EPA that FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) covers all information relevant to EPA's determination of whether a pesticide may cause unreasonable adverse effects.  The Court agreed that submissible information includes the same type of information as that provided by a registrant as part of an application for registration.  The Court specifically rejected the argument that the responsibility for determining what constitutes an unreasonable adverse effect shifts to industry once EPA has granted a registration.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

This information collection stems from a non-discretionary statutory requirement.  Submission of information about unreasonable adverse effects is specifically required under section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 USC 136d(a)(2)):

"If at any time after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has additional factual information regarding unreasonable adverse effects on the environment of the pesticide, he shall submit such information to the Administrator."

The Agency’s FIFRA section 6(a)(2) regulations are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 159.  (Attachment B)

b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is the primary user of the information that registrants submit to the Agency under FIFRA section 6(a)(2).  The information submitted is an essential component of the Agency’s pesticide registration and registration review programs which also require the submission of important information regarding a pesticide’s adverse effects -- information which may not have been available at the time of the Agency’s initial review of a registration application.  Because this information has possible significant consequences for human health or the environment, had the information been available earlier, the Agency’s determination with regard to the registration of the pesticide may well have been different.  If warranted by the information provided, EPA may seek to amend the registration in order to address the concerns raised by the information.

In essence, this information provides an important means of focusing EPA attention on key problem areas regarding the use of the pesticide in question.  The adverse effects information submitted under section 6(a)(2) is considered by EPA in conjunction with other information to determine whether pesticides containing a specific active ingredient should be reregistered, or whether the terms and conditions of registration should be changed.  This type of information may also be pertinent to granting emergency exemptions under section 18 of FIFRA.

Registrants perform studies in support of registration applications, in response to data call-ins issued by EPA, or voluntarily for their own purposes.  The authority to call-in data (a.k.a. DCI “data call-in”) is found in section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA, and the accounting for the burden hours and costs for all OPP program DCIs is documented in the ICR entitled the Pesticide Data Call-In Program ICR, OMB #2070-0174; EPA # 2288.01.  The outcome of studies, whether they demonstrate known effects or new adverse effects, are carefully analyzed by registrants and presented to the Agency.  The 6(a)(2) rule does not impose the requirement to perform studies but merely to identify and promptly submit adverse effects information to the Agency when they are identified.

A number of registrants have indicated that adverse effects information is valuable to them as well.  Registrants who actively seek 6(a)(2) information justify their actions as part of product stewardship, customer relations, minimizing liability, and protecting or expanding market share.  According to feedback that EPA has received, registrants acquire and use this information as a way of determining whether actual product use circumstances reveal new risk issues that did not emerge when the data were developed for the original registration application.  These registrants believe that it is an integral part of their product stewardship program and that collecting, analyzing and reacting to adverse effects information is essential to the way in which they conduct business as a routine matter.  For example, Consumer Specialty Products Association, the trade association for registrants of antimicrobial pesticide products, has a voluntary program for members called Product Care.  Among their principles is the need for members to provide information to their customers and the need to have a system in place to minimize adverse effects when product related incidents occur.

3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

a)	Non-Duplication

The information required to be submitted under this ICR is generally available only from registrants who have opted to secure registration of their pesticide product(s).  The only feasible means of collecting the required information is from pesticide registrants because it is either health and safety data generated, owned or used by the registrants, or is submitted to registrants by consumers and other interested parties.  This information collection avoids duplication by limiting the submission requirements under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) to information which has not been submitted to the OPP previously.  Further, it exempts information submitted under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Information in published articles is generally also exempt from submission.

b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), EPA will publish a Federal Register (FR) Notice announcing this proposed information collection activity and provide a 60-day public comment period.

Consultations

	In addition to the public notice that EPA will publish in the Federal Register concerning the renewal of this ICR, the Agency will consult with stakeholders who actively interact with the Agency through the use of this collection instrument.  EPA will solicit stakeholder assessment of the regulatory burden estimates expressed by the Agency in this ICR.

d)	Effect of Less Frequent Collection

Under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) the information collection activity is a one time, non-repetitive submission of information.  As such, there is no set interval for multiple collections.   The information is submitted one time, according to the timeframes described in the rule for various categories of information.

e)	General Guidelines

Section 6(a)(2) regulations do not prescribe specific recordkeeping requirements, the EPA requirements in 40 CFR Section 169.2(k) state that records containing research data relating to registered pesticides be retained as long as the registration is valid and the producer remains in business.  Registrations are valid until they are either voluntarily canceled or withdrawn by the registrant or until EPA has cause to suspend or cancel the registration.  Since the typical period of marketability of a pesticide ranges from 15 to 30 years, the PRA guidelines specifying that data other than health, medical or tax records not be required to be retained for more than three years will be exceeded for those studies which are required to support registration or registration review under FIFRA section 3, and which show adverse effects that make them reportable under section 6(a)(2).  The burdens associated with this recordkeeping requirement have already been approved by OMB under another ICR and are therefore excluded from this ICR.

f)	Confidentiality

Much of the information submitted pursuant to section 6(a)(2) constitutes FIFRA section 10(d)(1) safety and efficacy information.  On September 28, 1999, the Agency issued a class determination that safety and efficacy information submitted under section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA is not entitled to confidential treatment.  The determination enables the Agency to respond more quickly and efficiently to requests for information submitted under section 6(a)(2).

