UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

                      POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

DATE:  	July 13, 2010

SUBJECT:	Isoxaben: Chronic Aggregate Dietary Exposure (Food and Drinking
Water) and Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration on Grapes and
Tree Nuts.

PC Code:  125851	DP Barcodes: D375246

Decision No.: 379577	Registration No.:  62719-LIN

Petition No.:  7F7222	Regulatory Action:  Section 3 Registration

Risk Assessment Type:  Single Chemical Aggregate, Dietary	Case No.:  NA

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:  82558-50-7

MRID No.:  NA	40 CFR:  §180.xxx (not yet established)

REVIEWER:	Elizabeth Holman, Chemist

		Dennis McNeilly, Chemist

Risk Assessment Branch II  (RAB2)

Health Effects Division (HED; 7509P)

THROUGH:	Julie VanAlstine, MPH, Environmental Health Scientist

Douglas Dotson, Ph.D., Chemist

Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council

Health Effects Division (HED; 7509P)

and

Richard Loranger, Ph.D., Branch Senior Scientist

Risk Assessment Branch II (RAB2)

Health Effects Division (HED; 7509P)

TO:		   Kathryn V. Montague, PM-23

		   Herbicide Branch

		   Registration Division (RD; 7505P)

Executive Summary

A chronic aggregate dietary risk assessment (food and drinking water)
was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID,
Version 2.03), which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA’s) Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998.  The analysis was performed
to support a Section 3 registration for use of isoxaben
[N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl]-2,6-dimethoxybenzamide] on
grapes and tree nuts.

Acute Dietary Exposure (Food and Drinking Water) Results and
Characterization

No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was identified.
As no acute dietary endpoint was identified, an acute exposure analysis
was not performed.

Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Results and
Characterization

The chronic analysis is based on tolerance level residues and 100% crop
treated assumptions.  Default processing factors were used for grape
juice (1.2x), and grapes, raisin (4.3x).  The HED-recommended tolerance
level for each raw agricultural commodity (RAC) was entered as listed
below:

Grape	0.01 ppm

Nut, tree, group 14	0.02 ppm

Pistachio	0.02 ppm

The general U.S. population and all population subgroups have risk
estimates that are well below HED’s level of concern (i.e., 100% of
the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD)).  The most highly exposed
population subgroup is Infants <1 yr, which utilizes 17% of the cPAD.
The general U.S. population utilizes 5.1% of the cPAD.

Cancer Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Results and
Characterization

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In accordance with EPA’s Final Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March, 2005), the Cancer Assessment Review
Committee (CARC) classified isoxaben as having “Suggestive Evidence of
Carcinogenicity,” but concluded that quantification of carcinogenic
potential is not required.  The CARC determined that the cRfD is
protective of cancer effects.  As a result, a separate cancer dietary
exposure analysis was not performed.  Cancer risk from dietary exposure
to isoxaben is not of concern to HED.

I.	Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a
given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is
expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose
which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health
effects).  This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose
(PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to the point of departure (POD, NOAEL,
LOAEL, e.g.) divided by the required uncertainty or safety factors.

For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when
estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  HED is generally
concerned when estimated cancer risk exceeds one in one million.
References which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more
detail are available on the EPA/pesticides web site:  “Available
Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide,”
6/21/2000, web link:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf ;  or see
SOP 99.6 (8/20/99).

This is the first food use and first dietary risk assessment to be
conducted for isoxaben.

II.	Residue Information

Isoxaben is a benzamide herbicide (Group 21) used for control of
broadleaf weeds.  Isoxaben reportedly acts via inhibition of cell wall
synthesis.  The herbicide is currently registered for non-food uses on
turf, ornamentals, non-bearing fruit and nut trees, and non-bearing
vineyards.

The petitioner has proposed a new Section 3 use on grapes, tree nuts,
and pistachios.  See Table 1 below for a summary of the HED-recommended
tolerances.

Table 1.  Summary of HED- Recommended Tolerances for Proposed New Use

Commodity	 Recommended Tolerance (ppm)

Grape 	0.01

Nut tree, group 14 	0.02

Pistachio 	0.02

For grapes and tree nuts (including pistachio), isoxaben parent serves
as an adequate measure of misuse based on its percentage of the total
radioactive residues (TRR) in the metabolism studies and the residues
seen in crop field trials.

HED is making the conservative assumption of 100% crop treated.

Processing Factors:

Conducted at 5x the proposed maximum seasonal application rate, the
submitted processing study on grapes showed residues <LOQ (0.01 ppm)
in/on all samples of grapes, raisins, and grape juice; therefore,
processing factors could not be calculated.  Therefore default
processing factors were used for grape juice and raisins (summarized in
Table 2).

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 2.	Summary of Processing Factors for
Isoxaben

RAC	Processed Commodity	Processing Factor (Default)

Grape	Grape juice	1.2x

	Raisins	 4.3x

III.  Drinking Water Data

The drinking water residues used in the dietary risk assessment were
provided by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) in the
following memorandum: “Tier I Drinking Water Assessment for the
Isoxaben Proposed New Use on Bearing Nut Trees and Vineyards” (341497,
C. Peck, 3/18/2010) and incorporated directly into this dietary
assessment.  Water residues were incorporated in the DEEM-FCID into the
food categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect,
all sources.”

The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) are based on the
maximum proposed application rates specified in the product labels.  The
EDWCs for the human health risk assessment are presented in Table 3.
Because isoxaben has a number of major degradates whose toxicity is
similar to that of isoxaben, a total toxic residue (TTR) approach was
used in the modeling.  The Residue of Concern Knowledge-based
Subcommittee (ROCKS) recommended that the drinking water assessment for
isoxaben include hydroxyisoxaben, dimethoxybenzamide,
methoxyphenylpyrimidinol, and AEM hexenoylisoxaben.

 TC \l2 " 3.1	Hazard and Dose-Response

The drinking water exposure assessment for isoxaben and total isoxaben
residues is based on modeling.  Estimated drinking water concentrations
for isoxaben and total isoxaben residues are shown in Table 3.

The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) were calculated using
a Tier I model for surface water (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool or
FIRST) and a Tier I model for groundwater (Screening Concentration in
Ground Water or SCI-GROW).  The surface water values were higher than
the groundwater values in all scenarios.  Two sets of modeling runs were
completed: one set using the mobility estimates of the parent and one
set using mobility estimates derived from the isoxaben degradate study.
RAB2 has selected the most conservative estimate in order to be
sufficiently protective of human health.  The maximum annual mean FIRST
EDWC in surface water (from the modeling of the isoxaben degradates) was
120 µg/L for ornamental use.

Table 3. Tier I Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs)
resulting from applications of isoxaben on ornamentals and bearing nut
trees.

Drinking water source (model)	Use

(modeled rate)	Chronic

(µg/L)

Parent Kd Data

Surface water (FIRST)	Ornamental	54.7

Groundwater (SCIGROW)	Ornamental	2.13

Surface water (FIRST)	Bearing nut trees and vineyards	16.9

Groundwater (SCIGROW)	Bearing nut trees and vineyards	0.71

Degradate Kd Data

Surface water (FIRST)	Ornamental	120

Groundwater (SCIGROW)	Ornamental	43.6

Surface water (FIRST)	Bearing nut trees and vineyards	37.0

Groundwater (SCIGROW)	Bearing nut trees and vineyards	14.5

Monitoring Data

Isoxaben is not included as one of the analytes monitored in U.S.
surface and groundwater under the USGS’s National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program (  HYPERLINK "http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa"
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa ). There were no detections in six surface
water and sediment samples collected and analyzed for isoxaben by
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) in 2006 in
Stanislaus County.

