[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39247-39248]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-80]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0421; FRL-9173-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Secondary Brass and
Bronze Production, Primary Copper Smelters, Primary Zinc Smelters,
Primary Lead Smelters, Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants, and
Ferroalloy Production Facilities, (Renewal) EPA ICR Number 1604.09, OMB
Control Number 2060-0110

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 9,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0421, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0296; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32581), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0421, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Secondary Brass and Bronze Production, Primary
Copper Smelters, Primary Zinc Smelters, Primary Lead Smelters, and
Ferroally Production Facilities (Renewal)
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1604.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0110.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if

applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or
additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts M, P,
Q, R, S and Z. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make
an initial notification, performance tests, periodic reports, and
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports,
at a minimum, are required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 100.5
hours per response. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of secondary
brass and bronze production facilities, primary copper smelters,
primary zinc smelters, primary lead smelters, primary aluminum
reduction plants, and ferroalloy production facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 18.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,923.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $597,254, which includes $465,654 in
labor costs, $0 in capital/startup costs, and $131,600 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the number of
hours and responses in the total estimated burden currently identified
in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The burden increase of 9
hours is due to the adjustment of number of responses associated with
the semiannual reports for Ferroalloy Production Facilities. The number
of responses for Ferroalloy Production Facilities was correct when
accounting for the total annual responses, and thus did not affect the
total number of responses, but was incorrect in the calculation of
burden hours. The total number of responses increased from 29 to 49 due
to an adjustment of the number of reports for Primary Aluminum
Reduction Plants in the total annual responses calculation. The change
did not affect the calculations of burden hours.

    Dated: July 1, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-16695 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46086-46087]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16575]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0369; FRL-10013-08-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; National Estuary Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), National Estuary Program (EPA ICR
Number 1500.10, OMB Control Number 2040-0138) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through September 30, 2020. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register on December 26, 2019
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 31,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OW-2006-0369, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vince Bacalan, Oceans, Wetlands, and
Communities Division; Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Mail
Code 4504T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-1336; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Estuary Program (NEP) involves collecting
information from the state or local agency or nongovernmental
organizations that receive funds under Sec. 320 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The regulation requiring this information is found at 40 CFR
part 35.
    Prospective grant recipients seek funding to develop or oversee and
coordinate implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Management
Plans (CCMPs) for estuaries of national significance. In order to
receive funds, grantees must submit an annual workplan to EPA which are
used to track performance of each of the 28 estuary programs currently
in the NEP. EPA provides funding to NEPs to support long-term
implementation of CCMPs if such programs pass a program evaluation
process. The primary purpose of the program evaluation process is to
help EPA determine whether the 28 programs included in the National
Estuary Program (NEP) are making adequate progress implementing their
CCMPs and therefore merit continued funding under Sec. 320 of the Clean
Water Act. EPA also requests that each of the 28 NEPs receiving Sec.
320 funds report information that can be used in the GPRA reporting
process. This reporting is done on an annual basis and is used to show
environmental results that are being achieved within the overall
National Estuary Program. This information is ultimately submitted to
Congress along with GPRA information from other EPA programs.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State or local agencies or
nongovernmental

organizations in the National Estuary Program (NEP) that receive grants
under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (Section 320 of the Clean Water Act).
    Estimated number of respondents: 28 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 5,360 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $319,724 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 240 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to program evaluations taking
place for two out of the next three years, according to the evaluation
cycle schedule in the current Program Evaluation Guidance.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.

[FR Doc. 2020-16575 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

February 9, 2007

SUBJECT:

Technical Support Document - Findings for Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets; 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Berks County, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

      FROM:

Martin Kotsch, 3AP23

TO:

Administrative Record for Review of the 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the Berks County, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

THRU:

Carol Febbo, Chief

Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch (3AP23)

I.   Administrative Requirements For Making Adequacy Findings

The adequacy and approvability of the 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets contained in the Maintenance Plan submitted by the Pennsylvania  Department of the Environment (PADEP) on January 25, 2007 for the Berks County, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Non-attainment Area  was reviewed in accordance with the procedures and criteria of the Transportation Conformity Rule contained in 40 CFR Part 93, Sections 93.106(a)(1) 106(a)(2)(i), 93.110, 93.113(b) 118 (e) (4) through (5) and the following guidance:

-  January 18, 2002 EPA memorandum from John Seitz and Margo Oge entitled: (Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity(, and

-  February 12, 2003 EPA memorandum from Tom Helms and Leila Cook entitled: (Clarification of Policy Guidance for MOBILE6 SIPs in Mid-course Review Areas(, and

- March 8, 2005 EPA memorandum from Suzanne Rudzinski and Lydia Wegman entitled  (Guidance for Determining the "Attainment Year" for Transportation Conformity in New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas(, and

- May 2005  Reference document entitled  (Complete Transportation Conformity Regulations that Incorporate Recent Conformity Final Rule Amendments (Through May 2005)(.

On January 25, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of the Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted its motor vehicle emission budgets to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a part of its State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision.  The Pennsylvania  public comment period on the SIP revision closed on December 22, 2006.

EPA will be issuing its own Notice of  Proposed Rule Making for a 30-day public comment period  soliciting public comment as to the approvability of the Pennsylvania SIP submission.  Concurrently with the EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a notice will be  posted on EPA(s website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm  for the purpose of opening EPA(s 30-day public comment period on the adequacy/approvability of the budgets in the SIP revision.  That notice will inform  the public of the availability of the Pennsylvania  SIP revision on its own website.  EPA(s  website notice will provide a link to the address for the  website where interested members of the public could access the SIP revision. Following  EPA(s public comment period, responses to any comments received on the proposed mobile budgets in the Pennsylvania SIP will be addressed in an amendment to this TSD.

II.  Evaluation of the Budgets

Table 1 - The Budgets

Clean Air Act Requirement

Milestone Year

Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget for NOx in Tons Per Day

Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget for VOCs in Tons Per Day

Maintenance Plan

2009

21.3

13.1

2018

9.0

7.5

Table 2

Adequacy/Approvability of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Maintenance Plan Submitted by PADEP on January25,  2007 for the Berks County, Pennsylvania  8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

Transportation Conformity Rule

Review Criteria

Was the Criterion Satisfied?    If (Yes( How was this Criterion Satisfied?

93.106(a)(1)

Are the budget years correct?

