[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14032-14033]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-89-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on February 24, 2014, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, NY 14221,
filed in Docket No. CP14-89-000, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). National Fuel seeks authorization to
(1) construct and operate approximately 6 miles of 24-inch diameter
pipeline in Erie County, New York, (2) install various auxiliary
facilities in connection with the pipeline replacement, and (3) abandon
approximately 5.75 miles of 22-inch diameter pipeline. National Fuel
proposes to perform these activities under its blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP83-4-000, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the web 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. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Kenneth E. Webster, Attorney, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation,
6363 Main Street, Williamsville, NY 14221, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>
or fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Janet R. Bayer,
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville,
NY 14221, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive

copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: March 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05418 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88900]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-698-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Castanea Project, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 8, 2024.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). From
the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 19, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28435 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 187)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49813-49815]
[DOCID:fr29se09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0854]
RIN 1625-AA01

Special Anchorage Areas; Henderson Harbor, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Coast Guard removes a note which
states from whom one must obtain permission to moor or anchor in the
special anchorage areas of Henderson Harbor, NY.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0854 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0854 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Michael C. Petta, Ninth District Legal
Office, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on obtaining permission
to moor or anchor in the special anchorage areas of Henderson Harbor,
NY, call the Town Board, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because this amendment is minor and merely
technical in nature in that it simply removes the note which states one
must obtain permission from the Town of Henderson Harbormaster to moor
or anchor in the special anchorage areas of Henderson Harbor, NY.
Notice and comment is unnecessary because, as discussed below, the
local ordinance has changed such that the Harbormaster no longer
receives requests to moor or anchor.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Good cause exists because the
local ordinance has changed such that the Harbormaster no longer
receives requests to moor or anchor, and leaving the note in place
would provide inaccurate information.

Background and Purpose

    On June 11, 2009, the Town of Henderson Harbor revised its boating
ordinance. One result of that revision is that the town's harbormaster
is no longer the party from whom one obtains permission to moor or
anchor in the Henderson Harbor special anchorage areas. This rule
responds to the town's request to remove from 33 CFR 110.87 the note
which states that the town's harbormaster is the party from whom one
must obtain permission.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule contains no new provisions. Neither does it amend or
remove any substantive provisions. Instead, this rule merely removes
from 33 CFR 110.87 the note which states that the town's harbormaster
is the party from whom one must obtain permission to moor or anchor in
the Henderson Harbor, NY special anchorage areas. This change is
necessary because the town of Henderson Harbor recently revised its
boating laws to include removing its harbormaster as the permit
granting party.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This rule is not considered a significant
regulatory action because the removal of the town's harbormaster as the
party from whom one must obtain permission to moor or anchor in the
Henderson Harbor special anchorage areas is a minor, non-substantive,
and administrative change.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to moor or
anchor in either of the special anchorage areas in Henderson Harbor,
NY.
    The removal of the town's harbormaster as the party from whom one
must obtain permission to moor or anchor in the Henderson Harbor
special anchorage areas will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because this rule is a minor,
technical change to the regulation. It does not alter the size or
character of the special anchorage areas.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined

that this rule and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible.
We have also determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the
provisions of this proposed rule or options for compliance are
encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(a), of the Instruction. This rule involves the promulgation of a
procedural regulation, in that it merely removes the Henderson Harbor's
harbormaster as the party from whom one must obtain permission to moor
or anchor in the harbor's special anchorage areas. This rule does not
alter the size or character of the special anchorage areas. Under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not
required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

Sec.  110.87  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  110.87, remove the Note.

    Dated: September 17, 2009.
D.R. Callahan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. E9-23390 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Registration Division contact: Hope Johnson (PM Team 25)
703-305-5410>

<BASF Corporation>

<8F7442>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition 8F7442 from BASF Corporation, 26
Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27709-3528 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part
180 by establishing tolerances for residues of Quinclorac,
3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid in or on the raw agricultural
commodity grass, forage at 105 parts per million (ppm) and grass, hay at
70 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the
FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.>

<	>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residues in
quinclorac in plants is well understood. Based on a nature of the
residue studies in rice, sorghum, wheat and canola, the residue of
concern from quinclorac use consists only of the parent compound.