IV.	DEEM-FCID( Program and Consumption Information

An isoxaben chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using the
DEEM-FCID(, Version 2.03, which incorporates consumption data from
USDA’s CSFII, 1994-1996 and 1998.  The 1994-96, 98 data are based on
the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two
non-consecutive survey days.  Foods “as consumed” (e.g., apple pie)
are linked to EPA-defined food commodities (e.g. apples, peeled fruit -
cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour - cooked; fresh or N/S,
baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed
jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic exposure assessment,
consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S. population and within
population subgroups, but for acute exposure assessment are retained as
individual consumption events.  Based on analysis of the 1994-96, 98
CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and
survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report
risk for the following population subgroups: the general U.S.
population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5,
children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49, females 13-49, and adults 50+
years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue
level in each food or food-form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the
food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily
consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a residue intake
estimate. The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form
is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/food
forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average
estimated exposure.  Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and
as a percent of the cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each
population subgroup.

V.	Toxicological Information

The Health Effects Division (HED) has evaluated the toxicology database
for isoxaben.  The RAB2 risk assessment team reviewed the toxicology
data for isoxaben with regard to the acute and chronic reference doses
and the toxicological endpoint selection.  Table 4 below provides a
summary of the doses and endpoints recommended for use in the dietary
exposure assessments.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In accordance with EPA’s
Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March, 2005), the
Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) classified isoxaben as having
“Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity,” but concluded that
quantification of carcinogenic potential is not required.  The cRfD is
protective of cancer effects.  The FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1x
for all exposure scenarios.

Table 4 Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Isoxaben for
Use in Dietary Human Health Risk Assessments

Exposure/

Scenario	Point of Departure	Uncertainty/FQPA Safety Factors	RfD, PAD,
Level of Concern for Risk Assessment	Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary, General Population, including Infants, Children and
Females Age 13 to 49	Not required.  Appropriate endpoints for this risk
assessment were not identified.

Chronic Dietary (All Populations)	NOAEL= 5.0  mg/kg/day	UFA= 10x

UFH= 10x

FQPA SF= 1x   	Chronic RfD = 0.05

mg/kg/day

cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day	Chronic oral toxicity/carcinogenicity in the rat

LOAEL = 50.7 mg/kg/day, based on renal toxicity in males.

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)	Classification:  Suggestive Evidence
of Carcinogenic Potential, based on increased incidence of
hepatocellular adenomas in male and female mice.  A quantitative
assessment of cancer risk is not required.

Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is
derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning
of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
relevant human exposures.  NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level.  UF = uncertainty factor.
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).  UFH =
potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
(intraspecies).  FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.  PAD = population
adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic).  RfD = reference dose.

VI.	Results/Discussion

As stated above, for acute and chronic assessments, HED is concerned
when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  The DEEM-FCID( analysis
estimates the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various
population subgroups.  The results reported in Table 5 are for the
general U.S. Population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2,
children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49,
and adults 50+ years.

Results of Acute Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Analysis

No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was identified.
As no acute dietary endpoint was identified, an acute exposure analysis
was not performed.

Results of Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Analysis

The summary table below lists the results of the chronic dietary
exposure analysis.  The chronic dietary risk estimates for the general
U.S. population utilized 5.1% of the cPAD.  The most highly exposed
population subgroup was all infants (<1 yr old), which utilized 17% of
the cPAD.  All population exposures are well below HED’s level of
concern.

Table 5.  Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Isoxaben1

Population Subgroup*

Acute Dietary

Chronic Dietary

Cancer

Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/day)

% aPAD

Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)

% cPAD

Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)

Risk

General U.S. Population	N/A

No acute dietary endpoint was identified	N/A	0.002536	5.1

N/A

N/A

All Infants (< 1 year old)

	0.008303	17

Children 1-2 years old

	0.003794	7.6

Children 3-5 years old

	0.003539	7.1

Children 6-12 years old

	0.002434	4.9

Youth 13-19 years old

	0.001832	3.7

Adults 20-49 years old

	0.002366	4.7

Adults 50+ years old

	0.002489	5.0

Females 13-49 years old

	0.002356	4.7

1The value for the highest exposed population in this chronic risk
assessment is bolded.

VII.	Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

As the exposure estimates to all population subgroups were so low, it
was not necessary to make refinements to the chronic dietary analysis.
If it had been necessary to refine the analysis, average field trial
values could have been used in place of tolerance level residues.  In
addition, estimates of percent crop treated could have been used.

VIII.	Conclusions

Based on very conservative assumptions, the chronic dietary risk
estimates are well below HED’s level of concern for the general U.S.
population and all population subgroups, including those comprised of
infants and children.  In addition, cancer risk from dietary exposure to
isoxaben is not of concern to HED (the cRfD is protective of cancer
effects).  Based on the conservative nature of the chronic dietary
endpoint and the drinking water assessment, exposure and risk to
isoxaben are not expected to be underestimated.

IX.	List of Attachments

Attachment 1: Residue Input File for Chronic Analysis

Attachment 2: Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

Attachment 1:  Isoxaben Residue Input File

Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\EHOLMAN\My
Documents\isoxaben0414.R98

Chemical: Isoxaben

RfD(Chronic): .05 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL(Chronic): 5 mg/kg bw/day

RfD(Acute): 0 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL(Acute):  0 mg/kg bw/day

Date created/last modified: 04-14-2010/17:33:53/8          Program ver.
2.03

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

  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors
 Comment

  Code    Grp  Commodity Name                    (ppm)       #1    #2

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

95001750 O    Grape                              0.010000   1.000  1.000

95001760 O    Grape, juice                       0.010000   1.200  1.000

95001761 O    Grape, juice-babyfood              0.010000   1.200  1.000

95001770 O    Grape, leaves                      0.010000   1.000  1.000

95001780 O    Grape, raisin                      0.010000   4.300  1.000

95001790 O    Grape, wine and sherry             0.010000   1.000  1.000

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.120000   1.000  1.000

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.120000   1.000  1.000

14000030 14   Almond                             0.020000   1.000  1.000

14000031 14   Almond-babyfood                    0.020000   1.000  1.000

14000040 14   Almond, oil                        0.020000   1.000  1.000

14000041 14   Almond, oil-babyfood               0.020000   1.000  1.000

14000590 14   Brazil nut                         0.020000   1.000  1.000

14000680 14   Butternut                          0.020000   1.000  1.000

14000810 14   Cashew                             0.020000   1.000  1.000

14000920 14   Chestnut                           0.020000   1.000  1.000

14001550 14   Filbert                            0.020000   1.000  1.000

14001560 14   Filbert, oil                       0.020000   1.000  1.000

14001850 14   Hickory nut                        0.020000   1.000  1.000

14002130 14   Macadamia nut                      0.020000   1.000  1.000

14002690 14   Pecan                              0.020000   1.000  1.000

14002820 14   Pistachio                          0.020000   1.000  1.000

14003910 14   Walnut                             0.020000   1.000  1.000
 Attachment 2:  Results of Isoxaben Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ver. 2.00

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for ISOXABEN                         (1994-98
data)

Residue file name: C:\Documents and Settings\EHOLMAN\My
Documents\isoxaben0414.R98

                                                 Adjustment factor #2
NOT used.