Yes

93.106(a)(2)(i)

Does the plan quantify and document the demographic and employment factors influencing transportation demand?

Yes

93.110

Are the emissions budgets based upon the latest planning assumptions?

(a)   Are the emission budgets, with respect to all other applicable criteria in ((93.111 - 93.119, based upon the most recent planning assumptions in force at the time of the development of the budgets?

(b) Are the assumptions derived from the estimates of current and future population, employment, travel, and congestion most recently developed by the MPO or other designated agency and are the budgets based upon the latest assumptions about current and future background concentrations?

Yes

Yes

Yes

(e)  Do the budgets include the latest existing information regarding the effectiveness of TCMs and other implementation plan measures which have already been implemented.

(f) Are key assumptions specified and included in the draft documents and supporting materials used for the interagency and public consultation required by (93.105?

There are no previous TCMs.

Yes

 93.111

Are the budgets based upon the latest emissions model?

Yes, MOBILE6.2, the latest EPA emissions model was utilized.

93.113(b)

Have previously committed TCM's been implemented?

There were no TCMS in the previously approved SIP

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii)

Before the control strategy implementation plan was submitted to EPA, did consultation between  federal, State and local agencies occur; was full implementation plan documentation provided to EPA, and were EPA(s stated concerns, if any, addressed?

Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii)

Were the motor vehicle emissions budgets clearly identified and precisely quantified?

Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv)

Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all other emission reductions, consistent with applicable  requirements for the control strategy implementation

plan?

Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v)

Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy? implementation plan?

Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi)

Revisions to previously submitted control strategy implementation plan:  explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101 for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled).

The new budgets have been changed to reflect a new emissions inventory and a new baseyear which were required in the development of the new maintenance plan under the 8-hour ozone standard.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5)

Did they provide and did  we review the State(s responses to the public comments?

There were no comments submitted relevant to the mobile vehicle emissions budgets in the SIP during the State comment period.

III.  Recommendation

Based upon our review and evaluation of the motor vehicle emission budgets contained in the Maintenance Plan submitted by PADEP for the Berks County, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment Area submitted on January 25, 2007, we recommend that the mobile emission budgets be found adequate and approved.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7865-7867]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02990]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77098; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-059]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Derivatives and Other Off-Balance Sheet Items Schedule Pursuant to
FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information)

February 9, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On December 23, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the instructions to the
Derivatives and Other Off-Balance Sheet Items Schedule (``OBS'')
pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information) to expand
the application of the OBS to certain non-carrying/non-clearing firms
that have a certain amount of off-balance sheet obligations. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on January 7, 2016.\3\ The Commission did not receive written comments
in response to the proposed rule change. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 76813 (Dec. 31, 2015), 81 FR
844 (Jan. 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA Rule 4524 requires each firm, as FINRA shall designate, to
file such additional financial or operational schedules or reports as
FINRA may deem necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors
or in the public interest as a supplement to the FOCUS Report.\4\ In
February 2013, the SEC approved FINRA's adoption, pursuant to FINRA
Rule 4524, of the OBS as a supplement to the FOCUS report.\5\ The OBS
captures important information that is not otherwise reported on firms'
balance sheets and requires all firms that carry customer accounts or
self-clear or clear transactions for others (referred to, collectively,
as ``carrying or clearing firms'') to file with FINRA the OBS within 22
business days of the end of each calendar quarter, unless a carrying or
clearing firm meets the de minimis exception set forth in the
instructions to the OBS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66364 (Feb. 9,
2012), 77 FR 8938 (Feb. 15, 2012) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2011-064). FINRA Rule 4524 also provides that FINRA will
specify the content of additional schedules or reports, their
format, and the timing and the frequency of such supplemental
filings in a Regulatory Notice (or similar communication), the
content of which FINRA will file with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68832 (Feb. 5,
2013), 78 FR 9754 (Feb. 11, 2013) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2012-050). Carrying or clearing firms were required to file
with FINRA their initial OBS on or before July 31, 2013, to disclose
off-balance sheet information as of June 30, 2013. See Regulatory
Notice 13-10 (March 2013) (Supplemental FOCUS Information).
    \6\ The de minimis exception relieves a carrying or clearing
firm from filing the OBS for the reporting period if the aggregate
of all gross amounts of off-balance sheet items is less than 10
percent of the firm's excess net capital on the last day of the
reporting period. For purposes of the OBS, as well as the proposed
amendments to the OBS, the term ``excess net capital'' means net
capital reduced by the greater of the minimum dollar net capital
requirement or two percent of combined aggregate debit items as
shown in the Formula for Reserve Requirements pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 15c3-3. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68832 (Feb.
5, 2013), 78 FR 9754, 9755 (Feb. 11, 2013) (Order Approving File No.
SR-FINRA-2012-050).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524, FINRA proposed to amend the
instructions to the OBS to expand its application beyond carrying or
clearing firms to include firms that neither carry customer accounts
nor clear transactions (referred to, collectively, as ``non-clearing
firms'') that have,

pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1,\7\ a minimum dollar net capital
requirement equal to or greater than $100,000, and at least $10 million
in reportable items pursuant to the OBS. The proposed rule change does
not otherwise change the OBS or its instructions, including the de
minimis exception. Accordingly, consistent with the current OBS, any
firm (i.e., either a carrying or clearing firm or a non-clearing firm)
that meets the de minimis exception need not file the OBS for the
reporting period.\8\ Further, under the proposed rule change, as well
as under the current OBS, any firm that is required to file the OBS
must do so as of the last day of a reporting period within 22 business
days of the end of each calendar quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1 (Net Capital Requirements for Brokers
or Dealers). Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1(a)(2)(iii) requires a
``dealer'' (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1(a)(2)(iii)) to
maintain net capital of not less than $100,000.
    \8\ However, a firm that claims the de minimis exception must
affirmatively indicate through the eFOCUS system that no filing is
required for the reporting period. See Regulatory Notice 13-10
(March 2013) (Supplemental FOCUS Information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When FINRA proposed the OBS, FINRA noted the need, in the aftermath
of the financial crisis, to obtain more comprehensive and consistent
information regarding carrying or clearing firms' off-balance sheet
assets, liabilities and other commitments.\9\ By requiring carrying or
clearing firms to report their gross exposures in financing
transactions (e.g., reverse repos, repos and other transactions that
are otherwise netted under generally accepted accounting principles,
reverse repos and repos to maturity and collateral swap transactions),
interests in and exposure to variable interest entities, non-regular
way settlement transactions (including to-be-announced or TBA \10\
securities and delayed delivery/settlement transactions), underwriting
and other financing commitments, and gross notional amounts in
centrally cleared and non-centrally cleared derivative transactions on
the OBS, FINRA states that it has been able to more effectively monitor
on an ongoing basis the potential impact that such off-balance sheet
activities may have on carrying or clearing firms' net capital,
leverage and liquidity, and their ability to fulfill their customer
protection obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68270 (Nov. 20,
2012), 77 FR 70860 (Nov. 27, 2012) (Notice of Filing File No. SR-
FINRA-2012-050).
    \10\ FINRA Rule 6710(u) defines ``TBA'' to mean a transaction in
an Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Security (``MBS'') or a Small
Business Administration (``SBA'')-Backed Asset-Backed Security
(``ABS'') where the parties agree that the seller will deliver to
the buyer a pool or pools of a specified face amount and meeting
certain other criteria but the specific pool or pools to be
delivered at settlement is not specified at the Time of Execution,
and includes TBA transactions for good delivery and TBA transactions
not for good delivery. Agency Pass-Through MBS and SBA-Backed ABS
are defined under FINRA Rule 6710(v) and FINRA Rule 6710(bb),
respectively. The term ``Time of Execution'' is defined under FINRA
Rule 6710(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the OBS became effective, however, FINRA has observed
considerable principal trading activities of some non-clearing firms.
In particular, through its efforts to establish margin requirements for
the TBA market \11\ and subsequent examinations of firms' margining
practices related to all securities transactions with extended
settlement dates, FINRA has become aware of non-clearing firms with
both material TBA transactions as well as other types of securities
transactions with extended settlement dates. In the case of TBA
transactions, non-clearing firms may have entered into a Master
Securities Forward Transaction Agreement (``MSFTA'') \12\ with their
clients and are principal to the TBA transactions. In the case of other
transactions with extended settlement dates cleared through a clearing
firm, non-clearing firms are principal to the trades and financially
responsible to the clearing firms for any losses that may result from
clients' failures to complete the transactions on the date of
settlement. Therefore, these transactions may present significant
financial exposure for non-clearing firms, and FINRA is concerned about
firms appropriately monitoring their financial exposure and applying
capital charges for these transactions as required for compliance with
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1.\13\ Further, such transactions are not
reported on non-clearing firms' balance sheets, making it difficult to
monitor their compliance with capital requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76148 (Oct. 14,
2015), 80 FR 63603 (Oct. 20, 2015) (Notice of Filing File No. SR-
FINRA-2015-036).
    \12\ The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA'') developed, and subsequently updated, in coordination
with the Treasury Market Practices Group (``TMPG''), the MSFTA as a
standard industry template for forward and other delayed delivery
transactions involving mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities.
See, e.g., SIFMA Guidance Notes to the Master Securities Forward
Transaction Agreement (December 2012), available at: http://www.sifma.org/services/standard-forms-and-documentation/mra,-gmra,-msla-and-msftas/.
    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of these concerns, and to ensure that all firms with
significant derivative and off-balance sheet positions report these
positions to FINRA on a consistent and regular basis, FINRA proposed to
expand the reporting requirements of the OBS to non-clearing firms that
have a minimum dollar net capital requirement equal to or greater than
$100,000, and at least $10 million in reportable items pursuant to the
OBS. The current de minimis exception would remain available to any
firm that conducts limited off-balance sheet activity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that it will announce the proposed rule change's
implementation date (i.e., the first quarterly reporting period for
newly affected firms \15\) in a Regulatory Notice to be published no
later than 60 days following Commission approval of the rule change,
and that the implementation date will be no later than 210 days
following Commission approval of the rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Carrying or clearing firms that are currently subject to
the OBS's reporting requirements would not be impacted by the
proposed rule change and shall continue to file on a quarterly
basis, as required, without interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposed rule change, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act, and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\16\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act,\17\ which requires, among other things, that rules of a national
securities association be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Exchange Act because expanding the reporting requirements of
the OBS to the proposed non-clearing firms should permit FINRA to
assess effectively on an ongoing basis the potential impact off-balance
sheet activities may have on these firms' net capital, leverage and
liquidity, and ability to fulfill obligations to other members and
counterparties. In addition, impacted non-clearing firms, as well as
their correspondent clearing firms, may benefit from increased
awareness of their open trade exposures, which may

reduce their potential for losses, encourage better counterparty risk
management and promote firms' financial stability.
    The Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The Commission
believes FINRA has carefully crafted the proposed rule change to
achieve its intended and necessary regulatory purpose while minimizing
the burden on firms. Although the proposed rule change expands the
number of firms required to file the OBS, the expansion is limited to
non-clearing firms that have a minimum dollar net capital requirement
equal to or greater than $100,000, and at least $10 million in
reportable items pursuant to the OBS. In addition, the current de
minimis exception continues to remain available to any firm that
conducts off-balance sheet activity that is limited relative to its
excess net capital.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2015-059) be
and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02990 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 228 (Wednesday, December 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68249-68250]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2970-004]

The Village of Argyle, Wisconsin; Notice of Application for
Surrender of Exemption, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for surrender of exemption.
    b. Project No: P-2970-004.
    c. Date Filed: October 6, 2021.
    d. Applicant: The Village of Argyle, Wisconsin.
    e. Name of Project: Argyle Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the East Branch Pecatonica
River, in Argyle, Lafayette County, Wisconsin. The project does not
occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Randall Martin, Superintendent, Argyle
Municipal Electric Utility, P.O. Box 246, Argyle, WI 53504, (608) 543-
3335, [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Ashish Desai,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: December 27, 2021.
    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 protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include the docket number P-2970-004. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender its
exemption. The applicant states the project has experienced significant
deterioration and has become uneconomical to maintain and operate. The
applicant proposes to decommission the project by disconnecting all
electrical equipment, cleaning and retiring-in-place all mechanical
components, and securing all structural components. The applicant will
continue to use the powerhouse as an office and diesel generating
station, leaving all public safety signage in place. After
decommissioning, the applicant would continue operating the dam in
accordance with the Wisconsin State Dam Safety Program.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: November 24, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26132 Filed 11-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 1 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES November 7, 2001 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Dinocap. ( Chemical ID No. 036001, Case No. 2200). Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment for the HED Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment; PC Code 036001; DP Barcode No. D278615; Case 2200.