>

<	2. Analytical method. An adequate analytical method for enforcement of
the tolerances exists. The analytical method used for quantitative
determinations was designed to measure quinclorac residues present as
the parent compound.>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. Magnitude of the Residue -Raw Agricultural
Commodities:  Thirteen pasture and rangeland field trials were conducted
using rates and timing intervals to represent the use patterns,
conditions and areas of use for this product in grass growing regions of
the United States. Five test sites included bermuda grass, four test
sites included bluegrass, and four test sites included bromegrass. These
studies should be adequate to establish grass, forage and grass, hay
tolerances at the proposed 105 and 70 ppm levels, respectively.   The
tolerances proposed reflect the maximum residue determined from these
trials.   No additional data were needed in support of residues in meat,
milk, poultry and eggs.

>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  Based on available acute toxicity data quinclorac
does not pose any acute toxicity risks. Several acute toxicology studies
place technical-grade quinclorac in Toxicity Category III for acute
oral, acute dermal, acute inhalation toxicity, and for eye irritation.
Technical-grade quinclorac is in category IV for primary dermal
irritation and has tested negative for skin sensitization.>

<	2. Genotoxicty. All salmonella assays testing the appropriate
technical quinclorac were negative. Technical quinclorac was also
negative in the in vivo cytogenetics (Chinese hamster) at dose levels
ranging from 2,000 to 8,000 mg/kg and did not induce unscheduled DNA
synthesis in the UDS assay at levels ranging from 101 to 1,520 ug/ml.>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Teratology - Rat: A
developmental study in rats fed dosages of 0, 24.4, 146, and 438
mg/kg/day (HDT) resulted in a developmental toxicity NOEL of 438
mg/kg/day and a maternal toxicity NOEL of 146 mg/kg/day based on reduced
food consumption, increased water intake, and mortality at 438 mg/kg/day
(HDT).  Under the conditions of this study, quinclorac did not produce
any sign of embryo/fetal toxicity and did not alter fetal morphological
development.>

Teratology - Rabbits:  A developmental study in rabbits fed dosages of
0, 70, 200, and 600 mg/kg/day resulted in a developmental toxicity NOEL
of 200 mg/kg/day based on an increase in resorptions and
postimplantation loss; a decrease in the number of live fetuses and
decreased fetal body weights at the 600 mg/kg/day dose level (HDT). At
all other treatment levels no embryo/fetal toxicity was observed. The
maternal toxicity NOEL is 70 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight
gain and food consumption at 200 mg/kg/day; and increased water
consumption, increased mortality, and discoloration of the kidney at 600
mg/kg/day.

Two-Generation Reproduction - Rats:  A two-generation reproduction study
with rats fed dosages of 0, 50, 200, and 600 mg/kg/day resulted in a
reproductive NOEL of 200 mg/kg/day based on reduced pup viability and
pup weight, and delay in development (pinna unfolding and eye opening)
at 600 mg/kg/day with a maternal NOEL of 200 mg/kg/day based on reduced
body weights at 600 mg/kg/day. At treatment levels of 50 and 200
mg/kg/day no substance related findings were noted either in the parent
animals or the offspring.

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [NA-Remove]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. Chronic Feeding - Nonrodent:  A 1-year feeding
study in dogs fed 0, 34, 142, and 513 (males) and 0, 35, 140, and 469
(females) milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) resulted in a
no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 140 mg/kg/day based on reduced body
weight gains, adverse effect on food efficiency, hematological and
clinical chemistry values, increased liver and kidney weights, and
microscopic findings in liver and kidneys at 513 mg/kg/day (males) and
469 mg/kg/day (females), the highest dosages tested (HDT).