Analysis Date 04-16-2010/16:15:54     Residue file dated:
04-14-2010/17:33:53/8

Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .05 mg/kg bw/day

========================================================================
=======

                    Total exposure by population subgroup

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

                                                    Total Exposure

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

          Population                         mg/kg             Percent
of

           Subgroup                       body wt/day             Rfd

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

U.S. Population (total)                     0.002536
5.1%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.002514
5.0%

U.S. Population (summer season)             0.002724
5.4%

U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.002451
4.9%

U.S. Population (winter season)             0.002452
4.9%

Northeast region                            0.002315
4.6%

Midwest region                              0.002564
5.1%

Southern region                             0.002410
4.8%

Western region                              0.002905
5.8%

Hispanics                                   0.002876
5.8%

Non-hispanic whites                         0.002475
4.9%

Non-hispanic blacks                         0.002407
4.8%

Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.003105
6.2%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.008303
16.6%

Nursing infants                             0.003079
6.2%

Non-nursing infants                         0.010285
20.6%

Children 1-6  yrs                           0.003560
7.1%

Children 7-12 yrs                           0.002306
4.6%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.001784
3.6%

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.002530
5.1%

Females 13-50 yrs                           0.002452
4.9%

Females 13+ (preg/not nursing)              0.002462
4.9%

Females 13+ (nursing)                       0.003508
7.0%

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.001864
3.7%

Males 20+ yrs                               0.002270
4.5%

Seniors 55+                                 0.002488
5.0%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.003794
7.6%

Children 3-5 yrs                            0.003539
7.1%

Children 6-12 yrs                           0.002434
4.9%

Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.001832
3.7%

Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.002366
4.7%

Adults 50+ yrs                              0.002489
5.0%

Females 13-49 yrs                           0.002356
4.7%

Isoxaben	                                                 Dietary
Exposure Assessment                                         DP Barcode:
375246

PC Code: 125851

                    Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  10


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6370-6371]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM05-1-000]

Regulations Governing the Conduct of Open Seasons for Alaska
Natural Gas Transportation Projects; Notice of Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects Open Season Pre-Filing Workshop

February 2, 2010.
    On February 11, 2010, the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) will hold a workshop on the procedures and process
for holding and commenting on an open season for an Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Project. The Workshop is being held at the Commission's
headquarters in Washington.
    In 2005, in the above-referenced docket, FERC enacted regulations
under the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act which established the
procedures for conducting open seasons for the purpose of making
binding commitments for the acquisition of capacity on Alaska natural
gas transportation projects. TransCanada Alaska Company LLC (TC Alaska)
has recently filed its request for approval of its Open Season plan for
its Alaska Pipeline Project in Docket No. PF09-11-001. Denali--The
Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC has publicly stated that it intends to hold an
open season for its project in 2010.
    Under FERC's open season regulations, prior to conducting an open
season for an Alaskan natural gas transportation project, each project
sponsor is required to submit a detailed open season plan to FERC.
After receiving the project sponsor's open season plan, FERC will issue
a notice requesting public comments on the open season plan and explain
the procedure for submitting such comments. Absent unusual
circumstances, FERC will act on the open season plan within 60 days its
submission by the project sponsor.
    Both of these project sponsors have initiated FERC's pre-filing
process, which is typically focused on FERC's environmental review of a
project. However in this instance, the pre-filing process also includes
FERC's review, approval, and oversight of the project sponsors' open
season. FERC Staff is holding this Open Season Pre-Filing Workshop to
provide interested parties an opportunity to learn about and discuss
the procedures and process for commenting upon and holding an open
season.
    The workshop will be held on February 11, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 4
p.m. (EST) at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 1st Street,
NE., Room 3M3, Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested parties may attend. The agenda for the Open Season
Pre-Filing Workshop is attached. There will be no discussion of TC
Alaska's filing in Docket No. PF09-11-001, or any other aspect of the
proposed Alaska pipeline projects. Rather, the Workshop will focus on
the requirements of the Commission's regulations and procedures and
process for commenting upon and holding an open season. In order to
ensure that questions can be appropriately answered, it is requested
that interested parties provide any questions in advance (by February
8, 2010) to Richard Foley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and they will be
added to the Agenda without attribution.
    The workshop will not be transcribed by the FERC Staff. Telephone
participation will be available; by calling:
    Conference number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Participant passcode: 25121.
    For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the
call. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers
using a mobile telephone.
    For additional information concerning this event, please contact
Richard Foley

at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Mary O'Driscoll at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2720 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50130-50133]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17431]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95456; File No. SR-FINRA-2022-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Implementation Date of Certain
Amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 Approved Pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036

August 9, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 29, 2022, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The

Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to extend, to April 24, 2023, the implementation
date of the amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements)
pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036, other than the amendments pursuant to
SR-FINRA-2015-036 that were implemented on December 15, 2016. The
proposed rule change would not make any changes to the text of FINRA
rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On October 6, 2015, FINRA filed with the Commission proposed rule
change SR-FINRA-2015-036, which proposed to amend FINRA Rule 4210 to
establish margin requirements for (1) To Be Announced (``TBA'')
transactions, inclusive of adjustable rate mortgage (``ARM'')
transactions; (2) Specified Pool Transactions; and (3) transactions in
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (``CMOs''), issued in conformity
with a program of an agency or Government-Sponsored Enterprise
(``GSE''), with forward settlement dates, as defined more fully in the
filing (collectively, ``Covered Agency Transactions''). The Commission
approved SR-FINRA-2015-036 on June 15, 2016 (the ``Approval Date'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78081 (June 15,
2016), 81 FR 40364 (June 21, 2016) (Notice of Filing of Amendment
No. 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule
Change to Amend FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements) to Establish
Margin Requirements for the TBA Market, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 1, 2, and 3; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Partial Amendment No. 3 to SR-FINRA-2015-036, FINRA
announced in Regulatory Notice 16-31 that the rule change would become
effective on December 15, 2017, 18 months from the Approval Date,
except that the risk limit determination requirements as set forth in
paragraphs (e)(2)(F), (e)(2)(G) and (e)(2)(H) of Rule 4210 and in new
Supplementary Material .05, each as respectively amended or established
by SR-FINRA-2015-036 (collectively, the ``risk limit determination
requirements''), would become effective on December 15, 2016, six
months from the Approval Date.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Partial Amendment No. 3 to SR-FINRA-2015-036 and
Regulatory Notice 16-31 (August 2016), both available at:
<www.finra.org>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Industry participants sought clarification regarding the
implementation of the requirements pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036.
Industry participants also requested additional time to make system
changes necessary to comply with the requirements, including time to
test the system changes, and requested additional time to update or
amend margining agreements and related documentation. In response,
FINRA made available a set of Frequently Asked Questions & Guidance \6\
and, pursuant to SR-FINRA-2017-029,\7\ extended the implementation date
of the requirements of SR-FINRA-2015-036 to June 25, 2018, except for
the risk limit determination requirements, which, as announced in
Regulatory Notice 16-31, became effective on December 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding
Covered Agency Transactions Under FINRA Rule 4210, at: <https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/faqs/responses-frequently-asked-questions-regarding-covered-agency-transactions-under-finra-rule>. Further, staff of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets
made available a set of Frequently Asked Questions regarding
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 and Rule 15c3-3 in connection with Covered
Agency Transactions under FINRA Rule 4210, also available at:
<https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/faqs/responses-frequently-asked-questions-regarding-covered-agency-transactions-under-finra-rule>.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81722 (September 26,
2017), 82 FR 45915 (October 2, 2017) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Delay the Implementation
Date of Certain Amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 Approved Pursuant to
SR-FINRA-2015-036; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-029); see also Regulatory
Notice 17-28 (September 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Industry participants requested that FINRA reconsider the potential
impact of certain requirements pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 on smaller
and mid-sized firms. Industry participants also requested that FINRA
extend the implementation date pending such reconsideration. In
response to these concerns, FINRA further extended the implementation
date of the requirements of SR-FINRA-2015-036, other than the risk
limit determination requirements, most recently to October 26, 2022
(the ``October 26, 2022 implementation date''),\8\ and, informed by
extensive dialogue, both with industry participants and other
regulators, including the staff of the SEC and the Federal Reserve
System, FINRA proposed amendments to the requirements of SR-FINRA-2015-
036 (the ``Proposed Amendments'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94356 (March 3,
2022), 87 FR 13337 (March 9, 2022) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Implementation
Date of Certain Amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 Approved Pursuant to
SR-FINRA-2015-036; File No. SR-FINRA-2022-003).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91937 (May 19,
2021), 86 FR 28161 (May 25, 2021) (Notice of Filing of a Proposed
Rule Change to Amend the Requirements for Covered Agency
Transactions Under FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements) as Approved
Pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036; File No. SR-FINRA-2021-010). See also
Partial Amendment No. 1 to SR-FINRA-2021-010, and Letter from Adam
Arkel, Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, FINRA,
to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, SEC, dated September 16, 2021,
both available at: <www.finra.org>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC, pursuant to delegated authority, approved the Proposed
Amendments on January 20, 2022; \10\ however, the Commission has stated
that, in accordance with Rule 431(e) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice, the delegated action approving the Proposed Amendments is
stayed until the Commission orders otherwise (the ``stay'').\11\ FINRA
believes it is appropriate, in the interest of regulatory clarity
pending the stay, to adjust the implementation of the requirements
pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036. As such, FINRA is proposing to extend
the October 26, 2022 implementation date to April 24, 2023. FINRA notes
that the stay on the delegated action approving the Proposed Amendments
applies only

to the Proposed Amendments and does not affect the amendments approved
pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036. FINRA further notes that the risk limit
determination requirements pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 became
effective on December 15, 2016, and, as such, are not affected by the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94013 (January 20,
2022), 87 FR 4076 (January 26, 2022) (Order Granting Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Amend the
Requirements for Covered Agency Transactions Under FINRA Rule 4210
(Margin Requirements) as Approved Pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036).
    \11\ See Letter from J. Matthew DeLesDernier, Assistant
Secretary, SEC, to Adam Arkel, Associate General Counsel, FINRA,
dated January 27, 2022, available at: <sec.gov>. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 94724 (April 14, 2022), 87 FR 23287 (April
19, 2022) (Order Granting Petition for Review and Scheduling Filing
of Statements; In the Matter of Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. Regarding an Order Granting the Approval of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the
Requirements for Covered Agency Transactions Under FINRA Rule 4210
(Margin Requirements) as Approved Pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the
requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing. The operative date will be the date
of filing of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change serves
the interest of regulatory clarity in the Covered Agency Transaction
market pending the stay. FINRA believes that this will thereby protect
investors and the public interest by helping to promote stability in
the Covered Agency Transaction market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that extending
the October 26, 2022 implementation date to April 24, 2023, pending the
stay, will help to provide clarity to industry participants and to
promote stability in the Covered Agency Transaction market, thereby
benefiting all parties.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative upon filing. FINRA has stated that the
proposed rule change will help to provide clarity to industry
participants and to promote stability in the Covered Agency Transaction
market pending further Commission Action on the Proposed Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposal to extend the implementation date of the
amendments to Rule 4210 pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 (other than the
amendments pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 that were implemented on
December 15, 2016) does not raise any new or novel issues and will
reduce any potential uncertainty in the Covered Agency Transaction
market. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay requirement and designates the proposed rule change as operative
upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For purposes of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to sec.gov">[email protected]sec.gov. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2022-023 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2022-023. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2022-023 and should be
submitted on or before September 6, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 2022-17431 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 37588]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2556-077]

Messalonskee Stream Hydro, LLC--Maryland; Messalonskee Stream
Hydro, LLC--Maine; Notice of Application for Partial Transfer of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On May 20, 2016, Messalonskee Stream Hydro, LLC--Maryland
(transferor) and Messalonskee Stream Hydro, LLC--Maine (transferee)
filed an application for the transfer of license of the Messalonskee
Project No. 2556. The project is located on Messalonskee Stream, a
tributary of the Kennebec River, in Kennebec County, Maine. The project
does not occupy Federal lands.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Messalonskee Project from the transferor to the transferee. This
transfer of license reflects an internal corporate reorganization. The
transferor will be merged into newly created transferee.
    Applicants Contact: Mr. Andrew Locke, Messalonskee Stream Hydro,
LLC, c/o Essex Hydro Assets, 55 Union Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
617-367-0032, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2556-077.

    Dated: June 6, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13751 Filed 6-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 80884]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Women in Aviation Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Women in Aviation
Advisory Board (WIAAB).

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 14, 2020, from 9 a.m.--3:30
p.m. EDT.
    Requests to attend the meeting must be received by Thursday,
December 31, 2020.
    Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by
Thursday, December 31, 2020.
    If you wish to speak during the meeting, you must submit a written
copy of your remarks to FAA by Thursday, December 31, 2020.
    Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the
meeting must be received no later than Thursday, December 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Due to circumstances outside of the Federal Aviation
Administration's control, the meeting will be offered as a webinar. You
can visit the WIAAB internet website at:
    https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ahr/advisory_committees/women_aviation/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Angela Anderson, Designated
Federal Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any committee related request should be
sent to the person listed in this section or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    WIAAB was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
in accordance with Section 612 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(Pub. L. 115-254), to encourage women and girls to enter the field of
aviation with the objective of promoting organizations and programs
that provide education, training, mentorship, outreach, and recruitment
of women in the aviation industry.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will include the following topics:
     Official Statement of the Designated Federal Officer
     Welcome/Opening Remarks
     Update from Subcommittee Chairs
     Review of Action Items
     Closing Remarks
    A detailed agenda will be posted on the WIAAB internet website
address listed in the ADDRESSES section at least 15 days in advance of
the meeting. Copies of the meeting minutes will also be available on
the WIAAB internet website.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public and members of the public
who wish to attend must RSVP to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section with your name and affiliation. Anyone who
has registered to attend will be notified in a timely manner prior to
the meeting.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign
language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by
Thursday, December 31, 2020.
    There will be a total of 15 minutes allotted for oral comments from
members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many
speakers as possible, the time for each commenter may be limited.
Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must
submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name,
address, and organizational affiliation of the proposed speaker. If the
number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can
be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the Federal Aviation
Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared
remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to
WIAAB members. All prepared remarks submitted on time will be accepted
and considered as part of the record. Any member of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time. The public
may present written statements to WIAAB by emailing the Designated
Federal Officer's address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 8, 2020.
Angela O. Anderson,
Senior Advisor, Office of the Assistant Administrator for Human
Resource Management, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-27383 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MILESTONES PLANS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURING CATEGORY ( 40 CFR PART 430) ( Renewal)