FROM: Felecia Fort, Chemist Reregistration Branch 1 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THRU: Whang Phang, Ph. D., Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 1 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

and Jennifer Tyler, Chemist Jose Morales, Chemist Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council ( DE SAC) Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Christina Swartz Reregistration Branch 1 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

and Margaret Rice Reregistration Branch II Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508W) [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 2 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

2 EPA Reviewer: Felecia Fort , Date 10/ 18/ 01 STUDY TYPE: Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessments ACTIVE INGREDIENT: Dinocap SYNONYMS: Trade names include Arathane, Caprane, Capryl, Cekucap 25 WP, Crotonate, Crotothane, DCPC, Dicap, Dikar ( a mixture of dinocap and mancozeb), DNOPC, Ezenoan, Iscothane, Karathane, Mildane, and Mildex. Dinocap ( PC Code 036001) is the common name for a mixture of 2,4 dinitro 6 octylphenyl crotonate, 2,6 dinitro 4 octylphenyl crotonate, and nitrooctylphenols ( principally dinitro), in which the octyl groups are a mixture of 1 methylheptyl, 1 ethylhexyl, and 1 propylpentyl isomers. The other two active ingredients included in the case, which pertain to specific components of the dinocap mixture, 2,4 dinitro 6 octylphenyl crotonate ( PC Code 036002) and 2,6 dinitro 4 octylphenyl crotonate ( PC Code 036003), have been canceled.

ROC: The nature of the residue in plants and animals have not been adequately delineated. The current tolerance is expressed in terms of combined negligible residues of a fungicide and insecticide that is a mixture of 2,4 dinitro 6 octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6 dinitro 4 octylphenyl crotonate in/ on apples and grapes at 0.1 ppm [ 40 CFR § 180.341( a)].

Executive Summary Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted to determine the dietary exposure estimates associated with the use of dinocap in/ on imported grapes and apples to support the reregistration eligibility decision.

The qualitative nature of the residue in plants and livestock are not adequately understood and no acceptable magnitude of the residue or processing data in/ on imported apples or grapes exist. Therefore, the dietary risk assessment was conducted two ways, using the current tolerances of 0.1 ppm and using the JMPR MRLs of 0.2 ( apples) and 1 ppm ( grapes). The JMPR ( Joint FAO/ WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues) proposes maximum residue levels ( MRLs) for individual pesticides in different food and feed items, and provides advice on the acceptable levels of pesticide residues in food moving in international trade.

Partly refined Tier 2 acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted for all supported dinocap food uses. Dietary risk estimates are provided for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups. This assessment shows that for all supported registered commodities, irrespective of the residue data used, the acute risk [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 3 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

1aPAD/ cPAD = acute/ chronic Population Adjusted Dose = Acute or Chronic RfD FQPA Safety Factor 3 estimates are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% aPAD1) at the 99.9th exposure percentile for the population subgroup of concern, females 13  50 years old (< 1% of the aPAD). This assessment also shows that for all commodities, the chronic risk estimates are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% cPAD) for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups (< 1% of the cPAD).

I. Introduction Dietary exposure to pesticides can occur through food, water, residential and occupational means. Risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide. The risk is expressed as a percentage of a dose that could be expressed as a daily or a long term dose, to pose no unreasonable adverse effects. This is called the population adjusted dose ( PAD), and is expressed as % PAD. References are available on the EPA/ pesticides web site which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail: " 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.

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the results of the dietary risk assessment for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups resulting from exposure to dinocap through food. This dietary exposure assessment is the first risk analysis that has been conducted for dinocap and was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM   ) software Version 7.73 Toxicological Information The doses and endpoints for dietary exposure assessment selected by the HED Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee ( HIARC) were discussed in detail in the P. Chin memorandum dated 02/ 23/ 2000. The HIARC established an acute toxicity endpoint for females of reproductive age ( females 13+ years old) and determined that a risk assessment for acute dietary exposure is not necessary for the general population.

The FQPA committee recommended that the FQPA safety factor for protection of infants and children ( as required by FQPA) be retained at 10x for all population subgroups when assessing acute and chronic dietary exposure. The reasons are ( 1) there is concern for the quantitative and qualitative increase in susceptibility observed in fetuses following in utero exposure in the prenatal developmental studies in mice and rabbit and ( 2) there is a data gap for the developmental neurotoxicity study. ( B. Tarplee, 3/ 25/ 00). [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 4 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

4 The HED RfD/ Peer Review Committee ( HED Doc. No. 011076 dated June 24, 1994) evaluated the toxicology data of dinocap and classified it as a Group E " not likely" carcinogen.

The doses and toxicological endpoints selected for dietary exposure scenarios are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Endpoints and Doses for Dinocap.

EXPOSURE SCENARIO Population DOSE ( mg/ kg/ day) RfD PAD ( mg/ kg/ day) ENDPOINT STUDY Acute Dietary Female 13+ NOEL= 4 UF= 100 FQPA SF = 10 aRfD = 0.04 aPAD = 0.004 slight ( non significant) increase in incidences of cleft palate and eyelids open Developmental   mouse General population none none N/ A Chronic Dietary All populations NOEL= 0.375 UF= 100 FQPA SF = 10 cRfD = 0.00375 cPAD = 0.00038 ophthalmoscopic changes and histologic retinal atrophy Chronic feeding   dog Residue Information There are currently no registered food/ feed uses of dinocap in the U. S. The established dinocap tolerances for food and feed commodities have been revoked except for those for apples and grapes. Rohm and Haas Company, the basic producer, intends to support tolerances for dinocap residues in/ on apples and grapes to permit legal importation of these commodities into the U. S.

Tolerances for dinocap are currently expressed in terms of combined negligible residues of a fungicide and insecticide that is a mixture of 2,4 dinitro 6 octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6 dinitro 4 octylphenyl crotonate in/ on apples and grapes at 0.1 ppm [ 40 CFR § 180.341( a)]. Current U. S. tolerances are 0.1 ppm ( negligible) on both crops ( 40 CFR 180.341).