Data submitted to the Agency are handled in accordance with the provisions of the FIFRA Confidential Business Information (CBI) Security Manual which provides procedures for protecting information claimed as confidential in accordance with FIFRA section 10.  If the information is not protected under FIFRA section 10, and it is not otherwise protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), EPA is obligated to make it available to members of the public upon request under FOIA.

g)	Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive or private nature are included in this information collection.  If information of a sensitive nature is submitted, the Agency will protect it appropriately, as provided by the Privacy Act or other relevant statutes.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

Potential respondents affected by the collection activities under this ICR include anyone who holds or ever held a registration for a pesticide product issued under FIFRA section 3 or 24(c). The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is 325320 (Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing).

b)	Information Requested

i)	Data Items

As further defined by the final rule implementing the FIFRA section 6(a)(2) requirements, registrants are required to report on:

(1)  studies showing new or more severe toxicological responses than previously reported of any type in any strain of test organism;

(2)  epidemiological or exposure studies of human population groups indicating greater exposure than previously reported;

(3)  studies or incidents tending to show lack of efficacy of certain pesticide products with public-health related uses;

(4)  incidents involving toxic or adverse effects to human or other non-target organisms;

(5)  information on excess residues on food or feed, or residues in surface water, ground water or drinking water;

(6)  information on metabolites, degradates, contaminants or impurities which may be of toxicological concern;

(7)  information showing that certain health-related products fail to perform as claimed or that pests have developed resistance to a product; and

(8) other information which may be relevant to risk/benefit determinations of any type.

ii)	Respondent Activities

Respondents must:

(1) read the final rule or instructions,

(2) plan activities to ensure required information is identified and submitted,

(3) process, compile and review information for accuracy and appropriateness,

(4) complete written instruments to effectuate a submission, and

(5) submit the information to EPA.

Under FIFRA section 6(a)(2), as implemented by the final rule, pesticide registrants have no obligation to create or seek out adverse effects information.  Such activities may be conducted by the registrant in support of pesticide registration under FIFRA section 3 and registration review  under section 3 (g), the burden account for these activities are approved by OMB under separate ICRs.  Registrants also may collect adverse information in the normal course of business, such as following up on consumer complaints to gather more information.  Regardless of how the information comes into the possession of the registrant, once the registrant acquires information subject to submission under section 6(a)(2), as defined by the final rule, the registrant must submit it to EPA.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

a)	Agency Activities

The Agency will continue the following current activities with regard to the FIFRA section 6(a)(2) program: 1) answering questions and providing guidance to respondents; 2) receiving and recording data submissions; 3) analyzing claims of confidentiality and providing appropriate protection; 4) storing the data submitted; and 5) screening and analyzing the information for significance.

b)	Collection Methodology and Management

The final rule allows flexibility in the method or format for the required submission.  In essence, the final rule specifies the types of data that should be reported to the extent the information is available and the reporting time-frames.   For incident information (but not studies), these vary according to the significance of the information.

Scientific studies containing 6(a)(2) information are assigned a Master Record Identifier Number as are all other pesticide studies.  Adverse effects incident reports are entered into a computerized data base which can track incidents by chemical, submitter, type of incident, date of submission, and other parameters.  All 6(a)(2) submissions are screened by subject matter experts throughout the pesticide program.  Data are forwarded to and reviewed by pesticide product managers and science reviewers for relevance to the regulatory status of the pesticide product(s) to which the submitted information pertains.  The public may access the data by making a request under FOIA.

OPP has established criteria for voluntary submission of study reports in electronic form (Adobe PDF on CD-ROM).  A 6(a)(2) study could be submitted electronically just as easily as a non-6(a)(2) study.  Regarding incidents, electronic submission is possible, but would require a number of activities to be completed as prerequisites.  First, OPP would work with registrants to develop a standard form for submitting incident reports.  The resulting form would have to be approved by OMB.  This standard form would be an essential precursor to electronic submission of incident data.  The submission technique would comply with the Agency’s electronic submission standards.  Finally, OPP has been working on conversion of many of its existing databases to a single integrated system.  The current incident data base is expected to become part of an integrated system and this is an essential precursor to electronic submission of incident data.

It should be noted that at the time the final regulations went into effect and at the request of the regulated community, OPP staff worked with industry representatives and trade associations on voluntary forms for incident reporting.  This was done by the trade associations as a service for their members.  The agency accepts incident reports using the voluntary forms as well as incidents formatted in other ways.  The voluntary forms may well serve as the foundation for standardized forms, see Attachment I.

c)	Small Entity Flexibility

Regardless of the size of the registrant, the 6(a)(2) regulations provide simplified reporting and extended reporting time-frames for most incident reports.  The Agency does not mandate a specific format for the required submission, but, as noted above, has worked with industry to provide one to facilitate submissions.  It is interesting to note that of the 1733 registrants with active registrations in November 2008, 718 hold only one product registration and 762 hold from two to ten registrations.  The median number of registrations per company is two.

The requirements of FIFRA section 6(a)(2) related to studies fall largely on basic producers, i.e., a producer who produces the active ingredient from raw materials, because they are the registrants most likely to generate and possess data subject to the information collection.  Formulators (companies that do not manufacture active ingredients) are exempt from generating most health effects data required to support registration except for product-specific acute toxicity studies.

Both basic producers and formulators, however, may register and market end use products and receive incident reports from distributors and users of their products as well as other sources such as state regulatory agencies.  The number of incident reports associated with a pesticide product depends on such variables as the volume of sales of that product, and whether it is sold to the general public or is restricted to experienced and trained applicators.  Some registrants put toll free telephone numbers on their labels making it easy for consumers to contact them with incident reports.  Other registrants, however, do not.  Thus, it is difficult to generalize about the relative burden of incident reporting in terms of small versus large companies.