EPA ICR # 1877.03 OMB Control Number 2040 0202 June 2005 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Wastewater Management 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ......................... 1 1( a). Title of the Information Collection .............................................................. 1 1( b). Short Characterization/ Abstract .................................................................. 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ................................................ 2 2( a). Need/ Authority for the Collection ............................................................... 2 2( b). Practical Utility/ Users of the Data ............................................................... 2 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................. 3 3( a). Nonduplication ............................................................................................. 3 3( b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB .......................... 3 3( c). Consultations ................................................................................................ 3 3( d). Effects of Less Frequent Collection ............................................................. 3 3( e). General Guidelines ....................................................................................... 3 3( f). Confidentiality .............................................................................................. 3 3( g). Sensitive Questions ...................................................................................... 4 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ................... 4 4( a). Respondents/ SIC Codes ............................................................................... 4 4( b). Information Requested ................................................................................. 4 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ........................... 5 5( a). Agency Activities .......................................................................................... 5 5( b). Collection Methodology and Management ................................................... 6 5( c). Small Entity Flexibility ................................................................................. 6 5( d). Collection Schedule ...................................................................................... 6 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ............... 6 6( a). Estimating Respondent Burden .................................................................... 6 6( b). Estimating Respondent Costs ...................................................................... 8 6( c). Estimating Agency Burden and Costs ......................................................... 9 6( d). Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost ............... 10 6( e). Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ............................................... 11 6( f). Reasons for Change in Burden ..................................................................... 12 6( g). Burden Statement ......................................................................................... 12 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Burden ............................ 7 Table 2 Breakdown Estimate of Hours/ Mill ....................................................... 8 Table 3 Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Costs ............................... 9 Table 4 Total Industry Respondent Burden and Cost ......................................... 11 Table 5 Bottom Line Burden and Costs Based on 29 Mills in 2000 Dollars ................................................................... 12 Table 6 Bottom Line Burden and Costs ( annualized)............................................ 12 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a). Title of the Information Collection ICR: Milestones Plans of the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Category ( 40 CFR Part 430) ( EPA ICR No. 1877.03)

1( b). Short Characterization/ Abstract This Information Collection Request ( ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to the eligible community ( direct discharging bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills) and NPDES permitting authorities for activities associated with the development of a Milestones Plan, which is required as part of a Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program ( VATIP) established under the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards ( 40 CFR Part 430) portion of the Cluster Rule promulgated on April 15, 1998. The Milestones Plan is required only of those mills that voluntarily choose to enroll in the incentives program. This is a renewal ICR.

The VATIP ( 40 CFR 430.24( b)) is intended to encourage existing and new direct discharging mills to move beyond today's baseline BAT and NSPS technologies toward the " mill of the future," which EPA believes will have a minimum impact on the environment. In order to facilitate achievement of the ultimate effluent limitations required by this Incentives Program, existing mills that choose to enroll in this voluntary program are required to submit plans ( referred to as " Milestones Plans") detailing the strategy the mill will follow to develop and implement the technologies or processes it intends to use to achieve the requirements of the program. See 40 CFR 430.24( c). New sources enrolling in the Incentives Program are not required to develop Milestones Plans because they must achieve the ultimate VATIP standards as soon as they commence discharge.

The purpose of the Milestones Plan is to provide information necessary for the development of interim limitations or permit conditions under 40 CFR 430.24( b)( 2) that lead to achievement of the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations codified at 40 CFR 430.24( b)( 3) and ( 4). Each Milestones Plan must be developed by the participating mill and submitted to the NPDES permitting authority ( i. e., EPA or the State, if it is authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program). EPA expects the permitting authority to use the information contained in the Milestones Plan to establish enforceable permit limitations and conditions for the participating mill. These milestones would also provide valuable benchmarks for reasonable inquiries into progress being made by participating mills toward achievement of the interim and ultimate effluent limitations. EPA's legal authority to require such Milestones Plans in effluent limitations guidelines and standards is found in Section 308( a) of the Clean Water Act 2 ( CWA). For additional information on the VATIP, see the Technical Support Document for the Voluntary Advanced Incentives Program ( EPA 821 R 97 014; DCN 14488).

For the regulated community, the burden and costs of the Milestones Plan are those associated with its development. For the government, the burden and costs are those sustained by the NPDES permitting authority and EPA in reviewing the Milestones Plan, deriving and enforcing interim permit requirements and generally tracking the mill's implementation of the Milestones Plan.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a). Need/ Authority for the Collection The Incentives Program requires achievement of ultimate effluent limitations that go beyond the baseline BAT limitations. Mills that choose to enroll in the program are given additional time to achieve those ultimate effluent limitations. During this additional time period during which the mill is preparing to meet the ultimate limitations, the regulation requires participating mills to meet interim limitations or permit conditions. See 40 CFR 430.24( b)( 2). In order to determine interim limitations or permit conditions that will take into account the special circumstances at each mill while at the same time promote timely achievement by the mill of the ultimate limitations, the permitting authority needs to know the details of how the mill is planning to develop and implement the technologies and processes to achieve the ultimate limitations. The Milestones Plan, prepared by the mill, will provide this information. Even when not used as the basis for enforceable permit conditions, the Milestones Plan will also provide valuable benchmarks for reasonable inquiries into progress being made toward achievement of the ultimate limitations and will help ensure that mills enrolled in the program are making a good faith effort to fulfill the requirements of the program.

EPA's legal authority to require Milestones Plans for meeting effluent limitations is found in Section 308( a) of the Clean Water Act. Section 308( a) gives the EPA Administrator the authority to require the owner or operator of any point source ( e. g., a pulp and paper mill) to make reports or provide such other information that the Administrator determines is necessary to ( 1) develop any effluent limitation or other limitation under the Act, ( 2) determine compliance with effluent limitations, or ( 3) carry out the NPDES permit program. The Milestones Plan fits all three criteria for the reasons set forth in paragraph 2( b) below.

2( b). Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The Milestones Plan will assist the permitting authority ( i. e., the State or EPA) to set appropriate interim limitations and permit conditions for that interim period when the mill is preparing to achieve the ultimate limitations. An individualized Milestones Plan will make it easier for the permitting authority to account for any unique situations at the mill and to provide appropriate flexibility for the mill. 3 The Milestones Plan will also enable the permitting authority to track the progress being made by the mill to achieve the interim and ultimate effluent limitations and to enable the permitting authority to recognize if and when a mill is not making expected progress toward fulfilling the requirements of the program and take appropriate action. By advancing these purposes, the Milestones Plan thus helps to carry out the NPDES permit program.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a). Nonduplication The information in the Milestones Plan is necessarily mill specific and, to EPA's knowledge has never been collected by another source. Therefore, none of the information to be collected by the Milestones Plan is available elsewhere. Moreover, although EPA expects that many participating mills will already be developing such plans for their own planning purposes, the permitting authority would have no access to this information without this information collection request.