Uses of dinocap will be mainly in Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa. There are European data which have been reviewed by the Joint FAO/ WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues ( JMPR). The JMPR proposes maximum residue levels ( MRLs) for individual pesticides in different food and feed items, and provides advice on the acceptable levels of pesticide residues in food moving in international trade. Residues of dinocap in the European trials were < 0.05 ( ND) 0.09 ppm in apples and < 0.05 0.67 ppm in grapes. JMPR recommended MRLs of 0.2 and 1 ppm, respectively. These values have not been adopted because of acute dietary risk concerns. The issue is to be addressed in 2002. The MRLs are expressed in terms of dinocap isomers and phenols, expressed as dinocap.

The qualitative nature of the residue in plants and livestock are not adequately understood. No [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 5 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

5 acceptable magnitude of the residue or processing data in/ on imported apples or grapes exist. Consequently, the dietary risk assessment was conducted two ways, using the current tolerances of 0.1 ppm and using the JMPR recommended CODEX MRLs of 0.2 ( apples) and 1 ppm ( grapes). No processing data are available; therefore, default processing factors were used.

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) provided information ( F. Hernandez email, 10/ 17/ 01) on the percent crop treated (% CT) [ Attachment 5]. For the chronic analyses, the % CT is entered as adjustment factor # 2 and for the acute analyses, the the % CT is incorporated into the residue value. Less than 5% of apples or grapes are imported, and less than 1%, of those 5% imported, are treated which results in a % CT of 0.05. This % CT was rounded up to 0.1% in the dietary assessment.

DEEM   Program and Consumption Information Dinocap acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM   ) software Version 7.73, which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII), 1989 1992. The 1989 92 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 10,000 individuals over three consecutive days, and therefore represent more than 30,000 unique " person days" of data. Foods " as consumed" ( e. g., apple pie) are linked to raw agricultural commodities and their food forms ( e. g., apples cooked/ canned or wheat flour) by recipe translation files internal to the DEEM software. Consumption data are averaged for the entire US population and within population subgroups for chronic exposure assessment, but are retained as individual consumption events for acute exposure assessment.

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

For acute exposure assessments, individual one day food consumption data are used on an individual by individual basis. The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic ( Tier 1 or Tier 2) exposure assessment, or " matched" in multiple random pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic ( Tier 3/ 4) assessment. The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user ( i. e., those who reported eating relevant commodities/ food forms) and a per capita ( i. e., those who reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not) basis. In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for all tiers of analysis. However, for Tiers 1 and 2, significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are identified and noted in the risk assessment. [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 6 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

6 Results/ Discussion HED's level of concern is 100% of the PAD. That is, estimated exposures above this level are of concern, while estimated exposures at or below this level are not of concern. The DEEM analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the U. S. population and 26 population subgroups. The results reported in Table 2 is for females 13  50 years old, the population subgroup of concern. Table 3 results are for the U. S. Population ( total), all infants (< 1 year old), children 1 6, children 7 12, females 13 50, males 13 19, males 20+, and seniors 55+. The results for the other population subgroups are not reported in Tables 2 and 3. This is because the numbers of respondents in the other subgroups were not sufficient, and thus the exposure estimates for these subgroups contained higher levels of uncertainty. However, the respondents in these subgroups were also part of larger subgroups which are listed in Tables 2 and 3. For example, nursing and non nursing infants are included in all infants. The subgroups which are broken down by region, season, and ethnicity are also not included.

Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis Table 2. Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis at the 99.9th Percentile of Exposure for Females 13 50 years old Data Used aPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD Tolerance of 0.1 ppm 0.004 0.000001 < 1 JMPR MRLs of 0.2 and 1 ppm 0.004 0.000019 < 1 Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis Table 3. Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) JMPR MRLs of 0.2 and 1 ppm Tolerance of 0.1 ppm Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD U. S. Population ( total) 0.000375 0.000000 < 1 0.000000 < 1 All Infants (< 1 year) 0.000375 0.000001 < 1 0.000000 < 1 Children 1 6 years 0.000375 0.000001 < 1 0.000000 < 1 Children 7 12 years 0.000375 0.000000 < 1 0.000000 < 1 Females 13 50 0.000375 0.000000 < 1 0.000000 < 1 Males 13 19 0.000375 0.000000 < 1 0.000000 < 1 Males 20+ years 0.000375 0.000000 < 1 0.000000 < 1 Seniors 55+ 0.000375 0.000000 < 1 0.000000 < 1 [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 7 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

7 Conclusions The Tier 2 acute and chronic dietary risk assessment( s) were conducted for all supported dinocap food uses. Dietary risk estimates are provided for females 13  50 years old for the acute assessment and for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups for the chronic assessment. This assessment shows that for all supported registered commodities, the acute risk estimates are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% aPAD) at the 99.9th exposure percentile for the females 13  50 years old (< 1% of the aPAD). This assessment also shows that for all commodities, the chronic risk estimates are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% cPAD) for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups (< 1% of the cPAD).

List of Attachments Attachment 1  Acute Dietary Assessment  Using JMPR MRLs Attachment 2  Acute Dietary Assessment  Using Current Tolerance Attachment 3  Chronic Dietary Assessment  Using JMPR MRLs Attachment 4  Chronic Dietary Assessment  Using Current Tolerance Attachment 5 EMAIL from Frank Hernandez on % Crop Treated [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 8 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

8 Attachment 1  Acute Dietary Assessment  Using JMPR MRLs Residue File U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.74 DEEM Acute analysis for DINOCAP Residue file name: C:\$ MyFiles\ Dinocap\ acute JMPR. RS7 Analysis Date 10 18 2001 Residue file dated: 10 18 2001/ 16: 02: 46/ 8 Reference dose ( aRfD) = 0.004 mg/ kg bw/ day  Food Crop Def Res Adj. Factors Comment Code Grp Food Name ( ppm) # 1 # 2        13 O Grapes 0.000500 1.000 1.000 14 O Grapes raisins 0.000500 4.300 1.000 15 O Grapes juice 0.000500 1.200 1.000 53 11 Apples dried 0.001000 8.000 1.000 54 11 Apples juice/ cider 0.001000 1.300 1.000 195 O Grapes leaves 0.000500 1.000 1.000 315 O Grapes wine and sherry 0.000500 1.000 1.000 377 11 Apples juice concentrate 0.001000 3.900 1.000 392 O Grapes juice concentrate 0.000500 3.600 1.000 Results U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.74 DEEM ACUTE Analysis for DINOCAP ( 1989 92 data) Residue file: acute JMPR. RS7 Adjustment factor # 2 NOT used Analysis Date: 10 18 2001/ 16: 05: 45 Residue file dated: 10 18 2001/ 16: 02: 46/ 8 Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used. Run Comment: "" ===============================================================================