To further simplify compliance, EPA has issued detailed guidance, see Attachments C and D.  Because at the present time there is no standard reporting format prescribed in the regulations, the submitters can use a format of their choosing.

d)	Collection Schedule

The information required to be submitted under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) is not based on any schedule because the information is non-repetitive in nature.  As such, the information required to be submitted by respondents is generally on an "as received basis."  The regulations establish time-frames within which reportable information received by registrants must be submitted to EPA.  The reporting time-frames vary according to the organism exposed and the relative severity or rarity of the alleged effects.  Allegations of human deaths must be reported individually by registrants within 15 days of acquiring the information.  Other serious and rare incidents are reported individually.  Generally, they may be accumulated for one month and submitted by the end of the month following the accumulation period.  Minor or common incidents are reported as aggregate counts of incidents and effects for each product registration number or active ingredient.  They may be accumulated for three months and submitted by the end of the second month following the accumulation period.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

To estimate the respondent burden, the Agency used current statistics on the number of registrants of active products.  For burden estimates related to study and incident data submissions, actual statistics for FY 2006-2008 were used.

As of November 2008, for purposes of this analysis, the Agency assumes 1,733 registrants with active registrations.  The number of registrations held by each registrant ranges from 1 to 705 and the median is two.  Seven hundred and eighteen (718) registrants hold only one product registration and 1,480 hold ten or fewer registrations.  Thirty-three (33) registrants hold 51 - 100 product registrations.  Only 37 companies hold more than 100 registrations.

Former registrants have an obligation to report adverse effects information for one year after the cancellation or transfer of their product so long as the former registrant holds no active registrations.  Since stocks of the formerly registered products diminish, it is unlikely these former registrants would acquire or submit much adverse effects information to the Agency.  Former registrants, therefore, are not included in the estimated 1,733 registrants assumed for this analysis.

 	The Agency received an average of 183 study-related submissions annually from FY2006 through FY2008.  For purposes of this analysis, the Agency assumes 183 study-related submissions will be received each year in the future.

From FY2006 through FY 2008, the Agency received an average of 956 submissions per year from registrants containing an average of 70,622 incidents per year.  Of these, 5,866 incidents were individually reported and 64,756 were reported as aggregate statistics on the yearly average. A small number of incidents, an average of 455 per year, were reported by parties other than registrants.  These include states, EPA regional offices, and private groups and individuals.  These parties are not required to report adverse effects information to the Agency, but their reports are received and processed in the same way as registrant-submitted information.

The level of registrant reporting could have been substantially higher had it not been for action taken by the Agency to eliminate certain types of incident reports.  The final regulations included the following as a condition for reporting incidents:

40 CFR 159.184(a)(2) - The registrant is aware or has been informed that the person or non-target organism suffered a toxic or adverse effect or may suffer a delayed or chronic adverse effect in the future.  (Emphasis added)

A literal interpretation of the italicized language above could have resulted in registrants reporting all asymptomatic exposures.  Those are cases in which someone alleges exposure to a pesticide, but is experiencing no symptoms.  Or someone may call a registrant to ask if they may get sick after an exposure or to express concern that they may get sick in the future as a result of an exposure.  (These were referred to as ‘may suffer’ incidents.)  OPP consulted with a major

poison control center to determine the volume of asymptomatic exposure calls they receive.  According to the poison control center’s statistics for a major pesticide company, nearly half the calls they handled were asymptomatic exposures.  In order to focus resources - both the Agency’s and registrants’ - on a manageable volume of useful incident reports, the Agency eliminated the requirement to report ‘may suffer’ incidents.  This was accomplished in PR Notice 98-4 (Attachment D), which referenced the Agency’s authority under Part 159.155 of the FIFRA 6(a)(2) regulations to eliminate specified requirements by written notice to registrants. Elimination of the requirement is still in effect.

From FY2006 through FY2008 a total of 187 registrants submitted incident reports.  Registrants may report for themselves alone or they may report for themselves and related entities such as their divisions or subsidiaries.  Registrant task forces such as the Acetochlor Registration Partnership may report for their member registrants for specific types of incidents.

For purposes of this ICR renewal, the Agency estimates that it will continue to receive 71,000 (rounded-up to two significant digits) incident reports from the regulated community each year.  It is the estimated number of incidents - not the total number of registrants or number of registrants represented by current incident reporting - that drives the burden estimates in this analysis.

Another aspect of the respondents’ burden is ongoing employee training on compliance with 6(a)(2) reporting requirements.  New employees would require training and experienced employees are likely to receive refresher training.  Each company would plan training and track the status of training efforts.  For purposes of determining the number of employees that need to be trained on adverse effects information reporting, EPA assumed an average of 10 employees per registrant or 17,330 individuals requiring training each year.  Please note that this estimate is strictly an average.  The actual number would range from one person in a small company to several dozen in a large company.   The Agency does not believe that a high proportion of people in any company need detailed training in 6(a)(2) requirements.  Most employees who are likely to receive information concerning the effects of pesticide products are simply made aware of the need to pass information along to an appropriate individual or unit within the company that evaluates reports and prepares submissions to the Agency.

b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

i)	Estimating Labor Costs

Consistent with recent ICR renewals, OPP is using labor cost estimates from Agency economists with respect to wages, benefits and overhead for all labor categories for affected industries, state government, and EPA employees.  This approach uses a transparent and consistent methodology employing publicly-available data to provide more accurate estimates and allow easy replication of the calculations.

Methodology:	The methodology uses data on each sector and labor type for an Unloaded wage rate (hourly wage rate), and calculates the Loaded wage rate (unloaded wage rate + benefits), and the Fully loaded wage rate (loaded wage rate + overhead).  Fully loaded wage rates are used to calculate the Agency’s staffing costs.

Unloaded Wage Rate:  Wages are estimated for labor types (management, technical, and clerical) within applicable sectors. The Agency uses average wage data for the relevant sectors available in the National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm"  http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm .

Sectors: The specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and website for each sector is included in that sector’s wage rate table.  Within each sector, the wage data are provided by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).  The SOC system is used by Federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data (see   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm"  http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm  ).

Loaded Wage Rate: Unless stated otherwise, all benefits represent 43% of unloaded wage rates, based on benefits for all civilian non-farm workers, from   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm"  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm . However, if other sectors are listed for which 43% is not applicable; the applicable percentage will be stated.