3( b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB EPA solicited comments on this ICR prior to formal submission to OMB. EPA published a formal notice in the Federal Register on August 30, 2004 ( 69 FR 52883 52888). EPA received no comments.

3( c). Consultations EPA has discussed this information collection with the State NPDES permitting authorities.

3( d). Effects of less Frequent Collection Since the Milestones Plan is a one time information collection and not a collection with periodic reporting, consideration of the effects of less frequent collection is not relevant.

3( e) General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6 and 1320.12.

3( f) Confidentiality EPA received two comments on the proposed Milestones Plan regulation ( 63 FR 18796, April 15, 1998) indicating that a mill may wish to claim as CBI the technologies or processes by 4 which it intends to achieve the ultimate VATIP limitations. Therefore, EPA promulgated language in the final rule to provide that, in those situations, a mill may claim that portion of the Milestones Plan as confidential ( 64 FR 36582, July 7, 1999). Such claims are handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2 when EPA is the permitting authority and applicable State rules and regulations governing CBI when States are the permitting authorities. EPA also added language to the final regulations that requires mills asserting a CBI claim to prepare a public summary of the confidential portion of the plan and to submit that summary to the permitting authority along with the Milestones Plan. This requirement allows the public, on request, to obtain information about the mill's progress in achieving its VATIP limitations.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No sensitive questions are anticipated in this information collection.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes The respondents will be those existing, direct discharging bleached papergrade kraft and soda pulp and paper mills that have chosen to enroll in the VATIP. The SIC code associated with these potential respondents is 2611 ( pulp mills). The associated NAICS code is 322110.

4( b). Information Requested An existing mill choosing to enroll in the VATIP must submit a Milestones Plan.

( i) Data items:

° A Milestones Plan required under 40 CFR 430.24( c).

 The Milestones Plan must describe each anticipated new technology component or process modification the mill intends to implement in order to achieve the ultimate effluent limitations ( i. e., the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limits). This information is required under 40 CFR 430.24( c)( 1) ( see DCN 14488).

 In addition, the Milestones Plan must include a master schedule ( 1) showing the sequence of implementing the new technology components or process modifications and ( 2) identifying critical path relationships. This information is required under 40 CFR 430.24( c)( 2). 5  For each individual new technology component or process modification, the Milestones Plan must include a schedule that identifies the anticipated dates when associated construction, installation, and operational " shakedown" will be initiated, the anticipated dates those steps will be completed, and the anticipated date that the full Advanced Technology process or individual component will be fully demonstrated as operational. EPA also intends that the Milestones Plan describe the anticipated improvements in effluent quality and reductions in effluent quantity as measured at the bleach plant and at the end of the pipe.  The schedule must also identify the anticipated dates of initiation and completion of associated research, process development and mill trials when applicable, i. e., when the mill intends to employ technologies or process modifications that are not commercially available or demonstrated on a full scale basis at the time the Milestones Plan is developed. This " R& D Schedule," which should be part of the Master Schedule, should show major milestone dates and the anticipated date the technology or process change will be available for mill implementation. This information is required under 40 CFR 430.24 ( c)( 3)( i).

 The Milestones Plan must also include contingency plans in the event that any of the technologies or processes need to be adjusted or alternative approaches developed to ensure that the ultimate effluent limitations are achieved by deadlines specified in 40 CFR 430.24( b)( 4)( ii). This information is required under 40 CFR 430.24( c)( 3)( iii).

( ii) Respondent Activities:

° Preparation of the Milestones Plan, containing the information described above.

° Signature by the responsible corporate officer as defines by 40 CFR 122.22, and submittal of the Milestones Plan to the permitting authority. These activities are required by 40 CFR 430.24( c) and ( c)( 4).

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a). AGENCY ACTIVITIES Agency ( i. e., permitting authority) activities associated with the Milestones Plans consist of 6 the following:

° Review Milestones Plans for completeness.

° Consider the information in those plans when establishing enforceable interim effluent limitations and permit conditions that facilitate the achievement of the ultimate effluent limitations; include reopener clauses to allow the permitting authority to adjust the permits to reflect the results of research, process development, mill trials, and possible contingencies.

° Monitor progress of the participating mills toward achieving the ultimate effluent limitations, using the milestones in the Milestones Plan as benchmarks. Take appropriate action if and when progress falters.

5( b). COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT After having enrolled in the VATIP, a particular mill is required to submit the Milestones Plan to the permitting authority, which would consider the Plan as described in 5( a). The Milestones Plan is intended to be a dynamic document that will be adjusted to reflect the results of research, process development, mill trials, etc. EPA expects the Plan to be maintained on file by the mill and the permitting authority. Public access will be managed through standard procedures under the codified authorities ( see 3( f) above).

5( c). SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY EPA considered less burdensome information collection mechanisms for small entities, but chose not to alter the collection procedure for the following reasons:

° This information collection will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has determined that, of all the pulp and paper mills that are eligible for the VATIP only three mills are small businesses, and EPA does not believe this is a substantial number as that term is used in EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Final Pulp and Paper Cluster Rules. ( See the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649).

° Moreover, these three mills will be subject to the information collection only if they choose to enroll in the VATIP.

° Finally, the cost of this information collection to any small entity choosing to enroll in the VATIP is not substantial. EPA has calculated the cost to be between $ 4,000 and $ 24,000 per mill.

5( d). COLLECTION SCHEDULE 7 This is a one time information collection. The participating mill must submit the Milestones Plan by the date the mill applies for its NPDES permit limitations.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a). ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN The respondent burden of this information collection has been estimated by calculating the labor requirements ( in hours) of preparing typical Milestones Plans for each of the three possible technology tiers in the VATIP. The labor estimates assume that the Milestones Plans will be prepared by mill or corporate process engineering staff, with senior management input. These burden estimates cover the total time and effort expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, and disclose or provide the information collection. This includes the time needed to review regulations and instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing or providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Additionally, for Tiers II and III plan development, a budget is included to perform scoping studies to determine implementation at the mills. The estimates do not reflect the cost of detailed engineering studies or feasibility studies that a company may perform when investigating whether to pursue the development and installation of advanced technology, nor do the estimates include the labor hours related to internal corporate discussions about a decision to enroll in the incentives program. Such activities are considered part of the corporate strategic planning function and are not considered part of the burden associated with the Milestones Plan.