Summary calculations ( per capita):

95th Percentile 99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile Exposure % aRfD Exposure % aRfD Exposure % aRfD       Females 13+ ( preg/ not nursing): 0.000005 0.13 0.000010 0.25 0.000025 0.62 Females 13+ ( nursing): 0.000007 0.17 0.000029 0.72 0.000029 0.72 Females 13 19 ( not preg or nursing): 0.000002 0.06 0.000008 0.19 0.000021 0.54 Females 20+ ( not preg or nursing): 0.000002 0.06 0.000006 0.15 0.000015 0.37 [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 9 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

9 Females 13 50 yrs: 0.000003 0.07 0.000007 0.17 0.000019 0.48 [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 10 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

10 Attachment 2  Acute Dietary Assessment  Using Current Tolerance Residue File U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.74 DEEM Acute analysis for DINOCAP Residue file name: C:\$ MyFiles\ Dinocap\ acute tolerance. RS7 Analysis Date 10 18 2001 Residue file dated: 10 18 2001/ 16: 02: 13/ 8 Reference dose ( aRfD) = 0.004 mg/ kg bw/ day  Food Crop Def Res Adj. Factors Comment Code Grp Food Name ( ppm) # 1 # 2        13 O Grapes 0.000050 1.000 1.000 14 O Grapes raisins 0.000050 4.300 1.000 15 O Grapes juice 0.000050 1.200 1.000 53 11 Apples dried 0.000050 8.000 1.000 54 11 Apples juice/ cider 0.000050 1.300 1.000 195 O Grapes leaves 0.000050 1.000 1.000 315 O Grapes wine and sherry 0.000050 1.000 1.000 377 11 Apples juice concentrate 0.000050 3.900 1.000 392 O Grapes juice concentrate 0.000050 3.600 1.000 Results U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.74 DEEM ACUTE Analysis for DINOCAP ( 1989 92 data) Residue file: acute tolerance. RS7 Adjustment factor # 2 NOT used Analysis Date: 10 18 2001/ 16: 07: 04 Residue file dated: 10 18 2001/ 16: 02: 13/ 8 Daily totals for food and foodform consumption used. Run Comment: "" ===============================================================================

Summary calculations ( per capita):

95th Percentile 99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile Exposure % aRfD Exposure % aRfD Exposure % aRfD       Females 13+ ( preg/ not nursing): 0.000000 0.01 0.000000 0.01 0.000001 0.04 Females 13+ ( nursing): 0.000001 0.01 0.000002 0.04 0.000002 0.04 Females 13 19 ( not preg or nursing): 0.000000 0.00 0.000000 0.01 0.000001 0.03 [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 11 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

11 Females 20+ ( not preg or nursing): 0.000000 0.00 0.000000 0.01 0.000001 0.02 Females 13 50 yrs: 0.000000 0.01 0.000000 0.01 0.000001 0.03 [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 12 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

12 Attachment 3  Chronic Dietary Assessment  Using JMPR MRLs Residue File U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.73 DEEM Chronic analysis for DINOCAP 1989 92 data Residue file: C:\$ MyFiles\ Dinocap\ chronic JMPR. RS7 Adjust. # 2 used Analysis Date 10 18 2001 Residue file dated: 10 18 2001/ 15: 59: 05/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD) = 0.000375 mg/ kg bw/ day  Food Crop RESIDUE Adj. Factors Commen Code Grp Food Name ( ppm) # 1 # 2        13 O Grapes 1.000000 1.000 0.001 14 O Grapes raisins 1.000000 4.300 0.001 15 O Grapes juice 1.000000 1.200 0.001 53 11 Apples dried 0.200000 8.000 0.001 54 11 Apples juice/ cider 0.200000 1.300 0.001 195 O Grapes leaves 1.000000 1.000 0.001 315 O Grapes wine and sherry 1.000000 1.000 0.001 377 11 Apples juice concentrate 0.200000 3.900 0.001 392 O Grapes juice concentrate 1.000000 3.600 0.001 Results U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.73 DEEM Chronic analysis for DINOCAP ( 1989 92 data) Residue file name: C:\$ MyFiles\ Dinocap\ chronic JMPR. RS7 Adjustment factor # 2 used. Analysis Date 10 18 2001/ 16: 03: 32 Residue file dated: 10 18 2001/ 15: 59: 05/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD, Chronic) = .000375 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) 0.000000 0.1%

U. S. Population ( spring season) 0.000000 0.1% U. S. Population ( summer season) 0.000000 0.1% U. S. Population ( autumn season) 0.000000 0.1% U. S. Population ( winter season) 0.000000 0.1%

Northeast region 0.000000 0.1% Midwest region 0.000000 0.1% Southern region 0.000000 0.1% Western region 0.000000 0.1%

Hispanics 0.000000 0.1% [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 13 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

13 Non hispanic whites 0.000000 0.1% Non hispanic blacks 0.000000 0.1% Non hisp/ non white/ non black 0.000000 0.1%

All infants (< 1 year) 0.000001 0.3% Nursing infants 0.000001 0.2% Non nursing infants 0.000001 0.3% Children 1 6 yrs 0.000001 0.3% Children 7 12 yrs 0.000000 0.1%

Females 13 19 ( not preg or nursing) 0.000000 0.0% Females 20+ ( not preg or nursing) 0.000000 0.1% Females 13 50 yrs 0.000000 0.1% Females 13+ ( preg/ not nursing) 0.000000 0.1% Females 13+ ( nursing) 0.000001 0.1%

Males 13 19 yrs 0.000000 0.0% Males 20+ yrs 0.000000 0.0% Seniors 55+ 0.000000 0.1% Pacific Region 0.000000 0.1%