Fully Loaded Wage Rate: We multiply the loaded wage rate by 50% (EPA guidelines 20-70%) to get overhead costs.  Attachments F and F.1 contain worksheets providing the breakout of these costs.  Costs are indexed to 2008 data.

To derive the labor rates for this ICR, Agency economists estimated the wages for the management, technical, and clerical labor categories using the methodology cited above.  The respondent costs for this renewal for managerial, technical and clerical rates are estimated at $109.82, $60.39 and $35.89 per hour, respectively.  These labor rates are fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs.

Tables 1 - 6 summarize the annual burden hours and costs to registrants for compliance with the section 6(a)(2) requirements, including the PRA calculations for employee 6(a)(2) training.

Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden/Cost Estimates per Submission - STUDIES

	BURDEN HOURS (PER STUDY)	TOTAL

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES	Management $109.82/hr	Technical $60.39/hr	Clerical $35.89/hr	Hours	Costs ($)

Read Instructions

0.10

0.20

0.00

0.30

23.06

Create Information

0.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

 60.39

Compile and Review

0.10

0.50

0.00

0.60

41.18

Complete Paperwork

0.00

0.10

0.50

0.60

 23.98

Store and Maintain Data

0.00

0.20

0.50

0.70

 30.02

TOTAL

0.20

2.00

1.00

3.20

178.63

ANNUAL BURDEN: 3.2 Total Hours x 183 Studies =586 Hours

ANNUAL COSTS:  (a) Management: 0.20 hours/study x $109.82/hour x 183 Studies   = 	$   4,019

    (b) Technical: 2.00 hours/study x $60.39/hour x 183 Studies 	=	$ 22,103

   (c) Clerical:   1.00 hour/study x $35.89/hour x 183 Studies 	=	$   6,568

  			                                       		TOTAL		=	$ 32,690

Table 2: Annual Respondent Burden/Cost Estimates per Submission - INCIDENTS

	BURDEN HOURS (PER YEAR)	TOTAL

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES	Management $109.82/hr	Technical $60.39/hr	Clerical $35.89/hr

Hours

Costs ($)

Read Instructions

0.00

0.10

0.00

0.10	6.04

Create Information

0.00

0.50

0.00

0.50	30.20

Compile and Review

0.20

0.50

0.00

0.70	52.16

Complete Paperwork

0.00

0.00

0.50

0.50	17.95

Store and Maintain Data

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30	13.22

TOTAL

0.20

1.20

0.70

2.10

119.57

ANNUAL BURDEN:  2.10 Total Hours x 71,000 Incidents 	= 	149,100 Hours

ANNUAL COSTS: (a) Management:   0.20 hours x   $109.82 x 71,000 Incidents	=	$  1,559,444

   (b) Technical:       1.20 hours x   $60.39 x 71,000 Incidents	=	$  5,145,228

   (c) Clerical:          0.70 hours x   $35.89 x 71,000 Incidents 	=	$  1,783,733

  			                                       	TOTAL			=	$  8,488,405

Table 3: Total Annual Respondent Burden/Cost for Required Submissions

Per Submission Estimates

Total Submissions Expected each Year

Totals

Burden Hours

Costs ($)

Burden Hours

Costs ($)

Studies

3.2

178.63

    183

     586*

     32,690*

Incident

2.1

119.56

71,000

 149,100**

8,488,405**

TOTAL

5.3

298.19

71,183

149,686

 8,521,095

*taken from Table 1 calculations

**taken from Table 2 calculations

 Table 4: Registrant Burden/Cost Estimates for Additional Activities - TRAINING

Activities/registrants

Burden Hour per Respondent

Totals

	Management $109.82/hr	Technical $60.39/hr	Clerical $35.89/hr

Hours

Costs ($)

Plan training

0.50

0.10

0.00

0.60	60.95

Conduct employee training

0.50

1.50

1.00

3.00	181.39

Follow-up, tracking

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30	13.22

 Total

1.00

1.70

1.20

3.90	255.55

Table 5: Total Registrant Burden/Cost Estimates for Additional Activities -TRAINING

Activity

Per Registrant - Total

# Expected

Totals

Hours

Costs ($)

Hours

Costs ($)

Plan training

0.6*	60.95	1,733	1,040	105,625

Conduct employee training

3.0*	181.39	17,330	51,990	3,143,402

Follow-up, tracking

0.3*	13.22	1,733	520	22,905

Total 	3.9*	255.55	20,796	53,550	3,271,932

 	* taken from Table 4

Table 6: Total Annual Burden/Cost for Registrants

Per Activity Total Estimates

Total Activities

Totals

Burden Hours

Costs ($)

Burden Hours

Costs ($)

Studies

3.2

255.60

     183

       586*

     32,690*

Incidents

2.1

168.60

  71,000

  149,100**

8,488,405**

Training

3.9

346.50

       20,796***

53,550***	3,271,932***

TOTAL

203,236

11,793,027

*taken from Table 1 calculations

**taken from Table 2 calculations

	***taken from Table 5

i)	Estimating Capital, and Operations and Maintenance Costs

There are no capital expenditures, or operation and maintenance costs associated with this information collection activity.

c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

Agency activities include: screening 6(a)(2) submissions by subject matter experts to determine the significance of the information; information management activities to record, file, and track the submissions; communicating with registrants, providing guidance on the requirements; and management and oversight of the process.

Screening and managing submitted information involves a mixture of technical and clerical skills.  Agency economists estimated the labor rates for EPA employees conducting these tasks.   The EPA fully loaded employee costs for this renewal for technical and clerical rates are estimated at $71.58 and $41.21 per hour, respectively, a detailed work sheet of these formulas are in Attachment F.  These labor rates are fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs.