The labor estimates are based on the anticipated level of complexity for each of the tiers. The estimates reflect the greater complexity of higher tiers and were prepared by an EPA contractor with much experience preparing plans and schedules for projects with similar complexities. The estimate for a Tier I Milestones Plan assumes the mill will implement readily available technology ( e. g., oxygen delignification and 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution) and will not perform research and development ( R & D) activities. The estimate for a Tier II Milestones Plan assumes the mill will conduct one research and development project related to condensate reuse, but otherwise will implement readily available technology ( e. g., a two stage oxygen delignification system followed by ozone bleaching and 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution). Additionally, the burden estimate for R & D scheduling only includes the cost of producing a schedule for this project. The estimate for a Tier III Milestones Plan assumes the mill will conduct six research and development projects designed to upgrade condensate quality from evaporators, to improve treatment of condensates, to provide advanced process control, to optimize water balance strategies to achieve nearly closed loop processing, and to remove minerals and/ or chloride; the burden estimate for R & D scheduling only includes the cost of producing a schedule for this project. The following tables summarize the estimated industry respondent 8 burden:

Table 1 Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Burden Technology Tier Hours / Mill Tier I 56 Tier II 154 Tier III 328 Table 2 Breakdown Estimate of Hours / Mill Milestones Plan Element Tier I Hours ( X + Y) a Tier II Hours ( X + Y) a Tier III Hours ( X + Y) a Overview of Strategy 12 + 4 20 + 8 24 + 8 Description of New Technology Components or Process Modifications 10 + 2 20 + 4 32 + 8 Master Schedule 20 + 4 46 + 8 64 + 16 R & D Schedule  24 + 8 112 + 40 Appendix of Documentationb 4 + 0 16 + 0 24 + 0 Subtotal Hours 46 + 10 126 + 28 256 + 72 Total Hours 56 154 328 a X = process engineering hours Y = senior management hours b Tier I: Includes vendor documentation or preliminary engineering studies. Tier II: Includes the above ( for Tier I) plus feasibility studies, research proposals and reports, and review of literature on minimum effluent technology. Tier III: Includes the above ( for Tier II) plus review of literature on closed cycle 1Estimates for management labor rate from the May 2003 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100  Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage for General and Operation Managers ( SOC Code 11 1021), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, is $ 88.49. The mean hourly wage for engineers, including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, is $ 45.64.

9 technology.

6( b). ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS The respondent costs of this information collection have been estimated by taking the labor hours ( in Table 2 above) and multiplying them by the appropriate wage rates applicable to process engineering time and senior management time. EPA estimates an average hourly cost ( labor plus overhead) of $ 45.64 for process engineering time and $ 88.49 for senior management time1. ( There are no capital costs or O& M costs associated with this information collection.)

The following Table 3 summarizes the estimated industry respondent costs based on labor effort:

Table 3 Summary of Estimated Industry Respondent Costs Technology Tier Engineering Hours / Mill Management Hours / Mill Costs / Milla Tier I 46 10 $ 3,000 Tier II 126 28 $ 8,272 Tier III 256 72 $ 18,141 aAssumes $ 45.64 and $ 88.49 per hour for process engineering time and senior management time, respectively ( labor plus overhead).

Additionally, for Tiers II and III, an allowance for scoping studies was included. For Tier II, EPA estimated approximately $ 14,000 for each scoping study, which may be performed by a consultant. A scoping study estimate of $ 26,000 was applied to Tier III. The extended costs, including labor and the scoping study estimate, are reflected in Table 4.

6( c). ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COSTS Estimates for Federal and State labor rates were based on the 2003 US Labor department figures adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, whereby the average annual salary for Federal and State employees is $ 47,112; this is equivalent to the salary of a GS 9, 10 Step 10 Federal employee. At 2,080 available labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 22.65. Overhead costs for Federal and State employees are estimated by EPA to be 60 percent ( EPA ICR Handbook), or $ 13.59 per hour, which results in a total hourly rate of $ 36.24 ($ 22.65 + $ 13.59).

EPA estimates the initial burden to State and local NPDES permitting authorities for the review of the Milestones Plan to be an average of 16 hours per mill respondent. With 29 mills anticipated to enter the program ( see Section 6( d) below), the total initial State NPDES permitting authority burden is estimated at 464 hours. Based on the Federal and State labor rates, total initial labor costs are estimated at $ 16,815 for State permitting authorities. It is anticipated that no one State permitting authority will incur the entire burden, because anticipated mill respondents are located in different States. There exists no more than four anticipated mill respondents in any one State. Therefore, the maximum initial burden that any one State permitting authority is 64 hours for a cost of $ 2,319.

EPA estimates the recurring burden to State permitting authorities to be an average of 6 hours per year per mill for periodic review of the mill's progress in implementation of the Milestones Plan and to take appropriate action if and when progress falters ( see section 5( a) above). The total recurring burden for State permitting authorities is estimated at 174 hours per year at a total cost of $ 6,305. The maximum recurring burden any one State permitting authority could incur is 24 hours per year at a cost of $ 870. This maximum burden represents no more than 14% of the total estimated recurring burden.

The initial Agency burden is estimated to be an average of 20 hours per mill respondent. With 29 mills anticipated to enter the program ( see Section 6( d) below), the total initial Agency burden is estimated at 580 hours. Based on the Federal and State labor rates, total initial labor costs are estimated at $ 21,019 for the Agency. EPA estimates recurring burden to the Agency to be an average additional 4 hours per year per mill respondent for support of State and local NPDES permitting authorities. The total recurring burden for the Agency is estimated at 116 hours per year at a total cost of $ 4,204.

6( d). ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN AND COST As discussed previously, EPA estimates the potential respondent universe ( i. e., the mills likely to enroll in the incentives program) to be 29 mills. The estimates of how many mills are likely to enroll in the incentives program for each of the three tiers are based on the following:

° There are 16 mills that already have technology in place that is comparable to that specified as the model technology required for Tier I or have a corporate commitment to install the technology. Two of those 16 mills, however, are projected to go to Tier III ( see below). Therefore, the EPA estimate of how many mills are likely to enroll for Tier I is 14.

° EPA's projection on how many mills are likely to enroll for Tier II is based on the 11 assumption that mills with over 400 kkg/ day softwood production and with technology using minimal chlorine dioxide substitution are likely candidates to adopt Tier II technology. There are 12 mills that meet these criteria. One existing totally chlorine free kraft mill is also projected to enroll for Tier II, making a total of 13 mills projected to enroll for Tier II.

° There are two mills operated by a company developing technology to recycle bleach plant filtrate. These two mills are projected to enroll for Tier III.

The result is that 29 mills are projected to enroll in the incentives program  14 for Tier I, 13 for Tier II, and 2 for Tier III.

Total respondent burden and cost are calculated by multiplying the hours per mill and the costs per mill for each technology tier by the projected number of mills likely to enroll in the incentives program at that tier. The following Table 4 summarizes the total respondent burden and cost:

Table 4 Total Industry Respondent Burden and Cost Technology Tier Hours / Mill Costs / Mill # of Enrolled Mills Total Hours Total Labor Costa Tier I 56 $ 3000 14 784 $ 42,000 Tier II 154 $ 22,272 13 2,002 $ 289,536 Tier III 328 $ 44,141 2 656 $ 88,282 TOTAL 29 3,442 $ 419,818 Annualized 1,147 a Includes the cost of a scoping study for each mill.

6( e). BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COST TABLES The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for respondents are the summaries of all the hours and costs incurred for all activities. There are no associated Operating and Maintenance or capital start up costs associated with this ICR.

( i) Respondent Tally 12 The bottom line respondent ( mills and State governments) is presented in Table 5.

( ii) The Agency Tally The bottom line Agency tally is also presented in Table 5 Table 5 Bottom Line Burden and Costs Based on 29 Mills in 2004 Dollars Category Year 1 Labor Hours/ Costs Year 2 Labor Hours/ Costs Year 3 Labor Hours/ Costsa 3 year Total Burden Respondents  Subpart B and E mills 3,442 $ 419,818 n/ a n/ a 3,442 hours Respondents State governments 464 $ 16,815 174 $ 6,305 174 $ 6,305 812 hours Total Respondents Hours 4,254 hours Agency 580 $ 21,019 116 $ 4,204 116 $ 4,204 812 hours a Includes the cost of a scoping study for each mill.