Attachment 4  Chronic Dietary Assessment  Using Current Tolerance Residue File U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.73 DEEM Chronic analysis for DINOCAP 1989 92 data Residue file: C:\$ MyFiles\ Dinocap\ chronic tolerance. RS7 Adjust. # 2 used Analysis Date 10 18 2001 Residue file dated: 10 18 2001/ 15: 58: 28/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD) = 0.000375 mg/ kg bw/ day  Food Crop RESIDUE Adj. Factors Commen Code Grp Food Name ( ppm) # 1 # 2        13 O Grapes 0.100000 1.000 0.001 14 O Grapes raisins 0.100000 4.300 0.001 15 O Grapes juice 0.100000 1.200 0.001 53 11 Apples dried 0.100000 8.000 0.001 54 11 Apples juice/ cider 0.100000 1.300 0.001 195 O Grapes leaves 0.100000 1.000 0.001 315 O Grapes wine and sherry 0.100000 1.000 0.001 377 11 Apples juice concentrate 0.100000 3.900 0.001 392 O Grapes juice concentrate 0.100000 3.600 0.001 Results U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.73 DEEM Chronic analysis for DINOCAP ( 1989 92 data) Residue file name: C:\$ MyFiles\ Dinocap\ chronic tolerance. RS7 Adjustment factor # 2 used. Analysis Date 10 18 2001/ 16: 04: 16 Residue file dated: 10 18 2001/ 15: 58: 28/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD, Chronic) = .000375 mg/ kg bw/ day [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 14 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

14 =============================================================================== Total exposure by population subgroup  Total Exposure  Population mg/ kg Percent of Subgroup body wt/ day Rfd    U. S. Population ( total) 0.000000 0.0%

U. S. Population ( spring season) 0.000000 0.0% U. S. Population ( summer season) 0.000000 0.0% U. S. Population ( autumn season) 0.000000 0.0% U. S. Population ( winter season) 0.000000 0.0%

Northeast region 0.000000 0.0% Midwest region 0.000000 0.0% Southern region 0.000000 0.0% Western region 0.000000 0.0%

Hispanics 0.000000 0.0% Non hispanic whites 0.000000 0.0% Non hispanic blacks 0.000000 0.0% Non hisp/ non white/ non black 0.000000 0.0%

All infants (< 1 year) 0.000000 0.1% Nursing infants 0.000000 0.1% Non nursing infants 0.000000 0.1% Children 1 6 yrs 0.000000 0.1% Children 7 12 yrs 0.000000 0.0%

Females 13 19 ( not preg or nursing) 0.000000 0.0% Females 20+ ( not preg or nursing) 0.000000 0.0% Females 13 50 yrs 0.000000 0.0% Females 13+ ( preg/ not nursing) 0.000000 0.0% Females 13+ ( nursing) 0.000000 0.0%

Males 13 19 yrs 0.000000 0.0% Males 20+ yrs 0.000000 0.0% Seniors 55+ 0.000000 0.0%

Pacific Region 0.000000 0.0%

Attachment 5 EMAIL from Frank Hernandez on % Crop Treated Yes, less than 5% of apples or grapes are imported, and less than 1%, of those 5% imported, are treated.

 Forwarded by Frank Hernandez/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 10/ 17/ 01 08: 07 AM  Felicia Fort 10/ 16/ 01 08: 26 AM [ D278615 / Company Code] Dietary exposure assessment / 15 [ Dinocap/ 036001]

15 To: Frank Hernandez/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Re: QUA for Dinocap Thanks for the information. Can I safely say that less than 1% of apples and grapes are imported? I need a figure so that I can use it in the dietary assessment. Thanks again.

Frank Hernandez 10/ 11/ 01 09: 02 AM To: Felicia Fort/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: QUA for Dinocap Hi Felecia! Very few countries use dinocap on their apples or grapes. Dinocap is used on less than 1% of the apples or grapes in the countries from which we import apples or grapes. Imports also make up a relatively small part of the annual U. S. consumption of apples or grapes. Frank  Forwarded by Frank Hernandez/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 10/ 05/ 01 09: 16 AM  Felicia Fort 10/ 01/ 01 01: 19 PM To: Frank Hernandez/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: QUA for Dinocap


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30605-30607]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12312]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667, FRL-9911-52-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Cooling
Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities (Final Rule)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Cooling Water Intake
Structures at Existing Facilities (Final Rule)'' to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a revision of an existing ICR. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0667 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Lewis, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water,
(4303T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-1053; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit .
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including

whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the
accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval.
    EPA ICR Number: 2060.07.
    OMB Control Number: 2040-0257.
    Abstract: The section 316(b) Existing Facility Final Rule applies
to existing facilities that use cooling water intake structures to
withdraw water from waters of the United States and have or require a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued
under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). If a facility meets the
conditions specified below (from 40 CFR 125.91), it is subject to the
rule. If a facility has or requires an NPDES permit but does not meet
the 2 million gallons per day (mgd) intake flow threshold, it is
subject to permit conditions implementing CWA section 316(b) developed
by the NPDES permit director on a case-by-case basis using best
professional judgment (BPJ). The rule applies to owners and operators
of existing facilities that meet all of the following criteria:
     The facility is a point source;
     The facility uses or proposes to use one or more cooling
water intake structures with a cumulative design intake flow (DIF) of
greater than 2 mgd to withdraw water from waters of the United States;
and
     Twenty-five percent or more of the water the facility
withdraws on an actual intake flow basis is used exclusively for
cooling purposes.