The Agency burden estimate does not include the effort to fully review a 6(a)(2) study or to prepare the resulting documents.  Nor does the burden estimate include the effort to take regulatory action that may result from 6(a)(2) adverse effects information.  The burden associated with those activities is covered under other ICR’s. This ICR does include the costs of subject matter experts reviewing incident reporting.  The following tables illustrate the estimated Agency burden and costs:

Table 7: Annual Agency Burden/Cost Estimates per Submission - STUDIES

BURDEN HOURS (per year)

TOTAL

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

Technical

 $71.58/hr

Clerical

 $41.21/hr

Hours

Costs ($)

Screen submitted information

2.00

0.00

2.00	143.16

Record, file and track submissions

3.60

0.90

4.50	294.78

TOTAL

5.60

0.90

6.50	437.94

ANNUAL BURDEN: 	6.5 Total Hours x 183 studies		=	1,190  Hours

ANNUAL COSTS: 	(a) Technical: 5.6 hours x $71.58 x 183 studies		=	$   $73,355

(b) Clerical: 0.9 hours x $41.21 x 183 studies 		=	$       6,787

                                				         TOTAL		=	$     80,142

Table 8: Annual Agency Burden/Cost Estimates per Submission - INCIDENTS

BURDEN HOURS (per year)

TOTAL

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

Technical

 $71.58/hr

Clerical

 $41.21/hr

Hours

Costs ($)

Screen submitted information

0.132

0.00

0.132	9.43

Record, file and track submissions

0.0205

0.029

0.050	.2.66

Communications, Guidance

0.025

0.00

0.025	1.79

TOTAL

0.177

0.029

0.207	13.88

ANNUAL BURDEN: 0.207 Total Hours x 71,000 submissions		=	14,697 Hours

ANNUAL COSTS: (a) Technical: 0.177 hours x $71.58 x 71,000 submissions    =$    899,546

  (b) Clerical: 0.029 hours x 41.21 x 71,000 submissions       = $       84,845

                                           	TOTAL					         =$   984,391

Table 9: Total Annual Burden/Cost for Agency

Per Submission Estimates

Total Submissions Expected each Year

Totals

Burden Hours

Costs ($)

Burden Hours

Costs ($)

Studies

6.50

437.94

    183

    1,190*

80,142*

Incidents

0.207

   13.88

71,000

     14,697**

984,391**

TOTAL

  15,887

  1,064,533

*taken from Table 7 calculations

**taken from Table 8 calculations

d)  Bottom Line Hours and Costs Tables

The total burden hours and costs for respondents and the Agency have been calculated and are presented in Table 10:

Table 10: MASTER TABLE

TOTAL

Hours

Cost

Annual Respondent Burden/Cost Estimates

203,236*

 $11,793,027*

Annual Agency Burden/Cost Estimates

     15,887**

     $1,064,533**

TOTAL

219,123

 $12,857,560

*taken from Table 6

**taken from Table 9

The average per respondent burden is 117.27 hours (203,236 total hours ( 1,733 total potential respondents), and the average cost is $6,805 per respondent ($11,793,027 total cost ( 1,733 total potential respondents).  Not all of the potential respondents are likely to submit information each year. This calculation is a simple average of the burden and does not reflect the more likely potential respondent burden which is characterized by the type of submission, the number of registrations held, and the number of incidents that need to be reported.

Reasons for Change in Burden

For the respondent burden, in the previous ICR OMB approved 167,316 burden hours for submission of information from pesticide registrants under FIFRA 6(a)(2) with a cost of $9,809,591.  This ICR renewal request reflects an increase of approximately 35,920 burden hours to an annual respondent burden of 203,236 hours at a cost of $11,793,027.  This reflects the increase of the number of registrants of active products (1,733 versus 1,720) and the need for additional employees to be trained.  The change in burden is an adjustment.

The Agency burden has increased, which reflects an increase in the number of incident submissions and more communications relating to incident data.  Total burden hour estimates associated with studies are reduced because the estimated number of study submissions is reduced from 240 studies to 183.  Burden estimates associated with the number of incident reports, however, are increased because of the increased volume of incident reporting (31%).  Overall, considering both the decrease in studies and the increase in incidents, the total respondent burden hours increased from 167,316 to 203,236.  The change in burden is an adjustment.

Calculations of labor rates and related burden costs have changed for both EPA and respondents. In previous renewals cycles, the Agency merely adjusted the labor rates to account for inflation.  However, for this renewal, Agency economists have completely re-estimated wages, benefits, and overhead for all labor categories for both Agency employees and respondents.  Therefore, total burden costs have increased, but may not be directly comparable to the previous ICR.

f)	Burden Statement

The total annual "respondent" (applicant) is estimated to be 203,236 hours, with an average potential per respondent burden of 117.27 hours.  According to the PRA, “burden” means 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.  For this collection, it is the time reading the regulations, planning the necessary data collection activities, conducting tests, analyzing data, generating reports and completing other required paperwork, and storing, filing, and maintaining the data. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and appear on the information collection instrument as applicable, i.e., form or instructions.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0886.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"  http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are also available for public viewing at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Room S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington VA.  The Docket is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0886, the EPA ICR Number 1204-11 and OMB Control Number 2070-0039 in any correspondence, but do not submit 6(a)(2) information to this address.  The 6(a)(2) information should be submitted to USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs as specified in 40 CFR 150.17 and 40 CFR 159.156.

Attachments List

	All of the attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR, or as part of the supporting statement or are available via a link (unless otherwise noted); accessible electronically through   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"  www.Regulations.gov  . On the main page, select Advanced Search from the menu bar at the top and select Docket Search. Enter the Docket ID Number, EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0886 in the Docket ID field. Click on the Submit button. From the results page, you will be able to link to the docket view or directly open select documents found in the docket.