Table 6: Bottom Line Burden Hour and Cost Table Annual Respondent burden 1,418 hours Annual Respondent Cost ( O& M) 0 6( f). REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN 13 There is no change in the total estimated burden hours currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.

6( g). BURDEN STATEMENT EPA estimates that 29 mills will voluntarily enroll into VATIP. The burden for a mill ( which chooses to participate voluntarily in the incentives program) to prepare and submit a Milestones Plan is estimated to average approximately 120 hours per respondent. This is a one time burden. State NPDES permitting authorities burden to review the Milestones Plans is estimated at 16 hours per respondent as an initial burden with a average recurring annual review burden of 6 hours per respondent. Agency burden to review the Milestones Plans is estimated at 20 hours per respondent as an initial burden with a average recurring annual review burden of 4 hours per respondent. The total initial cost for the 29 mills anticipated to enroll in the VATIP and thus be required to develop a Milestones Plan is estimated at $ 419,818. The total initial burden incurred by State permitting authorities and EPA for review the Milestones Plans is estimated at $ 16,815 and $ 21,019, respectively. The total recurring burden incurred by State permitting authorities and EPA for periodic review of the Milestones Plans is estimated at $ 6,305 and $ 4,204, respectively. There is no recurring burden for mill respondents associated with this information collection.

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. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

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 No. OW 2004 0024, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 14 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OW 2004 0024) and OMB control number ( 2040 0202) in any correspondence.


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document – 40 CFR Part 55 Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) – Incorporation of New York State Regulations

FROM:	Carla Adduci

	Air Programs Branch, Permitting Section

TO:	File

On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55, which established
requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in order to
attain and maintain Federal and State ambient air quality standards
(AAQS) and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.  Part 55 applies to all OCS
sources offshore of the States except those located in the Gulf of
Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.  Section 328 of the CAA requires
that for such sources located within 25 miles of a State's seaward
boundary, the requirements shall be the same as would be applicable if
the sources were located in the corresponding onshore area (COA).

Section 328(a) of the CAA requires that EPA establish requirements to
control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of
States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements.
To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable
onshore rules into part 55.  EPA is today promulgating amendments to the
OCS air regulations.  The amendments incorporate the State of New York
Requirements applicable to OCS Sources into the Appendix of 40 CFR part
55.

EPA has evaluated the corresponding onshore area requirements to ensure
that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of
Federal or State AAQS or part C of title I of the CAA, that they are not
designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS,
and that they are applicable to OCS sources.  40 CFR 55.1.  EPA has also
evaluated the rules to ensure that they are not arbitrary or capricious.
 40 CFR 55.12(e).  EPA has not delegated authority to New York to
implement and enforce 40 CFR part 55.  EPA will use its own
administrative and procedural requirements to implement the substantive
requirements.  40 CFR 55.14(c)(4).  Accordingly, EPA has excluded New
York’s administrative or procedural rules from the State of New York
Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources.

Although not previously included, EPA is incorporating the following
regulations listed in Table 1.

Table 1

6 NYCRR

	Title	Section(s)	Reason For Incorporation

Part 200	General Provisions 	All	Related to the attainment or
maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 201	Permit & Certificates 	All	Related to the attainment or
maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 202	Emissions Verification 	202-1 &

202-2	Related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state AAQS
or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 204	NOX Budget Trading Program 	All	Related to the attainment or
maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 207	Control Measures for Air Pollution Episode 	All	Related to the
attainment or maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I
of the CAA

Part 210	Emissions & Labeling Requirements for Personal Watercraft
Engines 	All	Related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or
state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 211	General Prohibitions 	All	Related to the attainment or
maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 212	General Process Emission Sources 	All	Related to the attainment
or maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 215	Open Fires 	All	Related to the attainment or maintenance of
federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 219	Incinerators 	All sections except 219-4	Related to the
attainment or maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I
of the CAA

Part 225	Fuel Consumption & Use 	All	Related to the attainment or
maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 226	Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes 	All	Applicable to OCS sources

Part 227	Stationary Combustion Installations 	All	Applicable to OCS
sources

Part 228	Surface Coating Processes 	All	Applicable to OCS sources

Part 229	Petroleum & Volatile Organic Liquid Storage & Transfer 	All
Applicable to OCS sources

Part 231	New Source Review in Nonattainment and Ozone Transport Region
231-1 & 231-2	Related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or
state AAQS or Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 240	Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans 	All
Related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state AAQS or
Part C of title I of the CAA

Part 243	CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program	All except 243-4	Related
to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of
title I of the CAA

Part 244	CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program	All except 244-4 	Related to
the attainment or maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of
title I of the CAA

Part 245	CAIR SO2 Trading Program	All except 245-4 & 245-5	Related to
the attainment or maintenance of federal or state AAQS or Part C of
title I of the CAA

EPA is not incorporating the following regulations listed in Table 2
below.

TABLE 2

6 NYCRR	Title	Section(s) 	Reason

Part 203	Indirect Sources of Air Contamination	All	Not applicable to OCS
sources (applies only to sources in New York County)

Part 205	Architectural Surface Coatings	All	Not applicable to OCS
sources (applies to seller or manufacturer)

Part 206	State Aid for General Air Pollution Control Work, NY City	All
Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 208	Landfill Gas Collection & Control Systems for Certain Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 209	Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants	All	Not applicable to OCS
sources

Part 213	Contaminant Emissions from Ferrous Jobbing Foundaries	All	Not
applicable to OCS sources

Part 214	Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 216	Iron and/or Steel Processes	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 217	Motor Vehicle Emissions	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 218	Emissions Standards for Motor Vehicles & Motor Vehicle Engines
All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 219	Incinerators	219-4	Not applicable to OCS sources (section
applicable to crematories)

Part 220	Portland Cement Plants	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 221	Asbestos-Containing Surface Coating Material	All	Not related to
the attainment & maintenance of federal or state AAQS

Part 223	Petroleum Refineries	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 224	Sulfuric & Nitric Acid Plants	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 230	Gasoline Dispensing Sites & Transport Vehicles	All	Not
applicable to OCS sources

Part 232	Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities	All	Not related to
the attainment & maintenance of federal or state AAQS

Part 233	Pharmaceutical & Cosmetic Manufacturing Processes	All	Not
applicable to OCS sources

Part 234	Graphic Arts	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 235	Consumer Products	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

(applies to seller or manufacturer)

Part 236	Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Facility Component
Leaks	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 237	Acid Deposition Reduction NOX Budget Trading Program	All	Not
applicable to OCS sources (applies only to sources in NY State)

Part 238	Acid Deposition Reduction SO2 Budget Trading Program	All	Not
applicable to OCS sources (applies only to sources in NY State)

Part 239	Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control	All	Not applicable to
OCS sources (applies to seller or manufacturer)

Part 243	CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program	243-4	Section
“reserved”

Part 244	CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program	244-4	Section “reserved”

Part 245	CAIR SO2 Trading Program	245-4 &

245-5	Sections “reserved”

Part 246	Mercury Reduction Program for Coal Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

Part 250	Miscellaneous Orders	All	Not applicable to OCS sources

 The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, December 5,
1991 (56 FR 63774), and the preamble to the final rule promulgated
September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further background and information
on the OCS regulations.

  PAGE  2