Chronic Feeding/Oncogenicity - Rats:  A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity
study in rats fed dosages of 1, 56, 186, 385, and 487 mg/kg/day (males)
and 0, 60, 235, 478, and 757 mg/kg/day (females) resulted in a NOEL of
478 mg/kg/day (females) and 385 mg/kg/day (males) based on slight
decreases in weight for females at 757 mg/kg/day (HDT) and an equivocal
(uncertain) increase in acinar cell hyperplasia of the pancreas in males
at 487 mg/kg/day (HDT). There were no carcinogenic effects noted for
female rats under the conditions of the study up to 757 mg/kg/day (HDT).

 Oncogenicity - Mice:  A carcinogenic study in mice fed dosages of 0,
37.5, 150, 600, and 1,200 mg/kg/day resulted in no carcinogenic effects
observed under the conditions of the study up to and including 1,200
mg/kg/day (HDT) and a systemic NOEL of 37.5 mg/kg/day based on a
reduction of body weight at 150 mg/kg/day.

>

<	6. Animal metabolism. A metabolism study with rats receiving dosages
of 15, 100, 600 and 1200 mg/kg/day resulted in more than 90% of the
administered radioactivity eliminated in the urine within 5 days (most
within 24 hours) and 0.7 - 3.7% in the feces. Radioactivity was mainly
associated with the unchanged parent compound. The glucuronic acid
conjugate of quinclorac was a minor (2 - 5%) metabolite in urine.>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [NA-Remove]>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. No specific scientific studies were conducted
to determine endocrine effects.  However, the toxicity testing described
above and conducted on three different animal species demonstrate no
apparent estrogenic effects or treatment-related effects of quinclorac
on the endocrine system.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. EPA has established the RfD for quinclorac at 0.4
mg/kg/day. This RfD is based on a carcinogenicity study in mice with a
NOAEL of 37.5 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100 based on
decreased body weights in male and female mice at the LOEL of 150
mg/kg/day.

Cancer Classification and Risk Assessment: The cancer classification of
quinclorac has been reviewed by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP). The Panel recommended that the compound be classified as a Group
D carcinogen (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity). The EPA
Health Effects Peer Review Committee (PRC) evaluated the carcinogenic
potential of quinclorac and the conclusions of the SAP and has
classified quinclorac as a Group D carcinogen.>

<	i. Food. Chronic Dietary Exposure: BASF has estimated aggregate
dietary exposure based on the Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution
(TMRC) calculation. The TMRC is a "worst case" estimate of dietary
exposure since it is assumed that 100 percent of all crops for which
tolerances are established are treated and that residues are at the
tolerances level.

The quinclorac TMRC for the overall US population from the currently
established and proposed  tolerance represents approximately 2 percent
of the RfD.]>

<	ii. Drinking water. EPA has determined that quinclorac is rather
persistent in soils and prone to leach into groundwater. There is no
entry for quinclorac in EPA's Pesticides in Ground Water Database. No
established Maximum Contaminant Level or health advisory levels have
been established for residues of quinclorac in drinking water.

Acute exposure and risk. For purposes of acute risk assessment, the
maximum estimated environmental concentration (EEC) for quinclorac in
drinking water (26.8 ppb in surface water, GENEEC peak value) was used
for comparison to the back-calculated human health Drinking Water Level
of Comparison (DWLOC) for acute dietary exposure (52,000 micrograms/L
for the only population of concern, females (13+ years/nursing). The
estimated peak concentration in surface water (26.8 micrograms/L) is
significantly less than EPA's level of concern for quinclorac residues
in drinking water as a contribution to acute aggregate exposure.