ATTACHMENT A:

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – Section 6(a)(2) (7 USC 136d),   HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00000136---d000-.html"  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00000136---d000-.html

ATTACHMENT B:

FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) Reporting Requirements - Codified as 40 CFR part 159,   HYPERLINK "http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5ae756308518f2 268897fbc57a160ab5&rgn=div6&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.10.2&idno=40"  Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

ATTACHMENT C:

PR Notice 98-3 - Guidance on Final FIFRA 6(a)(2) Regulations for Pesticide Product Registrants see   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/"  http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/

ATTACHMENT D:

PR Notice 98-4 - Additional Guidance on Final FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) Regulations for Pesticide Product Registrants (w/Attachment) see   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/"  http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/

ATTACHMENT E:

Class Determination Regarding Confidentiality of 6(a)(2) Information

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1999/December/Day-15/p32185.htm"  http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/1999/December/Day-15/p32185.htm

ATTACHMENT F:

Worksheet for Estimating OPP ICR Wages Rates for Industry, State, and EPA Labor Costs

See attachment below.

ATTACHMENT G:

List of Consultation Questions and Responses

			(reserved)

ATTACHMENT I:

Industry’s Voluntary 6(a)(2) Incident Reporting Forms & Guidance Documents see

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fifra6a2/"  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fifra6a2/

Attachment F

Work Sheets Used To Calculate Registrant Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP- 2009-0885 is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement.

NAICS:  325300

Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

Labor Category:	Formula	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1	 = W	$51.01 	$28.05 	$16.67

Benefits Percentage2	Lb = B/W	44%	44%	44%

Benefits per hour	B = W*Lb	$22.20 	$12.21 	$7.26

Loaded Hourly Rate	Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb)	$73.21 	$40.26 	$23.93

Overhead Percentage3	Lo = OH/Wb	50%	50%	50%

Overhead per hour	OH = Wb*Lo	$36.61 	$20.13 	$11.96

Fully Loaded Hourly Rate	Wf = Wb + OH

 = W + B + OH  	$109.82 	$60.39 	$35.89

1.  Data Source:  BLS   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm"  http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm      May 2008 data

     NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

     Standard Occupational Codes:

       Management:   11-0000, Management Occupations

       Technical:        19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations

       Clerical:           43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34.  The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.

Attachment F.1

Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0885 and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement

NAICS: 999100

Federal Executive Branch

Labor Category:	Formula	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1	 = W	$49.96 	$33.25 	$19.14

Benefits Percentage2	Lb = B/W	44%	44%	44%

Benefits per hour	B = W*Lb	$21.75 	$14.47 	$8.33

Loaded Hourly Rate	Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb)	$71.71 	$47.72 	$27.47

Overhead Percentage3	Lo = OH/Wb	50%	50%	50%

Overhead per hour	OH = Wb*Lo	$35.85 	$23.86 	$13.74

Fully Loaded Hourly Rate	Wf = Wb + OH

 = W + B + OH  	$107.56 	$71.58 	$41.21

1.  Data Source:  BLS   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm"  http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm   May 2008 data

     NAICS  999100 -  Federal Executive Branch

     Standard Occupational Codes:

       Management:   11-0000, Management Occupations

       Technical:        19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations

       Clerical:           43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34.  The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.

		January 06, 2010

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40566-40567]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14392]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-359, OMB Control No. 3235-0410]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rules 17h-1T and
17h-2T

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T (17
CFR 240.17h-1T and 17 CFR 240.17h-2T), under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit
this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17h-1T requires a covered broker-dealer to maintain and
preserve records and other information concerning certain entities that
are associated with the broker-dealer. This requirement extends to the
financial and securities activities of the holding company, affiliates
and subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that are reasonably likely to
have a material impact on the financial or operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Rule 17h-2T requires a covered broker-dealer to file
with the Commission quarterly reports and a cumulative year-end report
concerning the information required to be maintained and preserved
under Rule 17h-1T.
    The collection of information required by Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T,
collectively referred to as the ``risk assessment rules'', is necessary
to enable the Commission to monitor the activities of a broker-dealer
affiliate whose business activities are reasonably likely to have a
material impact on the financial and operational condition of the
broker-dealer. Without this information, the Commission would be unable
to assess the potentially damaging impact of the affiliate's activities
on the broker-dealer.
    There are currently 235 respondents that must comply with Rules
17h-1T and 17h-2T. Each of these 235 respondents are estimated to
require 10 hours per year to maintain the records required under Rule
17h-1T, for an aggregate estimated annual burden of 2,350 hours (235
respondents x 10 hours). In addition, each of these 235 respondents
must make five annual responses under Rule 17h-2T. These five responses
are estimated to require 14 hours per respondent per year for an
aggregate estimated annual burden of 3,290 hours (235 respondents x 14
hours).
    In addition, new respondents must draft an organizational chart
required under Rule 17h-1T and establish a system for complying with
the risk

assessment rules. The staff estimates that drafting the required
organizational chart requires one hour and establishing a system for
complying with the risk assessment rules requires three hours. Based on
the reduction in the number of filers in recent years, the staff
estimates there will be zero new respondents, and thus, a corresponding
estimated burden of zero hours for new respondents. Thus, the total
compliance burden per year is approximately 5,640 burden hours (2,350
hours + 3,290 hours).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication by September 6, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: June 30, 2022.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14392 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34457-34458]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0079]

Pipeline Safety: Mechanical Fitting Failure Reports

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides clarification to owners and operators of
gas distribution pipeline facilities when completing the Mechanical
Fitting Failure Report Form, PHMSA F 7100.1-2. Initial reviews of
reports submitted for calendar year 2011 failures have identified a
need for PHMSA to issue this notice to provide operators with
additional guidance for reporting the apparent cause. PHMSA has also
enhanced the online submittal process and plans to implement further
improvements.