Generally, facilities that meet these criteria fall into two major
groups: steam electric generating facilities and manufacturing
facilities. The rule also makes limited corrections to the requirements
for ``Phase I'' facilities (i.e., new facilities).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This ICR does not calculate the burden and costs associated
with amendments related to the Phase I Rule (66 FR 65255, December
18, 2001; amended 68 FR 36749, June 19, 2003), as the changes to the
Phase I rule promulgated today do not materially affect the burden
associated with compliance for Phase I facilities. See the 76 FR
22183 for a discussion of the amendments to the Phase I Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule establishes national requirements applicable to the
location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake
structures at existing facilities that reflect the best technology
available for minimizing the adverse environmental impact--impingement
and entrainment--associated with the use of these structures. The rule
requires several types of information collection as part of the NPDES
permit application. In general, the information would be used to
identify both how the facility plans to meet the rule requirements and
if the facility is meeting the rule requirements. Specific data
requirements that apply to all facilities are:
     Source water physical data which shows the physical
configuration of all source waterbodies used by the facility,
identifies and characterizes the source waterbody's hydrological and
geomorphological features, and provides location through maps [Sec.
122.21(r)(2)].
     Cooling water intake structure data which shows the
configuration and location of cooling water intake structures, provides
details on the design and operation of each cooling water intake
structure, and diagrams showing flow distribution and water balance
[Sec.  122.21(r)(3)].
     Source water baseline biological characterization data
that characterizes the biological community in the vicinity of the
cooling water intake structure (CWIS) and characterizes the operation
of the CWIS [Sec.  122.21(r)(4)].
     Cooling water system data that, among other things,
describes the operation of the cooling water system, its relationship
to the CWIS, the proportion of the design intake flow used in the
system, the number of days the cooling water system is operational and
seasonal changes in operation, as well as design and engineering
calculations to support these descriptions [Sec.  122.21(r)(5)].
     Intended method of compliance information that describes
how the facility will meet the impingement mortality standards; the
specific requirements vary, depending on the compliance approach chosen
by the facility. This information would be reflected in the facility's
Impingement Technology Performance Optimization Study [Sec.
122.21(r)(6)].
     Description of any biological survival studies conducted
at the facility and a summary of any conclusions or results for
entrainment related studies only [Sec.  122.21(r)(7)].
     Operational status data that describes the operational
status of each generating, production, or process unit [Sec.
122.21(r)(8)].
    In addition to the above requirements, existing facilities with
actual intake flows in excess of 125 mgd actual intake flow are
required as part of the permit application process to submit an
entrainment characterization study and related supporting information
[(Sec.  122.21(r)(9)-(12)] that has been peer reviewed [Sec.
122.21(r)(13)]. Facilities that withdraw less than 125 mgd actual
intake flow do not have specific permit application requirements for
entrainment but the Director may require additional information on a
site-specific basis.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For this ICR, no burden has been assigned for entrainment-
related studies at Sec.  122.21(r)(9)-(13) for facilities that
withdraw less than 125 mgd actual intake flow, as it is not possible
to project which facilities might be required to submit these
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the rule, a new unit at an existing facility that withdraws
more than 2 mgd would have requirements similar to the requirements of
a new facility in Phase I. A new unit (as defined at Sec.  125.92(u))
is required to reduce flow commensurate with closed-cycle cooling.
Alternatively, a facility could demonstrate compliance with the
entrainment control requirements by establishing reductions in
entrainment mortality for the new unit that are 90 percent or greater
of the reductions that would be achieved by closed-cycle cooling.
    Finally, facilities are required to maintain records of all
submitted documents, supporting materials, and monitoring results for
at least five years. Depending on the compliance method chosen,
facilities may also be required to perform compliance monitoring to
demonstrate that their selected method of complying with the
impingement mortality standard (e.g. screen velocity, actual intake
flow, numeric impingement mortality performance) achieves the required
performance.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include existing
electric power generating facilities, including traditional steam
electric utilities and nonutility power producers. The rule also
applies to existing manufacturing and industrial facilities. EPA
anticipates that the regulated manufacturing facilities will be largely
concentrated in five industrial sectors: Chemicals and allied products;
primary metals industries; paper and allied products; petroleum and
coal products; and food and kindred products.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, under section 316 of
the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-
500).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,115 (1,068 facility respondents
and 47 state respondents).
    Frequency of response: Varies (monthly, quarterly, or annually;
every 5 years).
    Total estimated burden: Total estimated burden is 634,596 hours
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $37,725,394 (per year), includes
$8,525,907annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs (all
costs in 2011 dollars).
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 388,925 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to changes in program
requirements. The currently approved ICR is for electric generators
with a DIF of at least 50 mgd and that were subject to the 2004 Phase
II rule. Many of these facilities have already met most of the new data
collection requirements of the revised rule. Newly affected facilities
have significantly fewer comprehensive requirements for data collection
than was required under the Phase II rule, such as less frequent
biological data collection. Further, while the overall universe of
affected facilities has increased, more facilities in the affected
universe already meet the requirements of the revised rule.

    Dated: May 19, 2014.
Elizabeth Southerland,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2014-12312 Filed 5-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 21003-21004]
[DOCID:fr27ap07-35]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0065; FRL-8306-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Application Requirements for the Approval and
Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local,
and Tribal Agencies; EPA ICR No. 1643.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0264

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an
existing approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on
September 30, 2007. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and
approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAQPS-2004-0065 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Application Requirements for the Approval and
Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local,
and Tribal Agencies Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAQPS-
2004-0065. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Whitlow, OAQPS/OID, MC304-03,
RTP, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 919-685-
3307; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAQPS-2004-0065, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of

information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and

    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
S/L/Ts participating in this voluntary program. These government
establishments are classified as Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste
Management Programs under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
9511 and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
92411. No industries under any SIC or NAICS codes will be included
among respondents.
    Title: Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of
Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal
Agencies.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1643.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0264.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September
30, 2007. 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 in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This information collection is an application from State,
territorial, local, or tribal agencies (S/L/Ts) for delegation of
regulations developed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act). The
five options for delegation are straight delegation, rule adjustment,
rule substitution, equivalency by permit, or state program approval.
The information is needed and used to determine if the entity
submitting an application has met the criteria established in the
subpart E rule, codified as 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, in accordance
with section 112(l) of the Act. This information is necessary and
required for the Administrator to determine the acceptability of
approving the S/L/T's rules, requirements or programs in lieu of the
Federal section 112 rules or programs. Additionally, it is also
necessary for the proper performance of our function, and will be used
to ensure that the subpart E approval criteria have been met. The
collection of information is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 341
hours per S/L/T and 41 hours per application. 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 which have subsequently
changed; 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.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
     Estimated total number of potential respondents: 124 S/L/
Ts
     Frequency of response: One time per delegation request
     Estimated total average number of responses for each
respondent: 8
     Estimated total annual burden hours: 41,577
     Estimated total annual respondent costs: $1,816,490. This
includes an estimated labor burden cost of $1,790,760 and operation and
maintenance costs result from photocopying and postage expenses, which
are a total of $25,720.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    We are in the process of reviewing the key assumptions in the ICR
that affect the overall burden estimation. These include, the number of
delegation activities expected to occur during the upcoming clearance
period, the delegation options most likely to be used by the delegated
S/L/Ts, and the burden associated with each of the options. Depending
on the outcome of this review, there could be changes in the overall
burden estimates.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: April 20, 2007.
Gregory A. Green,
Director, Outreach and Information Division.
[FR Doc. E7-8098 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P