Chronic exposure and risk. For purposes of chronic risk assessment, the
maximum EEC for quinclorac residues in drinking water (25.4 ppb in
surface water, rather than 13.8 in ground water, GENEEC average 56-day
concentration) was used for comparison to the back-calculated human
health DWLOCs for chronic dietary exposure (12,000 micrograms/L for U.S.
population; 2,700 micrograms/L for infants/children). The estimated
average concentration in surface water (25.4 micrograms/L) is
significantly less than EPA's level of concern for quinclorac residues
in drinking water as a contribution to chronic aggregate exposure and
does not result in an unacceptable level of chronic aggregate human
health risk estimate at this time.

 >

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. Quinclorac is registered for use in turf.
Available dermal toxicity data (21 day exposure as well as acute
exposure) indicate that there is no concern for exposure from this
route, therefore, BASF expects no additional risk resulting from
non-dietary exposure.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	BASF is not aware of any other EPA registered active ingredient that

is structurally similar to quinclorac or has a common mechanism of
toxicity.>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above and based on the completeness and the reliability of the
toxicity data, a risk assessment for chronic dietary exposure from food
and feed uses was made for all subpopulations. The percent of the RfD
occupied was approximately 2% for the general population.  The most
exposed sub-group was children 1-6 where approximately 3.5% of the RfD
was occupied.>

<	2. Infants and children. No signs of teratogenicity were observed in
either the rat or rabbit developmental studies.  The NOEL values from
the developmental studies are significantly higher than the NOEL from
the 2-year feeding study in mice (threshold NOEL of 37.5 mg/kg/day) used
to establish the RfD.

In the Reproductive Toxicity study, quinclorac elicited signs of
embryotoxicity only at dose levels where clear maternal toxicity was
observed. Fertility and reproduction parameters were not affected even
at the highest treatment levels (1155 mg/kg/day). The NOEL values from
the reproduction study are significantly higher than the NOEL from the
2-year feeding study in mice (threshold NOEL of 37.5 mg/kg/day) used to
establish the RfD.

Based on the complete database and the demonstrated lack of significant
developmental or reproductive toxicity, BASF believes that the
children’s safety factor of 10 should be removed. The RfD used to
assess safety to the general population is adequate to assess safety to
children. BASF has calculated the dietary exposure for the subgroup
exposed to the highest dietary risk, children 1-6 years old.  The TMRC
represents approximately 3.5 percent of the RfD.  BASF concludes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the residues of quinclorac,
including all anticipated dietary exposure and all other
non-occupational exposures.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	There are no CODEX or Mexican maximum residue limits established for
quinclorac on grass forage or hay.>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Identification of the Information Collection  -  Title and Numbers
      Title: Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Procurement
	EPA ICR No.: 2516.04
	OMB Control No.: 2070-0199
	Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838
 Abstract
This ICR, which seeks to reinstate a previously approved ICR, covers the information collection activities associated with the Agency's evaluation of private sector standards and ecolabels per EPA's Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing (Framework), formerly referred to as the Guidelines.
EPA's goal in developing this Framework is to create a transparent, fair, and consistent approach to selecting product environmental performance standards and ecolabels to support the Agency's mission and federal sustainable acquisition goals and mandates. The fundamental aim of this Framework is to establish a cross-sector approach to be used in recognizing private sector environmental performance standards (and consequently, environmentally preferable products and services meeting these standards) for use in federal purchasing.
The Framework includes scoping questions and four sections:
       Criteria for the Process for Developing Standards refers to the procedures used to develop, maintain, and update an environmental standard.
       Criteria for the Environmental Effectiveness of the Standards refers to the criteria in the environmental standard or ecolabel that support the claim of environmental preferability.
       Criteria for Conformity Assessment refers to the procedures and practices by which products are assessed for conformity to the requirements specified by standards and ecolabeling programs.
       Criteria for Management of Ecolabeling Programs refers to the organizational and management practices of an ecolabeling program.
In 2016, EPA conducted a pilot to test the original set of criteria within the Framework against standards and ecolabels in the flooring, furniture, and paints/coatings categories. EPA has made several edits to the Framework based on lessons learned from the pilot and the desire to address a broader range of sectors with a more streamlined set of criteria. In this next phase of work, EPA intends to expand its recommendations by assessing standards and ecolabels in purchase categories that support Executive Order 14008 Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad and Executive Order 14057 on Catalyzing American Clean Energy Industries and Jobs through Federal Sustainability.
Summary Total Burden and Costs
                            Information Collection
                         Total Number
of Respondents
                           Responses per Respondent
                             Annual
Burden Hours
                                 Annual
Costs
     Standard/Ecolabel Organizations previously assessed per EPA Framework
                                      20
                                       2
                                     66.67
                                    $4,276
   Standard/Ecolabel Organizations NOT previously assessed per EPA Framework
                                      80
                                       2
                                      640
                                    $41,046
                               Respondent Total
                                      100
                                       2
                                    707.00
                                    $45,322
                                Agency Total
                                       -
                                       -
                                    303.33
                                   $32,081