ADDRESSES: This document can be viewed on the PHMSA home page at:
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov and in docket number PHMSA-2012-0079 at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris McLaren, Distribution Integrity
Management Program Coordinator at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 192.1009 of the pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR parts
190-199) requires each owner or operator of a gas distribution pipeline
facility to file a written report for any mechanical fitting failure
that results in a hazardous leak. A hazardous leak is defined in Sec.
192.1001 as a leak that represents an existing or probable hazard to
persons or property and requires immediate repair or continuous action
until the conditions are no longer hazardous. Each report must be filed
by March 15 of the following year on a Mechanical Fitting Failure
Report Form (PHMSA F 7100.1-2).
    A report is required for all failures regardless of the material
composition, type, manufacturer, or size of the fitting. The reporting
requirements apply to all failures that result in a hazardous leak due
to the use of a fitting and may include failures in the body of the
mechanical fitting, failures in the joints between the fitting and the
pipe, indications of leakage from the seals associated with the
fitting, and partial or complete separation of the pipe from the
fitting. Operators are to report all mechanical fitting failures
regardless of the cause. It is important to note that PHMSA does not
seek information related to failures of cast iron bell and spigot
joints unless the leak resulted from a failure of a mechanical fitting
used to repair or reinforce a joint.
    Question 15, ``Apparent Cause of Leak'', under Part C of PHMSA F
7100.1-2 specifies various apparent causes of leaks. These causes
include ``Corrosion,'' ``Natural Forces,'' ``Excavation Damage,''
``Other Outside Force Damage,'' ``Material or Welds/Fusions,''
``Equipment,'' ``Incorrect Operation,'' and ``Other.'' These apparent
cause options contain two potential options for a failure that
apparently results from incorrect installation of the mechanical
fitting. One option is ``Material or Welds/Fusions'' with a subcategory
of ``Construction/Installation Defect.'' The other option is
``Incorrect Operation.'' PHMSA prefers that failures resulting from an
installation defect be reported

using ``Incorrect Operation'' as the apparent cause. It is PHMSA's
intent to capture failure data under the ``Material or Welds/Fusions''
leak cause category that is specific to manufacture, fabrication,
material, and design defects.
    In addition, operators have contacted PHMSA with a suggestion to
expedite the finalization and electronic submission of reports. Many
operators have developed unique identifiers for their mechanical
fitting failures. These operators have suggested that the form be
revised to allow the addition of this unique identifier to each report.
This will allow for ease of identification and prevention of duplicate
filing. PHMSA has revised the form to collect this information.
    Over eight thousand Mechanical Fitting Failure Reports were
received during calendar year 2011. Several operators have requested
the ability to submit multiple reports simultaneously. PHMSA has begun
work on a function within the online system to allow the simultaneous
submission of multiple reports.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2012-07)

    To: All Gas Distribution Operators.
    Subject: Completion of Mechanical Fitting Failure Report Form, Leak
Causes.
    Advisory: As specified in Sec.  192.1009, operators of all gas
distribution pipeline facilities are required to report the failure of
any mechanical fitting that results in a hazardous leak on a Mechanical
Fitting Failure Report Form (PHMSA F 7100.1-2). The report is required
for all failures regardless of the material composition, type,
manufacturer, or size of the fitting. Operators are to report all
mechanical fitting failures regardless of the cause. Reporting
requirements also apply to failures resulting from the use of a fitting
and may include failures in the body of mechanical fitting, failures in
the joints between the fitting and the pipe, indications of leakage
from the seals associated with the fitting, and partial or complete
separation of the pipe away from the fitting. However, PHMSA does not
seek information related to failures of cast iron bell and spigot
joints unless the leak resulted from a failure of a mechanical fitting
used to repair or reinforce a joint.
    The apparent cause options under Part C, Question 15 (Apparent
Cause of Leak) on PHMSA F 7100.1-2 contain two potential options for a
failure that apparently results from incorrect installation of the
mechanical fitting. One option is ``Material or Welds/Fusions'' with a
subcategory of ``Construction/Installation Defect.'' The other option
is ``Incorrect Operation.'' PHMSA prefers that failures resulting from
an installation defect be reported using ``Incorrect Operation'' as the
apparent cause. It is PHMSA's intent to capture failure data under the
``Material or Welds/Fusions'' leak cause category that is specific to
manufacture, fabrication, material, and design defects.
    When creating a report in PHMSA's online system, operators may now
include a unique identifier for each report to help operators
distinguish reports.
    Several operators have requested the ability to submit multiple
reports simultaneously. PHMSA has begun work on a function within the
online system to allow the simultaneous submission of multiple reports.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 4, 2012.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-14089 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18583-18584]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-1132-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of EconoPower, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, 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 April 10, 2013.
    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
5 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(s) 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 21, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06998 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32472-32474]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0386]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; BASS Master Fireworks Display; Saint Lawrence River,
Ogden Island, Waddington, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Saint Lawrence River, Ogden Island, Waddington, NY. This safety zone is
intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Saint Lawrence River
during the BASS Master Fireworks Display on July 22, 2017. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from
the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 22,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0386 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-
843-9322, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. The event sponsor did not submit notice to
the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to
publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators
and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and
vessels near the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is
taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 22, 2017 from 8:45 p.m.
to 10:15 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Saint
Lawrence River, Ogden Island, Waddington, NY within a 560-foot radius
of position 44[deg]52'16.58'' N. and 075[deg]12'18.08'' W. (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and

Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to
reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for
every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be
prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    This rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is
exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's
Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the
Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (February 2, 2017).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded
under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction,
which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of
Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.*`

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0386 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0386  Safety Zone; BASS Master Fireworks Display, Saint
Lawrence River, Ogden Island, Waddington, NY.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of the Saint
Lawrence River, Ogden Island, Waddington, NY within a 560-foot radius
of position 44[deg]52'16.58'' N. and 075[deg]12'18.08'' W. (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation is effective on July 22,
2017 from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 10, 2017.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-14844 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