Supporting Statement
Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
EPA is engaging in this collection pursuant to the authority in the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.A. section 13103(b)(11); see Attachment 1) which requires EPA to "Identify opportunities to use Federal procurement to encourage source reduction" and section 12(d) of the "National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995" (15 U.S.C. 3701 note; hereinafter "the NTTAA;" see Attachment 2), which requires Federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities." Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 (titled "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities") reaffirms Federal agency use of private sector standards in procurement and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 23.703 (b) (1) directs Federal agencies to "Maximize the utilization of environmentally preferable products and services (based on EPA-issued guidance)".
Federal purchasers need this assessment per the Framework to determine which, among sometimes dozens of private sector standards within a single purchase category, are appropriate and effective in meeting federal procurement goals and mandates.
While Federal purchasing policy is clear for the several standards and ecolabels that are listed in statute, regulation, or Executive Order, the lack of independently assessed information about and federal guidance on using other private sector environmental performance standards and ecolabels often results in an inconsistent approach by Federal purchasers and confusion and uncertainty for vendors and manufacturers.
Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used.  Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection
As envisioned by EPA and supported by public comment, it would not be practical for individual procurement officers or even individual federal agencies to assess and make determinations regarding which private sector environmental performance standards and ecolabels are appropriate and effective in meeting federal procurement goals and mandates. Therefore, EPA serves government-wide interest in assessing and recommending standards and ecolabels to support the aforementioned environmentally preferable purchasing goals and mandates in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner based on agreed upon criteria and independent assessment.
The Framework to be used for assessing standards and ecolabels includes criteria for both the process by which standards and ecolabels are developed and managed and the effectiveness of the standards and ecolabels in protecting environmental and human health. Some of this information can be collected by reading the standard; other aspects need to be collected via written responses and supporting documentation provided by the ecolabel owner or standards development organization.
EPA will call for volunteer standard and ecolabel organizations to submit information and will phase assessments by purchase category based on Administration priorities and available resources over the next three years. Completed Framework Submission Templates  -  for those standards and ecolabels that meet minimum criteria and are incorporated into EPA's Recommendations of Specifications, Standards and Ecolabels  -  will be made available to interested parties upon request.
Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
Respondent standard, certification, and ecolabel organizations will provide written responses and supporting documentation within the Framework submission template via email.
Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
There has been no other effort to systematically collect such comprehensive information about private sector standards and ecolabels for use in federal purchasing. Additionally, where public sources of data are available, they will be consulted in lieu of asking respondents to do so. EPA has also reviewed and included standards and ecolabels assessed by other federal agencies to reduce burden on standards developers and ecolabel owners and harmonize federal sustainable procurement guidance and use previous federal assessments.
If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.
It is expected that some of the participants in the effort will be small standards development and ecolabel program entities. The information collection shall be designed to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information. In addition, given the voluntary nature of the collection, it is expected that respondents will participate only if the benefits of participation (greater access to the federal marketplace) outweigh the information collection burden.
Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
This effort will inform the frequency of information collection appropriate for Federal procurement needs. It is likely that the frequency of information collection will be dependent upon 1) future business models for collection (e.g., if there is a greater reliance on the private sector's conformity assessment infrastructure versus federal sponsorship/funding of assessments), 2) the speed of market transformation toward sustainability in particular sectors, and 3) changes in standards and ecolabel trends in particular sectors.  Less frequent assessments may lead to less effective/useful Recommendations of Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing since it would result in missing available new and innovative standards and ecolabels to use in federal purchasing.
Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner:
   a)  requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
   b)  requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
   c)  requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
   d)  requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
   e)  in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
   f)   requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
   g)  that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
   h)  requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
Not applicable.
If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
   Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
Additionally, under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an ICR to OMB for review and approval. In accordance with this regulation, EPA submitted questions to several interested parties via email Attachment 7. The individual entities contacted were:
 NSF International
 Cradle to Cradle Product Innovations Institute
 International Living Future Institute
 Global Electronics Council
 Green Seal
 State of Massachusetts
 State of California
 State of New York