DuPooproducts October 20, 2003 Document Control Office ( DCO) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) US Environmental Protection Agency EPA East, Room 6428 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Attention: Docket No. AR 226 and/ or OPPT 2003 0012 Re: Follow up to September 15, 2003 Submission of DuPont Progress Report on Environmental Assessments Pursuant to the APFO Users LOI dated March 14, 2003: Air Dispersion Modeling Reports Dear Sir/ Madam:

Further to my letter of September 15, 2003 ( referenced above) and DuPont commitments made in the above identified LOI, air dispersion modeling, based upon year 2002 air emissions for the Washington Works facility and using the EPA approved Industrial Source Complex Short Term 3 ( ISCST3) model, as described in the APFO Users LOI, has been completed. The report is included as Attachment 1. These modeled results are presented solely for the purpose of establishing a baseline year by which future reductions in air emissions can be compared. Verification of the air model on which these results are based is planned to begin shortly.

In addition, air dispersion modeling based upon air emissions from September 2002 through August 2003 has also been conducted, per request of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Those results are reported in Attachment 2. The modeled air emissions for this time period are reduced in comparison to the modeled air emissions for baseline year 2002.

The reduction in air emissions is primarily due to the addition, in May 2002, of a secondary recovery scrubber to the largest single emission point. The previously existing packed bed scrubber collected 50% of the emitted material. The new device uses a deepbed fiber system to collect fine particles that were not collected by the existing scrubber. The recovery efficiency, measured across both devices, has been demonstrated to be 98% or greater.   DuPont Fluoroproducts DuPont Fluoroproducts Chestnut Run Plaza P. O. Box 80711 Wilmington, DE 19880 0711 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 October 28 8: 25AM OPPT 2003 0012 0223 Document Control Office Page 2 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics October 20, 2003 Additional reductions in air emissions resulted from improvements applied to scrubbers on other significant emission points. A DuPont study identified improvements to scrubber operating parameters and changes to control strategies that can allow efficiencies to improve from 75%  85% to 90% or better.

If you need further clarification on the information presented with this letter, please contact me at the number provided below.

Very truly yours,

David M. Rurak Safety, Health, and Environmental Manager Global Business Manager, APFO DuPont Fluoroproducts CRP Bld. 711/ 2210 C P. O. Box 80711 Wilmington, Delaware 19880 0711 302 999 2415 ( phone) 302 999 3095 ( fax) E mail: David. M. Rurak@ usa. dupont. com Attachments ( 2)

cc: Mary Dominiak, EPA ( via overnight mail) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics EPA East, Room 4410 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 564 4760 Document Control Office Page 3 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics October 20, 2003 ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. Title___________________________ No. of Pages 1 Year 2002 Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis 8 of APFO Emissions 2 September 2002 through August 2003 Air 8 Dispersion Modeling Analysis of APFO Emissions


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50203-50205]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20373]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0541; A-1-FRL-9932-46-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Rhode Island; Rhode Island Low Emission Vehicle Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management. The regulations adopted
by Rhode Island include the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) II
light-duty motor vehicle emission standards effective in model year
2008, the California LEV II medium-duty vehicle standards effective in
model year 2009, and greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty
motor vehicles and medium-duty vehicles effective with model year 2009.
The Rhode Island LEV regulation submitted also includes a zero emission
vehicle (ZEV) provision. Rhode Island has adopted these revisions to
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen

oxides (NOX) in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), as well as to reduce greenhouse gases (carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons). In addition,
Rhode Island has worked to ensure that their program is identical to
California's, as required by the CAA. These actions are being taken in
accordance with the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0541. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
Office of Air Resources, Department of Environmental Management, 235
Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0660, 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. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 4, 2015 (80 FR 31867), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Rhode Island. The NPR proposed
approval of Rhode Island's amended Air Pollution Control Regulation No.
37 (APCR No. 37), ``Rhode Island's Low Emission Vehicle Program.''
Rhode Island's amended APCR No. 37, with an effective date of December
22, 2005, adopts the California LEV II program. Rhode Island first
adopted California's LEV I program standards on June 6, 1996. In 1999,
APCR No. 37 was amended to allow automobile manufacturers to comply
with the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program in lieu of
complying with the California LEV program. In 2004, Rhode Island
adopted California's LEV II standards. In September 2005, California
amended their LEV II standards to include standards for greenhouse gas
emissions to apply to model year 2009 and later vehicles.
    On December 22, 2005, Rhode Island made the following amendments to
APCR No. 37: Adopted California LEV II emission standards and related
provisions for medium-duty vehicles commencing with the 2009 model
year, adopted recently announced revisions concerning LEV II greenhouse
gas emission standards and related provisions for passenger cars,
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles commencing with
the 2009 model year in accordance with section 177 of the CAA, and
provided additional clarification and flexibility with respect to the
implementation of the zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) program in Rhode
Island.
    A detailed discussion of Rhode Island's September 5, 2008 SIP
revision and EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the SIP revision
were provided in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public
comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Rhode Island's Low Emission Vehicle Program as a
revision to the Rhode Island SIP. Specifically, EPA is incorporating
into the SIP Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 37,
``Rhode Island's Low Emission Vehicle Program,'' effective in the State
of Rhode Island on December 22, 2005.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference Rhode
Island's revised Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 37 described in
the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

IV. 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 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 action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 19, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 22, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart OO--Rhode Island

0
2. In Sec.  52.2070, the table in paragraph (c) ``EPA-Approved Rhode
Island Regulations'', is amended by revising the entry for the state
citation ``Air Pollution Control Regulation 37'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    EPA--Approved Rhode Island Regulations

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Air Pollution Control Regulation   Rhode Island's Low       12/22/2005  8/19/2015 [Insert    Adopts California
 37.                                Emission Vehicle                     Federal Register     LEV II standards.
                                    Program.                             citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-20373 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P