A copy of EPA's consultation to the above potential respondents are in Attachment 7 and are available in the docket.
EPA received two comments during the 60-day public review opportunity (87 FR 11426) (FRL-9117-01-OCSPP).
The Resilient Floor Covering Institute submitted a comment (see Attachment 10)  -  unrelated to the information collection burden  -  regarding the Agency's leadership criterion IV.14 for assessing directories/registries of certified products/services, suggesting that the criterion be stated more clearly and encourage greater functionality of the directories/registries, including an application program interface (API).
EPA appreciates the suggested edits to clarify the intent of this criterion and has updated the criterion. These edits do not affect the information collection burden.
The Sustainable Forestry Initiative submitted a comment (see Attachment 9)  -  also unrelated to the information collection burden -- encouraging EPA to 1) rely on voluntary consensus standards; 2) ensure that EPA's environmental effectiveness assessment recognize the value of single-attribute standards and rely on credible assessment processes, and 3) rely on independent verification of standards.
EPA appreciates these comments which align with the Framework approach and implementation intentions.
Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
Not applicable.
Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.
It is not expected that any information collected in this ICR will involve confidential business or trade secret information.
Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions.
Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
 Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
 If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
 Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.
Respondents will be standards development organizations, ecolabel programs, and certification entities that manage product or service environmental performance standards and/or ecolabels that could be considered for use in United States federal sustainable procurement efforts. In particular, standards and ecolabels should cover purchase categories that meet some or all the following criteria:
 Potentially significant climate, environmental, and/or human health impact
 Significant volume of federal purchases; and
 Current federal sustainable acquisition mandates in the category don't exist, don't address all key environmental impacts, are limited, out-of-date, and/or could be augmented with private sector standards/ecolabels.
EPA will prioritize assessment of responses per the Framework based on Administration priorities, how well a standard/ecolabel aligns with these criteria, and available resources to conduct assessment activities.
The need for and timing of future collection of information will be determined in consultation with other federal agencies.
EPA based its burden estimates on an initial survey of a subset of government and private sector (less than 9) environmental performance standards and ecolabel developers and then the 2016 pilot participants. The respondents were contacted following the survey and the completion of the pilot and were asked how long it had taken them to complete the process. For the initial survey, two respondents took as little as 30 minutes to complete the survey, seven respondents took 2-6 hours, two respondents took 16 hours, and one respondent (who covered three different ecolabels in its responses) took 50-60 hours. For the pilot, respondents were asked to respond to all criteria and provide a broader range of supporting documentation as evidence. The average time spent per ecolabel on completing the final pilot Framework in 2016 was 15 hours.
Given changes made to this new version of the Framework  -  to streamline criteria required for response and to limit supporting documentation for submission  -  the average burden is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response (average 12 hours for respondents that did not participate in the pilot; average 5 hours for respondents that did previously participate in the pilot). Only standard development and ecolabel organizations who volunteer for assessment will be included. EPA anticipates assessing no more than 200 standards and ecolabels over the next three years, including reassessments of those already included in the Recommendations. EPA does not know the exact number of assessments that will be conducted in each of the three years at this time, therefore they are assumed to be equally distributed across the three years in the ICR.
For this ICR, EPA assumes that nonprofit standards development organizations will be responding to the data collection. In order to estimate total respondent burden and cost associated with this ICR, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data on wages and fringe benefits (total compensation) are used. Note that BLS does not routinely collect wage data on nonprofit organizations, however, in a monthly labor review from January 2016, BLS identified total compensation hourly rates (2014) for nonprofit organizations in three general industry groups as follows:
 Professional and Business Services - $47.85 per hour
 Education and Health Services - $37.17 per hour
 Other Services - $24.79 per hour
EPA assumes that the professional and business services total compensation hourly rate best approximates the respondents to this data collection and further assumes that the total compensation rate of $47.85 per hour would be attributed to a managerial position. To account for labor expended by a professional staff person, EPA approximated a professional total compensation hourly rate by assuming that the professional rate would be about 93% of the managerial rate.
For both the managerial and professional positions, an additional loading factor of 20 percent is applied to total compensation to account for overhead (e.g., personnel services, office space, training, etc). This approach is recommended in recent EPA guidance titled: Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and Other EPA Actions (EPA-236-B-15-001, December 9, 2020). The overhead loading factor is added to total compensation to derive the fully loaded hourly wage. Next, because the nonprofit total compensation rate is from 2014, these estimates are updated to 2020 dollars using the Employee Cost Index (ECI). Table 1 presents the derived loaded hourly wage rates.

Table 1. Derivation of Nonprofit Loaded Hourly Wage Rates

                             Total Compensation[1]
                                  Overhead[2]
                           Employment Cost Index[3]
                        Loaded Hourly Wage Rate ($2020)
Managerial
                                                                         $47.85
                                                                            1.2
                                                                          1.157
                                                                         $66.46
Technical[4]
                                                                         $44.50
                                                                            1.2
                                                                          1.157
                                                                         $61.81
[1] John L. Bishow and Kristen Monaco, "Nonprofit pay and benefits: estimates from the National Compensation Survey," Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2016, https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2016.4.
[2] Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and Other EPA Actions (EPA-236-B-15-001, December 9, 2020)
3 https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/eci-current-nominal-dollar.pdf. Calculated by dividing the 4th quarter2020 ECI by the 1st quarter 2014 ECI.
[4] Calculated as 93% of the managerial total compensation rate. https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec/ecsuphst.pdf

Table 2. Estimated Burden and Cost to Respondents
                                Respondent Type
                        Estimated Number of Respondents
                              Estimated Responses
                                per respondent
                          (i.e., number of standards/
                      ecolabels submitted for assessment)
           Unit Burden and Loaded Hourly Wage Rate by Labor Category
                     Total Burden  Over ICR Period (Hours)
                     Total Cost Over ICR Period
($2020)[1]
                             Annual Burden (Hours)
                            Annual Cost
($2020)[2]

                                  Managerial
                                   Technical

                                     Hours
                                 Wage ($2020)
                                     Hours
                                 Wage ($2020)

Standard/Ecolabel Organizations previously assessed per EPA Framework
                                      20
                                       2
                                      2.5
                                    $66.46
                                      2.5
                                    $61.81
                                      200
                                    $12,827
                                     66.67
                                    $4,276
Standard/Ecolabel Organizations NOT previously assessed per EPA Framework
                                      80
                                       2
                                       6
                                    $66.46
                                       6
                                    $61.81
                                       1,920
                                   $123,139
                                      640
                                    $41,046
Total
                                      100
                                       2
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                       2,120
                                   $135,966
                                        707
                                    $45,322
[1]Total Cost is calculated by multiplying burden hours by the loaded hourly wage rate for each labor category and summing across labor categories, and then multiplying by total number of responses.
[2] Annual Cost is calculated by dividing the Total Cost over the three-year ICR period by three to account for the fact that data collection activities will occur in each of the three years. Because EPA does not know the exact distribution over the three years, an even distribution of one third each year is assumed.

Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).
 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
There are no operation and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
To collect this information, EPA has developed a Framework Submission Template, which provides clear instructions and example sources of evidence.
Table 3 presents the estimated Agency annual burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this ICR. EPA based its burden estimates on the pilot assessment effort. Similar to the respondent burden, EPA assumed that Agency burden will be equally distributed across the three years in the ICR.
Agency wage rate data used to calculate labor costs were gathered from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2020-DCB, for a GS-14, step 5, employee in the Washington, D.C. area. A loading factor of 1.6 was applied to the base rate to arrive at the 2020 loaded salary of $219,986 per year. The hourly wage rate was computed by dividing the loaded wage by 2,080 hours, the hours associated with a full time employee. This loaded hourly wage rate of $105.76 was used in calculations of Agency cost.
Table 3.Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency
Collection Activity
            Total EPA Burden Over the Three Year ICR Period (Hours)
            Total EPA Costs Over the Three Year ICR Period ($2020)
                           Annual EPA Burden (Hours)
                           Annual EPA Costs ($2020)
Issue Framework SUBMISSION TEMPLATE to applicant SDOs and ecolabel programs (respondents)
                                      10
                                    $1,058
                                     3.33
                                     $353
Follow up with respondents via email/phone
                                      100
                                   $10,576
                                     33.33
                                    $3,525
Prepare analysis and report of the assessment results
                                      800
                                   $84,608
                                    266.67
                                   $28,203
                                                                          Total
                                      910
                                   $96,242
                                    303.33
                                   $32,081

Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in hour or cost burden.
The 2016 pilot, under the previous ICR and Framework, required more time for respondents than had been estimated due to more interest from the potential respondent community and challenges in answering some of the questions. As a result, a number of changes to the criteria/questions, Framework submission template, and process have been made to streamline the effort for respondents. For a detailed explanation of changes made to the Framework, please see ADDENDUM: Changes in the 2022 Update of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing [https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/updated-framework-addendum_5-2022.pdf]. The average respondent burden is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response, based on an average 12 hours for respondents that did not previously participate in the pilot and an average 5 hours for respondents that did previously participate in pilot. In addition, the Framework development, testing, refinements, and significant Agency policy development and decision-making were part of the previous Agency cost and burden estimates. The proposed streamlined information collection (e.g., more opportunities for organizations to submit attestations in lieu of documentation) and pre-determined approaches based on the lessons learned from the pilot are anticipated to reduce the burden on respondents and the Agency.
For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
There will not be a statistical analysis of the results. Please see the general plan for information collection and public release per EPA's Recommendations of Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing under the description of Agency activities.
If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."
EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.
Supplemental Information
This collection of information is approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (OMB Control No. 2070-0199). Responses to this collection of information are voluntary for certain persons, as specified at 42 U.S.C 13101 and 15 U.S.C.3701. 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 public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response on average. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the Regulatory Support Division Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2821T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838, which is available at http://www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.
You can also provide comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget via http://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.
All comments received by EPA will be included in the 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. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
List of Attachments
The attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR or by using the hyperlink that is provided in the list below. The docket for this ICR is accessible electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0838.
Ref.
Title
1.
Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.
2.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 3701
3.
Information Collection Instrument  -  Submission Template for the Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing (EPA Form No. 9600-038)
4.
Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing
5.
ADDENDUM: Changes in the 2022 Update of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing
6.
Recommendations of Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing
7.
Consultations
8.
Wage Rates
9.
Public Comment: Sustainable Forestry Initiative
10.
Public Comment: Resilient Floor Covering Institute